ae κ( Ὄπ ας μ δ ie te Tal | ‘ ; ee ἮΝ 5 4 - , ' wt is int ' aid + ' fe Fy . 7 ἢ + ᾿ » ͵ ~~! ' « “Ὁ ᾿ a ΓΕ 7 “ ‘ ͵ % ἢ ῃ - - . 4 id ὧν τς Ce ᾿ ΠῚ 4 , τ ἢ Η . “ - + διδελο Rod τ ἤν δ Ὁ" aA ΣΝ ae ov parva ta oe: |e mS oe fe ΕΥ ΡῈ —s , 2 2, oe ee Se ee eee Se 0 ge ne tn ah δα διε 5 ᾿ ΚΡ τὰν 8 me ry, “£ go bes. ee: Sie ΣΎ fens > Searo rt ee SS Sti * άχτοτ; aa Ἢ 7 4, ‘a ΝΣ Sa 103, 8S ὍΝ Pf a oy ow nea πον. φ Ὡς 5 AN INQUIRY INTO THE CHARACTER AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL BY Vi JAMES DRUMMOND M.A., LL.D., Hon, Litt.D. PRINCIPAL OF MANCHESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD Ὁ δι᾽ ὑπομνημάτων λαλῶν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἀφοσιοῦται, ταῦτα κεκραγὼς ἐγγράφως. “Μὴ κέρδους ἕνεκα, μὴ κενοδοξίας χάριν, μὴ προσπαθείᾳ νικᾶσθαι, μὴ φόβῳ δουλοῦσθαι, μὴ ἡδονῇ ἐπαίρεσθαι... .. Δεῖ δὲ, ὡς οἷόν τε, τὸν κύριον μιμεῖσθαι Published for the Hibbert Trustees NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 153-157 FIFTH AVENUE 1904 CHAPTER I CONTENTS AND PLAN OF THE GOSPEL _ BEFORE we proceed to more difficult and controverted questions, we had better make ourselves acquainted with the contents and plan of the work. ‘These are confessedly - determined, not by a purely biographical, but by a theological interest. Indeed, the writer himself expressly says so, and a claims to do no more than give a selection of ‘signs’ caleu- ns lated to establish his position.2 Accordingly, when we view the structure of the book, we find that it is laid out on a * much more definite plan than we should anticipate from the Ἷ apparent artlessness.of the style. It begins with a prologue, " setting forth in brief terms certain great theological con- ᾿ » ceptions. This prologue is generally supposed to embrace the ik first eighteen verses, but Reuss? limits it to the first five, and ke it is undoubtedly true that the history begins in verse 6, . _ with the mission of John the Baptist,* and is resumed in "verse 15. There is, however, such a preponderance of θαλίαι statement, leading up to the sentences which δ describe the nature of the Christian revelation, that we must admit a large element of truth in the ordinary view. ay we may say that the first eighteen verses form a_ preface, which sets forth _ the fundamental ideas of the ve ΕΣ 11. ak, 50. 3. Gesch. ἊΝ heil. Schriften N.T., 1887, § 218. ᾿ς * Compare ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος with Mark’s ἐγένετο "Iwdyns, i. 4. ; 3 4 CONTENTS AND PLAN work, and is divided into two parts, the purely theological and the historico-theological. The work may from this point be divided into three great sections : The relation of Christ to the world, i i. το- ἸΟ-ΧΙ. σο; his relation to his disciples, xiii.—xvii.; the history of the passion — and resurrection, xviii-xx. To all appearance the book ended here: ; but another chapter is added, which we must regard as an appendix, whether by the same author or by a subsequent editor. The first of these larger sections falls into two principal sub-divisions. In the first of these we are told of the growing faith in Christ, 1. 19-iv. 54; in the second, of the growing opposition to his claims, v.-xii. Faith in him is first. suggested by the testimony of the Baptist, who, however, is not himself said to have believed, 1. 19-36. Owing to this testimony a small group of disciples is drawn to him, who recognise him as the Messiah and the Son of God, 1. 37-52. He now proceeds to Cana, where he manifests his glory by a sign, and his disciples believe on him, ii. 1-11. After a few days at Capernaum he goes to Jerusalem, and cleanses the Temple, and many believe on his name; but Jesus does not trust himself to them, ii. 12-25. We are now introduced to different types of character among those to whom Jesus appealed. In Nicodemus we have the learned Rabbi, who is — favourably disposed, but hardly open to the reception of new ideas. The narrative passes off into reflections, and we are not told whether he believed or not, ill. 1-21. In the country of Judea all men come to him; but details vanish in an account of the relations of the Baptist to J esus, 111. 22-36. | Next there is a brief ministry in Samaria, where many believe on him, iv. 1-42. Finally, the Galileans received him, and he healed the son of a nobleman who believed, with all his house, iv. 43-54. From this point Jesus appears _ ACCOUNT OF THE MINISTRY 5 in conflict with the unbelieving world. The opposition begins in Jerusalem, owing to his curing an impotent man on the Sabbath, . and declaring that in doing so he followed the example of his Father. In the address which follows, the ideas of Father and Son, of death and life, are dwelt upon; and unbelief is traced to seeking glory from one another instead of God, v. The scene now shifts once more to the north. After an account of the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the sea, there is a long discourse, delivered at Capernaum, which is founded on the former miracle, and dwells on Jesus as the bread of life. The figure is worked out in such startling language that many of his disciples leave him; but Peter confesses him to be the holy one of God (according to the most approved reading), vi. In the four following chapters we have a narrative of Christ’s controversies with the Jews at Jerusalem, on occasion of _ the feasts of tabernacles and of dedication. Jesus appears especially as the light of the world, and in illustration of this opens the eyes of a blind man. Though many of the crowd believe, the opposition to his claims deepens, and he finally q escapes from an attempt to seize him. Beyond Jordan, how- ever, many came to him, and believed on him. These events are followed by the great sign, the raising of Lazarus, which _ proved Jesus to be the resurrection and the life, and con- _ vineed the rulers that they must put him to death, lest all | _ should believe on him, xi. 1-53. Jesus withdraws for a time, - 4 Xi. 54-57, but soon returns to prepare for the end, and make y a last appeal to the blind eyes and hard hearts that so per- i sistently misunderstood him, xii. Verses 37-50 are a kind of _ summing-up of this first section. e We pass now into the quiet retreats of private and sacred ‘ fellowship. It is not necessary at present to analyse those _ exquisite chapters, to which, I suppose, the Gospel chiefly owes 7 6 CONTENTS AND PLAN its undying attractiveness and power. From the symbolic act of humility and love to the sublime prayer of consecration, we are in a region of holy peace and lofty communion, in which we have transcended the limits of the world and time, and have entered that eternal life which flows for ever from the Father upon those who apprehend in faith the spirit of the Son. The narrative of the passion and resurrection also we may leave without analysis. It moves on with simple grandeur to the close, and the theological aim is less apparent than in the earlier portions of the work; but some important sayings have been recorded, and the fact of a bodily resurrection is dwelt on with peculiar emphasis. CHAPTER II COMPARISON OF THE GOSPEL WITH THE SYNOPTICS THE foregoing chapter has presented an outline of the plan and contents of the Fourth Gospel. This word ‘Gospel’ at _ once reminds us that it is one of a group of four works bearing similar titles; and it becomes important to ask, What is its relation to the other three? For our answer to this question must inevitably affect to some extent our judgment of its . character and origin. Each Gospel has its own characteristics, and contains more or less which is peculiar to itself, and omits more or less which is contained in one or more of the others. Still, there is a family resemblance connecting the first three, which justifies us in treating them together as one class, whereas the fourth has such marked differences of type — _ that we are obliged to place it in a class by itself. At present we will describe the leading differences, simply as facts to be noted, without suggesting any theory to explain them. _ First, the duration and the scene of Christ’s ministry are not the same as in the Synoptics. The latter certainly give the impression that the ministry began after John was cast / into prison, but in the Fourth Gospel an important portion of _it takes place before that event. Again, in the Synoptics we hear of only one Passover, whereas in John there are three. But most serious is the change of scene. The first three eS Σ VA Eat Wis de XU. τ a ὃ COMPARISON WITH THE SYNOPTICS Gospels concur in not bringing Jesus to Jerusalem till the visit which ended with his crucifixion; the fourth tells us of repeated visits, and of prolonged controversy between Jesus and the Jews of the capital. John also inserts a most, important visit to Samaria, which leads to the conversion of many of the Samaritans. In this connection we cannot but remember the injunction in Matthew x. 5, not to enter any city of the Samaritans. Secondly, several events are very differently conceived. Jesus appears from the first as the Messiah the Son of God and King of Israel,? and there is no appearance of development either of Messianic consciousness in Jesus himself or of Messianic faith in the disciples. Accordingly, the testimony of the Baptist is widely different from that in the Synoptiecs. He not only designates Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” ? but bears witness that he is “the Son of God.”* His words have no vagueness, and his conduct no hesitancy. Again, the cleansing of the Temple, which we may regard as an act of Messianic authority (though i i te - —— St tl this is not expressly stated), is related at the beginning of the — ministry in connection with the first Passover.® This act, though Jesus is asked what sign he shows to justify it, does not seem to lead to any hostility ; but many believed on his name. The confession of Peter® can hardly be said to be © parallel to that in the Synoptics, the circumstances are so different ; but it is the only event at all corresponding to that which occupies so important a place in the other accounts. This being the case, we must observe the changed point of view. Jesus does not ask, “Whom say ye that I am?” for the question could not arise when he was acknowledged to be the Messiah from the first. So he inquires, “ Will ye also go Pt Ae. 4,50. 34.20; Ad: 34. 5 ii, 13-22. ὁ vi. 67-69. EVENTS DIFFERENTLY CONCEIVED mie away?” Peter does not reply as though the confession broke for the first time from his lips; but he only repeats what the disciples have all along “believed and known.” Accordingly they are not charged, with a rebuke, to tell that to no man. A variation of a different kind is noticeable in the account of the last supper. Although the matter is not wholly beyond the reach of controversy, I think I may safely say that it is admitted by good critics of quite opposite schools | that John places the supper before the Passover, on the 13th of Nisan,! and the crucifixion on the 14th, the day on which the lamb was killed. The Synoptics identify the supper with the paschal meal on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, and so postpone the crucifixion till the 15th. The miracles are clearly selected from a larger number ; but, whether through accident or design, the selection is limited by the sacred number seven. They appear to me to be conceived in a different spirit from those of the Synoptics. _ The latter, if they exhibit Messianic power, are more markedly displays of compassion. But in John the manifestation of _Christ’s glory seems the prominent object. This is the ex- _clusive purpose of the miracle at Cana.2, The nobleman whose son was dying is rebuked for not believing without signs and _ wonders, and his request is apparently granted for the sole purpose of creating belief. Accordingly the presence or _ absence of faith does not affect the miraculous power of Jesus as it does in the Synoptics? The healing of the impotent man at Jerusalem is introductory to a discourse which sets - forth the relation of the Son to the Father, and causes Jesus _ to be charged with making himself equal to Godt The feed- 1 For convenience I retain our mode of dividing the days. According to Jewish reckoning the 14th began at sunset on the day which we should call _ the 13th. Thus, from the Jewish point of view, the supper and the cruci- _ fixion took place on the same day. : . 4 ᾽ ἘΠῚ ΝΣ ΔΎΣΙΣ, 3 See especially Mark vi. 5,6; Matt. xiii. 58. ist ὁ 40 COMPARISON WITH THE SYNOPTICS ing of the five thousand is preparatory to a conversation on the bread of life! The blind man at Jerusalem received his sight because Jesus was the light of the world, and the very object of his blindness was that the miracle might be wrought.? Finally, the raising of Lazarus, notwithstanding the emotion and sympathy displayed by Jesus, seems chiefly intended to bring out the truth that he is the resurrection and the life? Probably five, certainly four, of these miracles are peculiar to John. Some would identify the nobleman with the centurion in Matthew viii. 5 sqq., Luke vii. 2 sqq.; but the circumstances are so entirely dissimilar that this supposition is, to say the least, very precarious. As the writer admits at least two of the Synoptic miracles, it deserves notice that he passes over the raising of Jairus’ daughter and of the widow of Nain’s son, though these appear well suited to his purpose. But most curious is the total omission of a class of miracles which take a prominent place in the other Gospels, and which were so well adapted to prove the authority of the Messiah, the casting out of demons from the possessed. Thirdly, there are several remarkable omissions. Of course each Gospel omits much that is recorded in one or other of the remaining three; but the omissions to which I refer deserve attention because they relate to facts which are so familiar from the Synoptic narratives that we feel impelled to ask why they are passed over. The following instances may be mentioned. Although so much is said of the relation between John the Baptist and Jesus, nothing is recorded about the baptism itself, and the message from John expressing a doubt about the Messiahship of Jesus has disappeared. There is no allusion of any kind to the temptation. In the account of the last supper, the words “this is my body,” “this is my blood,” --have no equivalent. It is almost startling to finggthat the 1 vi. 2 ix, 3 xi. # —— REMARKABLE OMISSIONS II institution of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial of Christ is omitted not only from John, but perhaps from all our Gospels. Luke alone, in the received text, contains a direction to remember Jesus, and that only in the breaking of bread. But the words in Luke xxii. 19-20, from τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον down to ἐκχυννόμενον are placed in double brackets by Westcott and Hort, who think that the evidence leaves “no moral doubt that the words in question were absent from the original text of Luke.”! They were, however, retained by Tischendorf, who is followed by Nestle. Our Revisers also retain them. If Westcott and Hort are right, we must depend, for the complete form of this last request of Jesus, on the sole testimony of Paul,? and cannot regard its omission as in any garden, with its prayer of apprehension and of submissive trust, is not alluded to, though there is a kind of parallel in another connection, which is peculiar to this Gospel.* The sad ery upon the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” is omitted, as it is in Luke, each evangelist reporting in its place final words which are peculiar to himself. The rending of the veil of the Temple, and the con- fession of the centurion, are contained, with variations, in all the Synoptics, but not in John. One other omission must be noticed, which is common to John and Mark. Not only is there no narrative of the birth © and infancy of Jesus, but there is no suggestion, however faint, of a miraculous birth. But this not all; Philip describes him to Nathanael as “Jesus the son of Joseph, him from Nazareth.”* The Jews of Capernaum also say, “Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know ?”° Some of the Jews of Jerusalem think that he cannot be the 1 Notes on select readings at the end of their Greek Testament, p. 64. 21 Cor. xi. 23 sqq. 3 xii. 27 sqq. 41 46. 5 vi. 42. way characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. The agony in the 4 12 COMPARISON WITH THE SYNOPTICS Christ, because the Christ did not come out of Galilee, but was of the seed of David, and came from Bethlehem. To these suppositions there is no reply containing even the slightest hint that they were incorrect ; so that if this Gospel were our only — witness, we should certainly assume that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary, and born at Nazareth, and that he made no claim to being a member of the royal line. ) Fourthly, a large part of the Gospel is additional to the contents of the Synoptics; but we may notice two important insertions in parts where the narratives are open to comparison. — It is said that after the crucifixion one of the soldiers pierced the side of Jesus, and immediately there came out blood and water. The writer evidently lays great stress on this, for he asserts emphatically that the testimony is true, as being that of an eye-witness? In the account of the resurrection, and of the appearances of the risen Christ, the doubt of Thomas, the appearance to him, in which he is desired to apply the tests which he thought necessary, and his exclamation, “my Lord and my God,” are peculiar to John. Fifthly, the teaching of Jesus is peculiar both in style and | in subject. The difference in style is more easily felt than described. If one of the longer discourses of the Fourth Gospel were transferred to any of the Synoptics, every intelligent reader would perceive that it had been misplaced. As far as the structure of the language is concerned, it is so similar throughout the work that it is sometimes difficult to — tell where the words of a speech end and those of the writer begin. Although there are many brief sayings which dwell in the memory, like beautiful islands of thought, still there is more of short sententiousness in the Synoptics, and of : connected discussion in John. The total absence of parables gives a strangely altered impression of Christ’s method, and — 1 vil. 41 86. 2 xix. 33 sqq. PECULIARITY OF THE TEACHING 13 perhaps makes us feel, more than anything else, the in- completeness and special colouring of the portraiture which is here presented to us.' The change in the substance of the teaching is no less remarkable than that in the style. I do not now refer to particular views, such as the eschatology, which differs so completely from that of the Synoptics. The central object of the teaching is no longer what it was. In the Synoptics Jesus deals mainly with great moral and spiritual principles; and whatever tone of authority pervades his utterance, he touches _ only incidentally upon his own personal claims. In John, although there are other elements as well, yet the prevailing topic is Jesus himself, and his relations to God, to his disciples, and to the unbelieving world. The impression which we derive from reading the Gospels is fully borne out by aa careful examination of the facts. The word ἐγώ is always | more or less emphatic in Greek. It is used by Christ in , Matthew fifteen times, of which six are in the Sermon on the Mount,—* But I say unto you,” a phrase which undoubtedly implies that he considered himself entitled to improve on the _ old legislation; but in none of the passages does he lay down any doctrine about his person or authority. The latter remark is true also of the nine passages in which he employs the word ἐγώ in Mark. In Luke we meet with it ten times, and : in only two places is there anything that may seem like an assertion of his pre-eminence: xxi. 15, “I will give you a f - mouth and wisdom,” and xxiv. 49, “I send the promise of my Father upon you,” the latter being after the resurrection. In John Christ says ἐγώ no less than 117 times,’ and at least _ thirty-five of these are in distinct assertion of his own claims. 1 See the “‘ Note on the Speeches ” at the end of the chapter. 2 My numbers may be uncertain to a very small extent owing to differences. of reading. ᾿ 14 COMPARISON WITH THE SYNOPTICS The following sayings, which are peculiar to the Fourth Gospel, will sufficiently illustrate the character of these passages. He says: I am the bread of life; the light of the — world; the door; the good shepherd; the resurrection and . the life; the way, the truth, and the life; the true vine. He declares that he is from above, that he has come forth from God, that he and the Father are one; and, in accordance with this, that he has conquered the world, that he will send the Paraclete, that he will raise up in the last day him that believes on him. This last expression introduces us to some further curious facts. The word πίστις, which we might expect to be frequent in this Gospel, is not found there at all. In Matthew it occurs eight times, in Mark five, in Luke eleven; and it is always used in a general sense, and not of faith in Christ. But when we turn to the verb, πιστεύω, the facts are curiously altered. We meet with it in Matthew eleven times, in Mark fifteen, in Luke nine; and it is not used of believing on Christ except in Matthew xviii. 6, with the parallel in Mark ix. 42, where it is not part of any doctrinal statement,—*“ Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me.” In John the word appears 100 times. Of these, if we pass over passages which speak of believing Christ or his words, thirty-three refer expressly to belief on him, and eleven more imply it by the context. In thirteen of these, belief on him is required or is connected with some spiritual blessing. In twenty of the instances the term is ascribed to Christ, who insists upon faith in himself as quite ; fundamental in the deliverance from ‘sin and the attainment of eternal life. These facts of phraseology are very signifi- — cant. Passages in the Synoptics may be appealed to which lend some support to Johannine doctrine; but if we regard the teaching as a whole, the distinction between the two types is broad and deep. ’ ne ee ACQUAINTANCE WITH SYNOPTIC TRADITION 15 Sixthly, the representation of Christ’s person is not the same as in the older Gospels. As this subject involves points of disputed exegesis, we cannot now go into details. We may, however, safely say that in the Synoptics the human character is more prominent, in John the divine communion. There is also, confessedly, no intimation of Christ’s pre-existence in the former, whereas in the latter it is referred to several times, and, whether we interpret it literally or ideally, the passages which are appealed to are peculiar to this Gospel. Such, then, is the nature of the differences which mark off the Fourth from the other Gospels. In this connection we must notice the question whether the author manifests an acquaintance with the Synoptics. That he assumes on the part of his readers some general knowledge of the evangelical history is beyound doubt. It may be sufficient to refer here to two of the most striking passages | by which this is established. In iii. 24 we read that “John had not yet been east into prison,” though the event has not been previously recorded. In xi.1 it is taken for granted that Mary and Martha are known. ‘This second instance seems to me to point very clearly to a familiarity with Luke or with the sources from which Luke derived the account which he alone gives of the two sisters ;! for not only is it assumed that they will be known to the readers, but it is not. assumed that facts ΠΟ will be known which Luke has failed to mention. Accordingly, we are expressly told that “There was a certain rich man, ᾿ Lazarus,” and we also learn that the village,? which Luke | leaves without a name, was Bethany.* There are also some _ short sentences which are in close or partial agreement with 1 x, 38 sqq. 2 Κώμη in both Gospels. _ 8.50 at least I understand the text, in spite of the difference of the ’ prepositions ἀπό and ἐκ, though it is possible to adopt the meaning that he belonged to Bethany, but was derived from some other village. For the change of preposition see i. 45, 46, 47. 16 COMPARISON WITH THE SYNOPTICS the Synopties: for instance, v. 8, “ Arise, take up thy bed and walk,” hardly differs from Mark 11. 9; xiii. 38, “The cock shall not crow till thou shalt deny me thrice,” comes nearest to the words of Luke xxii. 34.1 For a full list of such allusions and resemblances I may refer to Westcott.’ The facts are, 1 think, sufficient to establish what in itself is extremely probable, that the writer of our Gospel was acquainted with the Synoptic cycle of narratives, but cannot prove that he made use of our Gospels or of any of them, though that also is by no means destitute of probability.* 1 Parallels in Matt. xxvi. 34, Mk. xiv. 30. 2 The Gospel according to St John, 1886, pp. 1xxxi. sqg. See also Liicke, Commentar tiber das Ev. des Joh., 1840, pp. 194 sqq. and 241. a 3 Schiirer says that the fact of literary dependence may now be regarded as almost universally recognised. He instances especially the section on John the Baptist (i. 19-34), the cleansing of the Temple (ii. 13-16), the nobleman of Capernaum (iv. 47-54), the feeding of the five thousand (vi. 1-21), the anointing in Bethany (xii. 1-8), and the history of the passion. (Ueber den gegenwiirtigen Stand der johanneischen Frage, in Vortrége der theologischen Konferenz zu Giessen. V. Folge, 1889, p. 60). Probable instances of dependence on the Synoptics are pointed out in the course of M. Jean Réville’s Le Quatritme Evangile, son origine et sa valeur lustorique, 1901. Bretschneider, while admitting that the author was acquainted with written or unwritten traditions, thinks that he was not in possession of our Synoptics, for otherwise he would have made some use of the speeches contained in them, and would not have contradicted them so often. (Probabilia, pp. 65 sqq.). NOTE ON THE SPEECHES. In regard to the character of Christ’s speeches it is dangerous to trust to mere impression, and I think exaggerated statements have sometimes been made about their prolixity and dialectical style. Justin Martyr, in introducing a number of examples of Christ’s teaching, taken largely from the Sermon on the Mount, says, βραχεῖς δὲ καὶ σύντομοι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λόγοι yeysvacw* οὐ yap σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν ; } and it has sometimes been confidently asserted that this description could not possibly apply to the Fourth Gospel. I have therefore 1 Apol. i, 14. i NOTE ΟΝ THE SPEECHES 17 taken the trouble of comparing Matthew with John in regard to the length of Christ’s sayings. I count as a separate saying each of the detached portions of a conversation. It appears, then, that in Matthew Christ speaks 139 times, in John 122 times. These numbers are sufficiently close to admit of a reasonable comparison of the number of times speeches of various lengths are used; and the following table gives the results :— Matt. ohn, No. of times, Length of speech. BP be atte 39 Much less than one verse, sometimes 42 two or three words, 39 One verse, or almost one verse. 27 6 One and a fraction. 6 17 2 verses, 15 4 2 ,, anda fraction. ο 6 3 verses, 6 7 4 ; 4 2 5 33 7 3 6 ,, or 6and a fraction. 5 3 7 3) I ο 8 ,, and a fraction. I I 9 ,, org anda fraction. I ο congas I I I2 ,, or 12 and a fraction. 2 3 13»; I 2 Ts ο Ι Ee ibs oO I 19 |; ο fe) ΖΕ .; I ο 29 ;; I 2 37-38 verses. oO ο 52 verses. I I 93 ,, anda fraction. O I 107" ;, 0 We may summarise the result thus :— Not exceeding 3 verses Matt. 111 ~ John 96 Exceeding 3 and not exceeding 10 meray 16 » 20 3) TO 5, 55 2} 20 32 8 ” 3 33 20 33 4 33 3 The difference, then, between Matthew and John does not consist of the shortness of the speeches in the former and their length in the latter. But perhaps the speeches are of a more flowing and rhetorical kind, and it is impossible to pick out of them short and pregnant 11 include in Christ’s speeches verses which may be only the reflections of the writer, when there is nothing to mark the transition. 2 18 NOTE ON THE SPEECHES sayings. In order to test this I have selected sixty sayings which easily stand by themselves, and imprint themselves on the memory, — One might add largely to the number, especially from Christ’s sayings about himself, of which I give only some of the most striking. Everyone must remember words, particularly from chapters xiil.-xvil., which I have not given. “‘ Ye shall see the heavens opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the son of man,” i. 51. ‘‘ Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise,” ii. 16. “ Pull down this temple, and in three days I will raise it,” ii, 19. ‘Unless a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” iii. 3. ‘‘That which has been born out of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born out of the spirit is spirit,” iii. 6. ‘The spirit blows where it lists, and thou hearest its sound, but dost not know whence it comes or whither it goes: so is everyone who has been born out of the spirit,” 111, 8. “ Whosoever will drink of the water that I will give him shall never thirst,” iv. 14. ‘*The hour comes when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father,” iv. 21. “The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such worshippers of him,” iv. 23. “I have meat to eat that ye do not know,” iv. 31. “My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work,” iv. 34. “A prophet has no honour in his own country,” iv. 44. ‘‘ Unless ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe,” iv. 48. ‘‘Thou hast become well; sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee,” v.14. ‘‘ My Father works hitherto, and I work,” v. 17.“ The Son can do nothing from himself but what he sees the Father doing,” v. 19. “He who honours not the Son honours not the Father who sent him,” v. 23. ‘‘ My judgment is just, because I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me,” vy. 30. “Ye will not come to me that ye may have life,” v. 4o. ‘“‘ How can ye believe, receiving glory from one another, and ye seek not the glory that comes from the only God?” v. 44. ‘‘ Labour not for the meat that perishes, but for the meat that endures unto eternal life,” vi. 27. ‘The bread of God is he that comes down out of heaven and gives life to the world,” vi. 33. “1 am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall not hunger, and he that believes on me shall never thirst,” vi. 35. ‘‘ No one can come to me tnless the Father who sent me draw him,” vi. 44. ‘It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing ; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” vi. 23. “The world hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil,” vii. 7. “‘If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it is from God or I speak from myself,” vii. 17. ΓΟ τὶ» = *. a NOTE ON THE SPEECHES 19 “ Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment,” vil. 24. “1 any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink,” vii. 37. “1 am the light of the world ; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life,” viii. 12. ‘He that sent me is true, and I speak to the world the things which I heard from him,” vill. 26. ‘“ Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” vii. 32. ““ Everyone who commits sin is a slave” [of sin], vii. 34. “Ifthe Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed,” vill. 36. ‘If any man keep my word, he shall never see death,” viii. 51. “We must work the works of him that sent me while it is day ; night is coming when no man can work,” ix. 4. “For judgment I came into this world, in order that they who see not may see, and they who see may become blind,” ix. 39. “If ye were blind, ye would not have sin; but now ye say, we see; your sin remains,” ix. 41. “Jam the resurrection and the life; he that believeth on me, even if he were dead, shall live ; and everyone that lives and believes on me shall never die,” xi. 25. ‘‘ Unless the grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit,” xii. 24. ‘‘ He that loves his life shall lose it; and he that hates his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal,” xii. 25. “Tf any man serve me, the Father will honour him,” xii. 26. “1,181 be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself,” xii. 32. “‘ As ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may become sons of light,” xii. 36. ‘“‘ He that believes on me believes not on me, but on him that sent me,” xii. 44. “1 came not to judge the world, but to save the world,” ΧΙ]. 47. “1 gave you an example, that ye should do as I did to you,” xiii. 15.“ He that receives whomsoever I shall send receives me, and he that receives me receives him that sent me,” ΧΙ]. 20. “A new commandment I give you, that ye love one another, ΧΙ]. 34. “In this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love among one another,” xiii. 35. ‘“‘ Let not your heart be troubled ; ye believe in God, believe also in me,” xiv, 1. “In my Father’s house are many mansions,” xiv. 2. ‘‘I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me,” xiv. 6. ‘He that has seen me has seen the Father,” _ xiv.g. “If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments,” xiv. 15. “He that loves me shall be loyed by my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him,” xiv. 21. ‘‘ Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you,” xiv. 27. “Glorify thy Son, that the Son _ may glorify thee,” xvii. 1. ‘My kingdom is not from this world,” Xviii. 36. “To this end have I been born, and to this have I come _ into the world, that I may bear witness to the truth,” xviii. 37. 20 NOTE ON THE SPEECHES It is not true, then, that the Johannine Christ speaks like a Sophist, and abstains from using brief and concise sayings. But if the above list (made not at all for purposes of comparison) be compared with Justin’s selection from the Synoptics, a pervading difference will at once make itself felt. The latter gives a summary of the ethical requirements of Christianity, in regard to temperance, love, giving to the needy, being serviceable, and free from anger, swearing, worshipping God only, doing what Christ requires, paying tribute. The former is mainly spiritwal and doctrinal, and seems clearly more fitted for use among believers than for apologetic purposes. CHAPTER III THE PURPOSE WITH WHICH THE GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN In view of the facts set forth in the preceding chapter, we may consider next with what purpose the book was written. And first we may set aside some suppositions which do not appear to be tenable. The usual object of a biography is to delineate faithfully the life and character of its hero, and it is usual in modern times to collect together every kind of detail which a scrupulous diligence can discover. But even now biographies of well-known men, who may serve as illustra- tions of some noble quality, are written with a didactic end in view ; and then there is a selection from the existing material, and those incidents are dwelt upon which are at once the | most interesting and the best calculated to exhibit the traits of character which the writer wishes to commend to the reader’s attention. In such a work, while we look for reasonable care, we do not expect the same minute accuracy, and still less the same complete portraiture, which we require in a life written with a purely biographical purpose. The intention of the author affects also that of the reader, and we consult books of this class, not for information about successive events, but for instruction in principles affecting life and character. Now the Fourth Gospel may be regarded as an extreme example of this _ kind of biography. It is not its object to tell us all that can ᾿ be learned about the life of Jesus, but to awaken or strengthen 21 22 THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL our faith in him. It assumes that we are already acquainted with his life, and the writer avowedly lays before us only a portion of a much larger mass of material which was at his disposal. The omission of the parables shows that he did not aim at giving an illustrative picture of what was most characteristic in Jesus. But may he not have intended to supplement or correct the deficiences of the Synoptists, and to that extent have been governed by a simply biographical interest ? This may, I think, have affected to some extent the execution of his plan; but I see no evidence that it was either the initial or the governing motive of his work. He himself gives no intimation of such a design, and the book has not in the least the appearance of asupplement. It is not a collection of fragments, but the selected materials are combined into ἃ finished structure, and the several parts take their places, not to fill up the gaps in another plan, but to subserve the total impression of the composition in which they are found. I think, therefore, that we must accept fully and frankly all that is involved in the author’s own statement that he wrote in the interests of faith, and not of biographical fact. Of course, incidents recorded in this way may be facts; but, as bearing on our judgment of some difficult questions, it is most important for us to see clearly that the placing of mere facts on record was not the author’s primary object. Now if the book was written to promote faith, we cannot help asking, whose faith? If we look merely at the pro- position that “ Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” we might think that the work was intended for unbelievers, for this surely is fundamental in Christian belief. But as some knowledge of the evangelical history is presupposed, it is evident that the expected readers must be Christians. Must we, then, think of some heretical sect, and suppose that we have before us a controversial pamphlet? Ancient as well as NOT AGAINST HERETICS 23 modern writers have believed that Cerinthus was the object of attack, and others have had recourse to the Docetz or the Ebionites. Without entering into the details of particular systems, and considering how far the Gospel stands in opposition to them, I think we may fairly say that.at all events that opposition is confined to very few passages, that it is nowhere explicit, and that it affords no explanation even approximately adequate of the entire composition. The solution of the difficulty presented by the last verse of the | twentieth chapter may rather be found in the high sense ὴ which the author attaches to the word faith. He does not wish only to persuade men that Jesus is the Christ ; he wants them so to believe as to have lifein his name. Life is one of the notes of the Gospel. It is not indeed unknown to the Synoptists, for Matthew has the word seven times, Mark four times, and Luke four times! But John uses it thirty-six times, and it clearly contains with him a fundamental thought. Now the faith which he wished to promote was one so deep and heartfelt as to result in life, life inward and eternal, as it has been depicted in the course of the narrative. A man may believe and be free from the seductions of any heretical hypothesis; and yet his faith may be constantly worn down by the friction of the world and of self, and need renewal _ from the words of one who himself lives above the world, and _ is conscious of eternal life abiding in his own breast. I think, then, that the writer stands above ephemeral controversies, and addresses the universal Church, and that his Gospel, far from being a polemical pamphlet, is the utterance of one of those rare souls who speak with timeless voice to the permanent needs of man. If these remarks are correct, the statement that the book has been written with a theological interest would be mis- 1 Besides once or twice in a lower sense. 24 THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL leading unless we took into account the character of the theology which it represents. Theology suggests intellectual forms, worked out into a system, and supported by coherent argument. But this is not what we find in the Fourth Gospel. The faith which it wishes to create is spiritual rather than intellectual. It is not systematic. It does not present its propositions in a regular order of mutual depen- dence, and invite our acceptance of them by the logical cogency of its proofs. It does not even define its leading terms, but flings them out in a sublime vagueness, and allows them, as in some heavenly trance, to pass with dim majesty before the eye of the soul, so as to make their own impression according to the spiritual sensibility. Neither is the theology an expression of the philosophical schools. Some of the terms and ideas remind one, indeed, of the system of Philo, and a. careful study of Philo is of great service in enabling us to understand the Gospel as well as the later system of theology which professes to interpret it. But the picture of Jesus himself has nothing in the least answering to it in Philo, and the very ideas which have most appearance of being derived have been brought under the transfiguring influence of an original and creative mind, and turned out stripped of their philosophical dress, and robed with a new spiritual beauty to — captivate the world. Nothing indeed can well be more unlike _ than Philo and John, the bulky and diffuse rhetoric of talent and the brief condensed simplicity of genius. The philo- 1M. Jean Réville regards the writer throughout as a man imbued with the Alexandrian philosophy, which is embodied in the works of Philo. His view, while containing an element of truth, appears to me greatly exaggerated. See also, on the same side, Anathon Aall, Geschichte der Logos- ὁ idee in der christlichen Litteratur, 1899 ; and Julius Grill, Untersuchungen diber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliwms, Erster Teil, 1902, where the text of Philo bearing on the subject is very fully given, Against the hypothesis of direct literary dependence we have to set not only the complete difference of style, but the total absence of Philo’s special vocabulary, not only in _ NATURE OF ITS THEOLOGY 25 sophical terms are like soft echoes from some lower world, and the whole treatment of them leaves on my mind the impression of one who did not belong to the schools, but knew from the society around him the language and the difficulties of the thoughtful men of his time, and sought to answer their questionings, not by sinking into the wordy dialectics of a sophist, but by taking up the current terms, and transmuting them with the fire of a faith which was more akin to spiritual imagination than to speculative philosophy. Hence his replies, though tinged with the colours of the age in which he lived, are in substance quite independent of Ebionite or Gnostic controversies, and pierce to the hidden roots of faith and unbelief in the enduring nature of man. He does not attempt to clear up mere intellectual doubts and perplexities; for these vary from age to age, and may be due to the inward striving of the spirit towards a nobler life. He saw that there was more faith in patiently waiting for the light, which will make clear the things that we understand not now, than in binding up the soul in dogmatic leading-strings. The un- belief which is of the earth, and cuts men off from God, what- ever may be their profession, he traces to the unregenerate heart, the false deference to a dead authority, the wishing to agree or seem to agree with the multitude or with the rulers and the learned, the seeking of glory one from another, and not the glory that comes from the only God. These are the things that blind men, and place them on the wrong side in the great crises of history, when individuals and nations are _ sifted, and the heralds of God sound an alarm to a world _ buried in spiritual sleep. And, on the other hand, the life is — relation to God, but in regard to the Logos. The idea of the Logos itself had long been a commonplace in Philosophy, and the adoption of it no more proves a philosophical education than the use of the word evolution would do so at the present day. 26 THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL the light of men, and he who seeks not his own will, who desires only the glory of Him who sent him, judges justly and his heart is at peace amid the strife of tongues. There is one other characteristic which explains those that. we have just noticed: the author writes out of the fulness of his own inward experience. Passage after passage might be quoted in illustration of this statement; but a few must suffice. Interrupting one of his great utterances, he exclaims, “We beheld his glory, glory as of an only-begotten from 8. father.” Am I wrong in saying that these words indicate a profound sense of having received a veritable revelation, opening up vistas of heavenly glory that reached the very bosom of God? “ He declared him”:? had not Christ declared Him to the heart of this disciple, and made him realize for the — first time what it was to live in communion with the Father ? The author teaches at length the doctrine of regeneration: had he not experienced a vital change? It is possible even — that, like Nicodemus, he was an old man when the spirit, blowing where it listed, lighted upon him with a new power, and showed him as never before the true glory of his master and its far-reaching consequences. Hence he knew in him- self that he had eternal life, that he had passed out of death into life.2 “If the Son shall make you free ye shall be free indeed.” * He does not describe this freedom ; but did he not feel within him the freedom of a child of God, and trace it to the emancipating power of him who was “the Son”? Finally, did he not enjoy the exalted communion of Love, with its open vision of the Beloved, with its indwelling of the Father and the Son, with its Holy Spirit of Truth, which the world in all its cleverness and knowledge cannot see? Such was this “theologian,” as the ancients called him; not the framer of bare dogmas, not the architect of a system, not the disputer 11, 14. 21 08. OW) BA: * vill. 36. WRITTEN FROM INWARD EXPERIENCE 27 of this world, but one who saw the heavens opened, and the - angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, who walked with the rapt face of one whose faith had sub- dued the world, and who, out of the depths of his loving heart, told, not only to his own generation, but to generations . far distant in time and country, where he had found the secret of eternal life. ony eee LTT CONE Ne See CHAPTER IV HOW FAR IS THE GOSPEL HISTORICAL ? IF the purpose of the book has been correctly described, we cannot but ask whether its contents may not have been very — largely coloured by the idiosyncrasies of the writer’s mind. This is the point which must next engage our attention. Τὸ is one which might seem to depend on the question of © authorship; but in fact it has to be determined to a consider- able extent upon other grounds, and, in the present state of — inquiry, it has become one of the most important items of — evidence through which a conclusion respecting the author- — ship is reached. The relation between those two inquiries — must be considered farther on; at present we must try to 4 estimate the historical character of the book by a just criticism — of the contents. That thisisa very difficult task to accomplish 4 without bias I am well aware; and I fully admit that com-— petent and impartial men may differ from the conclusion — which forces itself on my own mind, though I think opinion © is steadily growing, among both opponents and defenders of — the Johannine authorship, in the direction in which the — facts seem to me to point, so that the contest between opposite — camps is one rather of degree than of principle. First of all let us guard against an error into which a aed + [ἢ Ἂ t % modern and western investigator is peculiarly apt to fall. To ask whether a work is historical or not, is not the same 8 28 : a a Ι ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY 29 | thing as asking whether it is true or not; for truth in regard to the past may be of two kinds. This is an age of research and scientific accuracy, and the truth which we demand in history is truth of fact. There must be no error in a gene- alogy ; nothing must be said to have happened on Monday if it really happened on Tuesday; no action must be ascribed to a man which we are not prepared to support in a court of justice. All this is perfectly right, so long as it does not blind us to a higher truth. The facts in themselves are utterly barren. In history, as in religion, it is the spirit that _quickens, and unless we can penetrate the spirit of great historical transactions, interpret the principles out of which | they sprung, and throw ourselves with sympathetic imagina- tion into the passions which animated the great human drama; we miss the only truth which is worth receiving. Now it is possible, and it was far easier long ago than it is now, to think less of the facts than of the inner meaning of the facts, and to believe that the highest historical truth is not reached till the due impression is made upon the mind of the reader, even though that impression cannot be made until the facts are cast into the striking forms and tinted with the warm colours of historical imagination. I may illustrate these ; remarks by a quotation from Macaulay, who certainly was “not a sentimentalist. In speaking of Machiavelli's History of : Florence he says, “The History does not appear to be the fruit of much industry or research. It is unquestionably inaccurate. But it is elegant, lively, and picturesque, beyond any other in the Italian language. The reader, we believe, carries away : from it a more vivid and more faithful impression of the national character and manners than from more correct accounts. The truth is, that the book belongs rather to ancient than to modern literature. It is in the style, not of Davila and Clarendon, but of Herodotus and Tacitus; and the 30 HOW FAR HISTORICAL classical histories may almost be called romances founded ing \fact. The relation is, no doubt, in all its principal points, | strictly true. But the numerous little incidents which heighten the interest, the words, the gestures, the looks, are evidently | furnished by the imagination of the author. The fashion of later times is different. A more exact narrative is given by the writer. It may be doubted whether more exact notions “are conveyed to the reader. The best portraits are those in which there is a slight mixture of caricature; and we are not aware that the best histories are not those in which a little © of the exaggeration of fictitious narrative is judiciously employed. Something is lost in accuracy, but much is gained in effect. The fainter lines are neglected, but the great characteristic features are imprinted on the mind _forever.”1 Earlier in the same essay he says: “How Philip disposed his troops at Cheronea, where Hannibal crossed the Alps, whether Mary blew up Darnley, or Siquier shot Charles the Twelfth, and ten thousand other questions οὗ the same description, are in themselves unimportant. The inquiry may amuse us, but the decision leaves us no wiser. He alone reads history aright who, observing how powerfully circumstances influence the feelings and opinions of men, how often vices pass into virtues, and paradoxes into axioms, learns - to distinguish what is accidental and transitory in human nature from what is essential and immutable.” Now 1 suppose we may safely assume, as one of the established — results of criticism, that the distinction between ancient and modern history which is pointed out in the former of these — passages is exemplified at least as fully by the narratives οὗ the Old Testament as by the histories of Greece and Rome. — We must add that the Hebrew writers had a motive which ~ was foreign to the classical, or present in a very subordinate 1 Essay on Machiavelli, near the end. JEWISH VIEW OF HISTORY 31 degree. They saw a divine meaning in the history of their people, and they were anxious not only to make their narrative vivid, but to show how God had acted and spoken through the heroes of the olden time. A history, however accurate, which did not present this clearly to the popular mind would not have been to them a true history. The facts were the drapery in which the word of God clothed itself; and as things heard are not so vivid as things seen, it was necessary to enlarge the forms and heighten the colours in order to produce truth of impression. This tendency is especially apparent in the adoption of Haggadah by the Rabbinical schools. The object of Haggadah was illustration and edification, and the method was about as remote from modern historical criticism as it is possible to conceive; but _ probably these laborious Rabbis were just as proud of it as the modern critic is of his newly-found instrument of research. In this form of exposition, to quote the words of Deutsch, “The persons of the Bible. . . . became, apart from their pre- supposed historical reality, a symbol and an allegory. And what the narrative had omitted the Haggadah supplied in Many variations. It filled up these gaps, as ἃ prophet looking into the past might do; it explained the motives; it enlarged the story.”1 If we extend our view beyond Palestine, we find the system of allegorical interpretation in its full development among the Jews of Alexandria, and see it also, though in a subdued form, in the writings of Paul of Tarsus. Nothing could be more adapted to destroy what we should call the historical sense; for in it the whole value of ancient facts lay in their embodiment of philosophical or religious ‘ideas. Men like Philo had no interest in inquiring whether _an incident really occurred in this way or in that, and what we regard as the exercise of the first duty of an historian, ‘Literary Remains, p. 45. 32 HOW FAR HISTORICAL they would probably have viewed as learned trifling. If we would understand the narratives of this period, we must try to place ourselves within its mental atmosphere, and not yield to that narrowness of mind which judges the past by the current phrases of its own day.’ These observations may prepare us to examine without discomposure the allegation that the Fourth Gospel is not an historical book in our sense of the word. In the age of Haggadah and allegory it is conceivable that a man might be found who had a dreamy perception of external things, but entered with his whole soul into the divine meaning which lay behind nature and human life. Such a one might conceivably throw some of his ideas into the form of allegory, and re- present as spoken by Christ on earth what in reality his Spirit had been saying to the world since he was hidden from the eyes of men. In writing a history of this kind he might expect his contemporaries to understand him, and to extract the essence of his spiritual thought without dwelling too much on the casket which contained it. There is an interest- ing item of evidence that this was the earliest view which was taken of the Fourth Gospel. It has been preserved by Eusebius? from the lost “ Outlines” ὃ of Clement of Alexandria. The fragment professes to give the tradition of the Presbyters- from the first,* and says, among other things, “that John, however, last, having observed that the bodily things had been exhibited in the Gospels, being exhorted by his friends, 1 An interesting illustration is afforded by “The Holy Life and Death of the Lady Letece, Vi-Countess Falkland, etc., by John Duncan Parson.” This work contains letters, ostensibly of Lady Falkland’s, together with the answers, which are really composed by the author, giving, as he says, “ not a strict relation, but a representation.” See the account in Tulloch’s Rational — Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the Seventeenth here, 1872, i. p. 88, note I. 2 Hist. Ec., vi. 14. * renin 4 ee a τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων. THE EARLIEST VIEW 33 inspired by the Spirit, produced a spiritual Gospel.”! Now in the language of Alexandria, “that which is bodily”? denoted the literal sense of Scripture, while “ that which is spiritual ” 3 signified the higher figurative or allegorical meaning.‘ Clement’s statement, therefore, would not mean that the other Gospels told more about the bodily life of Christ, and the Johannine more about his teaching, but that the former were literal histories, whereas John, under the influence of a special inspiration, set forth his higher and more secret doctrine in the form of allegory. The correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the very plain statements of Origen. In connection with the visit to Capernaum in John 11, 12, he shows at length that the fourth evangelist is not in historical agreement with the others, and, as this is only one out of several instances, he declares that, if all four Gospels are to be received, it can only be through the recognition “ that their truth is not in the bodily (or literal) characters,” ° and he lays down the somewhat startling rule, that, where the writers were unable to speak the truth “at once spiritually and corporeally” (or allegorically and literally),° it was their purpose “to prefer the spiritual to the corporeal, the true spiritual being often preserved in the corporeal falsehood, as 1 τὸν μέντοι Ἰωάννην ἔσχατον συνιδόντα ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται, προτραπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων, πνεύματι θεοφορηθέντα, πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον. 2 τὸ σωματικόν. 3 τὸ πνευματικόν. 4 See especially Origen, De Principiis, iv. 11 sqq., where it is pertinent to observe that he gives an allegorical explanation of the vessels of water at Cana. Farther on he says that the Gospels are full of things that are said to have happened, but did not happen literally, and that with literal narratives innumerable things are mixed up which did not really happen, 2., 16. Seealso Clem. Al., Strom., vi. 15 sq. p. 807, Potter, who describes as τὸ σῶμα τῶν γραφῶν τὰς λέξεις καὶ τὰ dvduara. Philo had already compared the literal sense to the body, the symbolical to the soul,—xph ταῦτα μὲν σώματι ἐοικέναι νομίζειν, ψυχῇ δὲ ἐκεῖνα (De Migrat. Ab., § 16, i. 450). 5 εἶναι ἀληθὲς αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐν τοῖς σωματικοῖς χαρακτῆρσιν. Com, in Joan., X. 2. 6 πνευματικῶς ἅμα καὶ σωματικῶς. 3 34 HOW FAR HISTORICAL one may say.”! There is an echo of this view even in Epiphanius: “for most of the things spoken by him were spiritual, the fleshly things being already certified.”* If this belief prevailed at all widely in the second century, it would account for the comparative neglect of the Gospel by an apologist like Justin Martyr, who would derive his own doctrines from it, but would appeal to it very sparingly as an evidence of facts. On the other hand the tendency to accept it as veritable history would naturally grow as time passed on, and the first impression made by its publication gave way to a lifelong familiarity with its contents. Indeed, the common mass of Christians would soon receive it in its most literal sense; for the very object of allegory was to accommodate itself — to the duller apprehension of less advanced minds, and under the semblance of facts to infuse as large an amount of spiritual truth as each man was able to assimilate. ” Does, then, the character of the Fourth Gospel afford any sanction to this ancient account of its purpose? Undoubtedly its avowed theological aim and its general tone are calculated to suggest something of the kind, and may induce us to scrutinize the matter more closely. We will look first at the speeches and then at the events. In the speeches no one who was not committed to the old idea of infallibility would expect to find verbal exactness. On any hypothesis they were not written in the Gospel till at least fifty or sixty years after they were spoken; and although certain expressions might fix themselves indelibly in the memory, the speeches as a whole could not be communicated after that lapse of time with the accuracy of a modern news- 1 προκρίνειν τὸ πνευματικὸν TOD σωματικοῦ, σωζομένου πολλάκις TOD ἀληθοῦς πνευματικοῦ ἐν τῷ σωματικῷ, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, ψεύδει. Ib. 4, p. 282, Lom. 2 πνευματικὰ γὰρ ἦν τὰ πλεῖστα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ λεγόμενα, τῶν σαρκικῶν ἤδη ἐπασφαλισθέντων. Haer., li. 19. mvevpatix@s=allegorically (7b. 32). THE SPEECHES 35 paper report. The memory might indeed have retained them with a great degree of correctness if through all that time they had been made the subject of catechetical instruction ; but if that had been the case, they would surely have blended with the synoptic tradition, and not have stood apart in their present strange singularity. From this consideration it seems probable that no more can be justly claimed for them than that they are genuine reminiscences, called up after the lapse of many eventful and exciting years, and consequently liable not only to be conveyed in the author’s peculiar manner, but _to have their substance affected by the intermingling of his own feelings and experiences. We find, accordingly, that the. style of the speeches is the same as that of the Evangelist. In the address to Nicodemus it is by no means evident where - the language of Christ is supposed to end and that of the Evangelist to begin; and so slight is the historical interest that we are told nothing of the end or the result of the inter- view. John the Baptist also speaks the language and the thoughts of the writer, so much so that many suppose that the address at Aenon loses itself and disappears in the author’s reflections. At xii. 36 there is a pause in the narrative, and Jesus withdraws into concealment. Then come reflections of the author upon unbelief and upon cowardly belief. These are succeeded by a speech from Jesus, to which no place is assigned ; and it seems to be the author’s way of summing up the teaching contained in the former part of his work. When we add that the style of Christ’s teaching is different from that in the Synoptics, we have a body of evidence which has convinced some of the ablest defenders of the Johannine authorship that the speeches have been very deeply coloured in their passage through the writer’s mind. But can we go further, and find any traces of a later date than the time of Christ? The universalism of Christianity | 36 HOW FAR HISTORICAL is explicit in the teaching of Jesus. He speaks with the consciousness of a world-wide mission. He refers to the law as “ your law,” “their law,”! as though he and his followers were quite independent of and above it. Faith in himself was the one all-sufficient ground of life, and it was only a mistaken opinion of the Jews that life was to be found in the Seriptures.” The true worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.? He had other sheep which were not of the Jewish fold, and these he was to bring so that there should be one flock.* Now, if this teaching had been really so clear, the great Pauline controversy about the obligation of the law could hardly have arisen. Paul, being unable to appeal to any express teaching of Christ’s, relies on the significance of his person and his work; and this, which is avowedly interpretation in Paul) becomes in John a constituent portion of Christ’s doctrine. This seems to show that the writer was guided in his thoughts by the circumstances of his own time, and was carrying back — into the words of Jesus what had indeed resulted from the whole spirit of his life and teaching. This consideration is hardly qualified by the fact that in some passages Jesus speaks in closer agreement with the Synoptics. He calls the Temple his Father's house.? He declares that salvation is from the Jews.® He says that the Scripture cannot be broken.’ But this does not alter the fact that he sets up faith in himself as a new and all-sufficient principle of life, in opposition to Judaism ; and the historical correctness of some passages does not disprove the presence in others of the inter- preting thought of a later time. The same reflection of later _ideas is suggested by the controversy with the Jews. In the other Gospels the main points of attack are the formalism and hypocrisy of the Pharisees. But in John the controversial 1 viii. 17, X. 34, XV. 25. See also vii. 19. Ἀν, 50, αν, 2324. =x, 2G. Boal NEG: ¢ av. am ‘ep SG; THE SPEECHES 37 opponents as a rule appear simply as “the Jews,” and the object of attack is their unbelief. This points rather to the Church’s controversy with the rabbinical schools than to the experiences of Jesus himself! Again, the confident claim to< be the Messiah from the very first, making indeed the proclamation of his Messiahship the central purpose of his mission, is so unlike the teaching described especially by Mark, that it is difficult to believe that they are both historical. I do not wish to exaggerate this difference. Even in the earlier portion of the Synoptics a profound sense of greatness and authority may be traced in the teaching of Jesus; but what at most is implied in this part of the Synoptics has become explicit and doctrinal at the very opening of Christ’s ministry in John. Surely the former representation is the more likely to be historical, and our author carries back into the earthly life of Jesus what, through the Spirit and through the Church, he had been declaring to the Jews ever since they had rejected and crucified him. This argument is not weakened by an appeal to x. 24, where the Jews say, “If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly,” as though he had not yet done so; for Jesus replies, “I told you, and ye did not believe,” showing that their unbelief was not from any want of explicit declaration on his part. Once more, the complete spiritualizing of the eschatology, though we would so gladly trace it back to Jesus himself, is so wide a deviation from the other Gospels, and is 1 See these considerations treated at length in Weizsacker, Das apost. Zeitalter, 2nd edition, 1890, p. 539 sqqg. Quite in accordance with the Synoptical account, however, the Pharisees appear seventeen times as the active enemies of Jesus. The Jews are mentioned sixty-six times, and in more than forty they are the people who dispute the claims which Jesus puts forward. This curious fact has no parallel in the Synoptics. In all three “the Jews” are mentioned only sixteen times, chiefly in the phrase “the king of the Jews.” They are referred to very. rarely by the historians themselves :—once in Mt. xxviii. 15 ; once in Mk. vii. 3 ; twice in LK. vii. 3, XXiii. 51. The party antagonistic to Jesus is nowhere so described. 38 HOW FAR HISTORICAL so easily explained by the transforming influence of time, that we seem to hear rather what Christ had spoken through ‘history and inward experience to the hearts of his disciples than the words which he had addressed to them on earth. There is one other aspect of the speeches on which we must touch. Their egotism has led to a charge of arrogance against Jesus on the assumption of their genuineness, and to an assertion of their falsity on the assumption that Jesus had really a noble and devout mind. I confess Iam not at present able to feel the validity of the ethical rule which renders these judgments necessary. It seems to me to rest on the tacit supposition that Jesus filled no providential place in’ the spiritual history of the world, and that we must reduce him to the level, not only of humanity, but of ordinary humanity. When his high claims offend us we are saying in our hearts, “Ts not this the son of Joseph? What business has he to talk in this fashion?” But disregarding particular views of Christ’s person, can we not conceive a man set apart to be the organ and leader of a world-wide spiritual movement, and © becoming conscious in himself that it was so? Can we not. conceive him under the burden of his great message, rapt into a communion in which he felt that he was interpenetrated with the life and word of God, and that it was laid upon him to communicate these to mankind, to draw to him disciples - who would trust him to the uttermost, and to marshal the consecrated host who were to save the world by suffering and by love? And ought such a one to teach nothing but abstract truth? Ought he never to cry, as he looked with profound compassion upon the wants and woes of his brethren, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink; if any man is sleeping in the death of sin, let him hearken unto my voice and live; if any man is groping after God in ancient parchments, and title-deeds of law, let him look to me, for the Father is © THE SPEECHES 39. here, living in me, and 1 ἴῃ him?” Surely to be silent would be to hide his light under a bushel and to be false to the trust that was laid upon him; and it seems to me a strangely external way of judging of conceit to be offended at such utterances, without considering the greatness and providential position of him who uttered them, as though self-complacency might not lurk under a careful abstinence from egotism, and _ the deepest humility accompany the loftiest claims. But having said this, I am prepared to admit, on historical grounds, that the personal claims of Jesus were probably less plain, direct, and frequent than the Fourth Gospel would lead ys to suppose. Other indications have shown us that the speeches” have, to say the least, been coloured in their passage through the writer’s mind; and here, too, the Synoptics are probably nearer to the historical facts. The writer had felt the quickening influence of Christ with such a rare power, that in part he is setting forth all that Jesus had been to himself ; and ascribing to him words which he had heard in the spirit rather than with his fleshly ears. | I must refer here to an argument in favour of the strict authenticity of the speeches, to which Bleek’ attaches the greatest importance. He thinks the prophetical utterances of Christ, especially those relating to his own approach- ing fate, are clearly more historical than ‘those in the Synoptics. The latter declare the coming events quite ex- plicitly and fully,” and yet we are told that the disciples did not understand what was said, and the catastrophe came upon them as a surprise. It is therefore likely that Jesus really - gave more figurative intimations of his death and resurrection, 1 Hinlett. in das N.T., 4th ed., 1886, pp. 327 sqg. This argument had already been used by Bertholdt, Hinleit., pp. 1305 8ηᾳ. (quoted by Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 14). 2 See Matt. xvi, 21, xvii. 22 sq., xx. 18 sqy.; Mk. Vili. 31, ix. 31, X. 33 84.; LK. ix, 22, 44, xvill. 31 8ηη. 40 HOW FAR HISTORICAL and these we find in the Fourth Gospel.1 The same facts make curiously different impressions. To me it seems that the Synoptical account has a much more historical air than ‘the Johannine. The words have very likely been made a little more explicit, from the writers’ knowledge of their ful- filment: but that Jesus should be impressed by the judicial murder of the Baptist, and by the growing opposition to him- self, and should declare his conviction that the Jewish authori- ties would compass his death, and even do so by giving him up to the Romans, and should further assert his faith that neither he nor his cause could be destroyed,—all this falls within the bounds of historical probability. The Messianic hopes and the mistaken affection which led Peter to rebuke him would account for the inability of the Apostles fully to apprehend his meaning. But the predictions in John are anticipations, not of seeming disaster coming from the violence of men, but of the fulfilment of a voluntarily accepted mission. “The Father loves me because I lay down my life that I may take it again: no one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself,’—surely these are not words that merely contain a dark intimation of having to sacrifice life in the struggle against sin; and for my part I cannot see the historical prob- ability of their having been uttered by Jesus himself. They are rather his reply, through his disciple, to the objection of the Jews that they had baffled him by the crucifixion, and proved that he was not from God. So little was this the case, that he met his death in voluntary submission to a divine command, and thus death, instead of showing that he was deserted of God, secured him in the Father’s love. This was a great truth, and the writer saw that it lay deep in the heart of Christ, and sustained him on the Cross; and yet the words 1 vii. 33 86.) Vili. 21, X. II, 17 5q., xii. 23 86.) xiv. I-4, 18 sqq., 28, Xvi. 16. THE SPEECHES 41 may not fit naturally into the historical situation in which he has placed them. On the whole, then, I am unable to ane the speeches as — strictly historical. It has indeed been contended with much force that there must have been a speculative side to the teaching of Christ, else Christianity could never have had such an influence on the world of thought. This is well worthy of consideration; and I am far from denying that there may be in the Gospel a large admixture of genuine reminiscence, especially of the substance of the teaching; but I do not think our critical appliances will enable us to detach it, except perhaps in the case of some short and striking sayings, where the writer expressly adds his own interpre- tation.! The writer himself probably could not have told us in the case of the longer speeches that this was said in the flesh and that in the spirit, nor did he care to make such an analysis. Christ was always speaking these things to his listening soul, and what did it matter if he had not heard these precise words in Palestine, when they came to him straight out of the heart of the Beloved? We, too, may well withhold our hands from the seamless robe. The book is religious, giving us, not a photograph, but an interpretation of a great life; and it is more important for us to understand the inner meaning of Christ’s message to the world, and to hear with the spirit his words of life and consolation, than to know the precise phrase which once for a moment ruffled the. air of Palestine. Turning to the events, we will notice first some striking differences between the Synoptics and John, in regard to 1 See. ii. 21, vii. 39, xii. 33. This fact was used by Henke, in 1798, as an evidence that John recorded the very words of Jesus. Bretschneider replies (Probabilia, pp. 22 sqq.). 42 HOW FAR HISTORICAL which some able critics have discerned in the latter a closer adherence to history. - Bleek argues with great force that historical probability is altogether on the side of the Fourth Gospel in its account of the journeys to the feasts at Jerusalem! Men were required by the law to present themselves at Jerusalem three times a year; and even if Christ’s ministry did not last a full year, it is not likely that he never made his appearance in the capital. Still more important, according to Bleek, are the indications which the Synoptics themselves contain that Jesus had been several times in Jerusalem before the last Passover, and endeavoured to convert the inhabitants of the — city. He relies especially on the appeal in Luke xiii. 34 sq., Mt. Xxiil. 37 sq., “Ὁ Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... . how often would I have gathered thy children together, .... and ye would — not.” He thinks also that Joseph of Arimathzea must have become attached toJesus duringa visit of the latter to Jerusalem, and that the acquaintance with Mary and Martha points in the same direction. Finally, he contends that, if the accepted tradition did not admit of these repeated journeys to the capital, the author could have had no motive for altering the history in a way which would at once create objections to his work; for, even if he thought it necessary to transfer the chief controversy to Jerusalem, he might have escaped such a glaring violation of fact by prolonging the visit which was known to be historical. These arguments are certainly not without weight; but there are considerations on the other side which greatly weaken their force. The negative — evidence of the Synoptics is not easily set aside. It is really 1 Einl., p. 298 sqqg. Professor H. H. Wendt takes the same view, but discusses the question inadequately: Das Johannesevangelium. Line Untersuchung seiner Entstehung αν. seines geschichtlichen Wertes, 1900, pp- 8 sqq. THE VISITS TO JERUSALEM 43 a threefold evidence, for both Matthew and Luke have much Jmaterial peculiar to themselves, so that one or other of them might very well have introduced some notice of the visits to WJerusalem. This unanimity of silence is the more remarkable }when we remember that the parent church was established : in Jerusalem, where the Apostles would most naturally press J upon the attention of their converts some of the teaching which had been given in their own city, especially as it was of such a doctrinal and fundamental character. Whatever }origin we may assign to the Synoptics, they probably rest in the last resort on the oral teaching of the first circle of disciples, and thus their silence about the visits to the feasts is very difficult to explain except by the supposition that these visits never took place. But it is important to observe, further, that’ the evidence is not wholly negative, for there are certain sayings which seem to imply that the writers, at all events, believed that the last public visit was also the first. After the con- fession of Peter, Matthew relates that “from that time Jesus began to show his disciples that it was necessary for him to go away to Jerusalem, and suffer many things.”? These ‘words, which are not in the parallel accounts, surely indicate the belief of the evangelist that a visit to Jerusalem was a ‘new incident in the ministry of Christ. Farther on we are told that on the way to Jerusalem Jesus took the Twelve, and ‘said to them, “ Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be delivered to the Chief Priests and Scribes,” ete.? Luke varies the subsequent words, but retains, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem.”* Mark adds “that the disciples followed him with amazement and fear,” ὃ showing their vague anticipation of some crisis far other than they desired. It might be said that this state of mind would be 1 Ac? αὐτὸν ἀπελθεῖν. 2 xvi. 21. 3 Mt. xx. 17-18. 4 xviii, a7, 6 x. 32-33. | h | 44 HOW FAR HISTORICAL more intelligible if they had already experienced the hostility. of Jerusalem; but if this were intended, we should probably read, “Behold we are going up again to Jerusalem.” The passages as they stand leave a decided impression that this was a new enterprise, beset with new dangers. There is another passage of a similar kind in Luke,1—* When the days were being fulfilled that he should be received up, he set his face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem.” This statement implies that a journey to Jerusalem demanded unusual resolution, and we may find here the reason why Jesus refrained from going up to the feasts. He may have felt all along that, if he went, he must take his life in his hands, and that the time was not come for the death-struggle. He who gave such offence by breaking the law of the Sabbath would have no scruple in keeping away from one or two feasts, and this is all that we have to account for within the period allowed by the Synoptists. He might naturally seek to establish his position in Galilee before venturing to assail the capital, and it is doubtful whether the hierarchy would have submitted so long to the vehement attacks which, according to the Fourth Gospel, he made upon their authority. All these indications are confirmed by the evident belief of Matthew that Jesus was not known in Jerusalem except by repute; for he tells us that, “when he entered Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? and the multitudes [that is, those who were coming up to the feast, and escorting him] said, This is the prophet Jesus, he from Nazareth of Galilee.” It appears, then, that although the Synoptical ‘accounts do not actually contradict the Fourth Gospel, they belong to a cirele of tradition in which it was believed that Jesus paid only one public visit to Jerusalem, and it is not easy to explain the existence of this tradition except on the supposition of its truth, aE G3: 2 xxi, 10-11. re THE VISITS TO JERUSALEM 45 _ But how are we to explain the statements which seem to run counter to this evidence? Christ’s acquaintance with people in or near Jerusalem presents no difficulty whatever ; for, to say nothing of the fact that people from Jerusalem visited Galilee for the express purpose of hearing Jesus, he himself must have been, and probably was, often in Jerusalem before his public ministry. The only semblance of evidence is contained in the exclamation, “How often would I have _ gathered thy children together.”? Of this some rather forced explanations have been suggested. Some understand by the children of Jerusalem the Jews generally; but I think Bleek ᾿ justly considers this inconsistent with the context. Others 4 think that the repeated attempts may have been made during ie the final visit to Jerusalem, or during the visit in Judexa mentioned in Matthew xix. 1 and Mark x. 1; but the exclama- 4 tion surely implies a yearning and an opposition extending | ; over a longer time. Another suggestion is that the words are oa quotation from a lost book called “The Wisdom of God,” ξ which is mentioned in Luke xi. 49 as the source of the words ᾿ which in Matthew precede the appeal to Jerusalem? But if Ba book is really referred to, which seems very doubtful, the 4 quotation apparently ends before the appeal, for the latter is ? placed by Luke in a different connection. But may we not q find the real solution in a proper interpretation of the words ? Jesus does not say, How often have I come up hither, and Ἷ appealed to you in vain, but, How often did I wish to gather thy children together, and ye did not wish it. Need this 7 imply more than that he often wished to come to Jerusalem and save its people from the impending ruin, but he knew that there was no willingness to receive or follow him? And = Mi. iv. 25, Xv. 1. 2 Mt. xxiii. 37; LK. xiii. 34. 3 This view is adopted by Dr Martineau, The Seat of Authority in _ Religion, 1890, pp. 342-3. ΠῚ > i & 5 46 HOW FAR HISTORICAL now he was coming, aware of the opposition that awaited hi:n,} but resolved to make his protest, and incur no blame for tae approaching desolation. I am afraid, then, that the symptoms of a hidden agreement between the Synopties and John vanish on a closer scrutiny. We have still to observe that early ecclesiastical traditions | though not unanimous, still to a great extent favours the synoptical view. The Valentinians confined the ministry of Christ to one year, although they made use of the Fourth Gospel. Irenseus entirely dissents, appealing to John and to the Johannine tradition! The Clementine Homilies* assumed that Christ associated with his disciples for a whole year, which the writer is contrasting with a brief appearance in a vision, so that a longer time would have suited him still better, Tertullian 8 says that Christ suffered in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, when he was about thirty years old, thus completely departing from the view of Irenzeus. Clement of Alexandria, assuming that he preached only a year, shows how this was agreeable to the prophecy, “ He sent me to preach the accept- able year of the Lord.” Origen® says that he taught a year and a few months.° The tradition that he was crucified in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, in the consulship of the Gemini, is found as late as Lactantius? and Augustine’ Now this ΕἸ 1], iii. 3, IL. xx. 1, xxii. 1-6. 2 xvii. 19 ; also the Recogn. iv. 35. — 3 Adv. Jud. vill. 4 Strom., 1. p. 407, Potter. ᾿ 5 De Princip., iv. 5. > 6 In Contra Celsum, ii. 12, he seems influenced by the J ohanniie chronology,—é δὲ Ἰούδας παρὰ τῷ Ἰησοῦ οὐδὲ τρία διέτριψεν ἔτη. He says, “fere annos tres,” in the Series veteris interpretationts commentarvorum in Mat.,§ 40. But in In Levit. Hom., ix. 5, p. 351, he says, “per totum annv’n/ erat cum populo,” explaining it to be the year which he himself called “the acceptable year of the Lord.” I owe these references to Dr Abbot, as below. | Τ᾿ Inst. Div., iv. 10; De Mort. Pers., 2. ; 8. De Civ. Dei, xviii. 54. Elsewhere Augustine appears to accept a ministry of some years’ duration,—“ postea [1.6., after the baptism] quot annos in hae x} y ὴ ἢ THE LAST SUPPER 47 view is in such obvious contradiction to the Fourth Gospel that we are obliged to assume the existence of a tradition which was too well grounded to be easily displaced, and it is one more evidence that men who fully accepted the Johannine authorship of that Gospel still believed that its statements _ ; were not always to be understood literally. On the whole, : then, I am obliged to conclude that_in regard-to this-marked | : divergence from the older accounts, the historical balance inclines against the Gospel of John. If the writer himself intended his work to be interpreted in the spirit and not in the letter, he would have no hesitation in departing from the tradition, and, indeed, may have thought that the more he ran counter to it, the less likely was he to be misunderstood. From this point of view there would be an obvious propriety in removing the chief controversies to Jerusalem. The next point, in which many critics believe that thes Fourth Gospel has a decided advantage over the Synoptics, relates to the date of the Last Supper and of Christ’s death. Tt has been the prevalent opinion that, whereas the Synoptists represent Jesus as partaking of the regular Passover, and therefore place the crucifixion on the 15th of Nisan, John transfers the death to the 14th, and consequently does not describe a Passover meal. The decisive passage for the Johannine view is xviii. 28, “They themselves did not enter ‘nto the Preetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might vat the Passover.”” Eating the Passover is a phrase which cannot be legitimately extended to the feast of unleavened vita egerit,” may be known from the record of his actions: De Doct. Christ., xviii. A great number of references to other writers who limited the ministry to one year are given by Dr Ezra Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: External Evidence. Boston, 1880, p. 73, note. 1 Keim lays great stress on the ecclesiastical tradition, and gives the references, Gesch. Jesu, 111. 495 sqq. 2 Φάγωσι τὸ πάσχα. 48 HOW FAR HISTORICAL bread, and therefore marks a time before the Paschal lamb was slain—that is, not later than the 14th Nisan. This statement must determine the meaning of the expression, “the preparation of the Passover.”* The words, considered apart from the context, might mean “ Friday (the day of preparation for the Sabbath) in the Passover week”; but the general tenor of the narrative shows that they referred to the day of preparation for the Passover. Moreover, it would have been quite sufficient to say that the day was Friday without any reference to the Passover, and, indeed, there seems no reason for specifying the day at ' all in this particular passage, except to indicate the co- incidence of the crucifixion with the slaughter of the Paschal lamb. Bretschneider thinks that the statement of the Fourth Gospel is a pure blunder, due to the writer’s ignorance of the Jewish mode of reckoning days. With the Jews, day began at sunset; and accordingly the Paschal lamb was eaten in the evening of the 15th day of the month, which with us is the” evening of the 14th. The writer reckoned the day as’ beginning at midnight or sunrise; and, accordingly, if the crucifixion took place on the 15th, and the Passover was eaten on the 15th, the latter event must, in his opinion, have come after, and not before, the crucifixion. This, he admits, is conjecture, but it is a conjecture which simply and entirely removes all difficulties.’ Westcott endeavours to harmonize the Synoptics with John by suggesting that they used the word “preparation” in the same sense; that it was on the evening of the 13th of Nisan, which, with the Jews, was the beginning of the 14th, that the disciples asked Jesus where they should make ready the Passover; and that they then went immediately, and 1 John xix. 14. 2 Probabtlia, pp. 106 sqq. : | THE LAST SUPPER 49 _ prepared a meal which was partaken of that same evening, ᾿ and which “became the Paschal meal of that. year, when the events of the following morning rendered the regular Passover impossible.” In regard to several expressions, however, it is conceded that “if these words stood alone, there can be no doubt that we should explain them of the Paschal meal taken at the legal time.” ! Among other attempts to bring the Synoptical Gospels, or at least their source, into agreement with John, the most striking is that of Chwolson.? He takes as the fundamental passage Mt. xxvi. 17, “On the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying, Where wilt thou that we pre- pare for thee to eat the Passover?” He points out that this statement contains an impossibility, for the first day of un- leavened bread was the 15th of Nisan, whereas the preparation for the Passover was on the 14th. This difficulty is removed by the plausible supposition that the error arose from overlooking the repetition of four letters in the original Aramaic Gospel,— a sort of oversight, with which those who are acquainted with manuscripts are quite familiar. The effect may be presented to the English reader thus: “The first day of unleavened bread - drew near, drew near the disciples to Jesus.”? In reading there should be a pause after the first “drew near”; but where no _ punctuation was used, this might be overlooked. If, then, we omit the first “drew near,” we have the exact statement of the Greek Matthew, “The first day of unleavened bread drew 1 Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 339 sqq. 2 Das letzte Passwmahl Christi u. der Tag seines Todes, nach den win Uebereinstimmung gebrachten Berichten der Synoptiker u. des Evangeliwm Johannis. Published in the Mémoires de l Académie impériale des sciences de St Pétersbourg, viie Série, Tome xli., no. 1, 1892. There is an excellent account of this, with some criticism, in the Jewish Quarterly Review, 1893, Pp. 680 sqq. 5. The Aramaic suggested runs thus :—m ΠΥΡΌΣ 1237p) 2ῚΡ Ν᾿ ΘΘῚ ΝΡ NOY 278) pr 4 50 HOW FAR HISTORICAL near the disciples to Jesus.”' This conjecture removes one great difficulty ; but in order to reconcile the Synoptics with John, it is necessary to suppose that this primary error has affected Mark and Luke, which were altered by a Gentile Christian, who was unacquainted with Jewish usages.? The original view of the writers appears in the determination of the authorities not to kill Jesus during the festival? It is not, however, necessary to follow this subject here into greater detail. Sufficient has been said to show that the representation in the first three Gospels is not altogether above the reach of criticism. The impossibility involved in the statement of Matthew xxvi. 17 is removed by Belser in another way. He thinks that the Greek, under the influence Ὁ of a Semitic original, was intended to mean “on the day before the feast of unleavened bread,” that is, on the 13th of Nisan, and quotes Euthymius in support of this interpretation.+ Chrysostom, again, understands Luke’s ἦλθε de ἡ ἡμέρα as meaning that the day was at hand, and this view is supported by the Sahidic translation. These interpretations seem forced, and could be resorted to only as desperate expedients for the removal of a difficulty. They are followed by the further improbability that Jesus deliberately partook of the Paschal meal on the wrong day, and that, accordingly, the lamb must _ have been slain privately, and not in the Temple. Chwolson’s; suggestions, the soundness of which must be determined by rabbinical scholars, completely remove the latter difficulty. Having cited the authorities, he concludes that at the time of | 1 Chwolson thinks that the sentence, having become faulty, was emended by prefixing 3 to xe» ; but perhaps this was not required any more than in English : see the Jewish Quarterly, l.c., p. 682. aSP Eas 3 Mt. xxvi. 5, MK. xiv. 2. 4 See his article, “ Der Tag des letzten Abendmahls u. des Todes Jesu” in the Theologische Quartalschrift, 1896, viertes Quartalheft, pp. 566 sqq. 5 Ibid., p. 570 sq. 6 Tbid., p. 572 sqq. THE LAST SUPPER SI the crucifixion the lamb was offered between sunset and dark The Sabbath, he thinks, extending from Friday evening to Saturday evening, included the hours for the offering of the lambs. According to the Halacha of that time, the Passover gave way to the Sabbath, and not, as at a later period, the Sabbath to the Passover; that is to say, as the lambs could not be offered at the legal time, on Friday evening, they were offered on Thursday evening. Then the question arose, When should the lamb be eaten? Nothing, according to the law, was to be left till the morning. But this might be differently interpreted. Some might understand the morning to be always that of the 15th; so that the lamb, though it had to be prepared in anticipation, might, nevertheless, be eaten at the right time. This rule, Chwolson thinks, was followed by the authorities, so that their festival had not begun at the time of the crucifixion, and nevertheless, the priests were at liberty, since the lamb had been already offered. Others supposed that the lamb must be eaten on the night which immediately followed the offering, and so Jesus, who adopted this view, ate the Passover on the Thursday evening. These 1 Pp. 32 sqq. Iken adopted the view that there was a double celebration that year, owing to a difference in reckoning the day of the month. This is pronounced by Schtirer, without discussion, to be an “unmégliche Ansicht” (Ueber φαγεῖν τὸπάσχα. Giessen, 1883, p. 9). He does not, how- ever, touch on the reason for a double celebration, which is suggested by Chwolson. Josiah Pratt also advocated the hypothesis of a double cele- bration, based on the uncertainty of the first day of the lunar month. See his articles in the Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, Jan. and Oct. 1863, and Jan. 1866. The Rev. J. C. Lambert (in an article on “The Passover and the Lord’s Supper,” in the Journal of Theological Studies, Jan. 1903) refers to another form of this view. The Rev. Matthew Power, S.J., he says, has a theory that there was a hidden rule of the Jewish Calendar- ists which is known as “ Badhu,” according to which the Passover never falls on a Friday (z.¢., it was not eaten on Thursday evening, when the Jewish Friday began) ; and when it was foreseen that the Passover would fall on a Friday, one day was added to the eighth month of the preceding year. This happened in the year of Christ’s death, but Christ chose to keep the 52 HOW FAR HISTORICAL suggestions certainly render the course of events quite intelli- gible, and add greatly to the weight of the arguments in favour of the Johannine chronology.! The best attempts which I know to bring John into harmony with the Synoptists are made by Norton? and J. B. M‘Clellan.* The same view is supported by Edersheim, who states that, though entering the Pretorium would have made a man unclean till the evening, it would not have disqualified him for partaking of the Paschal Supper, which was eaten when a new day had begun, but that it would have disqualified him for eating of the sacrifice called Chagigah, which was offered on the first Paschal day immediately after the morning service. He states that the term Pesach was applied not only to the Paschal Lamb, but to all the Passover sacrifices, especially to the Chagigah.* It is difficult to see, however, why a writer should choose so misleading a phrase, and the weight of opinion among Talmudic scholars seems decisively against this interpretation.’ Chwolson, referring to Kirchner, says that the latter has misinterpreted the passages in the Talmud which he cites to show that np» is used of other offer- ings than the lamb. He further states that it is incorrect Passover on the proper Scriptural day (p. 192). On this suggestion I can offer no opinion. 1 A thoughtful paper by the Rev. G. H. Box, read before the Society of Historical Theology in 1901, suggests that the last supper was not a Pass- over, but the ceremony of Kiddfish, which was observed before the Sabbath, and also in preparation for the great festivals. 2 A Translation of the Gospels, with notes, 1855, vol. ii. ; notes on John XVili. 28 and xix. 14. ; 3 The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, vol. i. The Four Gospels, 1875, pp. 473 sq. 4 The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1883, ii. pp. 565 sg. On the other side, see Schiirer, Ueber φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα. 5 See Belser, l.c., p. 539, and the full discussion in Schiirer, where, also, the older literature of the subject is referred to. ¢ L.c., 10. 56. —— τ ν- THE LAST SUPPER 63 to suppose that the uncleanness caused by entering the Preetorium would cease in the evening. Contact with or proximity to a grave made a man unclean for seven days. The dwellings of Gentiles in Palestine, as being virtually foreign soil, rendered unclean; and since, as often happened, a child prematurely born might be buried in the house, the uncleanness lasted for seven days, unless it was certainly _ known that there was no hidden grave. This rule applies only to Palestine, because in a foreign country the houses were no worse than the entire land. As a result of this whole investigation, it seems to me to be established that, if the Gospels are to be harmonized, the Synoptics must yield to John, and not John to the Synoptics. According to the present texts, however, they present us with different dates for the last supper, and both dates can claim the support of ardent advocates. Among others Bleek? argues with great force and earnestness that John’s account is intrinsically much more probable than that of the other Gospels*; and Keim, who takes the opposite view, replies with care and learning. We must briefly review the argu- ments on each side, which are relied upon by these and other writers. The 15th Nisan was a holy day, in which, as on the Sabbath, no work was to be done, except at least the preparation of food.5 All the later notices show that this law was strictly observed, and must have been in force in the time of Jesus. 1 Lc, pp. 57 sq. The duration of the uncleanness is also pointed out | by Schiirer, /.c., p. 23 sq. 2 Hinlett., p. 303 sq. 8 More recently the same view is maintained by Wendt, Das Johannesev., pp. 11 sg., and by Ε΄. Spitta, Die urchrist. Tradationen diber Ursprung u. Sinn des Abendmahls, 1893, in Zur Gesch. u. Lit. des Urehrist. 1. 4 Gesch. Jesu, iii, 469 sqq. J. Réville also’ argues on the same side, Le quat. Evang., pp. 281 sqq. 5 Ex. xii. 16: in Lev. xxiii. 7, Num. xxviii. 18, no exception is mentioned. 54 HOW FAR HISTORICAL There are, therefore, three improbabilities in the Synoptic narrative: first, that the Sanhedrim should send an armed band against Jesus immediately after the sacred meal, especially as arms might not be carried on the Sabbath; secondly, that the meeting of the Sanhedrim should be held in the same night, for it was not allowable to hold a court on the Sabbath ; thirdly, that Jesus should be crucified on the 15th, for the Jews would think this a desecration of the day. In reply to this, Keim points out that according to ancient law and custom, executions for the honour of God might take place on a Sabbath day. Matthew and Mark, whether their — account be correct or not, must have known the Jewish custom, and they betray no consciousness of difficulty in their narrative. This is, 1 think, Keim’s strongest argument; but it disappears if Matthew and Mark, in their earliest form, presented a different chronology. Some others are not quite accurate. He says that James the brother of John was executed at the Passover by command of the Pharisaic king Agrippa 1.1 But Acts gives no date for the execution. It only says that when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, and put him in prison, intending to bring him before the people after the Passover. Notwithstanding Keim’s opinion, I think the natural inference is that Agrippa thought the feast an unsuit- able occasion for killing Peter. Keim also states that, accord- — ing to the testimony of Hegesippus, James, the brother of the Lord, was slain during the Passover.2 The historian says, no doubt, that the people were assembled for the Passover, but he does not say that the festival had actually begun. More important is the statement that R. Akiba, referring to | Deuteronomy xvii. 13, which enjoined publicity in the case of executions, declared that certain criminals should be brought 1 Acts ΧΙ. I sqq. - 2 Eus., H. £., ii. 23. THE LAST SUPPER 55 to Jerusalem at one of the three great feasts, in order to be executed before the eyes of the whole assembled people. This shows that the later laws had not driven out the old view that such proceedings did service to God; and Keim thinks that the later commands in the Talmud are attempts to enforce the stricter requirements of Shammai against the milder practice of Hillel, which prevailed in the days of Jesus. But it is pointed out by Chwolson that the passage in the Mishnah bearing on this subject refers generally to the festival, and does not sanction an execution on the first or the seventh day, which were peculiarly holy... To the suggestion that the execution of Jesus on the holy day may have been due to an outbreak of fanatical zeal, Bleek answers that this will not apply to the case of the two thieves. We may, however, suppose that they were crucified by the Romans, without the interference of the Jews; but, then, on the other hand, it is not likely that the Romans would have offered such a needless insult to Jewish feeling. Keim further contends that what- ever difficulty may still remain is lightened by the fact that the Passover itself was finished, and the night was less sacred than the day; that the trial was hurried through very early in the morning, and that the execution itself was handed over to the Romans. The difficulty still remains that. the Sanhedrim would not have met, and exercised judicial functions, on the morning of the 15th; for even if men were executed for the glory of God during the feast, they may have been condemned beforehand. But it is evident that the authorities were driven by their fears to carry the business through with unseemly haste, and they may have thought that an act of such piety and necessity would justify a proceeding to which some legal objection might be taken. 1 See Mishnah, Synedrion, x. 4 (in Surenhusius, Part iv., p. 258), where the expression is simply 5:3. 56 HOW FAR HISTORICAL Réville escapes from the difficulty by supposing, contrary to the text of all three Synoptics,! that there was not a regular assembly of the Sanhedrin, but only a private meeting of some priests and doctors of the law.? Bleek further thinks it improbable that the spices should be prepared, and Jesus buried, on the 15th; but these might be allowed as. works of necessity. His reference to Simon of Cyrene as returning from his labour in the field is an over-statement; for we are only told that he was coming from the country, and there is nothing to suggest that he was engaged in labour. The allusions to the day of the crucifixion as παρασκευή in Matt. xxvii. 62, Mark xv. 42, Luke xxiii. 54, cannot be used in evidence, for this does not mean the pre- paration of the Passover, but the preparation for the Sabbath, as Mark indeed takes the trouble to explain, ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον. Paul, referring to the Lord’s Supper, says it was instituted on the night in which Jesus was betrayed, instead of mentioning the night of the Passover; but his further account seems to accord with the regular Paschal meal? He calls Christ “our Passover”*; but he might use this figure even if the crucifixion took place on the 15th. The somewhat conflicting appearances are, however, completely reconciled by Chwolson’s hypothesis. The Jewish tradition, as contained in the Talmud, is that Jesus was put to death on the day before the Passover. But it is hard to say whether this is independent of Christian opinion; and it was a very common opinion among Christians that Christ, as the true Paschal Lamb, must have been slain on the 14th. The authorities will be given when we deal with the Paschal controversy. 1 “Ὅλον τὸ συνέδριον, Mk. xiv. 55; Mt. xxvi. 59; Lk. xxii. 66. 2 Le quat. Evang., p. 282. 3 1 Cor. xi. 23 sqq. * 1 Conv Fe — - τςισυ ν THE LAST SUPPER 57 Lastly, Bleek contends that an error on the part of the Synoptics is easily explained. If Christ made use of the last common meal for the institution of the Lord’s Supper in memory of his death, and brought this into some connec- tion with the Old Testament Passover, the supposition would easily arise that he held this common meal on the legal Passover evening, though in fact it took place a day earlier. On the other hand, those who defend the synoptical account maintain that the author of the Fourth Gospel had a dog- matic reason for altering the day, for he wished to dissociate the Christian festival from the Jewish, and to represent Christ as the true Paschal Lamb. To this it is replied that the writer nowhere speaks of Christ as the Paschal Lamb, and certainly gives only the vaguest and most uncertain hints that he had any such conception. The text most relied upon! may refer to Psalm xxxiv. 20, and not to the law against breaking a bone of the Lamb. This view is favoured by the reading of the Septuagint, οὐ συντριβήσεται, whereas the reading in Exodus xii. 46 is οὐ συντρίψετε, and in Numbers ix. 12 οὐ συντρίψουσιν. We have, however, seen that Christ was regarded as the Christian Passover (that is, as the Paschal Lamb) as early as the time of Paul, and we know that this view prevailed at a much later period, so that the writer might alter the day of crucifixion, not in order to establish a new view, but to adapt his picture to one already prevalent. If this was the case, it was not necessary for him to be very explicit in his language. On the other hand it is remarkable that he lays no stress even on the date, but allows it to come out quite casually, so that it might without difficulty escape the notice of an ordinary reader. This mode 1 xix. 36, ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται αὐτοῦ. 2 The evidence will be given in the ehapter on the Quartodeciman controversy. 58 HOW FAR HISTORICAL of treatment suggests rather an allusion to a familiar fact 7 than an attempt to alter the accepted history in a dogmatic interest. ~ Appeal has also been made to astronomical calculations. The time of appearance of the new moon, which fixed the first day of the month, can be ascertained for any given year. Now it appears that in the year 30 the first day of the month was Saturday, the moon not being visible till Friday even- ing, which with the Jews was the beginning of the day. Accordingly, if the crucifixion took place in that year, and on a Friday, it must have been on the 14th day of the month, and the Johannine account is correct. The times have been calculated for the years 27-36, within which the crucifixion must have taken place; and out of these there is only one- year, 34, in which the crucifixion, if on a Friday, could have been on the 15th; and in this year there is a doubt both as to the Passover month, and as to the day on which it began, for the conjunction of the moon occurred on March 9, which may fix the month too early, and on April 7 at one p.m., and the hour leaves it uncertain whether the moon would be first seen on the evening of Thursday or Friday.! I think we may assume that the day of the crucifixion was Friday, although Westcott tries to prove that it was Thursday,? but our uncertainty about the year prevents us from deciding our question by astronomical tables. If we endeavour to isolate this question, and settle it on its own merits, I cannot but think that the balance of evidence is distinctly in favour of the Fourth Gospel. The narrative of John, if taken by itself, does not lie open to objection, nor does it exhibit in any marked degree the signs of theological 1 See Salmon, Historical Introduction to the sia of the Books of the New Testament, pp. 315-17 2 Introduction to the ‘Study of the Gospels, pp. 344-5. JOHN THE BAPTIST 59 prepossession. Indeed, the doctrinal interest is absent precisely where we might most reasonably expect to find it: for the writer omits an account of the last supper, as though he were quite satisfied with the histories already in circulation, instead of modifying the accepted narrative, so as to sever that sacred meal from the Jewish ritual, and impress it with an exclusively Christian character. On the other hand, the synoptical record is not without difficulties, which them- selves suggest the alteration of an earlier account. Chwolson shows that the text of John is exactly adapted toa state of things which came to an end about 60 A.D., or after the destruction of the Temple, and which were not likely to be known at the end of the first century to a writer who was not a member of one of the rabbinical schools.’ If this be correct, the evangelist must either have written from his personal knowledge of the circumstances or have had access to some trustworthy historical source. The picture of John the Baptist differs widely from that“ given in the Synoptics. There, as well as in Josephus,’ he is the energetic preacher of righteousness, whereas in our Gospel he utters the familiar sentiments of the writer. It is true that several features of the synoptical account have been preserved, and some things have been added, which present no serious difficulty. The difference may be in part explained by the purpose of the author, which is to record the _ “testimony” which the Baptist bore to Christ. But the other Gospels are not silent about this testimony, and it assumes in them quite another character. There the coming one is distinguished by his superior strength, and by the fan 1See p. 59 for the prescriptions about cleanness and uncleanness, and pp. 66 sq. for “ the great Sabbath,” the Sabbath in Easter week, so called at a _ time when it was regarded as the first of the fifty days up to Pentecost. | 2 Ant., XVIII. v. 2. 60 HOW FAR HISTORICAL with which he will cleanse his threshing floor. He is indeed of far higher worth than John, and will baptize with the Holy Spirit; but nothing is said of his person, and, though it is stated that John recognized his superior in Jesus, it is not alleged that he made any explicit declaration of belief in him. In the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, Jesus is fully made known to John by the vision of the Spirit descending upon him, and is in consequence pronounced to be the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, and also the Son οὗ. God. In the other accounts the designation of the Son of God is ascribed to a voice from heaven, but is not put into the ~ mouth of the Baptist. Now it is quite conceivable that a few | of the disciples of John may have been drawn to Jesus, not only by their own intercourse with him on the banks of the Jordan, but by the testimony of their master, who recognised in Jesus a grandeur and purity of character which might | mark him out as the future Messiah; and one of these é disciples, looking back through more than half a lifetime, — might gratefully suppose that the words of his earliest teacher must have been far more explicit than they really- were, and contained, at least in germ, all that had since grown ‘ to maturity in his thought. But the account, as it st&nds, 15. hard to reconcile with historical probability; for if J ohn 7 had made the complete declaration of faith which is ascribed to him, he would have become a disciple of Jesus, instead of Ἷ continuing his labour as though the Messiah had not really appeared, and it would scarcely have been possible for a body 5 ᾿ of his own disciples to linger on, as they did, for a considerable Ἶ period outside the Christian fold. I am, then, driven to the conclusion that the Baptist of the Fourth Gospel, who is so like the evangelist in his thought and speech, is less historical than the rugged and vigorous denouncer of wickedness, the ΤΕΥ Ὁ» 30. 5 is sa) THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE 61 declarer of a mighty Messiah, who would winnow out men like chaff, the marked and ascetic personality which stands out in such bold relief in the short record of the other Gospels. Another prominent difference between the Johannine Gospel and the Synoptics is in the place assigned to the cleansing of the Temple. Few, I suppose, would now apply the remedy of the harmonists, and maintain that the same event occurred twice; but opinions may reasonably diverge as to the prob- ability of the one or the other account. To me it seems that the historical verisimilitude is wholly on the side of the Synoptics. They present an intelligible picture of the course i of events, in their dependence one upon another as effect and cause. The opposition between Jesus and the authorities has been growing in intensity, and he goes up to Jerusalem, fully conscious of the hazard which he is incurring, to bear his _ testimony against mere external and legal righteousness, and the substitution of ritual for holiness. His reputation as a ) great prophet has preceded him, and he enters the city escorted by an exulting multitude. In these circumstances .he assumes the right of a prophet, or of a greater than a prophet, and clears the Temple of its profane traffic, and apparently no resistance is offered, for his right to command is for the moment recognized, and the temper of his followers is not yet known. The authorities are paralyzed, for the enthusiasm of the multitude runs high, and violent measures might be dangerous. So they try to bring him into discredit by proposing ingenious and difficult questions. Foiled in this, they engage the services of the traitor, seize Jesus in the middle of the night, hurry through a sort of trial, and per- suade Pilate to send him off to execution before the city was well awake and aware of what was being done,—for the multitudes of which we hear were doubtless partisans of the 62 HOW FAR HISTORICAL Sanhedrim. Thus we have a coherent succession of events leading to the final catastrophe. But it is most improbable that Jesus could have succeeded in cleansing the Temple, if he had appeared there as an utterly unknown youth, with no following but one or two obscure friends. Even if we can imagine something so commanding and impressive in his personal appearance and manner that the traders would slink away for shame, and offer no resistance to the overthrow of their money-tables (and this is very hard to imagine), would not the authorities have at once arrested him, instead of placidly asking for a sign, and being quite content when none was exhibited? If it be said that it is very difficult to account for the transference of this incident from the end to the beginning of Christ’s ministry except by the supposition © that that is its true historical place, it is equally difficult to account for its improper transference from the beginning to the end. The latter can hardly have arisen from mere mis- take, for the fact must have been perfectly well known to the first group of disciples, and the last visit to Jerusalem is ( precisely the part of Christ’s life that is related with the fullest detail, and with the most obvious signs of adequate information. But neither is there any discoverable motive for — such a modification of the genuine tradition. On the other ‘hand we have already seen reason to believe that the writer ‘of the Fourth Gospel was not wholly guided by historical considerations, and he may have wished to impress his readers from the first with the Messianic authority of Jesus, and his resistance to the corruption of the national worship. He may also have felt that this incident would bea disturbing element in the later portion of his narrative, for he: there gives a completely new representation of the course of events. Thus we are brought to the question of the raising of Lazarus. THE RAISING OF LAZARUS 63 We need not concern ourselves here with the question of miracles, but confine ourselves to purely historical considera- tions. Negative evidence is proverbially weak, and every student will come across very curious instances of omission which are not due to ignorance, and are very difficult to explain. But while fully aware of this, I always find myself strongly impressed by the silence of the Synopties respecting this greatest of the miracles. In regard to particular narratives, we may sometimes treat the Synoptics as practically one witness, but we cannot do so in the case of omissions, because each evangelist communicates facts _ which are omitted by the others. We have therefore three independent omissions of a miracle, which, though not included in the last visit, is closely connected with it, and prepares the way for the closing scene. Luke’s omission is the more noticeable because he is acquainted with Mary and Martha, and bestows particular attention on the journey to Jerusalem. The accounts, though to a certain extent fragmentary, nevertheless present a sufficiently connected and intelligible picture, and leave no large empty space for _ the insertion of this crowning and decisive sign. This silence may have had some good reason with which we are not acquainted, but I cannot think of any which to my mind _ appears at all satisfactory. If this miracle of the resurrection _ and the life was really wrought, it was wrought as a sign to the world, and would have been proclaimed on the house- _ tops wherever Christianity uttered its voice. But setting the Synopties aside, John’s account does not fall in with the probabilities of history. If men had really witnessed this stupendous exercise of supernatural power, and not doubted its reality (for no such doubt is suggested), would they still _ have withheld even a formal belief from Jesus? Would they 7-20 have gone off to tell the Pharisees? Would the Pharisees, 64 ; HOW FAR HISTORICAL believing that Jesus had actually raised the dead, have determined on that account to kill him? Still more, would they have intended to put Lazarus also to death, to punish him for being raised, and thereby causing so many Jews to believe? All this is more like a land of dreams than of waking reality ; and when we remember that it is practically a repudiation of the older story, it is difficult to suppose that we have an actual history before us. But if it be designed to set forth in a vivid and picturesque form the truth that Jesus is the resurrection and the life, and by his commanding spiritual authority raised the dead from the grave of moral corruption, and released them from the stifling grasp of © Pharisaic teaching, then history returns in a new guise. This deeper spirit of life in Christ, this power of kindling other souls, was precisely what the Pharisees most feared and hated. It was this that men could witness with hearts still untouched, and they could not but desire to lay their benumbing influence once more on those who had risen into the new life of the sons of God, and were the living | proofs of Christ’s transcendent power. Thus we have, if © not history in the ordinary sense, an interpretation of history which pierces into the hidden thoughts and motives of men} On a survey, then, both of the speeches and the events, I © cannot help siding with those who attribute a lower historical value to the Fourth Gospel than to the Synoptics, and 1 In addition to works already mentioned, the reader may consult Dr Paul Ewald’s Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu_ seiner Lésung, 1890. This little work attempts to explain why so much Johannine material is omitted in the synoptical account, on the supposition - that both alike are historical. In my opinion it fails to explain why the collective tradition of the primitive Church was so exclusively Galilean, — and why Luke, who confessedly goes beyond the two early sources, is so silent about events and teaching recorded in John. CONCLUSION 65 believing, with the earlier tradition, that it is to be accepted more in the spirit than in the letter. And indeed I am not sure that we do not all so accept it to a much greater extent than we are aware. As mere outward marvels its events have little interest for us, and we should miss its deepest lessons if we did not penetrate to the spiritual meaning which the events are intended to embody. Nor should we be content with this biography if it stood alone. To those of us who prize it most it is an interpretation of a life already known from other sources. It contains profound and grandly spiritual suggestions, and exhibits ideas and motives and principles; but if we ask for a justification to ourselves of the high claims made by Jesus, and consider why his loving words affect us so strongly, I think we find the answer, not in the book itself, but in the Synoptics. Throughout a large part of the work we seem to wander amid majestic thoughts and expositions, but hardly to come into contact with a living man ; and if we analyse our own state of mind as we read, we discover that he who is present to us, and whose grace and _ truth we feel, is the speaker of the parables and the beatitudes ; _ the friend of publicans and sinners; the man who proffered _ tender encouragement to the penitent,and rebuked self- _ satisfied hypocrisy; who went about doing good, careless sy of his own ease and comfort; who prayed alone upon the h " 4 mountains; who loved the fields and the flowers; who blessed the little children, and sympathized with the falling sparrow. It is to him that we cheerfully accord the greatness and the _ high communion in which our Gospel finds the secret of his _ power; it is with him that we wish to be in vital union, that : we too may have the spirit of a divine humanity; it is as coming from him that his words of promise and of peace so deeply move us, and it is because he has made his way into _ our hearts that we are not offended at hearing that he is the 5 66 HOW FAR HISTORICAL light of the world, and the giver of life, for so our illumined and quickened hearts have said. Thus this Gospel supplements the others, not so much by correcting or amplifying their record, as by tracing the eternal laws of spiritual life which they exemplify, and bringing the life of Christ into its world- wide relations. ; ate : - . ᾿ ω ΝΣ "“Ὶ“..-..- -ὀ BOOK II AUTHORSHIP INTRODUCTION THE traditional view of the authorship of the Gospel is that it was composed and published by the Apostle John in his old age at. Ephesus.1 If we except a few insignificant ob- jectors, this view was held with undoubting confidence from the closing years of the second century (if not earlier) down to modern times. The earliest formal attack was made by Edward Evanson in 1792, in his work entitled, The Dissonance (of the four generally recewed Evangelists and the Evidence of their respective authenticity examined. This was followed ‘in Germany by some works on the same side, which obtained ‘no lasting celebrity. The first serious and able criticism, ‘maintaining the negative view, is to be found in Bret- schneider’s Probabilia de Evangel et Epistolarum Joannis _Apostola Indole et Origine, published in 1820, and written in Latin, as the author assures us, that he might not give any 1 Several manuscripts append a note that it was written thirty or thirty- two years after the ascension (see Tischendorf). But no such precise state- ‘ment occurs in our ancient authorities, and we can hardly attach any weight to it. 67 68 HISTORY OF OPINIONS offence to the “ unlearned plebs,” and that his book might be read by foreign theologians.’ In this work all the main lines of attack are already laid down, and the conclusion is reached that the Gospel was fraudulently written by a Gentile in the ' _— ———— τὖὺ- name of John in the beginning or middle of the second century, and that the author most probably lived in Egypt, whence the ~ Gospel was brought to Rome by Gnostics. The arguments were deemed sufficiently formidable to call forth a number of replies; and, as Bretschneider himself retracted his objections, — this encounter ended with the complete triumph of the tra- ditional view. The judgment of Schleiermacher was naturally — given in favour of the apostolic origin of a Gospel which seemed to show the deepest insight into the thought and character of Christ?; but what is more remarkable, so cool — and advanced a critic as Credner also pronounced decisively on the same side.* In this connection we must notice also the important commentary of Liicke.® The next treatise of primary importance, adverse to the claim of apostolical authorship, proceeded from F.C. Baur. His — views were stated first in the Theologische Jahrbiicher, 1844, — and then in his Kritische Untersuchungen tiber die kanon. Evangelien, 1847. He endeavours to show that the entire Gospel is an unfolding of the dogmatic idea of the Logos, | which is formulated in the Proem, and that in subservience to this plan the traditional material is treated without any regard to historical accuracy. The deviations from the Synoptics are due to this cause, and are at the same time 1 Prefatio, pp. V sq. 2 See Liicke, Commentar tiber das Evangelium des Johannes, 3rd-ed., 1840, — i.p. 100. A history of the controversy up to that time is given, pp. 89 sqq. 5 In Reden, Erléuterungen zur fiinften Rede, 14 ; and in his Vorlesungen “hem Einleit. ins N.T. 4 Τὴ his Hinleitung ins N.T., 1836. 5 Commentar uber das Evangelium des Johannes, 1820 ; 3rd ed., 1840. & ZX oe BAUR AND HIS SCHOOL 69 deviations from fact. It follows that the Gospel is not the _ work of an apostle. It is distinguished by Gentile and uni- versal tendencies which we cannot ascribe to John. It pre- supposes the reconciliation of Jewish Christianity and Paulin- ism in the unity of the Catholic Church. It transports us into the times of Gnosticism, Montanism, and the Paschal contro- versy. Consequently, it cannot be of earlier date than the second half of the second century. This view was so extreme that it was unable to secure any very wide acceptance, and for about twenty years those who denied the Johannine authorship were to be found almost exclusively among pupils of Baur or those who had been strongly influenced by his general theory. Among German writers on that side, the best known are Schwegler, Késtlin, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, and Volkmar. In Holland, Scholten maintained that no trace of the Gospel could be found till 170.1 In England I must mention J. J. Tayler, who in 1867 published An Attempt to ascertavn the Character of the Fourth Gospel, especially im tts relation to the first three. He allows that the book originated at Ephesus, and thinks the most probable date is between 135 and 163, that . _ is, between the destruction of the Jewish nation by Hadrian and τ a ee “- ΩΣ ee the death of Papias. The book largely follows the lines laid down by Baur, but it is the result of an independent and careful investigation, and I need hardly say that it is marked by accuracy of scholarship, scrupulous impartiality, and spiritual gentleness and insight.2 Throughout this period the defenders of the Johannine origin of the Gospel, among whom may be mentioned especially Meyer, Bleek, and Luthardt, maintained at the same time its historical accuracy, though the subjective colouring of the speeches was to some extent 1 Die diltesten Zeugnisse betreffend die Schriften des Newen Testamentes, 1867, p. 180, in the German translation by Dr Manchot. 2 Second ed., edited by Dr Martineau, 1870. ψ- »" \ 70 HISTORY OF OPINIONS recognized. Weizsicker! admits more freely the influence of the writer’s point of view on the presentation of his material ; but while defending the J ohannine origin of the book, he ascribes its literary composition, not to the Apostle himself, | but to one of his disciples, who had made notes of his teaching.” The appearance of the first volume of Keim’s Geschichte Jesu, in 1867, may be taken as marking the beginning of a new period. In this work Keim proved himself one of the most strenuous assailants of the genuineness of the Gospel, but at the same time he made a very long retreat from the positions of Baur. He conceded that the Gospel was used by Justin Martyr, and brought back its date to the days of Trajan, 100-117 A.D? He thought it probable that the author was a Jew and not a Gentile, and dismissed as without weight some of the arguments which had been considered adverse to this view. Thus the opponents were brought much nearer to one another, and those who were not under Tiibingen influence began to feel the force of the arguments which were pressed against the apostolic authorship; and many who still defended the genuineness conceded that the author’s point of view and purpose in his composition were not primarily historical. Thus, in Germany at least, the general result of the controversy has been to extend the area of doubt respecting the author- ship, or, if not the authorship, the historical accuracy of the Gospel, and on the other hand to bring the opponents of its genuineness much nearer to the traditional view. In England we have hardly reached this position, but the defenders and impugners of the Johannine authorship present 1 Τὴ his Untersuchungen wber die evangelische Geschichte, 1864. 2 He maintains this view of the composition in his Das Apost. Zeitalter, 1886; 2nd ed., 1890, though with such modifications that he must now be reckoned among the opponents of the genuineness. 3 Afterwards he placed it about 130. —_ Ἷ : ATTACK AND DEFENCE 71 the most strongly contrasted views both of dogma and of history, which are reflected in their judgment of the Gospel. Among the assailants we may name Dr Davidson; the author of Supernatural Religion, and Dr Martineau? Among the defenders are Bishop Lightfoot Bishop Westcott, Professor Sanday,° Dr Salmon,® and Archdeacon Watkins.’ America, too, has contributed a valuable work on the conservative side by Professor Ezra Abbot.® Many other works of more or less importance might be mentioned, but the foregoing sketch may be sufficient to indicate the general drift of opinion. Recent views may be seen in M. Jean Reéville’s Le quatriéme Evangile, Professor Wendt’s Das Johannesevangelium, and Professor Grill’s Untersuchungen iiber die Entstehung des vierten Evan- geluwms. 1 Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 1868 and 1882. 2 The Seat of Authority in Religion, 1890. 3 Internal Evidence for the Authenticity and Genwineness of St John’s Gospel, a Lecture originally prepared eighteen years before his death, and published in the Expositor in 1890; and also passages in his Essays on Supernatural Religion, printed first in the Contemporary Review, and published in a volume in 1889. 4 In The Gospel according to St John, reprinted from The Speaker's Commentary, 1st ed., 1881. 5 Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1872, besides various articles. 6 An Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, 1st ed., 1885. 7 Modern Criticism considered in tts Relation to the Fourth Gospel, being the Bampton Lectures for 1890. 8 The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel; External Evidences. Boston, 1880. A full notice of the literature, up to the date of their publication, is contained in the Bampton Lectures, of which I have made use in the above sketch. I am also indebted to Schiirer, Ueber den gegenwartigen Stand der johannetschen Frage, in the Vortriige der theologischen Konferenz zu Giessen, v. Folge, 1889 ; and to introductions to the New Testament or to John. SECTION I EXTERNAL EVIDENCE CHAPTER I GENERAL STATE OF BELIEF IN THE LATER PART OF THE SECOND CENTURY WE must now proceed to a survey of the evidence bearing on the authorship of the Gospel. It is usually assumed, though it is pure assumption, that the book was published anonymously. For anything we can tell, it may have appeared from the first with its existing title. We do not, however, know that this was the case, and it is certainly possible that the title was not prefixed till the four Gospels were collected into a single composite work.’ Moreover, the title “according to John” does not necessarily imply author- ship, though it does not preclude it, and was commonly understood of authorship in the early Church, the titles signifying the Gospel-story as presented by different writers, whose names are attached. In this state of uncertainty we are necessarily dependent on the readers of the Gospel for our knowledge of the author’s name, and therefore our first duty 1 This supposition would sufficiently explain the phrase apparently quoted from the Alogi by Epiphanius (Her., 11. 18): τὸ δὲ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εἰς ὄνομα Ιωάννου. 72 — δὰ να IRENZUS 73 is to estimate the value of their testimony. We must begin with the period in which our information is sufficiently full and clear. Irenzus, a native of Asia Minor, who was Bishop of Lyons in the last quarter of the second century, is our first witness. He says: “Then [that is after the publication of the other three Gospels] John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, himself also published the Gospel, while he was dwelling at Ephesus in Asia,”1 and he remained in the church at Ephesus till the times of Trajan.? Alluding to heretics, he tells us that “Others, in order to frustrate the gift of the Spirit, which in most recent times according to the _ pleasure of the Father has been poured out on the human _ race, do not admit that form which is according to the Gospel - of John, in which the Lord promised that he would send the _ Paraclete; but they reject at the same time the Gospel and : the prophetic Spirit.”? We must observe that Irenzus does not say that these men questioned the authorship of the ' Gospel. The statement implies no more than that, for dog- _ matic reasons, they did not receive it into their canon; and - the rejection of the reputed authorship of a book, and the ' rejection of its canonical authority, are two very difierent ; things. Irenzus nowhere asserts that anyone denied the _ Johannine authorship of the Gospel. He always assumes the authorship, just as we assume that of any modern work. _ There is no evidence that he ever investigated the question, _ or supposed that there was any question to investigate. The reasonable inference is that he simply repeats the opinion with _which he was familiar from his childhood. He must natur- ally have known many men much older than himself, who ' were able to tell him about the state of things before he was _ born; and this probability is brought more vividly home to ‘ier, Τατὶ 1. 13 2111. iil. 4, Se SE ὁ; 74 BELIEF AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY us when we learn that in his youth he had listened to the discourses of Polycarp, whose memory went back into the first century, and that he succeeded the venerable Pothinus in the bishopric. Some of these points will be discussed in another connection. Tertullian’s testimony is similarin kind. He was converted to Christianity some time before the end of the second century ; and as he simply assumes the genuineness of the Gospel, we may fairly suppose that he represents the current opinion of the time. He made himself acquainted, however, with some of the older literature, and Justin Martyr, among others, is mentioned as a writer whom he particularly wished to follow.? He was, no doubt, in spite of his legal knowledge, a man of hasty and superficial judgment, but he was honest and inde- pendent, and of a temperament that would have made him glory in attacking anyone who denied the authenticity of the Gospel, so that we may justly conclude that for him, as for Ireneus, there was no Johannine question ‘to be considered. Clement of Alexandria, one of the most thoughtful, learned, large-minded, and dispassionate of the early Christian writers, is equally free from doubts of his own, and unaware of others’ doubts. Like Tertullian, he was a convert to Christianity. But he was not content with the wisdom of a single teacher. He travelled in Greece, Magna Grecia, Syria, Egypt, and the East, either for the express purpose of gaining information about Christian teaching, or at least taking advantage of his journeys to hear the most remarkable men, and pick up from them the apostolic tradition? The teacher whom he found most satisfactory he discovered “concealed in Egypt,” a “Sicilian bee, gathering the spoil of the flowers of the pro- 1 For special references, see Adv. Marcionem, iv. 2 and 5s. 2 Adv. Valent., 5. 3 Strom., i. 1. THEOPHILUS: MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 7ς phetic and apostolic meadow.” This was probably Pantzenus, the head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria, whom he has named elsewhere as his teacher. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, in his Apology addressed to Autolycus, quotes verbatim the opening verses of the Fourth Gospel, and ascribes them to John; but he does not say who John was, except that he was one of the inspired, of avevuatopopo. This manner of reference, however, con- fessedly indicates the apostle. The Muratorian Fragment, though of rather uncertain date, belongs to the same period, and contains the earliest extant story about the origin of the Gospel :—“Of the fourth of the Gospels, John, one of the disciples [Johannis ex decipolis. Something seems wanting,—perhaps ‘John is the author,’ or perhaps the words are a sort of heading of a separate extract]. | To his fellow-disciples and bishops exhorting [him] he said, Fast with me for three days from to-day; and whatsoever shall have been revealed to each, let us relate it to one another. On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, that, all reviewing, John should write down all things in his own name. And therefore, although in the single books of the Gospels different principles [or, beginnings] are taught, nevertheless it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by one leading spirit all things are declared in _ all concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, concerning _ the resurrection, concerning the intercourse with his disciples, - and concerning his twofold advent, the one in the humility _ of contempt, which [here something is wanting, equivalent to ‘has taken place’].... the second glorious in regal power which is future. What wonder is it then if John so con- fidently produces single [circumstances] even in his epistles, _ 7 Inthe Institutions, according to Eusebius, H. Εἰ.) v. 11, vi. 13 ; and Photius, 109. ahi κκν 76 BELIEF AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY saying in his own person, ‘ What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with ears, and our hands have handled, these things we have written to you.’ For thus he professes himself not only a seer and hearer, but also a writer of all the wonderful things of the Lord in order.” This narrative has unquestionably a legendary air, and is almost, if not quite, destitute of support. But this legendary account does not prove that the Gospel, like the Shepherd of Hermas, had only appeared very recently, nuperrime tempori- bus nostris, as the author says. In regard to the recent book, we have a plain matter-of-fact statement; and, except on the supposition of deliberate fraud, the legend seems to show that the book had been so long in use in the Church that the real — occasion of its production could no longer be ascertained. The only question of literary importance is this——is there any apparent inconsistency between the legend and the Johannine authorship of the book? Admitting, for the sake of argument, that John wrote this Gospel in his old age, would not this — fact, combined with the supplementary character of the work, ἰ give rise to critical conjectures as to its occasion and object ? And as instances might be produced in which modern criticism presents conjectures as ascertained facts, is it not probable that in that very uncritical age, the second century, conjec- tures may have similarly transformed themselves into legends ? The legend, again, is likely to form itself either on a basis of fact, or at least on a generally accepted belief. Now, if people, when this canon was written, did not generally believe that John was the author of the Gospel, it is extremely difficult to explain how the legend could have arisen. We must, therefore, suppose that the canon represents the pre- vailing belief of the time in regard to the authorship of the Gospel, especially as it is so candid about the Shepherd, and one or two other books. But let us suppose that the belief MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 77 was confined to the writer himself, and that the Gospel had really appeared later than the middle of the second century ; how is it to be explained that the legend seems to take for granted that the book had been long known and used, and does not interweave some supernatural reason for the total concealment of an apostolic book for more than half a century | after the writer’s death? According to some modern theories the Fourth Gospel was first published nwperrime temporibus nostris, perhaps later even than the Shepherd itself ; and if it was so, the writer of the canon must have known it; and even if he was the most stupid man that ever lived, it must have struck him as odd that the Church had never heard of it before. Yet, as though by some general conspiracy, this extremely odd circumstance has been so carefully excluded both from history and legend as to leave not a trace behind. On the whole, then, the legend appears to me to point to a date for the book considerably earlier than the middle of the second century, to attest virtually the general belief of the time soon after the middle of the second century that John was its author, and to contain nothing that in itself tends to throw discredit upon that belief. ἮΝ We must also notice the statement of the canon that the Gospels contained vaa principia. Whatever precisely these words may mean, they show that the critical faculty was sufficiently awake to call attention to apparent inconsistencies among the Gospels. It seems not unlikeiy that some of Epiphanius’s Alogi are the persons whose objections gave rise to this remark. Epiphanius’s statement, λέγουσι δὲ τὸ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην εὐαγγέλιον, ἐπειδὴ μὴ τὰ αὐτὰ ἔφη, ἀδιάθετον εἶναι,1 represents the very contention which is here repelled, so that _ probably the words of our fragment contain the earliest reply to the Alogi. Be this as it may, the fact that an objection is 1 Heer,, li. 18. 78 BELIEF AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY appended to the notice of the Fourth Gospel, and briefly answered, confirms the argument used above in regard to the late appearance of that Gospel; for if its recent publication had been urged as an objection against its Johannine author- ship, or its credibility, this would seem a most fitting place to allude to it. It was suggested by Credner! that the fragment dis- tinguishes between John the disciple, the author of the Gospel, and John the apostle, who wrote the Apocalypse and the two short epistles; and in support of this suggestion he points out that Andrew, and not John, is called an apostle, and dwells on the fact that Andrew can be introduced only to give apostolic sanction to a non-apostolic work, and that it was necessary to prove by an appeal to the First Epistle that the author was an eye-witness of the life of Christ, though this would have followed as a matter of course if he was one of the apostles. To the first of these arguments I think Tregelles gives a sufficient reply. He says: “There _ are two reasons why in this place dzsciple should be the designation of John: first (and specially), because another John had been mentioned just before who was not a disciple of our Lord; and thus ‘Johannes ex discipulis’ was a simple mode of distinguishing him from the Baptist; secondly, disciple is the habitual term used by John himself in speaking of himself and the other apostles” ;* and further on, “ Andrew is here described as ‘ex apostolis ’ to distinguish, him apparently from the ‘condiscipulis et episcopis’ from whom the request had come to John that he would write.” ὃ It may be added that had the author of the fragment intended to draw this distinction, he would hardly have left it to a doubtful inference. As we do not know the origin of the 1 Gesch. des neutestamentlichen Kanon, 1860, pp. 158 sq. 2 Canon Muratorianus, 1867, p. 33. 3 Τὸ pe 34. MURATORIAN FRAGMENT 79 story about Andrew, we cannot attach much weight to the second argument. The supposition may have been suggested by the attestation in the Gospel itself, “We know that his testimony is true,’! which seems to imply the sanction of an eye-witness of the events recorded, and Andrew may have been selected, as Mr Tayler supposes, because he is mentioned in the Gospel as “the first who became a disciple after the recognition of Jesus by John the Baptist.”? The inference from these facts may have been assisted by a desire to confirm the authority of the Gospel against the attacks of the Alogi. In regard to the third argument, we must observe that the Epistle is used to prove, not that the reputed author of the Gospel was an eye-witness of the circumstances which he relates, but that the author of the Epistle professes to have written an account of these circumstances, and so guarantees the genuineness of the Gospel. We need therefore have no hesitation in regarding the fragment as a testimony that the Gospel was believed to be the work of John the apostle. The later testimony is simply confirmatory of that which has been just presented, and it is not necessary to dwell upon it in the present connection. We have now seen that in the last quarter of the second century, and subsequently, if we except the shadowy Alogi, the Gospel was universally and without hesitation received as the work of the Apostle John, who composed it at Ephesus in his old age, after the publication of the other Gospels. This, then, is the view which, following a well-established rule in literary questions, we are to accept unless adequate reason can be shown for our not doing so. Undoubtedly great and surprising mistakes have been made in regard to author- ship ; but nevertheless the proportion which correct judgments and traditions of this kind bear to the incorrect is so over- 1 xxi. 24. 2 Theological Review, July 1869, p. 341. 80 BELIEF AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY whelming that we always assume the popular belief to be — sound, and accept a book as the genuine work of its reputed | author, unless convincing arguments can be advanced for rejecting it, or at least placing it under suspicion. Very few of us could prove, without reference to books, that Milton was the author of Paradise Lost, and yet we are so sure of the fact — that we do not care to inquire into the evidence. Now if © only fragments of the literature between Milton’s and our own time survived the ravages of the next seventeen centuries, and in these fragments it happened that there were only obscure references to the poem, and no statement that it had been written by Milton, some critic of that future period might say that our statements in the case were worth nothing, for we had never examined the question, and had no critical grounds to go upon. This would be perfectly true, | and our critic would dismiss us with a lofty contempt. But — we who are now living are aware that our individual weakness % constitutes the very strength of the case. For we are not giving an opinion of our own, or expressing the result of an investigation in which we might have made mistakes; we — are simply giving utterance to a universal belief, which presumably rests upon good grounds. For us there is no question requiring critical skill to decide, and it is this fact that makes our testimony of weight. So if we can only cease to regard Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement, and their con- | temporaries as abstract symbols of credulity, and remember that they were after all men very like ourselves, and living — in communities which were scattered about from Gaul to Syria, and round through Egypt to Africa, I think we shall feel that the undoubting and uncritical acceptance of the Gospel as John’s over this vast area is a very significant fact, and furnishes a strong evidence of the genuineness of the work. ᾿ For if the Gospel be genuine, the fact is accounted for; but ἢ — ITS SIGNIFICANCE 81 it be not genuine, the fact remains as a riddle, of which I am not aware that any satisfactory solution has ever been offered. Of course I do not say that this is conclusive, for there may be an explanation which it is no longer possible to discover ; but I do say that the argument is a real and a strong one, and that those who can see nothing in it simply show that they are uncritical, and unable to estimate the force of evidence. But while I believe that the wide and undoubting acceptance of the Gospel affords a strong evidence of author- ship, I think it affords a much stronger evidence of early date, and carries us quite irresistibly back to an older generation. To revert to the case of Paradise Lost, I might be mistaken in supposing it to be Milton’s, for there might have been an original mistake which vitiated the whole tradition; but I could hardly be mistaken in thinking that I knew it when I was a boy, and that older people, whose lives went back into the previous century, took it for granted that it was Milton’s. Testimony to the existence of the poem, therefore, which was tendered in 1902, would be valid for 1850, and would afford a high degree of probability that the work was known at least forty or fifty years before the latter date. In the same way the testimony to the presumed origin of the Gospel which we meet with in the latter part of the second century points almost with certainty to its existence a generation earlier, and takes us back with considerable probability some sixty or seventy years. It is true, no one says expressly, “I knew this Gospel when I was a _ boy, and received it from my parents” ; but the total impression of the evidence, as well as particular statements, lead to the conclusion that it had been handed down from a previous generation, that even to that earlier generation it was not a _ new book, and that it had been for a considerable period in ecclesiastical use. This conclusion is confirmed, ἠδ νον. 82 BELIEF AT THE END OF SECOND CENTURY by the absence of any allusion to the late appearance of the Gospel, even for the purpose of reconciling its recent publication with its Johannine authorship, and by the fact that even the Alogi, those convenient, but in this case unaccommodating, friends of the critics, did not venture to deny its early origin, but ascribed it to Cerinthus. We are not, however, without an important link of con- nection between the end and the middle of the second century. The case of Tatian is peculiarly interesting, because we know that he was a hearer of Justin Martyr, and thus he serves to bridge the gulf between that writer and Irenzus. The date ἣ 4 of his Diatessaron is unknown, and it may be as late as 170 or © even later; but as it was in favour in the orthodox churches of Syria, it is perhaps more likely that it was composed before he became an avowed teacher of heretical doctrine. Vigorous attempts were at one time made to prove that the traditional accounts of this work were entirely wrong; but it may now be considered as established that the “apologists” were the sound critics, and that the Diatessaron was, on the whole, a harmony of our four Gospels. Owing to the nature of the composition, it gives us no information about the authors or the dates of the evangelical narratives; but the important point is established that our canonical Gospels were regarded as the authentic records of the life of Christ, and were treated, just as Irenzeus treats them, as forming one fourfold Gospel. But perhaps more important for our present purpose is the fact that Tatian cites the Fourth Gospel in his Oratio ad Grecos;} which is shown by the evidence to have been written during the lifetime of Justin, and possibly, in accord- 1 It may be sufficient to say that the correctness of this statement is admitted by Baur, Untersuch., p. 356 8.7) and only a very unreasonable scepticism can call it in question. ae TATIAN 83 ance with some slight indications, as early as the year 153.1 According to the custom of apologists, he does not name the author, and we cannot with confidence infer more than that the Gospel was then in use, and had obtained some degree of notoriety. But from the use which he subsequently made of it, I think we are warranted in believing that, when he became a convert to Christianity, he found it already estab- lished as one of the recognised documents of the religion. 1 See the evidence fully given by Zahn in Forschungen zur Gesch. des neut. Kanons αν. der altkirchl. Literatur, 1. Theil; Tatian’s Diatessaron, 1881, pp- 274 sqqg. ; and by Harnack in Teate uw. Untersuch., i., 1882, pp. 196 sqq. The result of their inquiry is, however, disputed. CHAPTER II JUSTIN MARTYR WE must now take a further step back towards the first century. The evidence hitherto adduced makes it unlikely that Justin Martyr was unacquainted with the Gospel. We haveseen that the testimonies about the end of the second century are valid for a space of time reaching at least as far back as Justin, and that his own disciple quoted the book while his master was still alive. Further, we know that the apologist composed a work, which has been lost, against all the heresies that had arisen! In this work he would naturally present his view of the Christian Scriptures much more definitely than he | thought suitable to apologetic treatises. At a later time this’ lost refutation of heresies was held in high esteem. Irenzeus quotes with approval the Treatise against Marcion,? and Tertullian, as we have seen, refers to him as one whom he wished to follow.* His lost writings would hardly have en- joyed this high repute if they had exhibited a view of the Gospels which deviated widely from the orthodox opinion. | Justin was always looked upon as thoroughly sound; and those who had far better means of judging than are open to us breathe not the slightest suspicion on his proper use of the canon. These considerations establish an historical presump- tion in favour of his use of the Fourth Gospel, and, if the evidence from his surviving works were evenly balanced, 1 Apol., i. 26. 2 Her., Iv. vi. 2. 3 Adv. Valent., 5. 84 - DATE OF HIS WORKS © 85 would require us to give our verdict upon that side. But I do not think that the evidence is evenly balanced. I believe his extant works contain indications of his use of the Gospel which cannot be set aside by any just criticism. When we place these two lines of argument together, we have what, to my own mind, amounts to a convincing proof. I think I am correct in saying that this conclusion is now accepted by many, if not by most, critics of various schools, though a few _ very able men still believe that the evidence is adverse. The agreement is certainly not so complete as to render the follow- ing statement of the evidence superfluous. The works from which our evidence must be taken consist of a long Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius; a shorter Apology, addressed to the Roman Senate; and a Dialogue with Tryphon, a Jew, containing an elaborate defence of Christian doctrine. The earliest of these works is the First Apology. Its publication was formerly assigned to the year 138; but a change of opinion was brought about, chiefly by two articles of Volkmar’s, and one, written independently, from the pen of Dr Hort,? the former placing it about 150, the latter in 145 or 146. Dr G. Kriiger defended the early date in an article which appeared in 18g90,? and seems to have retained the same opinion when he published his Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur* Mr F. G. Kenyon, however, has produced what appears to be decisive evidence in favour of Volkmar’s conclusion. In chapter 29 of the Apology, reference is made to Felix, the governor in Alexandria. A papyrus in the British Museum mentions this Felix as the successor of M. Petronius Honoratus, who is shown by a Berlin papyrus to have been prefect in 148, when he was at the beginning 1 In the Theol. Jahrbb., 1855. 2 Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, iii., 1857. 3 Jahrbb. f. prot. Theol., xvi. 4 1895, p. 67. 86 JUSTIN MARTYR of his term of office. Another papyrus proves that Felix -had ceased to be prefect before August 154.1 We must accordingly place the First Apology soon after 150. The Second Apology was probably written not very much later. The Dialogue is placed by Volkmar about 155, but it is perhaps not quite so early. These writings, therefore, represent the state of things about the middle of the second century. How long Justin had been a Christian we do not know, but it is evident he was not a novice, and he had already, as we have seen, composed a treatise against heresies. If this treatise had been preserved, it would probably have cleared up many questions which now remain in uncertainty. All the surviving works are defences of Christianity against external enemies; and it was the purpose of apologists to establish the truth of their doctrines by arguments which would appeal to those outside the Church. The infallibility of the New Testament was not then the fundamental dogma, and books of evidences were not intended for the information of modern critics. It is not till we come to works against heretics that we meet with appeals to the New Testament as authoritative, and learn what was the general ecclesiastical belief in regard to it. This, I think, is too often forgotten, and much critical argument depends for its effect upon unreasonable expectations. We must now follow the indications of Justin’s acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel.” 1 In a letter in The Academy, Feb. 1, 1896, p. 98. . 2 The following treatment of the evidence, reaching an affirmative © conclusion, was originally published in three articles on Justin Martyr — and the Fourth Gospel in the Theological Review for October 1875, and ~ April and July 1877. It is now presented with a few modifications and — additions. I may refer also to Ezra Abbot’s Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, — pp. 20 8424. Fora discussion reaching a different conclusion, see two articles — in the Modern Review for July and October 1882, On Justin’s use of the Fourth Gospel, by Dr Edwin A, Abbott. PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 87 In the 61st chapter of his First Apology, Justin Martyr gives an account of baptism as practised among the Christians of his time. He says that those who are convinced of the truth of the Christian doctrine, and profess their ability to live in accordance with it, are to fast and pray for the _ forgiveness of their past sins. He proceeds thus: “Then they are brought by us to a place where there is water, and in the manner of being born again in which we ourselves also were born again, they are born again!; for they then bathe in the water in the name of the Father and sovereign God of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, Unless ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. But that it is impossible for those who are once born to enter into the wombs of those _ who brought them forth is evident to all.”? It cannot be denied that this passage immediately reminds one of John 111. 3-5, and all critics, as far as I know, acknowledge that there is some relation which is more than accidental between the two passages. As little can it be denied that it is not quoted verbally from the Fourth Gospel, but has variations both in language and meaning. Hilgenfeld, in his Introduction to the New Testament, admits the possibility of Justin’s acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel, though he made a very subordinate use of it. But in regard to the passage under consideration, he adheres to his former opinion, that it wants precisely that feature which is characteristic of John iii. 3, and that it is incomparably more closely related‘ to Matthew xviii. 3, “ Except ye be converted, 1 Kal τρόπον ἀναγεννήσεως, ὃν καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἀναγεννήθημεν, ἀναγεννῶνται. 2*Ay μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, ov μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. Ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἀδύνατον εἰς τὰς μήτρας τῶν τεκουσῶν τοὺς ἅπαξ γεννωμένους ἐμβῆναι, φανερὸν πᾶσίν ἐστι. 3 Einleitung in das N. T., 1875, p. 67, Anm. I. 4 Ungleich niiher verwandt mit. 88 JUSTIN MARTYR and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,” and he thinks we must.assume a Gospel akin to that of Matthew, from which also the passage in the Clementine Homilies, to be presently noticed, is drawn. In his earlier work on the Gospels of Justin,) he points out, in evidence of this position, the following obvious deviations from the Johannine text: 1. It has not the solemn intro- duction, “ Verily, verily, I say unto thee.” 2. It speaks simply of regeneration, instead of birth “from above,”? or “from water and spirit.” 3. The saying ascribed to Christ is in the second person, not in the third. 4. Instead of “he cannot” see or enter the kingdom, Justin has, “ye shall not enter.” 5. Instead of “the kingdom of God” he has “the kingdom of heaven.” From these facts Hilgenfeld concludes that “the whole agreement of Justin with John reduces itself to the general thought of the necessity of baptism to salvation.” He points out that Justin’s citation agrees verbally with Matthew XVill. 3, with the single deviation that instead of “Except ye be converted and become as little children,’ which, he says, has substantially the same meaning, Justin has the simple “Except ye be born again.” He admits, however, that this deviation proves that he did not take the words from Matthew, but must have used a text intermediate between Matthew and John. Whatever may be the value of these arguments, their force — is increased by the occurrence of a similar passage, marked by similar deviations, in the Clementine Homilies.2 The writer is insisting that baptism is necessary to salvation, even if you were more pious than all the pious men that 1 Kritische Untersuchungen οὐδὸν die Evangelien Justins, 1850, p. 214. The English reader may see Supernatural Religion, vol. ii., pp. 306 sqq., in the sixth edition. 2 ἄνωθεν. = xi, 26 Te PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 89 ever lived. Mentioning its advantages, he says that “being | ἢ , by water born again unto God,’! we change our first natural birth, and so are able to obtain salvation; “but otherwise it is impossible; for thus the prophet swore unto us, saying, Verily, I say unto you, except ye be born again by living water into the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”? It will be observed that this passage contains Justin’s words exactly, but has also other words prefixed or inserted. These additional words are sufficient to show that we are not dealing with two exact quotations from a common source. Volkmar,®? however, thinks that the Homilies do not give us the correct form of the Clementine text. He finds a nearer approach to this in the Recognitions, which have been preserved to us in the translation of Rufinus. There the passage stands thus‘: “For thus the true prophet testified to us with an oath, saying, Verily, I say unto you, except a man be re-born again from water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” This is nearer the Johannine text, but Volkmar thinks that the change from the second to the third person is to be ascribed to Rufinus. This is not improbable, for the later Epitome agrees with the Homilies in the use of the second person. He then contends that the simpler form of quotation must be the more original, and concludes that the text from which the quotation was taken must have agreed verbally with the form which it assumes in Justin, except that it contained the clause, “ Verily, I say unto you,” which he thinks Justin omits 1 ἀναγεννηθεὶς θεῷ. 2 ἀμὴν ὑμῖν λέγω, ἐὰν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε ὕδατι ζῶντι, εἰς ὄνομα πατρός, υἱοῦ, ἁγίου πνεύματος, οὗ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. 3 Ueber Justin den Mairtyrer, pp. 14 sqq. 4 “Sic enim nobis cum sacramento verus propheta testatus est dicens : amen dico vobis, nisi quis denuo renatus fuerit ex aqua, non introibit in regna celorum.” 90 JUSTIN MARTYR as unimportant. The addition of the words “from water” he ascribes to the author of the Clementines,.and thinks that the reviser to whom we owe the Homilies inserted the baptismal formula in order to make the reference to baptism still more distinct. This may be a correct description of the genesis of our present text; but if so, it only illustrates the extreme looseness with which some of the ancient writers —— handled quotations. Be this as it may, we have not only to — account for Justin’s deviations from the Johannine text. but to explain the fact that another writer makes several ot vhe same deviations. We cannot account for this identity of variation by supposing that the writer of the Clementines copied Justin, for the passages have no resemblance beyond the fact that they both treat of baptism, and in doing so quote the saying in question. We must therefore endeavour to estimate one by one the value of the deviations, in order to judge how far it is probable that two independent writers could have adopted them without the control of some Gospel no longer extant. 1. The omission of the solemn introduction is of no import- ance. For, in the first place, it is frequently omitted in quotations of this passage by writers who are undoubtedly — quoting it from John; Irenzus,! Tertullian? (three times), Cyprian,? the author of the Homilies on Luke (ascribed to — Origen),* a Docetist in Hippolytus,> Athanasius,®° Chrysostom,’ and others. Again, this introduction to important sayings is as characteristic of Matthew as of John; for Matthew uses it thirty times against John’s twenty-five, but with this curious difference, that John always has the ἀμήν twice. Now 1 Fragment xxxv. in Stieren. * De Bapt., 12, 13 ; De Anima, 39, 3 Adv. Judeos, i. 12. 4 xiv, 5 Ref. Omn. Heer., viii. το. & De Incarnatione Verbi Det, p. 59, B. Bened. edit. 7 Hom. in Johan., 25 and 26. PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION gl the Clementine Homilies have the ἀμήν only once; but it will hardly be maintained that the omission of the second ἀμήν might not be accidental, or, indeed, that it might not be omitted on purpose as unnecessary, especially as pseudo-Athanasius,’ and Chrysostom in one of his quotations,? have the same peculiarity. This first deviation, so far as it has any value, separates the Clementines and Justin. 2. The change from “born from above” into “born again” is not unimportant. While the former includes the latter, the latter does not include the former, and, in my opinion, fails to express adequately the deep thought that belongs to the Fourth Gospel. Some considerations, however, diminish the importance of this variation. In the first place, Justin’s context needs only the idea of regeneration, and suggests the precise word which he uses. In the second place, the word ἄνωθεν was in early, to say nothing of later times, inter- preted in the sense of “again” as well as in the sense of “ from above.” Chrysostom? expressly tells us that some thought it equivalent to ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, and others to ἐξ ἀρχῆς, which I suppose we must render in such a connection by the phrase, “all over again.” The Vulgate renders it by denuo both in the third and the seventh verses; and Nonnus, in his metrical paraphrase, represents it in the third verse by τὸ δεύτερον (the second time), and in the seventh by ἑτέραν βαλβῖδα γενέθλης (another starting-point of birth). It is possible that Justin may have understood the word in the same sense as Jerome and Nonnus, and believed that his own expression was per- fectly synonymous with that in the Gospel; or, if we cannot ’ suppose him ignorant of the true sense of ἄνωθεν, he may nevertheless have supposed that the idea which it contained was adequately preserved in the single word “regeneration,” 1 Questiones ad Antiochwm ; answer to question Iot. 2 Hom. in Johan., 25. 3 Hom. in Johan., 24. 92 JUSTIN MARTYR which must have carried to Christian ears the whole doctrine of baptismal and spiritual birth. But, further, the passage is actually cited with the reading ἀναγεννηθῃ by Irenzeus and Athanasius. The former obviously refers to the fifth verse, for he adds, δι’ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος ᾿; and notwithstanding his verbal inaccuracy, we cannot doubt that so orthodox a Father believed that he was correctly representing the Fourth Gospel. Athanasius is content with a very vague and inaccu- rate reference, but in the case of so late a writer I think no one will be disposed to call it in question. His words are: “ Whence also he said to the Jews, Except a man be re-born,? meaning not the birth from women, as they supposed, but — the re-generated and re-created soul.’? Had this been in Justin, it would have been easy to prove that it could not have been taken from our present Gospel. Tertullian also has “reborn from water and spirit” in one of his quotations,‘ and the same text is presented by the Homilies on Luke, published among the works of Origen. This, indeed, is the reading of the Old Latin and the Vulgate in the fifth verse, as though from a MS., which contained ἀναγεννηθῇ, and con- sequently its recurrence in Latin writers is too frequent to require any further citations. Now at this point the Clementine Homilies break com- pletely away from the text as presented by Justin, and insert a clause consisting of several words. Let us grant the utmost weight to Volkmar’s argument founded on the reading of the Recognitions, still we cannot get rid of the reference to “water”; and this one word, if it really stood alone, would be sufficient to prove that Justin and the Clementines do not give us an exact reproduction of the same original text, but that one or other, if not both, has quoted loosely. The 1 In the Fragment. 2 ἐὰν μή τις ἀναγεννηθῇ. 3 De Incarn., l.c. 4 “ Renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu,” De Bapt.,13. ὅ xiv. PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 93 allusion to water brings the Clementines into connection with the fifth verse in John, and suggests the thought that the ἀναγεννηθῆτε does not represent γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, but is as arbitrary as the Vulgate’s “renatus fuerit.” 3. The change from the third to the second person makes no difference in the meaning. As Chrysostom says,’ Christ’s words are equivalent to ἐὰν σὺ μὴ γεννηθῆς, etc., but are put in the indefinite form in order to make the discourse less offensive. But if Justin did not wish to make his discourse ἀνεπαχ- θέστερον, and intended only to give the meaning without studying verbal accuracy, it is quite credible that he might alter the words in this way, giving the force of the indefinite τις by using the plural,? and especially as the fourth evangelist had himself led the way. In verse 7 we read, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, δεῖ ὑμᾶς γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν, a quotation at least as inexact as Justin’s, and involving, though in a different form, a similar change of person. Here, however, we have the one important point in which Justin and the Clementines completely agree, in opposition to all the other forms in which, so far as I know, the passage is cited. There is, however, a curious parallel in Clemens Alexandrinus?: ἣν yap μὴ αὖθις ὡς τὰ παιδία γενήσεσθε, καὶ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, ὡς φησὶν ἡ γραφή, τὸν ὄντως ὄντα Llatépa οὐ μὴ ἀπολάβητε, οὐδ᾽ οὐ μὴ εἰσελεύσησθέ ποτε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. Clement is quite capable of quoting from extra-canonical sources; but as no other work has been referred to, ἡ γραφή must be understood here in its technical sense of “Scripture.” It seems probable that Clement purposely mixes up the 1 Hom. in Johan., 24. 2 How easily ae a change might be made, when Δ ΩΣ accuracy was not studied, is instructively shown in Theophylact’s paraphrase: ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω cot, ὅτι καὶ σὺ καὶ ἄλλος ὁστισοῦν, ἐὰν μὴ ἄνωθεν Kal ἐκ θεοῦ γεννηθέντες Thy αξίαν δόξαν περὶ ἐμοῦ λάβοιτε, ἔξω τῆς βασιλείας éore.—Com. on John. 3 Cohort. ad Grec., ὃ 9. 94 JUSTIN MARTYR sentiments of Matthew xviii. 3 and John iii. 3, flinging in a little explanation of his own by the way. If so, we have an exact parallel to the change made by Justin and the Clementines. It will hardly be maintained that Clement too is quoting from the same unknown Gospel, for his other words do not bear out such a supposition. 4. The substitution of “ shall not” for “cannot” is another change which leaves the meaning untouched. It is found not © only in the Clementines, but in Irenzus, Tertullian, the Docetist in Hippolytus,? the Apostolical Constitutions? and pseudo-Athanasius.* 5. The change of θεοῦ into οὐρανῶν is not even without manuscript authority, for it is the reading of & in verse 5. It is also found in all the places referred to under the last head, except the second passage in Tertullian. Chrysostom has οὐρανῶν three times, though the verse is given correctly as the heading to his Homily, and his recollection of it must have been perfectly fresh. It occurs also in the anonymous tract, De Rebaptismate® There is no Johannine usage to determine this point, for the expression occurs in the writings ascribed to John only in the passage before us. I think, however, that Tischendorf is critically wrong in admitting οὐρανῶν into the text of his last edition. The change in every instance, combined as it is so frequently with the alteration of “he cannot” into “he shall not,’ probably indicates a pre- ponderating reminiscence of Matthew in the writer’s mind. In all the later authors it is clear that Matthew influenced the recollection only of this particular phrase, and that the intention was to quote from John. If we ask which passage in Matthew exercised this unconscious influence, we may as 1 De Bapt., 13; De Anima, 39. 2 Rela, Vii, EG 3 vi, 15. 4 Quest. ad Ant., τοι. 5 Hom. in Johan., 25. 6 Routh, Rel. Sac., v. p. 297. PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 95 reasonably say v. 20 as xvill. 3. Justin nowhere quotes the latter verse, but he cites the former verbatim, with only a transposition of ὑμῶν. It appears, then, that Justin’s variations from the Johannine text, if considered singly, are open to a simple explanation ; and most of them have ample support in the quotations of later writers. But is it not most unlikely that we should meet with all these changes in combination, and still more so that we should find them repeated in another independent writer? In order to judge of this, we may observe that six of the authors referred to above have three of these changes in combination, while one Greek writer, Irenzeus, and one Latin, Tertullian, have four.2 Now, the Clementine Homilies have only four of Justin’s variations, and of these the value of one is seriously modified by the insertion of words which are not in Justin. In view, then, of all the above facts, I am unable to see any proof that there is more than a coincidence in the partial agreement between Justin and the Clementines. Before leaving this part of our subject, I may mention a 1 Dral., 105. 2 These quotations in full are the following: Ireneus, ἐὰν μή τις ἀναγεννηθῇ δι’ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, ov μὴ εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν (Fragment xxxv. in Stieren’s 64.) ; Tertullian, “Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu, non intrabit in regnum celorum” (De Bapt., 13). The great similarity between these extracts and the quotation in the Recognitions will be noticed by the reader. It should also be observed that the agreement between Irenzeus and Tertullian, which is almost perfect, is far greater than that between Justin and the Clementines ; and therefore a precise parallel to the argument which is thought so conclusive in the case of Justin might be used with greater effect in the case of these two noted defenders of the canon. No doubt the “water and spirit” bring in a Johannine element which is not in Justin ; but the Clementines, anxious to prove that baptism is indispensable, have the “water”; and the omission in Justin may be due to the fact that for the moment he is insisting on the necessity, not of baptism but of regeneration. Tertullian also omits the “spirit” in his quotation in c. 12. 96 JUSTIN MARTYR professed quotation of the passage under discussion which ; illustrates the laxity of ancient writers in reproducing the ) words of an author to whom they appealed.: Tertullian cites — this “ pronuntiatio domini,” “ Nisi natus ex aqua quis erit, non — habet vitam.” } In order to see how the evidence stands upon the other side, | we must examine Justin’s context, and consider what ideas his quotation contains, and with what it is associated, and to what extent these are agreeable to the thoughts in John iii. and in Matt. xviii. We may thus be enabled to determine how far — Hilgenfeld’s representation is really correct. 1. We have, first, the idea of birth as applied to spiritual change. This idea occurs nowhere in the Synopties; the word ~ γεννᾷν in this sense being, in the New Testament, peculiar to — John2 The compound ἀναγεννᾷν is found only in 1 Peter? — Thus the central thought of the passage is one pre-eminently ~ and characteristically Johannine, and, so far as I .know, μοῦ found elsewhere in evangelical literature, apocryphal or canonical. Certainly it is not in Matthew xviii. ᾿ 2. There is, in the second place, the idea that this birth is ἃ re-birth, one in addition to the physical birth. No such idea is implied in Matthew; but it is clearly implied, and, according © to some interpreters, clearly expressed in John, though John, ~ in my opinion, expresses more than this. Ἷ 3. There is, thirdly, the idea that without this re-generation men shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. The statement — that without the fulfilment of some condition men shall not enter the kingdom of heaven is equally explicit in both ἵ Gospels, and therefore does not contain any characteristic idea. ᾿ 4. These thoughts are expressly connected with the rite of ' 1 De Bapt., 12. 2 See i. 13, ili. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8; 1 John ii. 29, iii. 9, iv. 7, v. 1, 4, 18. ain My . PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 97 baptism. So they are in John; but of such a connection there is not a trace in Matthew. 5. They are immediately associated with the statement that “it is impossible for those who are once born to enter into the wombs of those who brought them forth.” This same con- nection of ideas (which will presently be examined more fully) occurs in John, but not in Matthew. 6. A reason for all this is appended, which, Justin says, “ we _ learned from the apostles.” The reason, which is obviously given in Justin’s own words, amounts to this: that we had a physical birth, according to which we are the children of necessity and ignorance, and we require the regeneration that we may be children of preference and knowledge. Of this there is not a vestige in Matthew; but John also gives a reason, and though the words bear no resemblance to Justin’s, yet these latter might be an interpretation of the statement, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” The idea of necessity comes in plainly enough in the ampossibility of entering the kingdom of God without a spiritual birth; and the idea of preference, in the words, “the spirit blows where it listeth (ὅπου θέλει) . 80 is every one who is born of the spirit.” The ignorance also of Nicodemus is contrasted with the know- ὩΣ ΟΣ υ > = ‘ ledge of Christ. Perhaps we may add that the mention of φωτισμός as the name of baptism falls in with the reference to φῶς in the following verses in John.1 We may add, as not wholly unimportant in this connection, that the passage in John is traditionally used of baptismal regeneration,” whereas, according to Clemens Alexandrinus, 1 Compare Theophylact’s Commentary on the passage: 4 yap διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος γέννησις, φωτισμὸν ἐμποιοῦσα TH ψυχῇ, K.T.A. 2 As Theodorus of Mopsuestia says: τὸν τρόπον ἐξηγήσατο τῆς διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἀναγεννήσεως. See the fragments of his Commentary collected δι | . by Fritzsche, p. 25. 7 98 JUSTIN MARTYR Ἵ that in Matthew does not refer to regeneration at all, but only commends to our imitation the simplicity of childhood.* From the above survey we may judge for ourselves whether Justin is “incomparably more closely related” to Matthew than to John. He agrees exactly with Matthew in the one very ordinary thought which Matthew and John have in common, and there the resemblance ends. Im all that is really characteristic of the passage in Justin he agrees substantially, though not in words, with John. We must now notice more particularly Justin’s added statement, that “it is impossible for those who are once born to enter into the wombs of those who brought them forth.” This statement does not agree verbally with the question of Nicodemus; but if we allow for a very natural use of synonyms, it corresponds with it so remarkably that we cannot believe the resemblance to be accidental.? Hilgenfeld’s notion? that Justin and John have here quite independently hit upon the same thought, and expressed it so nearly in the same way, surely violates all probability. It seems to me most unlikely that Justin should, from his own reflection, make the remark in question, unless the thought were sug- gested to him by the context of the passage which he had just quoted. Hilgenfeld thinks that in writing to a heathen, to whom the idea of regeneration was unfamiliar, he would — naturally subjoin a short explanation; just as elsewhere* he — explains the meaning of the word yeéwa. But the word γεέννα, not being Greek, required an interpretation. The remark in the passage before us explains nothing. It is, as — Justin himself says, φανερὸν πᾶσι; and the real explanation is | 2 The change from τὴν κοιλίαν to τὰς μήτρας is not to be wondered at ; and this, being adepted, carries with it, for the sake sh the substitution of an equivalent for τῆς μητρός. ' 3 Die Ev. Just., p. 216. 4 a i. 6. 19. Ϊ 1 See the Pedagogus, lib. i. 6. 5, p. 104, Potter. | ἶ 3 PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 99 given farther on. In its present position it is simply childish, and I cannot suppose that it would occur to any sensible writer as a real elucidation of his thought; but it might very naturally be written down if it arose in the mind from a familiar association of ideas. Add to this the great im- probability that if Justin had wished to irradiate the stupid mind of Antoninus Pius, he would not only have made such a bungling explanation, but have expressed it in words so curiously like those of John, and I think we must agree with Zeller’ that Hilgenfeld’s notion is untenable. Zeller, it is true, rests his argument chiefly on Justin’s appeal to the apostles, which is made a little farther on; for this, he thinks, proves that Justin had in view a definite writing. I cannot see, however, that the appeal to the apostles necessarily covers this particular reflection; but the above more general con- siderations seem to me quite sufficient to establish the existence of a connection, direct or indirect, between Justin and John. If we admit this, then there are, as Zeller points out, three ways of explaining the connection: Justin may have borrowed from John; John may have borrowed from Justin; both may have borrowed from an earlier written source, probably a writing of the nature of a Gospel. Volkmar,? while admitting that the possibility of an earlier Gospel containing this peculiar order of thought is incontest- able, is nevertheless fully sensible of the objection that its existence is quite problematical; indeed, he “might say, ghost-like.” The fact is that, except the supposed indication in Justin, we have not the shadow of a proof that any Gospel but the Fourth ever existed which contained this peculiar vein of thought. It may be very convenient to imagine the existence of some accommodating Gospel 1 See an article in the Theol. Jahrb., 1855, pp. 138-140. 2 Justin, pp. 44-46. 100 JUSTIN MARTYR whenever we are in a difficulty, but I find it hard to believe that this is true. criticism; and it does not seem likely that a Gospel of this peculiar character, when once it had been accepted in the Church as an apostolic work, should have been allowed to perish.1 Volkmar, therefore, boldly adopts the idea that the author of the Fourth Gospel 1 Baur (Krit. Unters. iiber die kan. Ev., Ὁ. 352) and others believe that the Gospel in question was that according to the Hebrews; and as there really was such a Gospel, this conjecture may be thought to relieve the spectral character of the hypothetical authority. It would carry us too far to examine fully the question whether Justin used this Gospel, but the following is a summary of the evidence. We possess thirty-three quotations from, or references to, events related in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. (See these collected in Mr E. B. Nicholson’s The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 1879, and in Hilgenfeld’s Novum Testamentum extra Canonem receptum, 1884, fasc. iv.) Justin has somewhere about 170 citations from or references to the Gospels. With an apparent exception to be noted presently, not one of the quotations from the lost Gospel is found among these 170. But this isnot all. While the greater number deal with matters not referred to in Justin, nine admit of comparison; and in these nine instances not only does Justin omit everything that is characteristic of the Hebrew Gospel, but in some points he distinctly differs from it, and agrees with the canonical Gospels. There is anapparent exception. Justin quotes the voice from heaven at the baptism in this form, “Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee.” “This day have I begotten thee” is also in the Ebionite Gospel ; but there it is awkwardly appended as a second saying, thus: “‘Thou art my beloved Son ; in thee was I well pleased’ ; and again, ‘This day have I begotten thee’” ; so that the passage is quite different from Justin’s, and has the appearance of being a later patchwork. Justin’s form of quotation is still the reading of the Codex Beze in Luke, and, according to Augustine, was found in good MSS., though it was said not to be in the older ones. (See Tischend., an loco.) One other passage is appealed to, Justin says that when Jesus went down wpon the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan—zip ἀνήφθη ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ. The Ebionite Gospel relates that when Jesus came up from the water, immediately a great light shone round the place—evébs περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς wéya. This fact is, I believe, the main proof that Justin used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and that we may therefore have recourse to it whenever he differs verbally from the existing Gospels. Considering that the events recorded are not the same, that they are said to have happened at different times, and that the two quotations do not agree with one another in a single word, this argument cannot be considered very convincing even by PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION IOI borrowed immediately from Justin.1 I suppose the possibility of this, as of the existence of the ghost-like Gospel, is incon- testable, but this conclusion narrows our inquiry to the question, Which is the more original, Justin or John? Now this is, to a great extent,a matter of subjective judgment; and very likely the critics might be as much astonished at me aslIamatthem. But it does seem to me surprising that anyone, in comparing the passages in Justin and John, should doubt for one moment that the dependence is on the side of the former. John has all the impress of original genius, and gives his thoughts with the terse suggestiveness of one who for the first time commits them to writing. Justin never rises above the level of a prosy interpreter of other people’s ideas. The question of Nicodemus, whether we understand it as pathetic, or scornful, or simply perplexed, is at least charged with meaning; whereas, the only thought the corre- sponding words in Justin suggest is, how any man could be so foolish as to put them on paper. Yet it is precisely in this question that Zeller thinks we have conclusive proof those who do not require perfect verbal accuracy in order to identify a quotation. But, further, the author of the anonymous Liber de Rebaptismate says that this event was related in an heretical work entitled Pauli Predicatio, and that it was not found in any Gospel: “Item cum baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum ; quod in evangelio nullo est scriptum ” (Routh, Rel. Sac., v. pp. 325, 326). Of course the latter statement may refer only to the canonical Gospels. We must remark, however, that the event is related in two Old Latin manuscripts, at the end of Matthew 111. 15: “lumen ingens [v. 7. magnum] circumfulsit [v. 7. fulgebat] de aqua” (see Tischendorf). This suggests at least the possibility that Justin may have had some apocryphal statements in his codex of the Gospels. We may pethaps add that if the passage about regeneration had been in this Gospel, there is some little probability that Jerome would have mentioned a fact which must have forcibly struck him. From the above evidence the reader may judge for himself whether an appeal to the Gospel according to the Hebrews greatly relieves the difficulty mentioned in the text. Ptr. AO. 102 * JUSTIN MARTYR that John’s account is derived, not indeed from Justin, but from some earlier source. He says that the objection of Nicodemus applies only to being born again, and not at all to being born from above; and therefore it must originally have belonged to a connection in which birth from above had not yet taken the place of re-birth. To this three different replies might be made. In the first place, the evangelist himself may have used the word ἄνωθεν in the sense of ἐξ ἀρχῆς, “all over again,” a sense which would suggest the entering a second time into the mother’s womb much more forcibly than the simple “again.” Or, secondly, not taking into account that the conversation must have been carried on in another language, he may have meant that Christ used it in one sense and that Nicodemus understood it in the other. But, thirdly, I think an examination of the passage itself suggests a totally different meaning from that which is generally accepted. Nicodemus does not ask, “How can a man be born again?” but, “ How can a man be born when he is an old man?”? The introduction of the word γέρων is surely meant to add something to the sense, and is not merely equivalent either to “a second time” or to “adult.” Nicodemus’s first difficulty is not that a man cannot be liter- ally born over again, but that old age stands in the way of such spiritual birth as Jesus had just mentioned. Feeling the fascination of Christ, and a want within, he speaks sadly; he is too old to be born from above and to thrill with the pulses 1 This is Cyril’s view: Χριστὸς τὴν διὰ πνεύματος ἀναγέννησιν ἄνωθεν ἀπεκάλει. . . Τὸ δὲ ἄνωθεν ὃ Νικόδημος οὐχ οὔτως ἐκλαβὼν τὴν εἰσαῦθις ἐσομένην ὑποτόπησε γέννησιν, ὡς ἐπὶ σωμάτων, σημαίνεσθαι. Com. in Joan., lib. ii. ; Migne, vol. vi. 244. So also Theophylact says that Christ used the word as equivalent to ἐκ θεοῦ, but that Nicodemus understood it in the sense of ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἐκ δευτέρου. Com. in loc. Some support is lent to this view by the fact that John here only uses the phrase in question in preference to ἐκ θεοῦ, which occurs in i. 13, and nine times in the First Epistle. 2 γέρων dy. PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 103 of a higher life. This would be as hard as to enter again his mother’s womb and be born. So understood, the passage is full of meaning and pathos. Meyer! rejects this interpre- tation, and considers the answer of Nicodemus a foolish one, arising simply from his perplexity; but I see no reason for adopting his view, and supposing that the writer meant to ascribe such hopeless silliness to “the teacher of Israel.” Jesus pays no attention to the question of Nicodemus under- stood in its literal sense, but he does address himself to the spiritual difficulty. The flesh, it was true, was subject to the law of necessity ; and he who had only a fleshly lineage, and had experienced no higher birth, could not enter the kingdom of God. But that which was born of the spirit was spirit; and here was no law of necessity or of old age, for the spirit, like the wind, breathed where it would, and a man might hear the higher voice, he could not tell whence or whither. Nicodemus still feels that it cannot be, and asks how it is possible ; and this leads to the exposition of God’s love in sending his Son, evidently as the great instrument for effecting the birth from above. I am, therefore, unable to see any valid reason why Justin’s quotation may: not have been taken from the Fourth Gospel; and if either borrowed from the other, I could not hesitate for a moment in pronouncing Justin the dependent author. In regard to the Clementine Homilies, the word ὕδατι, representing ἐξ ὕδατος, brings in another feature of John; and the epithet ζῶντι, though it is not applied to the water in the conversation with Nicodemus, is quite Johannine. The baptismal formula has probably been inserted by the author deliberately ; for it is not very unusual in patristic quotations to find the author’s comments interlarded with the scriptural words. When the view that Justin did not use the Fourth 1 Com. tn loc. 104 JUSTIN MARTYR Gospel first became a favourite one with critics, it was con- fidently maintained, notwithstanding some indications to the contrary, that the writer of the Clementines also was unacquainted with it. Since then, the second part of the nine- teenth book and the whole of the twentieth, which had been previously missing, have been found; and in xix. 22 is a reference to the healing of the blind man in John ix. which is generally admitted to prove conclusively the use of the Gospel. A doubt, however, may be raised on two grounds. First, there are some alterations of the Johannine text; but these, in the part that professes to be quoted, are few and slight, certainly no more than we repeatedly find in quotations. The chief variation, the use of πηρός for τυφλός, does not oceur within the limits of the quotation. The moment that is introduced, the writer abandons the word of his own choice, and adopts the Johannine τυφλός. The fact that the same word is once used by Justin in connection with ἐκ γενετῆς seems to me no more extraordinary than that two men should prefer the expression “born mute” to “borndumb.” The other difficulty is that the writer draws from the event an inference which was clearly not in the mind of John. He represents it as an instance in which “the power of God” was “healing the sins of ignorance.” The argument, however opposed to the intention of John, follows easily enough. Suffering is an evidence of something wrong somewhere. Now as the blind man was not suffering for any sin on the part of himself or Lis parents, his affliction must have been due to that ignorant and reckless self-indulgence of mankind to which the author ascribes premature death and other evils: they came ἐξ ayvotas, not ἐκ πονηροῦ εἰργασμένου. It seems to me, then, that his inference, however strange, is founded strictly on the passage as it stands in John, and I think we are not justitied in resorting to a “ ghost-like” Gospel as its source. One other PASSAGE ABOUT REGENERATION 105 point deserves notice: the author refers to this event in a way which shows thai he expected his readers to be familiar with it. He mentions “the man blind from birth,” as though every one would know at once what man was intended. From this I should conclude that the narrative was taken from a book generally known and accepted in the Church, and not from some work which is so obscure that its very existence is hypothetical. It appears to me, therefore, to be the most reasonable and legitimate conclusion that the author of the Clementine Homilies was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel.’ But if so, the most natural supposition is that the passage about regeneration is dependent on the same source, and the weightiest argument against the position that Justin quoted from John thereby disappears; and the arguments above advanced in defence of that position remain with unimpaired force. One other argument remains. It is urged by Volkmar? that only men who elevate their fleshly wishes above truth and history can find it anything but unintelligible that Justin should not have made an especial use of John’s Gospel, if he “knew it. When critics begin to bully, ordinary mortals are apt to suppose that their argument is not of much weight. At the risk of being thought very carnal-minded, I would suggest in the first place, that if we admit that Justin did use the Fourth Gospel, then, though he has quoted little, he has ‘made a very abundant use of its thought in his doctrine οὗ the Logos. This point will be examined further on.’ Secondly, it does not seem so incredible to me as it does to | Volkmar that Justin did not consider the Fourth Gospel so | well suited to his apologetic writings as the Synoptics, and may intentionally have kept that higher and more spiritual 1 Against this view, see Supernatural Religion, ii. pp. 341 844. ait fk Ve 106 JUSTIN MARTYR Gospel in reserve. Volkmar thinks it terribly strange, that if he knew the Gospel, he could appeal in proof of Christ's pre-existence to the adoration of the Magi, and pass over, — “before Abraham was, I was.”! This criticism only shows that j the critic can misquote as well as Justin, and is unable to — understand an argument. The authority of the Fourth — Gospel was of course not admitted by Tryphon; and to appeal — to a saying of Christ’s in proof of the truth of that very saying itself, though apparently not impossible for a modern — critic, would have been a mistake into which Justin was not } likely to fall. On the other hand, the appeal to the authority — of the Magi, whatever we may think of its value, was quite — in point, because Tryphon did not dispute the historical fact. — If this is the strongest sample of the “innumerable passages ” ΐ which Justin might have used, I think the less that is said | about them the better. But, lastly, if Justin, did use the Fourth Gospel, it is by no means correct to say that this is — the only thing he cites from it. At least a few other passages naturally point to John, though they might not be sufficient to prove that that Gospel was used, especially if the “ghost- — like ” Gospel be at hand in every emergency. ἷ Let me endeavour to sum up this portion of the argument — in a few words. There are two hypotheses by which to — account for the quotation in Justin; 1, that a Gospel which — in the generation after Justin was, as we know, confidently ; believed to have been in existence for the greater part of a — century, was really in existence sufficiently early to be used — by Justin; and 2, that a Gospel with a precisely similar vein — of thought, a Gospel which, in the generation after Justin, had — passed out of ecclesiastical use, and the very existence of 3 which is only inferred from the present quotation, was cited — by Justin as an apostolical authority. The latter hypothesis, : 1 “Khe Abraham war, war ich,” p. 20; see Dzal., 87, 88. DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 107 being framed for the express purpose, will, of course, explain the phenomenon. If the reasoning in this chapter be correct, the former hypothesis, framed not for the purpose, but on the ground of historical probability, also affords an adequate explanation of the facts. Surely, then, it is the part of sound criticism to accept an explanation which is founded upon what we know, instead of resorting to the boundless field of con- gectwre, where the severity of scientific study is in danger of being sacrificed to the facile pleasure of piling up shifting and unsubstantial hypotheses. The solution of the question whether Justin Martyr made use of the Fourth Gospel must, in the absence of indisputable citations, depend to a large extent on his doctrine of the person of Christ. If it could be shown that this was less developed than that of the Gospel, we should naturally assign it to an earlier stage in the formation of ecclesiastical dogma ; but if it appear to be more developed, we shall as naturally assign the priority to the teaching of the evangelist. In comparing Justin’s with the Johannine doctrine, we have to consider their relations in substance and in phraseology. The evidences on these points must, to a certain extent, be pre- sented concurrently, though they may afterwards be made the subject of separate remark. First, then, we must observe that Justin uses the word λόγος in its special theological sense. Here we may notice some curious facts, which, if they do not seem to have any immediate bearing upon our question, are useful as showing how necessary it is, in judging of a writer’s mode of express- ing an opinion, to bear in mind the nature of the works in which that opinion is advocated. In the First Apology the word λόγος, in the singular or plural, is used altogether 67 times, It is employed 27 times, including two or three doubt- ; ful cases, in its peculiar theological acceptation. The other ἵ ἱ 108 JUSTIN MARTYR senses in which it occurs are: reason, argument, doctrine, word, discourse, account, and quasi-theologically as a designa- tion of Hermes. Of 28 instances of its use in the short Second © Apology, no fewer than 16, again including two or three andl certain cases, exhibit the theological meaning, Here its other significations are: reason, argument, doctrine, method, word. In the Dialogue with Tryphon it is found no less than 235 Ἷ times; and yet its theological use is represented by only seven instances, of which two are doubtful. It is applied, in a sense unknown to the Apologies, 62 times to the Scriptures or Scriptural passages. It is most frequently employed simply in the meaning of words, passing off into that of utterance or declaration, discussion, argument, doctrine, system. In the signification of reason, where it most nearly approaches the theological use, it occurs only 13 times, against 16 in the ὗ Apologies. We thus learn that the term λόγος exhibits its” theological colouring about once in 33 times in the Dialogue, against nearly once in every two instances of its use in the Apologies; or if we add the signification reason, the propor- tion is about I in 12 in the Dialogue against considerably. more than 1 in 2 in the Apologies. On the other hand, in the q Dialogue it is employed in more than a quarter of the in- stances in a meaning of which the Apologies furnish no example. The reason is sufficiently obvious. In addressing the cultured emperor of the Romans, Justin naturally resorted to a more philosophical phraseology, while in arguing with Jews he felt this to be less appropriate, and in citing the. Seriptures adopted a description which expressed the rever-_ ἡ ence entertained towards them no less by his opponents than by himself. We may learn from these facts that Justin, whether consciously or unconsciously, largely modifies his. language according to the object which he has in view and the persons whom he seeks to influence, and that therefore DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST τοῦ we must not attach any importance to the silence of apolo- getic writings upon points which would be more fitly discussed’ in works dealing with the internal controversies of Christians themselves,’ _ We must now proceed to unfold the contents of Justin’s doctrine, and compare it with the Johannine. In doing so we shall follow the order in which the several topics appear most logically to succeed one another. According to the Fourth Gospel, “The Logos was God,” θεὸς ἣν ὁ Noyos.2 Now this statement, though apparently so clear, contains an ambiguity. Did the writer use θεός in its highest acceptation, and mean to assert that the Logos, which in one sense was an eternal attribute of God, was in another aspect God himself, regarded in his relation to the universe and to man? Or did he intend to affirm the distinct personality of the Logos, and in doing so to ascribe to him a divine nature ? Both these views may be, and have been, maintained. If the ‘second be accepted as correct, then the question arises, What is implied by θεός: Is it merely a figurative expression, de- ‘signed to convey the idea of exalted dignity, as in the passage quoted by the author himself, “I said ye are Gods”?? Or does it denote a special divine nature, such as could not be predi- cated of angels or of men? In Justin’s doctrine there is none of this ambiguity. On each point he is perfectly explicit; and the whole subject seems to have passed through the furnace of controversy, and to have worked itself out into clear and formulated expression. Before citing the evidence in support of this statement, we must observe that we may fairly adduce passages in which the special term λόγος is not adopted, because Justin identifies the Logos with the Son of 1 The above facts are gathered from a table which I have prepared of all the passages in Justin in which the word λόγος occurs. fee Sx) at 110 JUSTIN MARTYR God and with Christ: τοῦ λόγου . . . . ὅς ἐστι Χριστός, and Χριστὸς .. . υἱὸς τῷ θεῷ . . . λόγος αὐτοῦ. Justin applies the word θεός to the Logos or Christ once in the Apologies, and a great number of times (I have counted upwards of thirty-four) in the Dialogue. The term, not very distinctive in its use by heathens, became important in con- } ἱ ; troversy with Jews. The following may serve as examples of the mode in which it is introduced: “For Christ has been preached as king and priest, and God and Lord, and angel and man... . as I demonstrate from all the Scriptures.” ὃ “T am now going to prove that the revelation in the time of Jesus, who was a priest among your people in Babylon, was a prediction of the things that were to be done by our priest and God and Christ, the Son of the Father of the universe.”* Having alluded to the history of Jacob, Justin concludes, Θεὸς καλεῖται καὶ θεός ἐστι καὶ ἔσται. How it is that the Logos comes to be θεός is very clearly explained. His divine nature depends on the peculiarity of his Sonship; “who, as being Logos and first-born of God, is also God.”® “God, in consequence of his being [ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι] _a child first-born of all created things.’’ From these passages “it is evident that θεός is applied to Christ, not as a title of dignity, but as a description of his nature. This inference is confirmed by the different way in which Justin uses the term ἄγγελος in reference to Christ. He borrows this designation from certain passages in the Old Testament, in which he iden- tifies “the angel of the Lord” with the Logos; but he uses it with an explanation, and always as a title, never as indicating the possession of an angelic nature. Thus we find in the First © 1 Avpol., 11. 6. το. 2 Agol,, 1. 6.25. 3 Dual., δ. 34. 4 Dral., δ: 115. 5 Duial., ὃς 58. 6 Ὃς λόγος καὶ πρωτότοκος dy τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ θεὸς ὑπάρχει. Apol., i. c. 63. 7 Dual, Ὁ. 125. DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST τι: Apology,! ἄγγελος δὲ καλεῖται... . αὐτὸς yap ἀπαγγέλλει ὅσα δεῖ γνωσθῆναι, and in the Dialogue,” ὃς καὶ ἄγγελος καλεῖται, διὰ τὸ ἀγγέλλειν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, κιτιλ. In speaking of the three supernatural visitors to Abraham, he draws a clear distinction between the one whom he identifies with the Logos and the other two. First of all Tryphon admits, under pressure of Justin’s argument, that he had been mistaken in supposing that all three were angels. Justin, without remarking upon this admission, proceeds to emphasize his belief, ὅτι εἷς τῶν τριῶν ἐκείνων καὶ ὁ θεός ἐστι καὶ ἄγγελος καλεῖται, and says that he appeared in the form of a man, like the two angels who came with him. Farther on the objection is raised that these visitors ate what was set before them. In his reply, Justin makes use of these words: “If we heard that the three were said to have eaten, and not only the two who were really angels” (οἵτινες ἄγγελοι To ὄντι ἦσαν). Elsewhere he marks the difference between the angelic title and the divine nature of the Logos thus: ἄγγελος καλούμενος καὶ θεὸς ὑπάρχων It is, therefore, abundantly proved that the Logos is regarded as a super-angelic, and, in the strictest sense, a divine being. Justin is no less explicit in insisting on his distinction from the Father, and his separate personality. One of the points (as stated by Tryphon) which he undertakes to prove is, that “there is another God besides the Creator of the universe.” 6 This proposition is more fully stated farther on: “There is a different [érepos] God from the God who made all things, in number, I mean, but not in sentiment” [ἀριθμῷ λέγω ἀλλ᾽ ov γνώμῃ] But more important is the fact that he expressly controverts the opinion of those who maintained that the Logos 2.6, 63. # sm, Dial., c. 56. * Dual, c. 57. 5 Dual., c. 60. 6 Dial., c. 50: ἄλλος θεός. Elsewhere, ἕτερος θεός, c. 55. See also c. 56. 7 ¢. 56. See also c. 62, ἀριθμῷ ὄντα ἕτερον. 112 JUSTIN MARTYR was an inseparable power of the Father’s, which the latter put : forth, like a ray of the sun, whenever he desired it, and again — at his will withdrew into himself. In opposition to this view, Justin contends that the Logos does not mark a mere nominal distinction, but is numerically something different: οὐχ ὡς τὸ ~ e , “Ἢ 4 ’ὔ’ , % a ς ἈἉ Ag SS ~ , τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς ὀνόματι μόνον ἀριθμεῖται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν — τίἐστιῖ; and that the thing begotten is numerically different from him who begets: τὸ γεννώμενον τοῦ γεννῶντος ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν ἐστι." While assigning this distinct personality and exalted rank to the Logos, Justin is careful to insist on his subordination to the Father. In the Fourth Gospel, the subordination οὗ the Son during his earthly existence is clearly asserted ; but that of the pre-existent Logos can only be inferred from the use of the preposition διά in i. 3. This proposition may be made to appear consistent with the doctrine of the co-equality of the Father and the Son; but no ingenuity of mterpretation can force this doctrine upon Justin. The purest monotheistic doctrine is asserted near the beginning of the Dialogue in terms to which a Jew could take no exception: “Neither ee oa στον = ys will there ever be another God [ἄλλος θεός], Tryphon, nor was — there from eternity (I thus said to him), except Him who made and ordered this universe. Nor do we suppose that there is one God of ours and another of yours, but [we esteem : as God] that very one who led your fathers out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and a high arm; nor have we hoped on some other (for there is not one), but on Him on whom you also [hoped], the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.”? This statement verbally contradicts passages already quoted, in which the existence of “another God” is — 1 Dual., 6. 128. 5 ¢,\220), 3 Dial.,c. 11. In Apol., i. c. 13: τοῦ ὄντως θεοῦ may stand in opposition — to polytheism. Sait ai DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 113 asserted ; and we can find a reconciliation only in supposing that Justin regarded the Father and Creator of the universe as the sole fountain of divinity, self-existent and eternal, and that in rejecting the notion of “another God” he meant that no other could bear this title in the same supreme sense, or stand upon the same line of underived and independent being. This conclusion is amply confirmed by the most direct assevera- tions. Our apologist speaks of the Logos as ranked under - the Father, and as serving His will: ὑπηρετοῦντα τῷ τῶν ὅλων πατρί, and ὑπὸ τῷ πατρὶ Kal κυρίῳ τεταγμένος Kal ὑπηρετῶν τῇ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ3 He says this in reference to Old Testament times, and therefore there can be no allusion to the human nature of Christ. He contrasts the Father and the Son by declaring that there is another God under the Creator, and that above the latter there is no other God: ἐστὶ καὶ λέγεται θεὸς καὶ κύριος ἕτερος ὑπὸ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων, .. .. ὑπὲρ ὃν ἄλλος θεὸς οὐκ ἔστι "Ξ' Again, while insisting that the Logos appeared to Abraham and others, he considers it preposterous to suppose that the Father could have manifested himself in this way. He presses upon Tryphon’s attention the fact that the angel who appeared to Moses in the bush called himself the God of Abraham; and hence he argues that this angel was God. Tryphon objects that there were really two persons, and that though an angel appeared, yet it was God himself (that is, the supreme God) who conversed with Moses. Justin, admitting for the sake of argument that there may have been two persons, proceeds: “Even if, as you say, it can be the case that there were two, both angel and God, yet no one whatsoever, if he have even a little sense, will dare to say that the Creator and Father of the universe, having left all the things above heaven, has appeared in a little particle of 1 Dual., c. 58. 2 Dral., ὁ. 126. 3 Dial., c. 56, p. 180, Otto, 2nd ed. See also p. 184. 114 JUSTIN MARTYR earth.”! It would be difficult to mark more strongly the subordination of the Logos as the minister of the Highest. But still further, the Son is represented as dependent on the Father both for his being and his rank. He derives all his exalted appellations, ἔκ τε τοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν τῷ πατρικῷ βουλήματι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει γεγενῆσθαι,2 and he received them from the Father [ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἔλαβε], as all who were called kings and anointed derived their titles from him- self. Justin speaks of him as τὸν κατὰ βουλὴν τὴν ἐκείνου καὶ θεὸν ὄντα, υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, Kal ἄγγελον ἐκ TOU ὑπηρετεῖν TH γνώμῃ αὐτοῦ, and describes the Father as αἴτιός τε αὐτῷ τοῦ εἶναι καὶ δυνατῷ καὶ κυρίῳ καὶ θεῷ But among subordinate beings the Logos takes the first place, another point not decided by, however it may be inferred from, the Fourth Gospel. Justin’s words are unequivocal: ἡ δὲ πρώτη δύναμις μετὰ τὸν πατέρα πάντων... ὁ λόγος ἐστίν." In place, then, of the simple proposition of the.Gospel that “the Logos was God,” we have in Justin a series of elaborate and clearly formulated doctrines, supported by argument and comment, and accompanied by a conscious rejection of an antagonistic view. In this point, accordingly, the Justinian doctrine is not only more copious than the Johannine, but presents the appearance of a true development, an unfolding of the implicit contents of the brief and pregnant statement of the Gospel. And if it be said that thus far Justin is indebted to Philo, still the incorporation of the Alexandrine theology with Christianity must itself have required time, and its more 1 Dial., c. 60. See also 6. 127. 2 Dial.,c.61. 3% Deal, c. 86, 4 Dual., 6. 127. 5 Dral., ὁ. 120. 6 Apol., i. c. 32. Dorner endeavours to reduce the subordination to a minimum, but in doing so leaves unnoticed some of the most conclusive passages: Entwickelungsgesch. der Lehre von der Person Christi, I. S. 425 sqq., 2nd ed. Dr Donaldson frankly admits the subordination : Crit. Hist. of Christian Literature and Doctrine, 1866, vol. ii. pp. 218 and 229 sqq. oa a σον ὅν = DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST τις abundant admixture in the writings of the Apologist than in that of the Evangelist betrays, if not a later date, at least a more advanced post on the march of dogmatic formulation. We arrive at a very similar result when we examine more fully the doctrine that the Logos is the Son of God. Here again the Christian faith is sketched in grand but dim out- lines in the Gospel, admitting more or less of poetic or ideal interpretation; but in Justin it is sharply defined in unmis- takable ecclesiastical prose. The Gospel nowhere asserts that the Logos is the Son of God. This title is always applied to Jesus; but Jesus is never called the Logos, and their identi- fication, however certain it may appear to most people, is nevertheless the result of interpretation. Then in what sense is Jesus the Son of God? Is the relationship spiritual or essential, such as others may in their inferior degree enjoy, or grounded in the peculiarity of his being? Again the answer must be left to the interpreter. Further, did Christ pre-exist ? A few intimations may seem to answer this question with sufficient distinctness in the affirmative; yet they are not such that it is impossible to explain them away. And, lastly, if the Logos was the Son of God, nothing whatever is said as to the mode and method of this Sonship, and its duration is indicated only by the obscure ἐν ἀρχῇ, and perhaps by πρὸ ποῦ Tov κόσμον efva.2 On almost all these points Justin’s language is full and explicit. First of all he expressly asserts that “the Logos of God is his Son.”? The Logos, the Son, and Christ, are identified by the statement, vids θεοῦ καὶ ἀπόστολος Incovs ὁ Χριστός ἐστι, , , ” A δὲ Ψ» 4) , 4 πρότερον Aoyos wv, ... +. vuvoe... . ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος. eae EVER, 5. 3 Apol., i. ο. 63, ὁ λόγος δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν 6 υἱὸς αὐτοῦ. See also c. 32, Apol., ii. c. 6 ; Dial., c. 48, 100, and many other passages. 4 Apol., i. c.63. See also c. 23. 116 JUSTIN MARTYR The Sonship of Christ or of the Logos was peculiar in its kind. Justin recognizes the possibility, and indeed admits the existence, of two views on the subject. “Jesus,” he says, “being called a Son of God, if even he be only a man in the common way [κοινῶς μόνον ἄνθρωπος], is on account of his wis- dom worthy to be called a son of God. . . . But if we say that in a peculiar way [ἰδίως], contrary to the common birth, he was sprung from God as the Logos of God,” ete He states else- where that some Christians believed Christ to be of purely human birth [ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον), but that he did not agree with them.? He refers, in the former of these pas- sages, not to the pre-mundane generation of the Logos, but to his miraculous birth into the world; but the rejection of the idea that Christ was a mere man is a necessary preparation for his own view of the divine Sonship. In unfolding this view he maintains that Christ, “ being God, pre-existed [προὐὔὐπῆρχεν] as Son of the Creator of the universe.”* His Sonship was of a special kind, and limited to himself alone: Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς μόνος ἰδίως υἱὸς τῷ θεῷ γεγέννηται, λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων," and 6 δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου, ὃ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός, ὁ λόγος 5 The peculi- arity of his Sonship depends on the manner of his generation. Here it is curious to observe that Justin, though of course he does not use all the language of a later controversy, is clearly homoousian in his view. He maintains that “this power has been generated from the Father by his power and will, but not by way of amputation, as though the substance of the — Father [τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας] were detached.” He uses, to illustrate his meaning, the example of fire, which, without diminution to itself, kindles another fire, and also our produc- 1 Apol., 1. ¢. 22. 2 Dial., c. 48. 5 Dial.,-c. 48. So earlier in the c., mpotmdpxew θεὸν ὄντα, said by Tryphon ; and again, θεὸν αὐτὸν προὐπάρχοντα λέγεις, said by Tryphon, 6: 87. 4 Apol., i. c. 23. 5 Apol., il. c. 6. DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 117 tion of speech [λόγος], which leaves unimpaired the reason [λόγος] within us Had he believed that the Logos was created out of nothing, or out of any pre-existent material dif- ferent from God, he could not have used these comparisons, nor need he have sought to prove that his opinion did not imply any division or diminution in the substance of the Father. He must have held, therefore, that the Logos was not created, like the world, but generated out of the divine sub- stance, or in the Nicene phraseology, γεννηθέντα... ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός. Agreeably to this view we are told, 6 θεὸς γεγέννηκε δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν, and the Son is called μονογενὴς - 1. τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων ... ἰδίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος" Though we do not find the express contrast of the Nicene Creed, γεννηθέντα, ov ποιηθέντα, Justin’s own language is quite in harmony with this distinction. He does not speak of the Son as created, but as begotten [γεννηθείς], as an offspring [γέννημα], as projected [προβληθέν] from the Father,’ and as having come forth [zpoeA- θόντα] from the Father.’ Two passages are, however, adduced to show that Justin regarded the Logos as a creature. Semisch asserts that he once calls him ἐργασία He ought to have added that this statement is founded on a conjectural reading. In the place alluded to, our apologist has just pointed out that for the due comprehension of certain passages in the Old Testament, it is 1 Dual., c. 128. See also 6. 61. In the above passage we have ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός instead of the Nicene ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, but the difference is unimportant, as in c. 61 we have ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ In ὁ. 129 we find ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός. 2. Dial, c. 61. 3 Dial., c. 105. Again compare the Nicene γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ. 4 Dual., c. 61. 5 Dral., cc. 62 and 129. Apol., i. c. 21. . δ᾽ Dial., c. 62. 7 dhal., δ. 100. 8 Justin Martyr, his Life, etc. ; translated by J. E. Ryland, 1843, vol. ii. Ῥ. 185. 9 Jhal., c. 114. 118 JUSTIN MARTYR necessary to bear in mind the art [τέχνην] adopted by the Holy Spirit, according to which some incidents were typical, and sometimes future events were spoken of as though they were either present or past. Having quoted a few examples, he proceeds: “And again when he says, ‘I will see the heavens, works of thy fingers, if I do not hear the workman- ship of his words [ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούω τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ THY ἐργασίαν], I shall hear unintelligently, as your teachers require, suppos- ing that God the Father of the universe and unbegotten has hands and feet and fingers and a soul, like a composite animal.” 1 quite agree with Dr Donaldson that the above, © which is the reading of the manuscripts, furnishes a good sense, and that ἐργασία is equivalent to the previous Téxvy.4 The meaning is, that if we do not attend to the figurative character of the words, we shall form a very absurd opinion, Otto’s conjecture, τοῦ λόγου, does not appear so suitable to the context; for with this change the passage ceases to be an | illustration of Justin’s remark. The reading suggested by ! Maranus, τὸν λόγον, on which alone the statement of Semisch can be founded, seems utterly devoid of meaning; for how could it possibly be inferred from the verse in question that the Logos was the work of God? The αὐτοῦ, moreover, natu- rally refers, not to God, about whom Justin has not been speaking, but to τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, a reference which is duly preserved by the reading of the manuscripts. The statement, therefore, that Justin calls the Logos ἐργασία, is, to say the : least, extremely questionable, and cannot fairly be admitted in evidence. The other passage to which appeal is made is one in which Tryphon speaks of the Jews as worshippers, τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ Kat αὐτὸν τοῦτον (that is, Christ) ποιήσαντος.2 This expression Justin allows to pass without remark; and there- fore, it is said, he must have considered it unobjectionable, 1 Hist. of Christian Lit. and Doctrine, ii. pp. 223-4. 2 Dial., c 64, DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 11g The idea, however, that Christ was created is not made the subject of a distinct proposition, but occurs incidentally, and accordingly does not demand a reply. The plea which Tryphon urges is, that the Jews, being worshippers of God, did not, like the Gentiles, require to acknowledge and worship Christ. It is to this plea that Justin addresses himself, and it may not have occurred to him to turn aside from his main purpose in order to correct a casual expression chosen by the Jew with the object of depreciating Jesus. He would natu- rally put into the mouth of Tryphon such language as a Jew was likely to employ; and this passage may, at the most, occasion some little surprise that he has nowhere taken the opportunity of formally objecting to the use of a phrase which he ascribes to an opponent. This omission, however, in a writer so little systematic may be accidental, and certainly cannot set aside the conclusion at which we have already arrived, founded as it is on his own positive and unambiguous assertions.! With this exalted view of his nature, it is not surprising that, as we have already observed, Justin assigns to the Logos the second place in the universe of being. He is the πρῶτον γέννημα τοῦ θεοῦ, the πρωτότοκος τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ θεῷ, and ἡ πρώτη δύναμις μετὰ τὸν πατέρα πάντων." Agreeably to this belief, the Christians, in their religious services, assigned to him the second place, ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες ὃ 1 Ts it not also possible that though Justin never employs the expression in his own person, he may have thought that it could be loosely applied to the fact of generation as well as to that of creation? The contrast, though, I think, evidently in his mind, is not yet clearly formulated. Can he have been influenced by Acts ii. 36 ? 2 Apol., 1. c. 21. 3 Apol., i. C. 53. Πρωτότοκος is applied to him ten times elsewhere: Apol., i. cc. 23, 33, 46, 63; Dral., cc. 84, 85, 100, 116, 125, 138. Once 'πρωτόγονος is used instead, Apol., i. 58. 4 Anol., i. ¢.. 32. 5 Apol.,i.c. 13. See also Apol., ii. ὁ. 13. 120 JUSTIN MARTYR Whether the Logos was co-eternal with the Father, Justin nowhere expressly says, and very different opinions have been held as to the view which he entertained. The controversy turns upon the meaning of two passages, one of which is certainly open to the charge of obscurity. Before we refer to these, it will be advantageous to consider what we can learn from expressions used elsewhere. That Justin ascribed a beginning to the personal existence of the Logos may be in- ferred with some probability. He says that he came forth from the Father by the power and will of the latter (δυνάμει αὐτοῦ καὶ BovAy); and represents his existence and divinity as dependent on the will of God: ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσεὶϊ γεγενῆσθαι, and τὸν κατὰ βουλὴν τὴν ἐκείνου καὶ θεὸν ὄντα." These expressions can hardly be reconciled with the idea of co-eternity. Nevertheless, since Justin nowhere asserts ex- pressly, as Tertullian does,* that there was a time when the Son did not exist, we may suppose that his thought upon this subject had not yet cleared itself into dogmatic distinctness. He was anxious rather, in opposition to the simple humani- tarian view, to carry back the existence of the Son as far as possible, and represent him as the earliest of dependent beings. The Logos is, as we have seen, the πρώτη δύναμις, the πρῶτον γέννημα. He pre-existed as God before the ages: θεὸν ὄντα πρὸ αἰώνων" “God has begotten him as a beginning before all created things” [ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων). The Son of God existed before the morning star and the moon: θεοῦ, υἱόν, ὃς καὶ πρὸ ἑωσφόρου καὶ σελήνης jv.’ He was the “ first- born of all creation” [πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως] an expres- sion which must be explained by those already quoted. We 1 Dral., ὁ. 100. 2 Dual., c. 61. 3 Dual., c. 127. 4 Adv. Hermog., c. 3. 5 Dial., c. 48, quoted by Tryphon from Justin. 6 Dial., ὃ. 61. See also 100 and 129; and πρὸ πάντων ὄντα, c. 96. 7 Dial. c. 45. 8 Dial., ec. 85 and 138. Compare 84 and 125. ee Sus we. ὦ, DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 121 learn from these citations that the Logos was regarded as having had a distinct personal existence, and as having been generated before the creation. Bearing in mind the result which we have thus reached, we may proceed to the examination of the two more ambiguous passages. The first is the following: “But his Son, who alone is called Son in the literal sense, 6 λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ συνὼν Kal γεννώμενος, OTE THY ἀρχὴν δὶ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε, is called [λέγεται] Christ in relation to his having been anointed, and God’s having ordered every- thing through him.” 1 The second is: τὸ τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς προβληθὲν γέννημα πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων συνῆν TH πατρί Semisch, who is followed by Otto, says that “in these two passages the words and ideas, συνεῖναι and γεννᾶσθαι, form a contrast. .... The συνεῖναι is by the clause πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων placed beyond all time; the γεννᾶσθαι, on the con- trary, although it has a share in this clause is, by the addi- tional indication of time, ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν δὶ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε, placed so nearly contemporary with the creation of the world, that it approaches time itself.” Accordingly he thinks that συνεῖναι is applied to the Logos as an impersonal attribute of God, and that its coming forth as an hypostasis or person, described by γεννώμενος, is represented as taking place at the epoch of the creation. To this interpretation there are several serious objections. The word “ συνών, as Dr Donaldson re- marks, “is not the proper word for an attribute, ἐνών or προσών being the words used for it; σύνειμι implies ‘ existence along with,’ and therefore separate, distinct existence.” Again, to make the generation of the Logos contemporaneous with the creation, is in complete contradiction of Justin’s view. Semisch, being quite aware of this, has to regard the events as 1 Apol., ii. c. 6. 2 Dual., c. 62. 3 Justin Martyr, etc., 11. pp. 181 sqq. tl airy τον 122 JUSTIN MARTYR “nearly contemporary”; but the passage either makes them | absolutely contemporary, or says nothing whatever on the — subject. And lastly, there is nothing in the structure of the © words to suggest the contrast on which Semisch dwells. In ' the Apology it is impossible to justify the division of the two expressions of time between the two participles; and in the - Dialogue it seems perfectly clear that it was the γέννημα, and not the impersonal attribute, that was with the Father. Semisch, however, contends that on any other interpretation of the passage in the Apology, γεννώμενος ought to precede — συνών. But, we may add, in that case we ought to have the — perfect participle instead of the present. The word, as it stands, may be regarded as descriptive, not of the generation of the Logos once for all, but of his permanent nature; and therefore it is not necessary for it to be placed first. The subordinate difficulty which its use in this manner entails is — certainly not sufficient to outweigh the very grave objections — to Semisch’s view which have been already indicated. We must therefore seek for some other construction of the pas- sage. Dorner wishes to escape the difficulty which it presents by substituting ὅτι for ὅτε: But besides the general objection — against all needless resort to conjecture, this change would : reduce the clause to mere tautology, the same reason for the ; name Christ being given in the very next line. Dr Donald- son's suggestion that we should connect the clause introduced by ὅτε with what follows instead of with what precedes, ᾿ appears to me to afford the most reasonable solution of our problem. This clause would then no longer seem in contra- diction to the previous statement, but would acquaint us with the time when the name of Christ was bestowed upon the Son. It would thus be brought into its natural relations a with the context; and instead of appearing like a superfluity © ΣΎ Page. DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 123 flung in without distinct purpose, would make an important addition to the sense of the passage. The only objection that occurs to me lies in the use of the present λέγεται after the aorists ἔκτισε and ἐκόσμησε, but this may perhaps be suffi- ciently explained by the permanence of the title, and by the want of literary finish in Justin’s style. On the whole, then, the evidence before us warrants this conclusion: Justin believed that the Logos existed an in- definite time before the creation ; but nevertheless, while avoid- ing dogmatic precision in his statements, he ascribed a com- mencement to his personal being. In concluding this survey of the doctrine of the divine Son- ship of the Logos, we may notice the title which is applied to him in conformity with it: θεὸς θεοῦ vios,? and more fully, θεόν, TOU μόνου Kal ἀγεννήτου καὶ ἀῤῥήτου θεοῦ υἱόν.3 We come now to the work of the Logos previous to his incarnation. The Johannine doctrine may be stated as follows: The work of creation was effected through the Logos. He was in the world, giving light to all men; but the world did not know him or receive him. Some, however, did receive him, and to them he gave power to become children of God. All these points make their appearance in Justin, and the work of the Logos in the world is presented with elaborate explanation and with amplitude of detail. The whole creation was made through the agency of the Logos; ὥστε λόγῳ θεοῦ . . . γεγενῆσθαι τὸν πάντα κόσμον," where λόγος is most probably used in its special sense; τὸν 1 It is instructive to compare the more explicit statement of Theophilus of Antioch : Ἔχων οὖν ὃ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον ἐνδιάθετον ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις σπλάγ- χνοις ἐγέννησεν αὐτὸν. .. -. πρὸ τῶν ὅλων (Ad. Autol., 11. 10) ; τὸν λόγον τὸν. ὄντα διὰ παντὸς ἐνδιάθετον ἐν καρδίᾳ θεοῦ... . ὅπότε δὲ ἠθέλησεν 6 θεὸς ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἐγέννησεν προφορικόν (ἰδτα., c.22). Here the separate existence of the Logos dates from the divine purpose of creation. -With his view Justin’s is not inconsistent. = Dial., c. 128. 3 Dial., c. 126. 4 Apol., i. Ce 59. 124 JUSTIN MARTYR θεὸν διὰ λόγου Tov κόσμον ποιῆσαι, where the theological meaning is fixed by the context; and δἰ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε There is here no room for advance upon the view contained in the Gospel. The work of the Logos in the world is described with ~ greater fulness. All races of men partook of him; οὗ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων μετέσχε, and he was in every one: ὁ ἐν παντὶ ὦν. A seed of the Logos was innate in every race: τὸ ἔμφυτον παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα Tov λόγου" But even phil-— osophers could attain to only a partial discovery and contem- plation of him: κατὰ λόγου μέρος εὑρέσεως καὶ θεωρίας They did not know everything of his [πάντα τὰ τοῦ λόγου], but saw only what was kindred to themselves: ἀπὸ μέρους τοῦ σπερματικοῦ θείου λόγου TO συγγενὲς Opav.2 Some men lived with the Logos [of μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες], δια were Christians, even though they were supposed by their contemporaries to be atheists. Such among the Greeks were Socrates and Hera- clitus, and similar men, and among the barbarians Abraham and many others. But those who lived without the Logos were enemies of Christ’s, and murderers of those who lived with him. Accordingly the Christians themselves were men — “in whom the seed from God, the Logos, dwells.” #2 We ought to observe that the liberal view of Gentile philosophy is not — consistently held by Justin; for he elsewhere advocates the notion that the philosophers borrowed their “seeds of truth” from the Hebrew prophets." | 1 Apol., i. 6. 64. + Apol., ii. Ὁ Θὲ 3 Apol., 1. Ὁ: 46. P 4 Apol., li. c. 10. 5 Apol., ii. c. 8. See also 13. 6 Apol., ii, ¢. 10. 7 Ibid. 8 Apol., ii. δ. 13. 9 Apol., i. Ὁ, 46. 10 Apol., 1. 6. 32, οἰκεῖ τὸ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ σπέρμα, ὃ λόγος. Compare with this 1 John iii. 9, σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, in connection with John v. 38, τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε μένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν, from which 1 cannot help thinking thatJustin’s expression is derived. 11 Apol., i. c. 44. DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 125 - ᾿ς The Logos played an important part in the history of the Israelites. This subject is only once touched upon in the Gospel, in the obscure words, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.”!_ The appearance to Abra- ham is treated at great length by Justin, and is alluded to ‘several times. He is also said to have appeared to Jacob; to Moses! to Joshua, to the other patriarchs, and to the prophets.’ He was the king and lord of Samuel and Aaron and Moses and of all the others.® It was he who shut up Noah in the ark, and came down to view the tower of Babel.? And finally it was he who led the Israelites out of Egypt.!° We see, then, that in regard to the work of the pre-existent Logos, both the clear doctrine and the obscure intimation of the Fourth Gospel are unfolded with greater amplification and precision by Justin. The philosopher, who may have been versed in the writings of Philo, adds the philosophical comment which the Gospel suggests, but does not supply. We have now reached the point where the Jewish-Alexan- drine and the Christian doctrines of the Logos definitely part company, namely, the incarnation. The whole of the Johannine doctrine is contained in the few words, “'The Logos became fiesh, and tabernacled among us,” ' and we are not told how or when he became incarnate, or whether he dwelt in the human body as its animating soul, or was in mysterious union with a complete man. Here again Justin, though not quite distinct in every particular, largely supplements the deficiencies of the Gospel. Christ, in contradistinction from the philosophers, who had only a portion of the disseminated Logos, was himself the whole Logos :—rov παντὸς λόγου, 6 ἐστι Χριστοῦ." The term 1 viii. τό. 2 Dial. cc. 56,57. 8 Dial, c. 58. 4 Dual., ce. 59, 60. APO, i,62al. 5 Dial. c, 61. 6 Dual. c. 113. 7 Bix. i.e. 63: 8 Dial., ¢. 37. ® Dual., ¢. 127. > 10 Dial., c. 120. it 3,14, 12 Avol., ii. c. 8. 126 JUSTIN MARTYR Logos does not, however, describe his whole personality. This is , completed only by the union of the divine and human natures. Christ is θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος" The former of these terms has been already considered. That the latter implies a real humanity, exposed to the same kind of sufferings as all men have — to endure, is unequivocally asserted :--- ἄνθρωπος ὁμοιοπαθὴς πάσιν,"---ἀληθῶς γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος ἀντιληπτικὸς παθῶν, "---ἀληθῶς παθητὸς ἄνθρωπος. The two natures were united into one — person. This is not, indeed, categorically stated by Justin; ee awe ee ον but it is implied in his whole treatment of the subject, and — the following passage, in which the agony in Gethsemane is ascribed to the Son of God, evidently in the highest sense — of that term, appears conclusive :—this occurred “that we may ~ know that the Father has wished his own Son to be truly in-— volved even in such sufferings on our account, and that we may ~ not say that he, as being the Son of God, did not feel the things © that were done and occurred to him.”* This sentence, though — primarily intended to assert the reality of Christ's human — nature in opposition to the Docets, would entirely lose its — force if Justin could have admitted the supposition that the — sufferings of the body were felt only by the man, and did ποῦ extend themselves to the incarnate Logos. This complete — incorporation of the divine Sonship with suffering humanity — is well expressed in Justin’s two favourite phrases, ἄνθρωπος. γενόμενος (or variations of these words)® and capkoroinGeis.” Whether Justin believed that the humanity of Christ included — the highest as well as the lowest elements of human nature © has been disputed. In one passage he casually describes 1 Pial., c. 71. 2 Dual., ὁ. 57, quoted by Tryphon from Justin. 3 Dial., c. 98. 4 Dual., 6. 99. 5 Dial., c. 103. 6 Apol., i. cc. 5, 23 (twice), 32, 42, 50, 53, 63 (twice); Apol., ii. ὁ. 135 Dial., cc. 48, 57, 64, 67, 68 (twice), 76, 85, 100, 101, 125 (twice). 7 Apol., i. cc. 32, 66 (twice); Dzal., cc. 45, 84, 87, 100. Compare τοῦ σωματοποιήσασθαι αὐτόν, Dral., c. 70. DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 127 Christ as consisting of καὶ σῶμα καὶ λόγον καὶ ψυχήν: Accord- ing to one interpretation of these words, he here teaches the : doctrine which in later times was maintained by Apollinaris, : that in the triple division of human nature into σῶμα, ψυχή, and νοῦς or πνεῦμα, the place of the last in Christ was supplied by the Logos. It is possible, however, that Justin uses ψυχή ‘in a wider sense as comprehending the whole of the vital and mental principle in man, as in speaking of the future life he is content with a reference to σῶμα and ψυχή, and as Apol- linaris himself allows to the word this larger significance in one of the surviving fragments of his writings. We must not omit to notice that the Fourth Gospel, though not in any doctrinal passage, ascribes both πνεῦμα“ and ψυχή to Christ. To this, however, no more dogmatic significance can be attached than to Justin’s ascription of spirit [πνεῦμα] to him when he says that he gave up the spirit on the cross. On the whole, it appears to me most probable, in the absence of any indubit- able statements to the contrary, that Justin quietly assumed the completeness of Christ’s humanity, but that he did so without a conscious rejection of the particular form of doctrine which seated the Logos in the place of the human νοῦς. On the question how and when the incarnation took place, the Fourth Gospel not only, as I have said, maintains an absolute silence, but allows the objection of the Jews,—“ Is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know ?”—to pass without correction; and it gives no answer to their inquiry, “ How then does he say, I have come down out of heaven?”"’ If the writer had any answer except that this was a spiritual mystery, credible to those who had tasted 1 Apol., ii. c. 10. 2 Apol., i. ¢. 8. 3 Quoted by Gieseler, Kirchengesch., § 83, note 30. ΕἸ. ΕἸ 24, ΧΗ]: 21, xix. 30. ae Sn | ἈΝ γι 6 Dial., c. 105. 7 vi. 42. 128 JUSTIN MARTYR i | 7 the bread of life that came down from heaven, but tanned hensible to others, his silence is most difficult to explain. Ἶ Justin, however, is not so reticent. The incarnation took place — by means of the miraculous conception and the birth from ἃ virgin. He refers to this subject upwards of thirty times; but it will be sufficient for our purpose to notice those © passages in which the Logos doctrine and the birth from a virgin are brought into the closest connection. This is done in the very first allusion to the subject:—“ When we say that the Logos, which is the first offspring of God, has been begotten without intercourse, namely, Jesus Christ our teacher,” ete! Again, “The first power after the Father . is the Logos; and in what way he being made flesh became man we shall tell in what follows.... He was born through a virgin, ... through the power of God.” « a Son to the Father of the universe, who being Logos and first-born of God is also God. . ... And now in © the times of your empire having become man through a virgin - according to the counsel of the Father,’ etc* So in the Dialogue :—“ Through a virgin’s womb the first-born of all created things being made flesh became truly a child.”* “This Son of God and first-born of all creation, born through a virgin, and become man,” etc.2 “You say that he pre-existed as God, and that according to the counsel of God having been made flesh he was born as man through the virgin.”® “He was only-begotten to the Father of the universe, having sprung in a peculiar manner from him as Logos and power, and after- wards having become man through the virgin.”’ In one pas- sage Justin expresses himself differently, and says that Jesus was born “through the power of the Logos [διὰ δυνάμεως Tod 1 Apol., i. c, 21. 2 Avpol., i. 6. 32. 3 Apol., i. c. 63.. 4 ς, 84. 5 ¢, 85 ; see also 100. 6 Said by Tryphon, c. 87. Te. 10 Ὁ: a i DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 129 λόγου], . . . through a virgin.”! But this simply implies that the Logos, as the agent through whom the Father carried on his operations, was himself active in the miraculous conception, and is therefore not inconsistent with the other statements. We have thus compared the doctrines of the Fourth Gospel and of Justin step by step, and it seems to me that the state- ment of the latter is, beyond all question, in a more developed form than that of the Gospel. Not only is every point in the Johannine doctrine contained in Justin’s, but almost every portion of it is presented with amplifications, its ambiguous statements are resolved into the requisite number of definite propositions, and questions which it suggests, but does not answer, are dogmatically settled. It cannot well be main- tained that the Gospel represents in a condensed form the same phase of ecclesiastical thought; for then it would not exhibit the ambiguities or raise the unanswered questions to which I have alluded, or omit altogether the method of the incarnation. In short, while Justin’s doctrine may be used as a commentary on the Johannine, the latter cannot be re- garded as a summary of the former. Whatever, therefore, may be the date of the Gospel, it represents an earlier stage of ecclesiastical dogma. ) Most striking is the way in which Justin brings the synop- tical tradition of the miraculous birth into connection with the Logos doctrine. Here the phenomena are precisely what we should expect if it was thought necessary to harmonize the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptics; and if we arrange the three views, miraculous birth without Logos doctrine, Logos doctrine without miraculous birth, and Logos doctrine along _ with miraculous birth, and remember that the last is the per- _ manent ecclesiastical dogma, I do not see how it is possible to believe that the middle one, the Johannine, is the latest of 1 Apol., i. c. 46. 9 130 JUSTIN MARTYR the three, or that a Gospel containing it was likely either to be written or to force its way into universal acceptance as an apostolic work at a time when the enduring dogma of the Church had been already formulated. All difficulty vanishes if we suppose that the beliefs exhibited respectively by the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel existed at first in their de- tached form, and then, on account of the authority of the writings in which they appeared, were held to be equally binding on the faith of Christendom, and were harmonized accordingly. We may notice here, as illustrating the relation of ecclesias- tical writers to the Scriptures, an apparent contradiction between Justin and John, which is pointed out by Dr Abbott? as an objection to the view here put forward. The former says that to the Father of all, as being unbegotten, no name (ὄνομα) is given? whereas the latter says that Christ mani- fested God’s name to his disciples.2 Here there is indeed a verbal contradiction, but surely none in meaning. Are we to suppose that Justin was ignorant of, or rejected, also the Lord’s prayer? It is obvious that by ὄνομα he means a proper name, like Peter or Paul. For he says that “Father and God and Creator and Lord and Sovereign are not ὀνόματα but προσρήσεις. John also gives no proper name. It is clear that by ὄνομα he refers to a word descriptive of the essential nature and character of God; and that word is πατήρ. Justin’s, which was the common philosophical view, was held by later writers, whose knowledge of the Fourth Gospel will not be called in question. The martyr Attalus declared ὁ θεὸς ὄνομα οὐκ ἔχει ὡς ἄνθρωπος Theophilus of Antioch teaches the same lesson when he says τὸ εἶδος τοῦ θεοῦ ἄῤῥητον καὶ ἀνέκφραστόν ἔστιν, and almost verbally — 1 Encycl. Bibl., ii. 1836. 2 Avol., ii. 6. 3 xvi1.'6, 12,20. 4 In the Letter from Lyons and Vienne, Eusebius, H. £., v. τ. ik "ἢν v1 " δὶ ᾿ x Eusebius. DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 131 contradicts John i. 18 when he says that God is ἀνεκδιήγητος.ἷ Clement of Alexandria gives the philosophical explanation when, having pronounced God to be ἀνωνόμαστον, he declares of such expressions as Father, or God, or Lord, οὐχ ws ὄνομα αὐτοῦ προσφερόμενοι λέγομεν, ὑπὸ δὲ ἀπορίας ὀνόμασι καλοῖς προσχρώμεθα, ἵν ἔχῃ ἡ διάνοια, μὴ περὶ ἄλλα πλανωμένη, ἐπερείδεσθαι τούτοις." Lactantius teaches the same doctrine, quoting Trismegistus in its support. The simple fact is that no acceptance of revelation could stop the onward flow of philosophical speculation, and writers who undoubtedly accepted the divine authority of the Fourth Gospel surround its thoughts with a vast mass of philosophical language and doctrine, which is entirely foreign to the Gospel itself. A useful example is furnished by Theophilus of Antioch. Critics might prove to their entire satisfaction that he could not have known the Fourth Gospel, were it not that in a single passage he happens to quote the Gospel under the name of John, after stating his Logos doctrine in most un-Johannine language.‘ So far our examination of Justin’s doctrine has not furnished immediate evidence that he was acquainted with the Gospel. Its value in this direction has been chiefly negative. It has removed the objection that Justin’s doctrine belongs to an earlier period than the Johannine, and shown that it really represents a later phase of development; and to this extent it favours the hypothesis that the Gospel is the earlier composition. _ There are, however, certain features in Justin’s way of unfold- ing his subject which afford some positive evidence,—evidence, indeed, of a delicate character, and not placed beyond the reach 1 Ad Autol., i. 3. 2 Strom. v.12, p. 695. Potter. 3 Inst. Div.,i.6. The above are referred to in the note in Heinichen’s 4 Ad Autol., ii. 22. \ 132 - JUSTIN MARTYR of doubt, but valuable to the really critical mind, which is con- tent patiently to weigh probabilities, and does not impetuously thrust aside as worthless every argument which falls short of demonstration. To these we must now address ourselves. It seems most probable that some evangelical document esteemed authoritative by Christians contained a doctrine of the Logos which Justin believed to be substantially identical with his own. In the absence of express quotation, and with our author’s want of strictness and accuracy in the use of language, there is room for uncertainty; but the following indications point in this direction. Justin apparently assumes throughout that he is defending, not some new opinions of his own, but the faith of the great body of Christian believers. He candidly admits that “some” did not entertain the same opinion as himself in regard to the divine nature of Christ; but this word “some” implies that the majority of Christians were on his side. He adds: “ With these I do not agree; nor should I even if most who thought as I do [that is, most Christians] should affirm it [Christ’s natural human descent], since we have been ordered by Christ himself not to believe human doctrines, but those which were preached through the blessed prophets and were taught through him.”! Here again it is clearly implied that Justin, in his own conception, represented the opinion of “ most.” Further, it is evident from the last quotation, unless its solemn appeal is quite irrelevant, that he supported his doc- trine of the supernatural sonship of Jesus by the authority of the Master himself; and therefore there must have been some evangelical document which put into the mouth of Christ some statements in regard to his own divine and pre- existent nature. This document can hardly have been one of the Synoptics; for the simple title “Son of God” would not, 1 Dial., c. 48. a DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 133 according to Justin’s own admission,’ have been sufficient to establish his conclusion, and we cannot well suppose that this title was rejected by the party who maintained the simple humanity of Jesus. But discourses similar to some of those in the Fourth Gospel would have supplied him with the needed element in Christ’s teaching. This casual allusion is of con- siderable importance, because Justin nowhere quotes any words of Christ’s in support of his position, and from this fact it has been inferred that he knew of none to quote. Here, however, unless his language is strangely irrelevant, he implies that he was ready on occasion to appeal to Christ’s teaching ‘in opposition to some of his fellow-Christians ; and the reason- able conclusion seems to be, that he fails to quote that teaching because it would not help an argument which was intended to establish the truth of Christianity against unbelievers, and not to maintain the correctness of a particular conception of Christianity against those who admitted the authority of the same Christian documents. In fact, critics expect from Justin’s Apologies what they have no right to expect except from his lost works against heretics. We are not, however, without direct evidence that Justin spoke as a representative of his fellow-Christians. We find, for instance, the following passage :—“ When we say [τῷ . . . φάσκειν ἡμᾶς] that the Logos, which is the offspring of God, has been begotten without intercourse, Jesus Christ our teacher, and that he having been crucified, and having died and risen again, ascended into heaven,” ete.2 That this “we” is not the mere plural of authorship is evident from the previous chapter, where he obviously speaks in the name of Christians, asking,— “Tf we say some things similarly to poets and philosophers, . why are we unjustly hated beyond all men?” In another place he says,—“ We have been taught [ἐδιδάχθημεν], and de- 1 Apol., i. c. 22. 3 Apol., 1. €. 21. 134 JUSTIN MARTYR clared before, that Christ is the first-born of God, being the Logos, of which the whole race of men partook.”? Here the derivative character of his Logos: doctrine is unequivocally asserted—asserted, too, in combination with one of the most remarkable ideas of the Fourth Gospel. In this connection we must notice the following passage :— “For that he was only-begotten [Movoyevys yap ὅτι ἣν] to the Father of the universe, being sprung in a peculiar manner from him as Logos and power [δύναμις], 8η6 afterwards having become man through the virgin [ἄνθρωπος . . . yevouevos],as we — learned from the memoirs, I declared before.”? The natural inference from this passage, taken in connection with the previous probabilities, is, that Justin found the titles μονογενής and λόγος applied to Christ in one of his Gospels. The clause, “as we learned from the memoirs,” might possibly refer only to the birth from a virgin; but there is nothing in the structure of the passage to suggest such a limitation; and even if we admit it, still ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος points to the Fourth Gospel rather than the Synoptics. We must, however, take a wider survey; and I think that a careful consideration of the context in the midst of which this sentence occurs, tends to prove that the word μονογενής was applied to Christ inthe memoirs. The pas- sage 1S part of a very long comparison which Justin institutes between the twenty-second Psalm and the recorded events of Christ’s life. For the purposes of this comparison he refers to — or quotes “the Gospel” once, and “the memoirs” ten times, — and farther refers to the latter three times in the observa- — tions which immediately follow. This is the only place in the Dialogue where “the memoirs” are mentioned. They are appealed to here because they furnish the successive steps οὗ the proof by which the Psalm is shown to be prophetic. Though the argument occasionally rambles, its main purpose is never 1 Apol., i. c. 46. 2 Dial., ὁ. 105. “ee DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 135 forgotten, and the proofs from the memoirs are all in point. We are therefore furnished with a rule by which to judge of the passage before us. The memoirs must in this case also have contained something which indicated the prophetic char- acter of the Psalm. What, then, are the words in the Psalm which have to be illustrated ?—< But thou, O Lord, remove not thy help far from me; attend unto my succour. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten [τὴν μονογενῆ μου] from the hand of the dog. Save me from the mouth of the lion, and my humiliation from the horns of unicorns.” These words, it is added, “ are again in a similar way a teach- ing and prophecy of the things that belong to him [τῶν ὄντων αὐτῷ] and were going to happen. For that he was only-be- gotten,” ete. There is here no ground of comparison whatever except in the word μονογενής. Whether we adopt or not the conjecture of Maranus! that Justin read in the Psalm, τὸν μονογενῆ σου, it is evident that he understood μονογενῆ as referring to Christ; and accordingly he places the same word emphatically at the beginning of the sentence in which he proves the reference of this part of the Psalm to Jesus. For the same reason he refers not only to events, but to τὰ ὄντα αὐτῷ These are taken up first in the nature and title of μονογενής, Which immediately suggests λόγος and δύναμις, while the events are introduced and discussed afterwards. The allu- sion here to the birth through the virgin has nothing to do with the quotation from the Old Testament, and is probably introduced simply to show how Christ, although the only-be- gotten and Logos, was nevertheless a man. If the argument were,—These words allude to Christ, because the memoirs tell us that he was born from a virgin,—it would be utterly in- coherent. If it were-——These words allude to Christ, because the memoirs say that he was the only-begotten,—it would be 1 See Otto’s note. 136 JUSTIN MARTYR perfectly valid from Justin’s point of view. It would not, however, be suitable for a Jew, for whom the fact that Christ was μονογενής, not being an historical event, had to rest upon other authority, and therefore Justin, changing his usual form, says that he has already explained to him a doctrine which the Christians learned from the memoirs. It appears to me, then, most probable that the peculiar Johannine title μονογενής existed in the Gospels used by Justin. It is alleged, however, that even if we grant that the clause about the memoirs applies to the whole sentence, and not merely to the words immediately preceding, still the previous statement in 6. 100, to which Justin refers, completely disposes of the apparent allusion to the Fourth Gospel. It is there asserted that on account of his exposure to dishonour and suffering, Christ called himself the Son of Man, and that he gave Simon the surname of Peter for having by the revelation of the Father recognized him as the Son of God. In evidence of the first statement a passage is quoted :—“The Son of Man must suffer many things,” etc. The confession of Peter is men- tioned, but not formally quoted; and Justin then proceeds :— “ Having it written in the memoirs of his Apostles that he is the Son of God, and calling him Son, we have understood that he is so [νενοήκαμεν ὄντα], and that he came forth before all created things from the Father by his power and will, who also has been called in the words of the Prophets in various ways both wisdom and day and dawn and sword and stone and staffand Jacob and Israel, and [we have understood] that he became man through the virgin.” On this passage Thoma remarks that Justin can allege only Matt. xvi. 16 from the memoirs in proof of the divine sonship of Christ.? Now Justin is not professing to give a list of passages where 1 Justins literarisches Verhiltniss zu Paulus αι. zwm Johannes-Evang., il. p. 552, in the Zeztschr. fiir wiss. Theol., 1875. DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 137 Jesus is called the Son of God. If so, he would have cited Luke i. 35, which he quotes for a different purpose a little farther on. For each of the titles which he mentions he selects but one illustrative statement. For the designation “Son of Man” he naturally chooses one connected with Christ’s suffering and death. For the other he adopts one in which Christ’s own approval of the title is most emphatically marked, and in which the recognition of his higher nature is ascribed to a revelation from God; and I know not that one more suited to the purpose could be found even in the Fourth Gospel. This argument from silence, therefore, has no weight. Thoma says further in relation to this passage, that that in which Justin agrees with John he has not found written, but has understood, namely from the prophetical writings. But, in the first place, the Logos does not appear by name in this passage at all. In the second place, Justin does not say that he has understood anything from the Prophets. In the third place, Thoma’s distinction is artificial, and in part founded on a mistranslation. He omits ὄντα in his rendering. If this be retained, the first thing which Justin says that he wnderstood is the very thing that he has just said was written ; and more- over the assertion about the birth through the virgin, which was contained in the memoirs, is also only understood. But, Thoma proceeds, how these things were understood is expressly declared, “‘for, says Justin immediately before, ‘as he promised in the Gospel (Matt. xi. 27) he has revealed to us everything which we have understood from the Scriptures (of the Old Testament) through his grace, while we recognize him as first-born of God before all creatures.” Now here Thoma has conveniently omitted a καί. Justin really says, “He re- vealed to us therefore all things, as many as we have under- stood also from the Scriptures through his grace.” In other 1 “Erkannt”; but I retain my translation of νενοήκαμεν. 138 JUSTIN MARTYR words, Justin believed that he had learned his doctrines on distinct Christian authority which went back to Christ himself, although he likewise found proofs of them in the Old Testa- —— ment. Thoma also remarks upon the fact that in the later οὗ the two passages (c. 105) the words are not, “as we read in the — memoirs,” but, “as we learned” from them, as though what is — learned were only a matter of inference. In reply to so — strange a criticism we need only ask, Did Justin merely infer — that Jesus uttered the words, “ Father, into thy hands I com- | mend my spirit,” since he only learned [ἔμαθον] the fact from the memoirs? Or did he intend the emperor merely to infer — [δύνασθε μαθεῖν] the events at the crucifixion from the Acts : ‘i of Pilate or that the ruler of the demons was called Satan — from the Christian writings? We cannot, therefore, accept — Thoma’s conclusion that Justin’s whole Christology is simply — developed from the confession of Peter; for on examination it proves to be a groundless hypothesis. On the other hand, we have to remark, in comparing the earlier and later passages on which we have been commenting, that the former has an express reference to the Prophets as the warrant for a number of epithets which are not in the Gospels, and for nothing else; and that in the latter there is no reference to the Prophets, and there is no statement which is not contained either ex- pressly or by evident implication in our present Gospels. It — is also a mere assumption that Justin refers by his προεδήλωσα to the passage in chapter 100, in which the Logos is not men- — tioned, and in which there is nothing to imply the idea expressed here, and here only, by μονογενής. Why should we not rather have recourse to 6. 61,in which the Logos, accompanied as here by the name δύναμις, is mentioned for the first time, and to other passages in which similar views are unfolded? I think, there- fore, it is not wholly unreasonable to believe that Justin in- | 1 Dial., c. 105. 2 Apol., 1. ce. 35, 48. 3 Apol., i. c. 28. = ea .:.. DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 139 i memoirs, and that he did not consider it a mere inference from tended to assert the existence of his Logos doctrine in the the confession of Peter, to which there is no allusion whatever in the sentence under examination. _ From all these considerations I cannot but deem it highly probable that Justin had an authoritative Christian source for his doctrine of the Logos, and probable, though perhaps not in such a high degree, that this source was one of the memoirs. | | : There is one other point of some importance. The source from which the Logos doctrine was drawn did not contain an account of the miraculous birth. This is proved not only by the absence of all allusion to such an account, while the synoptic narrative is fully referred to and quoted, but from the fact that the Logos is brought into this connection only by a process of inference, identifying him with the Spirit which overshadowed Mary. “The Spirit, then, and the Power from God,” it is said, in reference to the narrative in Luke, “ it is impious to suppose to be anything else but the Logos.”? This is in significant agreement with our Fourth Gospel, and betrays the process by which Justin harmonized its doctrine with that of the Synopties. Now when we remember that Justin’s doctrine of the Logos is a developed form of the Johannine, that it harmonizes the Johannine doctrine with that of the Synoptics, that this har- monizing is the only impressive feature which it adds to the Johannine, that probably it rested on the authority of some evangelical source, and that this source probably did not 1 Apol.,i.c. 33. It is'significant also that in Dial., c. 100, where he draws a parallel between Eve and Mary, he says that Eve conceived the Logos from the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death; but in the case of Mary he contents himself with referring to the narrative contained in Luke, and does not venture to say in express terms that she conceived the Logos of God. 140 JUSTIN MARTYR contain an account of the miraculous birth, and further that — we have no reason to believe that such a source ever existed — except the Fourth Gospel, we can hardly help concluding © that Justin must have been acquainted with that Gospel, and have relied upon it as a basis of Christian dogmaties. We must next consider the language in which the doctrine of our apologist is expressed, and how far it coincides with — that of the Gospel. As he nowhere quotes the proem of the © Gospel, it might be supposed either that he has on inde- pendent grounds adapted the doctrine of Philo to Christianity, — or that he has embraced ideas which were indeed current — among Christians, but were not yet incorporated in any autho- | ritative writing. If our previous judgment has been correct, neither of these suppositions can be accepted. We have seen reason to believe that he had a written Christian source; and whatever this may have been, he has nowhere professedly Ἶ quoted it. This fact need occasion no difficulty ; for though, for various purposes, he repeatedly quotes his Gospels, he is also fond of employing his own language to describe the facts and doctrines recorded in them, and it is not his habit to state in the form of an evangelical quotation a doctrine which he wishes to prove, and then proceed to his demonstration. Rather is it his custom to present the Christian dogmas in his own style, or sometimes indeed in words which remind one of the consecutive clauses of a creed. In regard to the proem of the Fourth Gospel, supposing him to have had it be- 1 Take as an example the following, which may have been a formula of exorcism: “ For by the name of this very Son of God, both first-born of all creation, and born through a virgin, and become man liable to suffering, and crucified under Pontius Pilate by your people, and having died, and risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, every demon being exorcised is overcome and brought into subjection” [Dial., c. 85]; or this: “Whom also we recognized as Christ the Son of God, crucified and risen and ascended into the heavens, and to come again as judge of all men without exception down to Adam himself” [Dzal., c. 132]. »-" RET SI δε, πνέει DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST 141 fore him, two causes may have operated to prevent him from quoting it. That proem,as we have seen, is not so explicit as to betray its full meaning to every casual reader. Justin’s doctrine stands to it in the relation of a commentary, and nothing could be more natural than that in apologies addressed to persons who did not admit the authority of the Gospels he should present his commentary without the text. The proem, moreover, does not form a part of the evangelical history, and does not repeat the words of Christ himself: and as it is no part of Justin’s plan to establish the dogmatic authority of the Apostles, he only follows his usual practice in failing to appeal to it. In one place he apologizes for citing even Christ’s words :—“ For since, Tryphon, you read, as you yourself acknowledged, the things taught by that Saviour of ours, I do not think that I have acted strangely in mentioning also brief oracles of his in addition to those of the Prophets.”! One other consideration remains. We know that Justin made use of the Apocalypse, and ascribed it to the Apostle John.2 He expressly refers to this work as containing the doctrine of the millennium; yet he does not quote it, but immediately cites a saying of Christ’s instead. Notwithstanding his belief in its apostolical origin, and his acceptance of it as a real revelation, he nowhere else refers to it and never quotes it; and were it not for this one casual allusion, there would be nothing to show that he had ever heard of it. From this example we may learn how very fallacious are arguments built upon the absence of evidence. But what I wish chiefly to notice is this: the Apocalypse contains the very title which Justin wanted as a basis for his dogma,—xaXeira TO ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, ‘O λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ3 Whatever may be the opinion of the modern interpreter, there can be little doubt that Justin would have explained this title in its metaphysical sense. We 1 Dua. c. 18. 2° Dral., ὁ. 81. 3 xix, 13. 142 JUSTIN MARTYR have, therefore, direct and positive proof that he had one Logos source, which he attributed to the Apostle John, and which nevertheless he neglects to quote. From the foregoing con- siderations we are justified in concluding that the argument against the use of the proem from the failure to cite it is destitute of force. te er rt It remains, then, for us to inquire whether Justin's language © is sufficiently near to that of the Gospel to be regarded as the language of a man who sought to express the doctrine of the proem in his own words, and in a way adapted to the require- ments of his particular controversy. The answer to this 4 question will be best given by exhibiting the language of the q two writers side by side, so far as they can be brought into 1 comparison. JOHN. JUSTIN. Τὺ ° ~ s ς "4 ς , κι od 4 . A , Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἣν ὁ λόγος, ὁ λόγος .. . συνὼν, . .. ὅτε THY ἀρχὴν . ε , a ᾿ καὶ ὁ λόγος ἣν προς]. .. τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν Cf. > \ “ \ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τον ὁ λόγος, 1. I . κόσμον εἶναι, and \ a , πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσ- ov, ἜΝΙ 5, 24. Ul 3 ς᾽ wu, ΑΘ , πάντα Ol αὐτοῦ eye- . e , veto, 1. 3. O κοσμος “. “ι΄ » af δὶ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, 1. 10. is in John viii. 25, and is often used by Justin instead of ἐν ἀρχῇ. 59, he uses it to represent ἐν apyy of Gen. 1. 1.1] συνῆν τῷ πατρί [Dial., c. 62. Justin may have preferred συνῆν as less ἔκτισε [Apol., ii. c. 61. [Τὴν ἀρχήν In Apol., 1. 6. suggestive of an attribute than ἣν πρός]. x κ᾿ ᾿ ’ , ” , TOV Και T po TTOLYT EWS KOO (LOU οντα θεόν, [Dial., 6. 56, p. 276 9]. , 5 oo» θεός ἐστι καὶ ἔσται [Dial., ec. 58. As we have seen, the title © θεός is used repeatedly]. δι’ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε... πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ [4οϊ,, ii.c. 6]. ὥστε λόγῳ . γεγενῆσθαι τὸν πάντα κόσμον [Apol.,i.c. 59]. τὸν θεὸν διὰ λόγου τὸν κόσμον ποιῆσαι ἔγνωσαν [Apol., i. α. 641. θεοῦ... “. ‘A κοσμῆσαι TA HIS USE OF LANGUAGE a \ 9 . ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἣν, 1. 4. ἣν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθι- νόν, 1. 9. τ. φ. τοῦ κόσμου; Vill. 12, 1x. 5. a ’ Ἂ 3 ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄν- θρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς A , = TOV κόσμον, 1. 9. \ 7 3 ’ ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, 5, ’ a 93 ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξου- , a4 ~ ciav τέκνα θεοῦ γε- ’ ~ / νέσθαι, τοῖς πιςτεύ- 9 \ Bd ovow εἰς TO ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, 1. 12. \ , ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, mi, 14. 143 . ἀνέβλυσεν οὗτος ὃ Χριστός [Dial., Cc. 69; cf. John vii. 38, 39]. πηγὴ ὕδατος ζῶντος . . ~ , J , ‘ , , a TOU μόνου ἀμώμου καὶ δικαίου φωτὸς, τοῖς ἁνθρώποις πεμφθέντος [Dial., c 17]. ® , 9 e ’ e 4A “ἊΝ ~ οὗτος ἐστιν O EV Ἱερουσαλὴμ αἰώνιον φως λάμπειν μέλλων [1)1αἷ., 6. 113). ὁ φωτιζόμενος [Apol., 1. 6. 61, οὗ one who is baptized]. λόγος γὰρ ἣν καὶ ἔστιν ὁ ἐν παντὶ ὧν [Apol., 11. 10]. τὸ ἔμφυτον παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων σπέρμα τοῦ λόγου [Apol., ii. 6. 8]. οὗ πᾶν γένος ἀνθρώπων μετέσχε [Apol., i. c. 46]. e ᾿ς , , δ ΔΘ of μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι [Apol., i. ὁ. 46]. 5, > a ° a A A mn . ἄνθρωποι, ἐν οἷς οἰκεῖ TO Tapa τοῦ ’ 9 ~ οἱ πιστεύοντες αὐτῷ θεοῦ σπέρμα, ὁ λόγος [Apol., i. c. 32]. ε , 4 +A ὁ λόγος. σαρκοποιηθεὶς ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν [Apol., i. 6. 32. We have seen how often similar expressions occur. Compare the σαρκωθέντα, ἐνανθρωπή- σαντα, of the Nicene and other Creeds], σάρκα ἔχων [Dial., ec. 481. μονογενής, i. 18, ete. | μονογενής [Dial., 6. 105]. Though this comparison cannot prove that Justin made use of the Fourth Gospel, it cannot be denied that his language is sufficiently like the Johannine to be quite consistent with a relationship of dependence between them. We find in the Apologist four characteristic Johannine expressions, λόγος, φῶς, 144 JUSTIN MARTYR σὰρξ ἴῃ σαρκοποιηθείς, and μονογενής. We have an almost identical statement of the creation of the κόσμος and πάντα δὶ αὐτοῦ, the very similar συνῆν τῷ πατρί and τὴν ἀρχήν used of the Logos, and one or two other less marked resemblances. The phraseology, then, in which Justin propounds his doctrine is not incompatible with our previous conclusion. , This conclusion does not seem to me in any way invalidated — by Dr Abbott’s perfectly just remark, “That the multiplicity - of names given to the Logos (Tryph., 56, 61, 100, ete.)\—Son, Wisdom, Angel, Day, East, Sword, ete.—suggests Philo’s (1. 427) — ee ‘many-named’ Logos rather than that of John.”* For what — could be more natural than that Justin the philosopher should ; philosophise about the doctrine of the Gospel, and borrow — many an interpreting hint from Philo? The notion that the | early Fathers were severely critical in doctrinal matters, and | confined themselves rigidly to the exact meaning and language © of the Scriptures, seems to me quite contrary to’ the evidence. The fundamental doctrine which Justin wishes to establish is | in John, and not in Philo; and he seeks to support it and give it its complete dogmatic setting, by a long course of argument — which is not in the Gospel. This method is to my mind a mark of the later writer, and corresponds with the method which has been largely pursued by theologians who were well acquainted with the canonical Scriptures. Justin, in short, ranks with the long line of ecclesiastical controversialists and commentators, and not with the men whose inspiration pro- duced in holy Scriptures the formative ideas of Christianity. — We must now proceed to notice certain forms of expression — and modes of thought of a more miscellaneous character, which remind one of the Fourth Gospel. Some of these, it will be observed, are so similar to the Johannine language, that they might be treated as quotations; but I shall reserve for the 1 Encycl, Bibl., ii. 1837. 5 MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS 148 latter head only those passages in which Justin is unques- tionably borrowing from an earlier writer. The following apparent allusions have nothing in their context to indicate their dependent origin. The first expression which demands our attention borders closely on exact quotation. It is found in the first Apology,} where it is said that the Christians “ honour Jesus Christ, who both became our teacher of these things and was born to this end [εἰς τοῦτο γεννηθέντα], who was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” Here not only do the words point to John xviii. 37, εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι, but the perfectly needless reference to Pilate reminds us that it was before the Roman governor that this expression was used. We may next observe a few phrases descriptive of Christ’s coming into the world. Justin, like John, regards the eleva- tion of the brazen serpent in the wilderness as typical of the crucifixion,” and in speaking of it he says that it denoted salvation to those προσφεύγουσι τῷ τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον υἱὸν αὐτοῦ πέμψαντι εἰς τὸν κόσμον8 Now this idea of God’s sending his Son into the world occurs in the same connection in John iii. 17, and, strange as it may appear, it is an idea which, in the New Testament, is peculiar to John. Outside the Johannine writings, there are only two passages in which the expression εἰς τὸν κόσμον iS used in relation to Christ, and there it is connected with his coming, not with his being sent; within these writings it occurs no fewer than eleven times. It is remarkable, however, that in the four instances® in which John speaks of Christ’s being sent into the world, he prefers the word ἀποστέλλω, so that Justin’s phrase is not entirely coincident with the Johannine. But the use of πέμπω itself is ee. 13. 2 Apol., i. c. 60. Dial., cc. 91, 94 and 131. 3 Dial., c. gt. 41 Tim. i. 15 and Heb. x. 5. 5 T include the First Epistle, iv. 9. IO 146 JUSTIN MARTYR curious. Except by John, it is applied to Christ in the New © Testament only twice,’ whereas John uses it twenty-five times. Justin’s language, therefore, in the thought which it expresses, in the selection of words, and in its connection, is closely related to John’s, and has no other parallel in the New Testa- ment. A similar remark will apply to another phrase used by Justin, τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλθόντα," which finds its parallel in John’s ἐγὼ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον, and, as regards the παρά, in other parts of the Gospel, but nowhere else in the New Testament. Again, Justin speaks of Christ as θεὸν ἄνωθεν προελθόντα, and with this we may compare John’s ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος," an expression characteristic of himself. One of the passages in which Justin uses the Johannine πέμπω forms a transition to another mode of thought which occurs with great frequency in the Fourth Gospel. The A al , ~ / ° 4 A at | words are, κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτὸν πατρος καὶ δεσπότου κιτιλ Compare with this John’s τὸ. θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός me,” and τοῦ πέμψαντός με πατρός, expressions quite characteristic. Elsewhere Justin speaks of things as happening to Christ κατὰ τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θέλημα, and of grace as coming from him κατὰ τὸ θέλ. τοῦ 7° He repeatedly says that the incarnation took place according to the will of the Father, but generally uses, not the Johannine θέλημα, but βουλή or βούλησις. Once, however, he says, ὡς τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρωπείου σπέρματος γεγενημένου GAN’ ἐκ θελήματος θεοῦ. This may be a reminiscence of John i. 13, a text which, we know, was applied to Christ by Irenzeus ” and Tertullian, who for the genuine reading substituted ὃς... 1 Luke xx. 13 and Rom. viii. 3. 2 Apol, ii. c. 6. 3 xvi. 27; see also 28 and xvii. 8. * Dual., ὃ. 64. δ 30s 6 Dral., 6. 140. ” iv. 34, V. 30, Vi. 38, 39, 40. 8 xiv 120+ δ΄. γ..37, Vis 44, Vill. 16; 18, 211/40. Pian toe, * 9. 7)γαϊ ce, 116. 11. Dial., c. 63. 12 Her., 111. xvi. 2 and xix, 2. 13 De Carne Christi, cc. 19 and 24. Ss oe δο͵ιμμμμμδιω — a MISCELLANEOUS THOUGHTS 147 ἐγεννήθη. The Johannine doctrine of Christ’s dependence on the Father is clearly set forth, though without much similarity of language, in the statement,—“I affirm that he never did anything except those things which the Maker of the universe, above whom there is no other God, wished him both to do and to say.”’! With this we may compare John’s statements,— “the Son can do nothing of himself,”? and, “I speak not of myself, but the Father who sent me himself gave me a com- mandment what I should say and what I should speak.” More remarkable is an appended clause which occurs after a reference to Christ’s resurrection, ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ λαβὼν ἔχει On account of the present ἔχει, the 6 apparently refers to the permanent risen state implied in the previous clause ; but the thought may have been suggested by John’s ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ πατρός mov,> Which is introduced in a similar connection. Justin’s allusions to the brazen serpent as typical of the crucifixion constitute another parallel between him and the writer of the Gospel, but can hardly prove his dependence on the latter, as he seized with avidity every type which a torturing exegesis could extract from the Old Testament. We may, however, compare his statement that this particular type indicated σωτηρία τοῖς πιστεύουσι ἐπὶ τοῦτον K.T-A.° With John’s ἵνα πᾶς ὃ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται κ-τ.λ.ἴ More important is his account of the significance of the elements in the Lord’s Supper. He says, “We were taught that” the bread and wine “were the flesh [σάρκα] and blood of Jesus who was made flesh” [σαρκοποιηθέντος].8 Now, not only are we reminded of John by σαρκοποιηθέντος, but still more by the use of σάρκα to describe the bread. In the New Testament the word employed is invariably σῶμα. Justin 1. 7)γαῖ., ο. 56, p. 276 D. 2 ν. 19. 3 ΧΙ, 40. 4 Dial., ¢. 100. Sx. 18. © Dial, ¢..94. 7 1. 15. 8 Apol., i. c. 66. 148 JUSTIN MARTYR had not forgotten this; for as soon as he quotes the account | of the institution of the Eucharist, he cites this term correctly. Nor can we say that the adoption of σάρξ was forced on him | by his reference to the incarnation; for elsewhere he allows his usual language respecting the incarnation to be modified by a reference to the Eucharist,—rod ἄρτου, ὃν παρέδωκεν . . . εἰς ανάμνησιν τοῦ Te σωματοποιήσασθαι αὐτὸν K.7T.A.| In John, however, the word σάρξ is used repeatedly, not indeed in connection with the last supper, but in a passage which was inevitably applied as a commentary on its meaning.? Justin's use of the term, therefore, is distinctively Johannine. There are a few other expressions of less moment which may be briefly referred to in the order in which they occur in Justin’s writings. He says that Christians honour God and the Son and the Spirit λόγῳ καὶ adnOeia.2 Compare John’s πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. Justin might naturally substitute λόγῳ for πνεύματι, a8 he has a moment before included the πνεῦμα among the objects of worship. We may observe in passing that we have here another instance of doctrinal expansion ; for the Gospel strictly confines to the Father the spiritual worship which it commends. Again, the statement that the prophets spoke only those things ἃ ἤκουσαν καὶ ἃ εἶδον," suggests ὃ ἑώρακε καὶ ἤκουσε, τοῦτο μαρτυρεῖδ The reminder that “the elements do not idle or keep the sabbath,” 1 and that “God has instituted the same administration of the universe on this and on all other days,” 8 is a commentary on John’s, “my Father worketh hitherto.” The argument against the observance of the sabbath from the fact that circumcision was permitted on that day,’° is found, though with more point, in the Gospel. The declaration that “those who in circumcision come to him [προσ- 1 Daat.,¢.'70. 2 vi. 51-56. 3 Avol., 1. ὁ. 6. ταν. 21 5 Dial.,'c. 7. 6 John iii. 32. 7 Dial., c. 23. 8 Dial., c. 29. oe 1. 10 Dial., c. 27. Th Wil. 22) 22. APPARENT QUOTATIONS 149 tovras|,. . . he will receive and bless,” + is similar in sentiment to the evangelist’s “him that cometh [ἐρχόμενον] to me I will not cast out.”? The expression ζῶν ὕδωρ, and the idea of this water's gushing up in the heart,’ recall the narrative in John iv. And, lastly, the assertion that “to us it was given... to know all the things of the Father,’* reminds us of the Johannine, “all things that I have heard from my Father I have made known unto you.” ® We have still to refer to three passages which appear to me to be quotations from the Fourth Gospel. The most celebrated of these, that relating to the new birth, has already been fully discussed; and if our reasoning has been correct, it renders probable the use of the Gospel by Justin. The two remaining passages must be considered here. Referring to the testimony of John the Baptist, Justin says:—“Men supposed him to be the Christ ; to whom even he himself cried, οὐκ εἰμὶ ὃ Χριστός, ἀλλὰ φωνὴ βοῶντος, for there shall come he who is stronger than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry.”® The former part of this testimony is found only in John,’—ov« εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ Χριστός. . .. ᾿γὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος x.7.’. The entire passage as it stands does not occur in any of our existing Gospels, but is made up out of John, Luke and Matthew; and it may there- fore be contended that it is borrowed from some unknown source. ΤῸ those who are acquainted with the phenomena of Justin’s quotations from the Old Testament, and who know how easily parallel passages become mixed together in mem- oriter citation (to say nothing of the fact that an author might intentionally combine the passages best suited to his purpose), this supposition will not appear necessary; and if it is not necessary, it is more critical to explain the facts by reference to known sources than to have recourse to purely imaginary “1 Dial., ἃ 33- ahs, AF 3 Dial., c. 114. 4 Dual., c. 121. bxy.:15; 6 Dral., c. 88. τ 20 and 23. 150 JUSTIN MARTYR documents. The third apparent quotation, so far as I am aware, was first noticed in the present discussion, and indeed it was generally classed among the proofs that Justin made use of an apocryphal Gospel. In the larger Apology,’ the following words are quoted from Isaiah,? αἰτοῦσι με νῦν κρίσιν; and in evidence that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, Justin asserts, διασύροντες αὐτὸν ἐκάθισαν ἐπὶ βήματος καὶ εἶπον" Kpivov ἡμῖν. Now this event is nowhere recorded in our Gospels; yet the most important of the words in which it is described occur, with the alteration of a single letter, in the Fourth Gospel,? ὁ οὖν Πιλάτος . . . ἤγαγεν ἔξω Tov Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ βήματος. ᾿Ἑκάθισεν here is generally understood in its intransitive sense; but what more natural than that Justin, in his eagerness to find a fulfilment of the prophecy, should take it transitively ?+ He might then add the state- ment that the people said κρῖνον ἡμῖν as an obvious inference from the fact of Christ’s having been placed on the tribunal, and to bring the event into a closer verbal connection with the prophecy, just as in an earlier chapter® he appends to the synoptic account the circumstance that the ass on which Christ rode into Jerusalem was bound to a vine, in order to bring the event into connection with Genesis xlix. 11.6 We TY py 2 lviii. 2, which, by the way, is represented as belonging to Ixv. 2. Sea, 17. 4 It is so used by Josephus, who says that Ananus καθίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν, and again καθίσαι συνέδριον (Antig., XX. ix. 1). It is intransitive in the only other passage where it is used in John xii. 14. Elsewhere καθέζεσθαι is used, iv. 6, xi. 20, xx. 12. The transitive use is found in I Cor. vi. 4 and Eph. i. 20. Dr A. Roberts ably defends the transitive meaning in John xix. 13 (Hxpositor, 4th Series, viii., 1893, pp. 296 sq.). Bie ΞΟ: 6 It is conceded by Hilgenfeld [Die Evang. Justin’s, p. 224] that this — circumstance was drawn from Justin’s own imagination under the influence of the prophecy. His notion that it is the mere inconsistency of an apologist to allow such influence in one instance and yet not concede that the \ i GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER I51 have thus, as I conceive, an adequate explanation of the origin of this apocryphal narrative. On the other hand, it does not seem likely that the agreement between Justin and John is a mere coincidence, though of course the possibility of this cannot be denied. It cannot in this instance be maintained that John borrowed from Justin, because the words of the latter are quite unambiguous, and could not have suggested the event related in the Gospel; and the supposition that they both used a common source is precluded by the different uses of the verb, and by the want of agreement in the general sense of the two passages. The discovery of a fragment of the Gospel according to Peter in 1892, containing the account of the passion and resurrection, reopened the question, and it was triumphantly asserted that Justin was now proved to have derived his statement from this apocryphal source. The evidence seems to me wholly adverse to this conclusion. The text of Peter runs thus:—‘“ But they, having taken the Lord, pushed him running, and said evpwuev! τὸν υἱὸν Tov θεοῦ, having got power over him, and they arrayed him in purple, καὶ ἐκάθισαν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ καθέδραν κρίσεως, λέγοντες Δικαίως κρῖνε, βασιλεῦ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. Here the same apocryphal incident is referred to, and there is some resemblance of language between the two accounts. There are, however, also considerable differences ; and it is strange that those who think the slightest deviation from a canonical text sufficient to prove that it was not used, should be so confident that Peter must be the source from which Justin borrowed this account. In comparing the several texts, we observe that after ἐκάθισαν Justin has the Johannine ἐπὶ βήματος, and not the Petrine ἐπὶ καθέδραν epithet μονογενής was borrowed from the 22nd Psalm, is sufficiently refuted by our previous investigation. 1 The reading of the MS., generally given as σύρωμεν. 152 JUSTIN MARTYR κρίσεως, and he omits δικαίως, and βασιλεῦ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. But certainly, it is thought, διασύροντες must be taken from the Petrine cvpwuev. Unfortunately σύρωμεν is only a conjectural reading, the word in the manuscript being εὕρωμεν. The word is probably wrong; but it does not follow that σύρωμεν is right. Other suggestions are εὕρομεν; ἄρωμεν, as in Isaiah 111, 10, as Justin once quotes it’; and (very plausibly) στρωμεν, an abbreviation for oravpouev.2. But even if σύρωμεν be the right reading, it does not explain Justin’s διασύροντες, for the former word signifies “let us drag,” while the latter means “mocking” or “slighting,’? a sense which entirely suits the context, and is indeed required by it, to show that the demand for judgment was an act of mockery. The Petrine text, therefore, fails to explain Justin’s. Here we might pause, if our attention were limited to the present passage; but as we have at last a Gospel ‘which is no longer “ ghost-like,” it is important to consider whether the Gospel of Peter was one of Justin’s memoirs. The only other passage which can be supposed to favour an affirmative reply is one describing the partition of Christ’s clothing. The following are the words in Peter :—xat τεθεικότες τὰ ἐνδύματα ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ διεμερίσαντο, καὶ λαχμὸν ἔβαλον ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς. Justin’s are as follows:—ol σταυρώσαντες αὐτὸν ἐμέρισαν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἑαυτοῖς, λαχμὸν βάλλοντες ἕκαστος κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κλήρου ἐπιβολήν, ὁ ἐκλέξασθαι ἐβεβούλητος It will be observed that the two statements are very far from coincident. Justin omits the first part of Peter, and Peter does not contain 1 Dial., 136. In 17 he has the usual reading, δήσωμεν. 2 See The Gospel according to Peter and the Revelation of Peter, by J. A. Robinson and Δ. R. James, 1892, p. 17, for the first two suggestions. The last was proposed by the Master of St John’s College, Cambridge, at a meeting of the Philological Society, May 11, 1893; see the Academy for June 3, 1893, p. 486. 3 We may illustrate this sort of change of meaning by our own words “ treat” and “intreat.” GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER 153 the explanation of the proceeding which Justin adds to the account in the Gospels, and which looks like an attempt to harmonise the Synoptics and John. Justin has the canonical ἑμάτια, not the Petrine ἐνδύματα, and resembles John in using ἕκαστος. In Apology i. 35 he refers more simply to the same event, and uses the words ἔβαλον κλῆρον, following, in common with the Synoptics, the reading of the LXX. in Psalm xxi, [xxii.] 19. The connection with Peter, therefore, turns entirely on the use of the phrase λαχμὸν βάλλειν. This phrase is used also by Cyril of Jerusalem in relation to the same event,’ and by no other writer, “as far as we know.”’? Cyril, however, does not follow Peter, for he limits the Aaxuds to the χιτών, of which no notice is taken in the apocryphal Gospel. The word must in his time have been a rare one, for he adds the explanation, κλῆρος de ἣν ὁ λαχμός, and the natural inference is that there must have been some authority for using the word in connection with this particular event. The Fourth Gospel does not use the noun, but represents the soldiers as Saying, in reference to the χιτών, λάχωμεν περὶ αὐτοῦ." Nonnus, in his paraphrase of this verse, twice uses Aaxuos, but not the phrase λαχμὸν βάλλειν Dr Swete conjectures that there may have been a version of the 22nd Psalm which read ἔβαλλον or ἔβαλον λαχμόνδ However this may be, the deviation of Justin, and still more of Cyril, from Peter is against the supposition that the phrase is due to the use of the apocryphal Gospel, to which Cyril certainly was not likely to attach any authority. We must now briefly notice the evidence against Justin’s use of this Gospel. Dr Swete enumerates eighteen circum- 1 Catech., xiii. 26. 2 See Dr Swete’s The Akhmim Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of St Peter, 1893, p. xxxiv and p. 6. 3 xix. 24. 4 Swete, p. xxxiv. 5 Tb. 154 JUSTIN MARTYR stances in Peter which are not in any of the canonical Gospels." Of these the only one in Justin is that relatmg to the judg- ment-seat, which we have already examined. On the other hand, Justin, in his casual references to the part of the history covered by the Fragment, has six circumstances which are not in Peter; and it deserves especial notice that four of these are among the incidents which, owing to their deviation from the canonical Gospels, have suggested the use of an apocryphal source. Two of these passages refer to the words and the manner of the mocking? A third contains the statement that after the crucifixion of Christ all his acquaintances with- drew, having denied him.2 Another asserts that after the crucifixion his disciples who were with him were scattered until he rose from the dead.t The ery, “ Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,” which Justin expressly says he has learned from the memoirs,? is in Luke, but not in Peter. The statement that there were nails in the hands and feet of Jesus ® is agreeable to the canonical account, but opposed to the Petrine, which refers only to the hands.’ Peter represents Jesus as silent at the moment of crucifixion, “as being without pain,” ὡς μηδὲν πόνον éxwv® Justin, on the other hand, asserts the reality of his suffering in the strongest way.® Finally, Peter gives a curious turn to the cry from the cross, ἡ δύναμίς μου, ἡ δύναμις, κατέλειψας pe’? Justin, agreeably to Matthew and Mark, has ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός," wa τί ἐγκατέλιπές pe” These facts seem to demonstrate that the Gospel of Peter was not one of Justin’s principal sources; and even if he read it (and 1 Pp, xili. sqq. 2 Apol., i. 38 ; Dial., τοι. 3 Apol., 1. 50. 4 Dal., 53. 5 Dial., 105. 6 Apol., i. 35 ; Dual., 97. ie” 8 iv. This can hardly mean, “as if he felt no pain,” though he was really suffering acutely. 9 Dral., 57, 98, 99, 103. 0% 11 Matt., θεέμου. Mark also inserts μου. 12 Dial., 99. ALLEGED NEGLECT OF THE GOSPEL 155, as an assailant of heresies he may very probably have done so,. if it was extant, which is doubtful), and if a phrase or two: remained in his memory, and got mixed up with his recol- lections of other sources, it would by no means follow that it was one of his acknowledged Gospels. By the foregoing investigation one point appears to me to be completely demonstrated, namely, that if Justin had the Fourth Gospel, he did not treat it with entire neglect, but allowed it a very important place in the construction of his theology, and in the general colouring of his thought and language. More than this, however, may be reasonably inferred. Several separate lines of inquiry have, if my judgment be not at fault, established a probability that Justin was in possession of the Gospel. The probability may in each instance be slight, and it is always possible for a critic to object that the phenomena may be susceptible of some other explanation; but several weak probabilities, all converging on the same result, may constitute a very strong argument, and nothing can be more utterly uncritical than to reject a large mass of evidence because its details fall considerably short of demonstration. We must remember, moreover, that the evidence afforded by Justin’s writings is not in favour of something quite unexpected, and opposed to our best historical information. On the contrary, it simply coincides, as we have seen, with a legitimate historical presumption furnished by the writings of Irenzus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Theophilus, to say nothing of later authors; and it points to a plain matter of fact which in itself is entirely credible. We must, however, notice an objection which is urged as fatal to the supposition that Justin was acquainted with the Gospel. It is said that he gives a particular description of the character of Christ’s teaching, and that this is exactly suited to the style of the Synoptists, but wholly inapplicable to the [56 JUSTIN MARTYR protracted argumentation of the Johannine Gospel. Justin's statement is the following: Βραχεῖς δὲ καὶ σύντομοι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λόγοι γεγόνασιν" οὐ γὰρ σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν, ἀλλὰ δύναμις θεοῦ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἣν Now there are several objections to the application which is sometimes made of this passage. In the first place, I do not think the Greek asserts what is ascribed to it. Mr J. J. Tayler translates it as follows: “His words were brief and concise; for he was no sophist: but his word was a power of God.”? I dissent with great diffidence from so high an authority ; but surely the words παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λόγοι are not identical in meaning with of λόγοι αὐτοῦ. Ought not the passage to be rendered, “Brief and concise sayings have proceeded from him”?? If so, Justin is describing, not the universal, but only the prevailing and prominent character of Christ's teaching.* As it is his purpose to furnish some examples for the benefit of his readers, he very naturally and properly selects short passages which are intelligible without their context: and he introduces the clause under consideration simply to explain why he can illustrate Christ’s teaching without undue prolixity. He accordingly follows for the most part the Sermon on the Mount, but adds some other sayings which were easily suggested by the topics with which he was dealing. But again, the description is not really appropriate to all the teaching in the Synoptics. It 1 Apol., 1. c. 14. 2 An Attempt to ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1867, p. 64. 5.1 am reminded of Euripides, Hippolytus, 478, Εἰσὶν δ᾽ ἐπῳδαὶ καὶ λόγοι θελκτήριοι, Which means, not “Charms and words are soothing,” but “ There are such things as charms and soothing words.” 4 Even if the article were used, it would surely be hypercritical to insist on the universality of the statement, which would be sufficiently accurate if it described the general impression of Christ’s teaching derived from the four Gospels collectively. Certainly in none of them is found the connected and argumentative discourse of a σοφιστής, and we need not except the Fourth Gospel if we say that Christ’s teaching is not σοφία ἀνθρώπων, but δύναμις θεοῦ. ALLEGED NEGLECT OF THE GOSPEL 157 excludes the longer parables; and if the latter part of the Dialogue had been lost, it would probably have been used as a conclusive proof that Justin’s failure to refer to the parables was due to their absence from his Memoirs. It is not till towards the close of the Dialogue! that we at last meet with an abstract of the parable of the Sower. And lastly, the description is not so inapplicable to the Fourth Gospel as is sometimes alleged. The book contains in reality very little connected argumentation; and even the longest discourses consist rather of successive pearls of thought strung on a thread of association than of consecutive discussion and proof. In a previous chapter I have collected a large number of βραχεῖς καὶ σύντομοι λόγοι, Sayings, that is, which, however closely some of them may be connected with their context, contain in themselves complete and satisfying thoughts. The objection, therefore, appears to me to rest on a misunder- standing of Justin’s Greek and on erroneous criticism, and to be consequently destitute of force. But why, then, it may be asked, has Justin not quoted the Fourth Gospel at least as often as the other three? I cannot tell, any more than I can tell why he has never named the supposed authors of his Memoirs, or has mentioned only one of the parables, or made no reference to the apostle Paul, or nowhere quoted the Apocalypse, though he believed it to be an apostolic and prophetical work. His silence may be due to pure accident, or the book may have seemed less adapted to his apologetic purposes; but considering how many things there are about which he is silent, we cannot admit that the argumentum a silentio possesses in this case any validity.” ἘΝ 2. * An instructive instance of the danger of arguing from what is not told is furnished by Theophilus of Antioch. He does not mention the names of the writers of the Gospels, except John ; he does not tell us anything about ---“-“ 158 JUSTIN MARTYR I think, therefore, that the evidence as a whole, though 5 falling short of demonstration, is sufficient to authorize a reasonable confidence that Justin Martyr was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel. Three questions which still remain may be very briefly dis- cussed. Did Justin include the Fourth Gospel among his Memoirs? Thoma,! though admitting that our Apologist made ample use of the Gospel, yet for no very obvious reason pronounces in the negative. But if our examination of Justin’s use of μονογενής be correct, and if the passages which we have regarded as quotations from the Gospel be really such, the question must be answered in the affirmative. The second question is, Did he regard the book as historical ? This also is answered in the negative by Thoma,’ who believes that the Gospel was employed as a doctrinal commentary on the historical tradition and ecclesiastical usages. If, however, the Gospel was one of the Memoirs, it must have been regarded as historical, at least to a considerable extent; and the three any of them ; he says nothing about the origin or the date of the Gospels themselves, or about their use in the Church. He quotes from them extremely little, though he quotes copiously from the Old Testament. But most singular of all, in a defence of Christianity he tells us nothing about Christ himself ; if I am not mistaken, he does not so much as name him or allude to him; and, if the supposition were not absurd, it might be argued with great plausibility that he cannot have known anything ~ about him. For he undertakes to explain the origin of the word Christian ; ‘but there is not a word about Christ, and his conclusion is ἡμεῖς τούτου εἵνεκεν καλούμεθα Χριστιανοὶ ὅτι χριόμεθα ἔλαιον θεοῦ [Ad Autol., i. 12]. In the following chapter, when he would establish the doctrine of the resurrection, you could not imagine that he had heard of the resurrection of Christ ; and instead of referring to this, he has recourse to the changing seasons, the fortune of seeds, the dying and reappearance of the moon, and the recovery from illness. We may learn from these curious facts that it is not correct to say that a writer knows nothing of certain things, simply because he had not occasion to refer to them in his only extant writing, -or even because he does not mention them when his subject would seem naturally to lead him to do so. 1 Zeitschr. fiir wiss. Theol., 1875, pp. 549-553. 2 Pp. 553-560. THE GOSPEL ONE OF THE MEMOIRS 159 quotations from it prove that Justin was willing to use it as an authority for historical statements. Nevertheless, its reception as a “spiritual” or allegorical Gospel may have induced him to rely chiefly on the Synoptics for his history, and may help to explain his manner of using it. Our last question is, Did Justin ascribe the Gospel to the apostle John as its author? ΤῸ this question also Thoma! gives a negative reply. His arguments, however, are founded entirely on the silence of Justin. The Apologist, he thinks, could not have failed to name the author of such a work, had he supposed _him to be one of the Twelve. But he has failed to name the authors of his Memoirs, though he attributed to them an apostolic authority. I must again repeat that it is only in the most casual way that he has named John as the author of the Apocalypse. So far from assuming that the celebrity of that apostle must have reached the ears of Tryphon, he introduces him as “a certain man [ἀνήρ τις] among us whose name was John” ;? and so far from insisting on his merits as author of the Apocalypse, he does not even say that such a book was in existence, but only that in a revelation made to him he prophesied. For whatever reason, Justin nowhere dwells upon the origin or authenticity of Christian writings, and the little that we can glean about them is brought in quite incidentally. We have, therefore, no ground whatever for assuming that if he regarded John as the author of the Gospel, he would have said so, On the other hand, there is nothing in his own writings to show that he did so regard him. The most that can be alleged is, that his affirmation that the Memoirs “were composed by his [Christ’s] apostles and their followers,’* quite coincides with the traditional view. I think, indeed, that Hilgenfeld’s criticism upon the use of the articles in this passage, τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ Kat 1 Pp. 560-563. 2 Dial., 6. 81. 3 Duaal., ὁ. 103. — τω 160 JUSTIN MARTYR τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων, is substantially correct. Justin refers to the apostles and their followers as two classes, each of whom had taken part in the production of the Gospels; but he does not say whether one or more from each class engaged in the labours of authorship, or whether the same Gospel was or was not composed partly by an apostle and partly by a follower. His object is not to describe the origin of the several Gospels, but to exhibit the kind of authority which he claimed for their narratives. His language, however, though inadequate to prove that he possessed at least four Gospels, two of them written by apostles and two by their followers, is precisely such as he might have used if he held the later traditional view; and as evidence in this direction, it is surely not without significance that he appeals to the authority of followers of the apostles precisely in a passage where he alludes to an event recorded only by Luke, and that he describes these followers precisely by the term which Luke applies to himself in the preface to his Gospel. We are, then, entitled to assert that as he claimed an apostolic origin for at least one of his Gospels, and as he uses language quite consistent with the traditional belief and curiously conforming to it in two particulars, it is not unlikely that he attributed to the Fourth Gospel an authorship which was so confidently and generally ascribed to it some thirty years later. Thoma’s supposition that the Gospel, though known to Justin and his church, was believed by them to be of other than apostolic origin,’ pre- supposing as it does that in the next generation a vast revolution in opinion took place among Catholics and heretics alike, and proceeded so silently as to leave not a trace in — history, appears to me in the highest degree improbable. I must conclude, therefore, as best satisfying on the whole the 1 Die Evang. Justin’s, pp. 12 866. 2 P94, = ‘ ieee nt. IMPORTANCE OF CONCLUSION 161 conditions of the case, not only that Justin regarded the Fourth Gospel as one of the historical Memoirs of Christ, but that itis not improbable that he believed in its Johannine authorship.! If the conclusion which we have now reached be correct, it is one of the highest importance; for the testimony of Justin, though not so full as we could wish, falls in so completely with the later view that we can hardly help believing that the tradition relied upon by Irenzeus and his contemporaries was already a tradition in the middle of the century. The Apologist betrays no misgiving as to the credibility and early origin of the “memoirs,” but treats them throughout as the acknowledged authorities for Christ’s life and teaching. They were known by the name of Gospels.2, They were read in the churches.2 They were the work of Apostles, or, more exactly, of the Apostles of Christ and their companions.* 1 Dr Ludvig Paul has discussed the relation between the Fourth Gospel and Justin in three articles, Ueber die Logoslehre bet Justinus Martyr.* He admits the close doctrinal relation of the two writers, and reaches the conclusion that they were contemporary, and wrote independently of one another. He bases this conclusion on the apparent fact that in some few points, especially in the doctrine of the Spirit, the Gospel is clearer and more definite than Justin. The positive arguments advanced in the present chapter are not noticed, and I do not think my own investigation is in any way affected by Dr Paul’s treatise. That in some of his thoughts the author of the Gospel should have reached a more advanced stage, if that be really the case, can surprise no one who is acquainted with both writers. That in the face of his conclusion Dr Paul can speak of Justin as “the first Christian writer of his time” t indicates such an enormous differ- ence of literary judgment from my own that perhaps I am unable to enter into his arguments. I should have said that the author of the Gospel was, beyond all comparison, the greatest spiritual genius of his time, and for centuries afterwards ; and how this great, deep soul can have been utterly unknown amid the struggling and persecuted Christians, and why his work should have been ascribed to an ignorant and narrow-minded fisherman (for so the “critics” think of John), who died at least half a century before it was published, remains without any explanation. ᾿ς 2 Apol., i. 66; Dial., το and too. 3 Apol., 1. 67. 4 Dial., 103. * Jahrbb. f. prot. Theol., 1886, 1890, 1891. + Der erste christliche Schriftsteller seiner Zeit, 1891, p. 145. II 162 JUSTIN MARTYR This evidence is all the stronger because it is given quite casually, and not in defence of some opinion which the writer wished to establish, and there is no reason for supposing that it represents any belief but that which was current at the time. But at that time men were still living whose memories ἡ could recall the closing years of the apostolic age; and it is therefore difficult to suppose that any of the books which were used by the Church as resting on apostolic authority had only just been published. The natural inference is that they had been long in circulation, and that the great mass of Christians saw no reason for doubting their authenticity. And here it may be well to remark that the fact thus arrived at is nothing strange or improbable. From the herculean efforts which have been made to get rid of it, one would suppose that it was something too horrible to be believed. But surely the state of facts which has been imagined by some critics is the one which would require the most un- questionable testimony to render it credible. That the Christians should have a set of documents which they regarded as apostolic, and on which they based their religion, and should incorporate with these, as undoubtedly apostolic, another work which no one had heard of for fifty years after the last apostle was in his grave, and should enter into a spontaneous conspiracy of silence as to its late appearance, and this not in one country, but in France, Italy, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and Africa, seems to me to be a fact which would need a very remarkable attestation to compel us to accept it. But that the Christian churches should have the same set of Gospels in the middle of the second century, and at the end of the second century, is what we should expect antecedently to testimony; and, therefore, when testimony is forthcoming which points to this state of things, we see no occasion to apply the bludgeon to get rid of cur witness. CHAPTER III THE GOSPEL AND THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN WE must now endeavour to estimate some earlier evidence, even though, on the most favourable view, it is not of primary importance, for it relates directly to the First Epistle of John, and not to the Gospel. If, however, it can be shown that in all probability the two works proceeded from the same author, and nearly at the same time, whatever indicates an early date for the one must help to establish the early date of the other. We must therefore see whether there are indications of this,on which we may reasonably depend. The evidence --.... is of course disputed at every point, and it will be impossible to do more here than sketch the broad outlines of the con- troversy. Our first question relates to the identity of author- ship of the Gospel and Epistle; and to this subject the present chapter must be devoted. The Epistle is one of those that were universally received by the early Church, and it was ascribed without hesitation to the Apostle John. At present we have to consider only, whether this judgment was right in regarding the Epistle as the work of the Evangelist. The general opinion may be briefly expressed in the words of Westcott: “The writing is so closely connected with the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, style, thought, scope, that these two books cannot but be regarded 163 164 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE as works of the same author.”’! This opinion, however, not- withstanding the strength of the evidence, has not been universally accepted, and, among others, Dr Martineau has pronounced against it. He says that “though long held in suspense by the apparent equipoise of the evidence for and against their identity of origin, I am at last more impressed by a few fundamental differences of religious conception per- vading the two writings than by several agreements in ter- minology and secondary categories of thought, which point to some common relation to the same school.”* He believes that “the antitheses and syzygies—Light and Darkness, Truth and Falsehood, Love and Hate, Life and Death, God and Devil—are so akin to the elements thrown into the gnostic speculations, one type of which (the Docetic) the writer of the Epistle encounters in a passionate polemic, that they may well be regarded rather as the common vocabulary of theo- sophie criticism in a given area and age than as characteristics | of personal thought and taste.”? On this judgment two observations may be made. First, where there is anything ~ like equipoise of purely literary evidence, it seems only reason- able to allow the external evidence to decide. Dr Martineau apparently regards this as worthless, because it is sometimes mistaken. I have already explained why, in spite of its occasional errors, I cannot help attaching to it considerable weight. Secondly, I think the resemblances between the two works are closer than Dr Martineau indicates. They are con- nected not only by terms and antitheses and certain turns of thought, but by that all-pervading structure and spirit of 1 The Epistles of St John, 1883, Introduction to the First Epistle, p. xxx. These points are fully illustrated in this introduction, to which it may be sufficient to refer. See, on the other side, the elaborate investigation by Holtzmann: Das Problem des ersten johanneischen Briefes in seinem Ver- hiliniss zum Evangelium, in the Jahrbiicher f. protestant. Theologie, 1881-82. 2 Seat of Authority in Religion, p. 509. Ss Fae DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW 165 language and reflection which is known as style, and which it is exceedingly difficult to describe and tabulate. This is so marked, that if the authors are different, we must suppose that one saturated his mind with the work of the other, so that he became an unconscious imitator, and, without any appearance of borrowing, appropriated whole phrases to which he supplies a different setting and application. Perhaps this is not impossible; but when identity of style thus expresses itself through an unconstrained blending of resemblance and difference, and when two writings, in their combined simplicity and depth, stand apart from all the surviving literature of the period, it is easier to believe in the alleged unity of author- ship than that one writer had so strange a double, who cast this one little effort of genius into the stream of time, and remained himself unknown. To set aside this evidence, the differences of religious con- ception must be, as Dr Martineau says, “fundamental.” Differences of more or less are unimportant, for a man does not embody the whole of his thought in a few pages. Shades of variation are also unimportant; for one seldom succeeds in expressing the whole even of a single spiritual thought at one time, but now one aspect and now another of a many-sided truth comes up for consideration, according to the object in view. We must also guard against attributing to these early writers a dogmatic fixity which could hardly exist so long as the mind was more interested in the spiritual and practical application of the truth than in its intellectual formulation. Still there might be differences which would be decisive. For instance, if a letter which professed to have been written by Paul in the later period of his life insisted that all Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law on pain of damnation, we should reject it without any misgiving as an impudent forgery ; for such a difference from the genuine letters would 166 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE be fundamental. Are there any such differences in the case before us? Dr Martineau indicates five “characteristic features in the two productions which,” he thinks, “could not co-exist in the same mind.” It may be sufficient for us to notice these, as the strongest instances that can be produced. (1) He says: “The idea of Repentance and Forgiveness are foreign to the evangelist’s conception of the relation between God and man, and the words never occur. In the Epistle (i. 8, 9) we read, ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive our- selves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’”+ But it is surely not sufficient to allege that the Gospel does not dwell on the idea of repentance and forgiveness; it must be shown that it is antagonistic to this idea. Now, what are the facts? We must observe, in the first place, that the Gospel is about seven times as long as the Epistle. No one will say that the idea of sin is foreign to the Evangelist ; and yet the word is found oftener in the Epistle than in the Gospel. The noun occurs seventeen times in each ; the verb three times in the Gospel, ten times in the Epistle. The latter, therefore, is in proportion to its bulk occupied with the idea of sin nine times more than the former. This is easily explained by its more practical and hortatory character ; but it removes our surprise that some aspects of the subject are presented which are not in the Gospel. Again, the words “repent” and “repentance” are as foreign to the one writing as to the other; and as showing the precariousness of this kind of argument, I may mention that the same words are absent from all but three of the Pauline Epistles—Romans, 2nd Corinthians and 2nd Timothy. It is not repentance, but confession, that is referred to in the Epistle; and this reference is made only once. In the Gospel it is obstinate persistence in 1“P. “500. DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW 167 sin that keeps men from Christ, and the confession of Christ is tantamount to the confession of personal sin, for without that confession, involving faith, men will die in their sins (viii. 24). This is also the doctrine of the Epistle. It is on account of Christ’s name that men’s sins are forgiven (ii. 12), and those who confess Christ abide in God, and cannot sin (11. 23, iv. 2, I5, lil. 6,9, v. 18). Lastly, the forgiveness of sins is not absent from the Gospel. Christ is represented as saying to his Apostles, after the resurrection, “ Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven” (xx. 23). It may be said that the idea of forgiveness is involved in the words, “The wrath of God abideth on him ” (iii. 36), for this is equivalent to “he shall not be forgiven”; and to say that he who does not believe shall not be forgiven implies that he who believes shall be forgiven. I am unable, therefore, to recognize here a fundamental difference. (2) It is said that “the gospel knows nothing of an atoning or propitiatory efficacy in the blood of Christ. The Epistle says, ‘the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin’ (i. 7). ‘I write unto you, my little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake’ (ii. 12). ‘Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (iv. 10).” Dr Martineau might have added 11. 2, where also Christ is called “a propitiation for our sins.” The term “propitiation” is peculiar to the Epistle, and this and kindred words are exceedingly rare in the New Testament. Still their occurrence can hardly prove a difference of authorship, if we may judge from the example of Paul, who once! speaks of Christ as ἱλαστήριον, but nowhere else uses this term or any of its cognates, Further, we must observe that it is Christ himself, and not his blood, that is called an fAacuds. His blood is not 1 Rom, iii. 25. 168 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE said to propitiate God, but to cleanse us; and in the Gospel eating his flesh and drinking his blood is represented as the source of eternal life (vi. 53-56). Again, the doctrine that Christ takes away sin, and that his death confers a benefit upon the world, is very distinctly laid down in the Gospel, and sometimes in language almost identical with that of the Epistle. He is called “the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world” (i. 29). So in the Epistle it is said that “he was manifested to take away sins” (iii. 5). In the Gospel Christ declares that he will give his flesh “for the life of the world” (vi. 51); “the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep,” and “I lay down my life for the sheep” (x. 11 and 15). With these expressions we may compare the statement of the Epistle that “he laid down his life for us” (iii. 16). In the Gospel the high-priest, by virtue of his office, makes the true assertion that Jesus should die for the nation, and the Evangelist adds, “and not for the nation only, but that also he may gather into one the children of God who are scattered ” (xi. 49-52, xviii. 14). With this we may reasonably compare the doctrine of the Epistle that Jesus is a propitiation not for our sins only, but for the whole world (ii. 2). Here, then, I think the Gospel and the Epistle supplement rather than contradict one another, and I cannot see why the several thoughts might not co-exist in the same mind. (3)-“ The word Paraclete is used in the Gospel exclusively of the Holy Spirit; in the Epistle, of Jesus Christ.” It is applied to Jesus Christ in the sense of advocate, but in the Gospel Jesus declines this intercessory character—“In that. day ye shall ask in my name; and 1 say not unto you that I will pray the Father for you; for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father (xvi. 26, 27).” At first sight we seem to have here a real difference of an important kind ; but there DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW 169 are certain things which Dr Martineau has failed to notice which go far towards making the two views supplementary instead of contradictory. When Jesus first speaks of the Paraclete, he says, “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, that he may be with you for ever” (xiv. 16). Here two things deserve notice. First, Christ is here represented as an intercessor ; for it is in answer to his request that the Spirit is to be sent. Secondly, the Spirit is “another Paraclete,’ implying that Jesus was himself a Paraclete. But it may be said that he was to relinquish the office of intercessor as soon as the Spirit was sent. To determine this we must look more closely at the verse quoted above. It is at once clear that the “you” is emphatic, and the function of intercession is declined for the apostles solely on the ground that they would not require it, because their love and faith were sufficient in themselves to plead for them with the Father. Does not. this imply that for others, who were in a lower spiritual condition, he might and would intercede? But this is exactly what the Epistle teaches in the single passage where the question is referred to :—“ If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world” (ii. 12). Here it is the sinful alone who require his advocacy, those only who have offended the Father that need him as a propitiation. I may observe in passing that the propitiation has nothing to do with the atoning efficacy of his death. It is in the heavenly world that he, by virtue of his righteousness, pleads with God and propitiates him towards sinful man. The believer, conscious that through his sin he has failed to keep the Holy Spirit in his heart to intercede for him, may yet remember that he has an advocate on high, whose righteous- ness intercedes for the race which he represents, and that 170 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE in spite of his sin he may come under the shelter of that holy — name to seek the grace which he has forfeited. This is ποῦ the place to enlarge upon or criticise the doctrine which is © here expressed, and I will only say that there are phases of religious experience to which it strongly appeals. Our point : at present is that it is not inconsistent with the teaching of the Gospel, and therefore this third objection disappears. (4) We are reminded that “the expectation of the Parusia, or near return of Christ, to wind up human history, and establish the theocracy, is absent from the Gospel, with its — attendant mythology of premonitory signs. In the Epistle we — read, ‘Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye have © heard that antichrist cometh, even now there have arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour’ (i. 18). — ‘We know that, when he shall be manifested, we shall be like him, for we shall see him even as he is’ (iii. 2). No stress can be laid upon the word παρουσία, which occurs once — in the Epistle (ii. 28) while it is absent from the Gospel; for — it is absent also from Mark, Luke, and Acts, and (in its — special sense) from the Pauline Epistles, with the exception of ist Corinthians and 1st and 2nd Thessalonians. Nor are we — entitled to infer from the writer’s use of this word that he had — in his mind the whole of “its attendant mythology of pre- — monitory signs,” for in itself it denotes nothing but the presence of Christ, whether spiritual or physical. The only sign that is mentioned is the appearance of antichrist (ii. 18); but this, instead of being set forth with its mythological embellishments, is explained away into the coming of human — antichrists, who are animated by the spirit of denial (ii. 22, iv. 3). If this spirit is regarded as a reality, no less than the Spirit of God, and even as a personal principle of evil to whom the world is subject (iv. 2-4, v. 18-19), still he becomes manifest only through his human agents, and the mythological DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW 171 element of his visible appearance and great battle with the Messiah is totally wanting. Now, the Gospel also tells us that “the prince of the world is coming, and has nothing in” Christ (xiv. 30). Here, however, the reference is to his coming in order to put an end to Christ’s immediate work, and there is no allusion to his coming as a sign of Christ’s return. The term “ antichrist,’ moreover, is not used; but the periphrasis admirably suits the idea of antichrist portrayed in the Epistle. Here, then, there is undoubtedly a difference of doctrine; but I can see nothing contradictory. It was the evil spirit of denial that compassed the death of Jesus; and an outbreak of the same evil, threatening to corrupt the church itself, might be taken as a sign that the prince of the world, feeling himself in danger, was entering on his last desperate struggle. But what of the second coming of Christ? It is mentioned in the Epistle as his “presence” and “manifestation,” and there is not a word about its mythological accompaniments. For anything that appears it may be wholly spiritual; for the one thing referred to is that we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is, and such seeing is purely spiritual. On the other hand the Gospel, which is said to be so much more spiritual, recognizes the messianic function of raising the dead,—“ An hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they that did good unto the resurrection of life, they that practised evil unto the resurrection of judgment” (v. 28, 29). Dr Martineau admits that these words refer to the “literally dead,” and that the evangelist reserves “the last day” for this resurrection’; but if so, the writer must have believed in Christ’s second coming at an early date. The last chapter of the Gospel is equally explicit,—* If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to 1 P. 439, note. 172 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE thee?” (xxi. 22). There are also several other passages in which the second coming, though it may be of a spiritual 4 kind, is distinctly alluded to:—“I am coming to you. Yet a little while, and the world beholds me no more, but ye behold — me” (xiv. 18,19). “I go away, and come to you” (xiv. 28). — “A little while,and ye behold me no more, and again a little while, and ye shall see me” (xvi. 16). “He that loveth me Shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him” (xiv. 21). “I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice” (xvi. 22)... These expressions seem to — point rather to a continuous spiritual coming to believers’ — hearts than to any definite and external fact; but if this is inconsistent with the language of the Epistle, it is still more inconsistent with the passage in the Gospel about the resur- rection. The ideas with which we are dealing are not, in a mind like John’s, cut up and distributed into neatly labelled parcels, but have a largeness and vagueness which adapt them to varying moods; and the writer expresses them in words — suited to his immediate purpose, and never thinks of bringing — his statements together, and seeing how far they logically cohere. In the present instances I can see nothing but phases of the same mind, now rejoicing in the clearness of a constant spiritual vision, and again looking forward to a glory to be revealed. . (5) The evangelist retains “a remnant of eschatology in the phrase ‘the last day.” The language of xiv. 2-4 and xvii. 20-24 suggests the “intended fulfilment ” of Christ’s promises “in each separate disciple successively called away. But the language is not inconsistent with an intermediate sleep of the dead till their number was made up and the moment of awakening should have arrived for all. In this case would In xiv. 21, “manifest” is ἐμφανίσω ἐμαυτόν. In the Epistle the ex- pression is ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, 111. 2. DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW | 173 be realised that other word of Christ, ‘This is the will of him that sent me, that of all that he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise at wp at the last day’ (vi. 39). The Gospel, then, and the Epistle are not at variance as to the existence of a ‘last day. But in their account of it they differ: in the Epistle, it is the ‘judgment day,’ ‘ Herein is love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judg- ment’ (iv. 17); in the Gospel, it is the resurrection day; and the process of judgment is expressly shifted away from that future day into the present, and the eternal life or death determined and self-pronounced already an the devotion or aversion of each soul to the Holy One of God. ‘He that believeth on him 2s not yudged: and he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God’ (11. 18): ‘If any man hear my sayings and keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I speak, the same shall judge him in the last day’ (xii. 47, 48). One would suppose that this last quotation, which expressly asserts that there will be a judgment in the last day, would upset the entire argument, though Dr Martineau is not impressed by this, and must, I suppose, have understood by the phrase the last day of each disciple. We must, however, survey the facts a little more fully, as they are very instructive. In the first place, the phrase “the last day” does not occur in the Epistle at all, whereas we find it six times in the Gospel (vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, ΧΙ. 24, ΧΙ]. 48). The Epistle refers once to “the day of judgment” (iv. 17), and this is the only allusion which it contains to a last day, and the sole ground on which the above argument is based, for the “last hour” which is spoken of in ii. 18 evidently denotes the closing period of the world’s 174 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE aoe pre-messianic history. Further, the verse which speaks of a | day of judgment evidently does not teach that the righteous are to be judged, but rather the contrary: when judgment falls upon the world, the righteous will be without fear, — because they are as Christ himself, and their love has been made perfect, so that they abide in God, and God in them. Love is represented as the very substance of life:—“ We have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren; he that loves not abides in death. Everyone that hates his brother is a murderer, and ye know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (iii. 14, 15). Consequently one has not to wait for eternal life; the Christian has it now :— “He that has the Son has the life” (v. 12). “These things I wrote to you that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (v. 13). When to these quotations we add the fact that no resurrection is mentioned, we might plausibly argue that the Epistle is far more spiritual than the Gospel, and knows nothing of its mythological conception of the resurrection, the dead all rising up out of their graves on the last day. But I suppose we shall not wish to apply this dreary literalism to a writer like the evangelist. Let us now turn to the Gospel, and see if its doctrine of judgment really differs essentially from that of the Epistle. We have seen that he that rejects Christ is to be judged at the last day. But there is another passage equally plain: they that practise evil are at a certain hour to come forth out of their tombs “unto a resurrection of judgment” (v. 29). On the other hand, he that believes “has eternal life, and comes not into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (v. 24). Here we have not only the doctrine, but for the most part the very language of the Epistle. The words “comes not into judgment” are not in the Epistle, but their meaning is fully implied in the “boldness” which the righteous are to DR MARTINEAU’S VIEW 175 have in that dreadful day. This might seem a sufficient reason for questioning the weight of the argument, but it is worth while noticing a few other passages, which show that there is far more contradiction between different statements of the Gospel itself than there is between the Gospel and the Epistle. Christ says that he came not to judge the world (iii. 17, xii. 47), and that he judges no man (viii. 15). But elsewhere he says, “I have many things to speak and judge concerning you” (viii. 26), and that the Father “has given all judgment to the Son” (v. 22), and “gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man” (v. 27); and this last passage is in immediate connection with the one already quoted about the resurrection. In these passages the judgment is future. Elsewhere it is past: “He that believes not has been judged already” (iii. 18). “The prince of this world has been judged” (xvi. 11). Yet again it is present: “Now is the judgment οἵ this world” (xu. 31). There is a similar variation in connection with the doctrine of the resurrection. We have seen that men were to come out of their tombs; and we learn further that Christ would personally raise the believers in him “ in the last day” (vi. 39, 40, 44, 54). And yet, imbedded within these very passages, as well as elsewhere, we are taught that eternal life is a present possession (111. 36, Vv. 24, vi. 47, 54). And not only so, but when Martha declares her conviction that her brother should rise in the resurrection in the last day, Jesus announces that he is the resurrection, and that he that believes on him shall live, though he were dead, and that he who lives and believes on him shall never die (xi. 25, 26). Surely these examples show that we must not bind the evangelist to a rigid sense for every phrase, and turn the flowing and vivid expressions of spiritual thought into the dead fixity of 1 ydv κρίσις ἐστὶν κιτ.λ. 176 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE intellectual dogma. We must understand such sayings in the spirit, and not in the letter; and the spirit, in sympathetic communion with the spirit of the writer, will detect hidden harmonies which the intellect fails to discover. On a survey, then, of the whole case I am unable to perceive fundamental differences of conception. On the contrary I see substantially the same vein of thought, and detect the same mental characteristics, with just those shades of variation which one may expect to meet in the same mind, and especially in a mind of this particular order. I am therefore obliged to adhere to the ancient view that the Gospel and the Epistle are works of the same author. We are on less certain ground when we attempt to deter- mine the relative dates of the two writings. The view has often been adopted that they belong closely to one another, and that the Epistle was published either as commendatory prolegomena or as a hortatory postscript to the Gospel; and even Bleek, who thinks that they are quite independent of one another, nevertheless admits that they are connected in so many ways that they cannot have been far apart in the time of their composition We have no external evidence to determine this question; but Lightfoot calls attention to a curious fact, which may have some bearing on the subject. “The writer” of the Muratorian Canon “detaches the First Epistle of St John from the Second and Third, and connects it with the Gospel. Either he himself, or some earlier authority whom he copied, would appear to have used a manuscript in which it occupied this position.”? May we suppose that the Gospel and the Epistle were originally published together, and became detached only when the Gospels were grouped into one class of writings and the 1 EHinlett., pp. 767-8. 2 Essays on Supernatural Religion, Ὁ. 190. RELATIVE DATES 177 Epistles into another? This is not impossible; but the evidence is not sufficient to justify any confident conclusion. Lightfoot, however, who believes that his view that the Epistle is a postscript is “strongly confirmed” by the Muratorian Canon, relies upon internal evidence. The Gospel ends with the endorsement of the elders, to whom it has been dictated,—“ This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” Then comes the hortatory postscript, “which was intended (we may suppose) to be circulated with the narrative. It has no opening salutation, like the two Epistles proper—the second and third—which bear the same Apostle’s name. It begins at once with a reference to the Gospel narrative which (on this hypothesis) has preceded... . . The use of the plural here? links on the opening of the Epistle with the close of the Gospel. The Apostle begins by associating with himself the elders, who have certified to the authorship and authenticity of the narrative. Having done this, he changes to the singular, and speaks in his own name— ‘I write. The opening phrase of the Epistle, ‘That which was from the beginning, is explained by the opening phrase of the Gospel, ‘In the beginning was the Word. The whole Epistle is a devotional and moral application of the main ideas which are evolved historically in the sayings and doings _ of Christ recorded in the Gospel. The most perplexing saying in the Epistle, ‘He that came by water and by blood,’ illustrates and is itself illustrated by the most perplexing incident in the Gospel, ‘There came forth water and blood.’ We understand at length, why in the Gospel so much stress is laid on the veracity of the eye-witness just at this point, when we see from the Epistle what significance the writer would attach to the incident, as symbolizing Christ’s healing power.’’” 1 ἐς Which we have heard,” etc. 2 Ib., pp. en 178 GOSPEL AND FIRST EPISTLE I have quoted this passage at length on account of the interest of the suggestion which it contains; but I am afraid we can hardly regard it as more than the plausible conjecture of a learned and thoughtful man. It may, however, help to establish the close proximity of the two works in their date of publication. But there are other apparent references to the Gospel which have been pointed out in the Epistle. Epistle ii, 7-8 (compare iii. 23), where the new commandment of love is spoken of, reminds one of the Gospel xiii. 34, xv. 10, 12, Epistle v. 9, the testimony of God concerning his Son, is explained by the Gospel, v. 32, x. 25. EHpistle ii. 8, “The devil sins from the beginning,” resembles John viii. 44, the devil “was a murderer from the beginning.” Epistle v. 13, “These things I wrote to you who believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life,” seems modelled upon John xx. 31, “These things have been written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in his name.” _ In ii, 12-14 the thrice-repeated γράφω refers to the Epistle, and ἔγραψα is most easily explained as an allusion to the Gospel. This last instance, if we could be sure of the reference of éypawa, would decide the order of composition ; but the rest hardly pass beyond resemblances of thought and expression, which might be indefinitely multiplied, and do not determine on which side the priority lies. Moreover we must not altogether lose sight of Bleek’s suggestion, that the substance of John’s Gospel was probably known from frequent oral repetition before it was committed to writing. In opposition to the foregoing view, Reuss! maintains the priority of the Epistle. The Logos-doctrine is not yet for- mulated. If this argument is valid, we must allow at least a reasonable interval between the two works; but I am inclined 1 Geschichte der hetlgen Schriften N.T., ὃ 225. ———ee ll .--- RELATIVE DATES ο΄ 179 to think that it assumes a more complete system of thought than can be found in either. The Logos-doctrine, as such, does not appear in the Gospel beyond the Proem; and there it is sketched in grand outlines, which required a great deal of filling in with philosophical comment to bring it into the shape of the later dogma. Then 1 am by no means sure that “the Logos” of the Gospel, and “the Logos of life” of the Epistle, are not much more closely related than they appear to those who look at them only through the haze of philo- sophical comment. They seem to be two ways of endeavour- ing to express the same grand and living thought, which had not yet taken precise and permanent form, but seemed still to hesitate, whether to cast itself in a Hebrew or a Grecian mould. Again, the reference to an ἄλλος παράκλητος in the Gospel, xiv. 16, seems to be subsequent to the Epistle, ii. 1. If we had only a literary dependence to think of, this would be a strong argument; but if the writer was in the habit of speaking of Jesus as a παράκλητος, nothing could be more natural than his use of the word ἄλλος when he was applying the same title to the Spirit. Lastly, the less spiritual escha- tology seems to point to an earlier date. We have already dealt with this subject; and if the observations then made were correct, this argument too falls to the ground. Perhaps, then, we are safe in saying that the evidence inclines slightly in favour of the later date of the Epistle; but I do not think we should be justified in expressing a very confident opinion. We are more secure in affirming the probability that both works belong to the same period, and that the man who was acquainted with one was acquainted with the other. CHAPTER IV THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP WE come now to the Epistle of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. The genuineness of this Epistle has been called in question, I think upon very insufficient grounds. It would occupy far too much of our time to examine the evidence in detail; and, as I have nothing fresh to add, I must be content with point- ing out the main directions which the controversy assumes, and referring the reader for full information to Lightfoot’s Essays on Supernatural Religion, and his great edition of the Apostolic Fathers, Part IT. In one of the passages in which Irenzus alludes to his _ acquaintance with Polycarp, he states that there is extant, a letter of Polycarp’s addressed to the Philippians, “from which those who wish, and care for their own salvation, can learn the character of his faith and the preaching of the truth.”! This is very strong external evidence; for it not only gives the personal belief of a pupil of Polycarp’s, but it implies that it was in such general circulation that there would be no difficulty in obtaining a copy. It is probable, therefore, that the church at Philippi was acquainted with it, and they must have known whether it was a recent production or not. That the churches in Asia accepted it as genuine, we may gather from the statement of Jerome that down to his time it was 1 Hor,, 111, ti. 180 a -.- ππτοανα. .»-.-- GENUINENESS | : 181 read “an Asie conventu.”' Trenzus does not indeed say anything which necessarily identifies the letter with that which has come down to us; but there is no competitor in the field, and there is no reason to doubt, and I believe it was not till recently doubted, that the extant letter is the one referred to. This external evidence is strongly confirmed by the internal. The Epistle professes to be by Polycarp, so that, if not his, it is a deliberate forgery. But there is no appearance of forgery about it. It is modest, simple, and devout, and suits all that we know of the character of the alleged author. The undeveloped condition of the doctrine, and the nature of the allusions to ecclesiastical organization, alike point to a very early date, and there is nothing which indicates a later time. Why, then, is its genuineness doubted? Mainly because it bears witness to the existence of the Ignatian letters and to the journey of Ignatius to his martyrdom in Rome.? This opens up a vast subject, which it is impossible for us to discuss; but I must indicate very briefly its bearing on the question before us. A number of epistles have come down to us under the name of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria. These letters exist in three forms or recensions. The first contains only three epistles, which have been preserved, in this form, only in a Syriac version. The second comprises seven epistles, the three of the Syriac version in an amplified form, and four others. Of this recension we possess the original Greek, as well as translations in Latin and Armenian, and fragments in Syriac and Coptic. This is referred to sometimes as the shorter Greek, sometimes as the Vossian recension, the Greek of six of the epistles having been published for the first time by Isaac Voss, in 1646. The third form includes thirteen 1 Vw. wl. xvii. ; Lightfoot, Hssays, p. 105, note 2. 2 ix. and xiii, 182 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP letters, of which one, however, is addressed to Ignatius, instead of professing to be written by him. Seven of the epistles are an enlarged edition of those embraced by the second recension. This largest form has been preserved in Greek and Latin; and the six additional epistles, having been added to the second form, have been translated also into the other languages mentioned under that head. Lightfoot purposes to distinguish these three collections as the short, middle, and long forms or recensions respectively It is admitted on all hands that the long form isspurious. Cureton, who discovered and published the ancient Syriac version, maintained that we were at last in possession of the genuine Ignatius, and in this conviction he was followed by many learned men. Others, however, still defended both the priority and the genuineness of the middle recension, and Lightfoot has devoted all the resources of his learning to the establish- ment of this position. Others, again, and especially the adherents of the Tiibingen school, regard the whole literature as spurious.® Now, even if it could be shown that all these letters were spurious, I cannot see that we should be obliged to reject the Epistle of Polycarp; for it might still be true that Ignatius was taken to Rome to be martyred, and that on the journey he wrote the letters to which the Epistle of Polycarp alludes. For some unknown reason these letters may have perished, and others have been forged at a later time in their place, or they may have been so tampered with that we can no longer depend upon them. I am not saying that this is likely, but only that it is less unlikely than that an epistle which bears every mark of genuineness should be a forgery; for we must remember that the allusions are not of a kind to identify 1 For the above, see Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II. Vol. i. pp. 70 sqq. 2 London, 1845. 3 See Lightfoot, 2b., p. 280 sqq. GENUINENESS 183 any of the Ignatian letters which have come down to us. This view is confirmed by a fact which I think Lightfoot has proved to demonstration, that the Epistles of Polycarp and of Ignatius have not been written by the same hand, and that the former is in no way designed to support the ecclesiastical position maintained by the latter. There would therefore be no inconsistency in accepting the Epistle of Polycarp as conclusive evidence that there was once a genuine Ignatian literature, and at the same time entertaining doubts whether we could depend upon any of the forms in which that literature has reached our own time. Accordingly it is not necessary for us here to attempt to come to a decision in the controversy about the Epistles of Ignatius; for whatever may be the ultimate verdict, I think we may still retain the conviction that the Epistle of Polycarp is genuine. A fresh attack, however, proceeding upon other grounds, has been made by the Rev. Jos. M. Cotterill in a long article contained in the Journal of Philology, vol. xix., no. 38, 1891. The writer suggests that the Epistle was forged by Antiochus Paleestinensis, a writer of the early part of the seventh century, whose 130 Homilies recommend various moral duties, and enforce their lessons by quotations from the Scriptures and the Fathers. The Epistle and the Homilies coincide in two passages of some length as well as in some minor expres- sions; and Mr Cotterill contends that these are so related to one another as to prove that the indebtedness is on the side of the Epistle. He professes to take as his model Bishop Lightfoot’s investigation of a similar connection between the long form of the Ignatian Epistles and the Apostolical Constitutions. These writings exhibit frequent and minute coincidences, and the question is, which is dependent on the 1 In the Apostolic Fathers, Part II. Vol. i. p. 263 sq. 184 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP other? Lightfoot “invites his readers to place the language of parallel passages with their contexts side by side, and to conclude that that writer whose language is again and again explained by the other must needs have been the copyist.”! This is the obvious, and indeed the only, course to pursue in a case of this kind; and it is clear that the evidence might be of every degree of strength, from zero up to a proof which would convince every reasonable mind. Now I think Light- foot has established a high probability for his thesis, that the Ignatian forger is dependent on the Apostolical Constitutions, for he not only produces obscure or inaccurate statements of the former which are at once explained by the parallel pas- sages in the latter, but he shows that in one instance the writer “accidentally betrays the source of his obligations,” by enjoining reverence for the bishop “according as the blessed apostles ordained for you,” and he points out an addition in the enumeration of church officers which suggests a later date. This convincing investigation, on which Mr Cotterill bestows extravagant praise, apparently for the purpose of depreciating Lightfoot’s work in general, occupies a little more than a page. In the long article on the Epistle of Polycarp there is not a single item of evidence which, to my mind, has anything approaching the same cogency. There is no accidental allusion in the Epistle to the authority of a certain Homily. There is no introduction of later names or ideas. I venture to think there is not a single passage which requires to be explained by the Homilies; and I believe the most that can be justly said is that there are a few instances which might be explained in the way which Mr Cotterill suggests if we knew that the two works were nearly contemporary, and were doubtful which was prior. This position could be established only by a minute verbal examina- 1 Article, p. 250. GENUINENESS 15 tion, on which we cannot enter here; but a few more general considerations may be advanced. First, we must notice the character of the proposition which is to be proved. In the case of the Ignatian letters we know from internal evidence that the long recension is much later than the time of Ignatius, and there is nothing improbable in the assertion that it is later than the Apostolical Constitutions. Accordingly we are satisfied with a degree of evidence which might not be considered adequate in the face of a very strong counter probability. But we know from the testimony of Ireneeus and others, that an alleged epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians was extant centuries before the time of Antiochus. The extant Epistle is the only one with which we are acquainted, and it contains no internal mark of being composed in the seventh century, or at any date subsequent to the time of Polycarp. We are therefore obliged to make several improbable suppositions. If the original Epistle was extant (and we know that it was extant for centuries), it would have been absurd to forge a new one in the hope οἵ. superseding it, and especially one so colourless as to answer no useful purpose. If, on the other hand, all interest in the Epistle had died out, so that it was no longer in circulation, then again there was no motive for the forgery, for no one wanted to know what Polycarp had said. In either case one would expect some insertions bearing on questions of the time, and betraying to a discerning eye a state of things much later than the beginning of the second century. That a forgery of this kind should be attempted is in a high degree im- probable. But if the forgery was undertaken, several curious points hadj to be attended to. Severus of Antioch (6. A.D. 513-518) quotes, in Syriac, two passages expressly from Polycarp’s Epistle; and Mr Cotterill admits that this is rather “a strong 186 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP fact.”1 But it is easily got over. Antiochus was acquainted with the writings of Severus, and cunningly inserted the quotations in his forgery. But his cleverness had to go a little farther. Eusebius also quotes a passage,” and this too is inserted. These insertions are so carefully made that they do not betray the awkwardness of the joining. The style, more- over, excites no suspicions; but then Mr Cotterill thinks a forger “can assume any style he wishes.”* Some other curious points had also to be attended to. Eusebius tells us that Polycarp “has used certain testimonies from the First Epistle of Peter” *; and accordingly these testimonies are duly interlarded, and the name of Peter as the author is judiciously suppressed, although the forger introduces the name of Paul. Again, he inserts an expression which Polycarp is said to have once addressed to Marcion, “the first-born of Satan”; and lest this should look suspicious he judiciously omits a familiar exclamation, “O good God, to what times hast thou kept me, that I should endure these things?”® The author, too, with great astuteness introduces two names, Crescens and Valens, both Latin, and both found in inscriptions at Philippi, which was a Roman colony.’ I suppose all this is not beyond the power of a clever and learned forger; but it certainly gives an air of extravagance to the hypothesis, and leads us to seek for much stronger evidence than is offered before we can accept it. Once more, it seems very improbable that, if Antiochus did wish to forge an epistle for no conceivable purpose, he would have incorporated passages from his own works, and with just such slight variations of reading as one might expect to 1p age, 2 H. E., iii. 36. 3 P. 249. +E av, EA. δ. Tren... ae i, 6 Iren., Ep. ad Florimuwm, in Euseb., H. E., v. 20. 7 See Lightfoot, 11. i. p. 600. GENUINENESS 187 find when the words of an author are not avowedly repro- duced. If he could make so much of the Epistle new, he need hardly have fallen back for a small part of it on what he had already written; and if he introduced these portions in order that readers might suppose that the parallel passages in the Homilies were quoted from them, he displayed an extra- ordinary refinement and skill in the forger’s art. But if the Epistle was written, not by Antiochus himself, but by some later adventurer who made use of the Homilies for his purpose, then why was he so modest in his borrowing, instead of bringing together the greater part of his material from this ample mine ? Again, in one of the two considerable passages which are found in both works, a decisive mark of later date is presented by the Homilies! Polycarp? describes the character by which “the presbyters” should be distinguished ; the Homily ὃ begins with a change of terminology, and says that “the priests* ought to be imitators of their chief-priest, as he also is of the chief priest Christ.” The idea that the Christian ministry was a priesthood was one which a writer of the seventh century would have been likely to carry back into the second, for he would naturally have supposed that the sacerdotal constitution had existed from the first. It is therefore extremely improbable that Antiochus deliberately changed “priests” into “presbyters” to suit the time of Polycarp, especially as Christ is referred to in the Epistle® as “the eternal high-priest.” That Antiochus does not mention Polycarp when he quotes him is in accordance with his almost invariable practice in citing ancient ecclesiastical writers. Mr Cotterill, appealing to Lightfoot’s remark that the Epistle is “essentially common- 1 See the passages in the article, p. 247 sq. 2 vi. ΞΟ 225. 4 rods ἱερεῖς. as 188 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP place,” declares that “there is nothing in its contents to explain the lively interest in it which Antiochus must have felt if he had any knowledge of it at all”! It is a sufficient reply that the position of Polycarp in the early Church might well create an interest in his work far exceeding its literary merits, and that the two main passages which are quoted, relating to the character of presbyters and of deacons, are good and appropriate. On the whole, then, I can at present regard Mr Cotterill’s attempt only as a critical exercise. There are few theses in support of which it is not possible to find some arguments ; but I think this hypothesis is encompassed with difficulties which can be set aside only by a very different order of evidence from any which has been produced.” It is very easy to make light of the history of Polycarp, because to most people he is only a shadowy name. Never- theless the few facts that we know of him are of singular im- portance. At the time of his martyrdom he had served Christ for eighty-six years; and from this great age we may reasonably suppose that he was born in a Christian family. The date of his death was formerly fixed at 167 A.D.; but a very searching investigation has established a probability, amounting almost to proof, that it really took place about 155 or 156, or, more exactly, February 23, 155.2 He was therefore born at least as early as 69 or 70, and was a man in the full vigour of his Pale, 2. 2 There is a long and careful reply to Mr Cotterill by Dr C. Taylor in the next number of the Journal of Philology (Vol. xx., No. 39, pp. 65-110). The article examines the arguments in considerable detail, and also throws much light on the relation of Hermas to Polycarp. 3 See Lightfoot’s Essay on the “Date of the Martyrdom” in Apostolic Fathers, IL. i. p. 646 sqg. Also the valuable discussion in Harnack (Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, i. p. 334 sqq.), Who notices the views of Zahn (p. 342 sqq.), and of Schmid (p. 349 sqq.). See also the more recent investigation of Corssen in the Zettschr. fiir die neut. Wiss., 1902, pp. 61 sqq. DATE 189 powers at the opening of the second century; and from that time, for more than half a century, he occupied a prominent position in the churches of Asia, so that, at the time of his martyrdom, he was known as the father of the Christians. We have no reason for ascribing to him any particular talent or learning; but he must have had those gifts of character and practical good sense, without which he could not have won such long-continued and such general respect. Of course, we know that in the nature of things there must have been many men whose lives bridged the interval from the close of the Apostolic age to the middle of the second century; but we are more impressed by our acquaintance with this one influential man, who knew the Apostle John, and was listened to by Irenzus. We must now return to the Epistle. It was written about the time of the martyrdom of Ignatius, before tidings of the closing scene had reached Asia. The martyrdom took place possibly as late as 118, perhaps as early as 110, and within these limits the Epistle must have been written At the beginning of chapter vii. are the words, Πᾶς yap, ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν. These words at once remind us of 1 John iv. 2-3, with perhaps a blending of ii. 22, and possibly of the Second Epistle, 7, A phrase which presently follows, ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν, occurs in 1 John iii. 8, and the reference to τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ may have been suggested by the incident related in John xix. 3484. Those, however, who love hasty judgments can very easily dispose of this apparent evidence. The Epistle of John is not mentioned; the words are not given as a ’ 1 Harnack has examined the question with marked caution, and has reached the conclusion that the letters are genuine, and were composed in _ the last years of Trajan (110-117), or perhaps some years later (117-125). Chron., p. 406. 2 See Lightfoot’s note. 190 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP quotation; they are not the same as the words in the Epistle ; | and they are followed by further statements of a similar kind which no one supposes to be a quotation :—“ Whosoever does — not confess the testimony of the cross, is from the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own desires, and says there is neither resurrection nor judgment, he is first- born of Satan.” If, then, we had nothing to guide our judg- ment but a comparison of the two passages, we might think it very doubtful whether they were not the accidental utterances of similar phrases by members of the same school, or whether the statement in John was not borrowed from Polycarp. But as soon as we take a more extended view, other considerations begin to prevail. In the first place, all the evidence which we have hitherto noticed leads us to suppose that the Epistle of John (being by the same author as the Gospel) was earlier than the Epistle of Polycarp; and, accordingly, this apparent quotation is simply confirmatory of what we have legitimately anticipated, and proves that we have not been upon the wrong track. In the second place, the Epistle contains a large number of similar quotations (at least thirty) from a great many books of the New Testament, especially from the First Epistle of Peter, and these also are habitually introduced without the name of the author, without any sign of quotation, with frequent verbal inaccuracy, and mixed up with Polycarp’s own reflections and expansions. Paul is the only writer who is named, and words cited from the Gospels are ascribed to Christ.1. We learn from these facts that if Polycarp cited the Epistle of John, he would probably cite it in some such manner as we actually find. The reasonable inference from these considerations surely is that the sentence quoted above is really a citation from the First Epistle of John. Of course, I do not assert that the other suppositions cannot possibly be true; I only say that the 1 The first two chapters furnish excellent examples. GENERAL REFLECTIONS 191 evidence leads naturally and fairly to the conclusion which has been stated; and I must repeat what one often has occasion to observe, that evidence does not become worthless because it is proved that it is not demonstrative. It is perhaps worth while pointing out a possible allusion to the Fourth Gospel, to which I am not aware that attention has been called before. In ὃν. are the words καθὼς ὑπέσχετο ἡμῖν ἐγεῖραι ἡμᾶς ἐκ νεκρῶν, and that if we fulfil our citizenship in a manner worthy of him we shall also reign with him, εἴγε πιστεύομεν. 1 do not remember that this promise is contained anywhere but in John vi. 40; πιστεύων εἰς αυτὸν .... ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ ἐν TH ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. The meaning is precisely the same;.and as Polycarp is not avowedly quoting, the substi- tution of a synonymous and more common phrase, one, more- over, which is not unknown to the Fourth Gospel, is very natural. If this is not a direct reference to the Gospel, it at all events shows that we are within the circle of Johannine ideas. The promise that we shall reign with Christ is con- tained in substance in Rev. 111. 21; but the exact words, καὶ συμβθασιλεύσομεν, are in 2 Timothy ii. 12, as part of a πιστὸς Adyos. Compare 1 John ii. 25, “This is the promise which he himself promised us, the eternal life.” 2 Before leaving Polycarp I must venture on some general reflections. Setting all testimony aside, it is a matter of great importance to know that this distinguished man was a friend of the Apostle John’s; that he lived till Irenzus was old enough to attend and to remember his courses of instruction ; that the period between the middle life of the teacher and that of the pupil produced such men as Melito, Bishop of Sardis, and Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, who were both of them voluminous theological writers. We are 1 Cf. 44, 54. 2 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν, τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. 192 EPISTLE OF POLYCARP thus enabled to escape from a world of ghosts, ac place ourselves among real men of flesh and blood, who by a short and unbroken succession connect the apostolic age with the time when the happy survival of its literature supplies us with complete information. Now, if the Fourth Gospel appeared for the first time towards the close of Polycarp’s life, is it probable that he and his contemporaries would have received it without any misgiving as a genuine work of the Apostle’s? If they had misgivings, is it likely that these misgivings would have left no trace in the subsequent literature? If they accepted it without doubt, would they - not at least have had to pass some sort of literary judgment upon it, and explain why, in spite of its appearing half a century too late, they still believed it to be John’s, and would it not have become impossible for their pupils to suppose that it had been published by John himself? If, to escape from these difficulties, we resort to the extravagant — hypothesis that it appeared for the first time after the death of Polycarp, then is it probable that Irenzus could suppose ‘that a book which had been never heard of when he was a youth had been in current use throughout the whole of the century? Further, I think we may safely say that we know that the book was not written by any of the eminent men of the second century, whose names have been preserved ; certainly none whose works have survived were capable of writing it. Is it then likely that there lived and died among them, entirely unknown, a man who throughout the century had absolutely no competitor in the wealth, originality, and depth of his genius, and this at a time when the struggling Church required all her ablest men to come to the front? And if an author possessing this spiritual stature had issued — his anonymous book, is it credible that he would have allowed ~ it to be received and circulated as the work of the Apostle, and GENERAL REFLECTIONS 193 thus have practised an enormous deception on the Church ? I know that critics think that no stupidity is too foolish, no forgery too criminal, for an early Christian; but for my part I cannot believe in these moral monstrosities. We might escape from these latter difficulties by supposing that our author perished in his youth, that even his intimate friends had not divined that one of the immortals was among them, and that he himself had no anticipation of the place which his work was to occupy in the world of literature, of religion, and of thought. This is a possible, though hardly a probable, supposition; but the other difficulties remain without relief. 13 CHAPTER V PAPIAS AND THE PRESBYTER JOHN WE pass on to the consideration of Papias, in connection with whom some difficult questions have arisen, which, owing to their immediate bearing on our subject, require discussion, although the total amount of evidence ultimately obtained may be small. Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia,} and is described by Irenzus as “a hearer of John and companion of Polycarp.’* There can be no doubt that by John, Irenzeus meant the Apostle; but Eusebius, who has been followed by many modern writers, supposed that he confused the Apostle with a certain “Presbyter John” mentioned by Papias.2 We shall have to inquire presently into the evidence for the existence of this Presbyter; mean- while we may observe that if the traditional view be correct in assigning a residence in Asia Minor to the Apostle, there is no reason why Papias should not have heard him at the same _ time as his companion Polycarp. It is natural to suppose that these two friends were about the same age; and we may perhaps infer, from the fact that Eusebius places his account of Papias a good deal earlier than his narrative of the 1 Euseb., H. E., iii. 36. 2 y.xxxili.4. Later statements are probably not independent of Irenzus. See them referred to by Harnack, Chronologie, i. p. 664. 3 See H. E., iii. 39. 194 DATE | 195 martyrdom of Polycarp, that the former died some time before the latter. The scanty facts which have come down to us suggest that his life may have extended from about 70! to about 140 a.p.; but the limits at either end cannot be determined with any precision. It was formerly believed, from a notice in the Chronicon Paschale, that he suffered martyrdom at Pergamus in 164; but Lightfoot has shown convincingly that Papias is an error for Papylus, an otherwise unknown man, whose martyrdom is recorded in the passage of Eusebius? on which the statement in the Chronicle is evidently based.2 We are accordingly once more in contact with an immediate, or, at all events, a near successor of the apostolic age; and it is this circumstance which has given such high importance to the few surviving fragments of his literary work. His Phrygian name suggests that he was of Gentile origin, though this is not certain; and his having been a hearer of John, whether the Apostle or the Presbyter, proves that he was either born of Christian parents or converted to Christianity in early life. He was the author of a treatise in five books, entitled, Aoyiwy κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις (or ἐξηγήσεις). ΑΒ λογίων 15 without an article, I think this title implies that the object 1 Harnack says that his birth can hardly be later than about 80. Chronologie, i. p. 357 86. Ys Set Oe a τῇ. 3 Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 147-9. 4 Tren., v. xxxiii. 4. Euseb., H. £., ili. 39, which is the general reference for what follows, unless otherwise stated. Professor Bacon, pointing out the “deplorable” error of “critics such as Lightfoot, Hilgenfeldt [sic] and Schmiedel,” in giving the title of the work as ἐξήγησις, says “ Eusebius is explicit : ἐπιγέγραπται λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις" (The Hibbert Journal, April 1903, p. 512, note 2). Yet Heinichen reads ἐξηγήσεως, without any intimation that there is a different reading; and Schwartz, 1903, retains this reading, which is that of all the MSS. but one, which reads ἐξηγήσεις. The singular is supported, not only by Jerome, who is referred to by Dr Bacon, but by Rufinus and the Syriac. There is of course a difficulty ip the genitive ; but it might depend on συγγράμματα (or βιβλία) πέντε. 196 PAPIAS of the work was to give an explanation of selected utterances of Christ’s; and as we know that Papias was acquainted with evangelical writings by Matthew and Mark, we need have little doubt that these oracles were in the Gospels (whatever they may have been) which were used at that time in the Asiatic churches. Whether our’ author intended simply to edify his readers, or to expose the false exegesis of the Gnostics, cannot be determined. Eusebius forms a very low judgment of his intellectual qualities, and thinks that his chiliastie and material notions of Christ’s kingdom arose from his inability to understand figurative language: σφόδρα yap τοι σμικρὸς Ov τὸν νοῦν, ὡς ἃν ἐκ τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων τεκμῃράμενον εἰπεῖν, φαίνεται. The interpretations were accompanied by narratives received through oral communication, containing, among other things, ‘certain strange parables of the Saviour, and instructions of his, and some other things more fabulous.” As to the date of the work, we may judge from the way in which Papias refers to his sources that it was produced at an advanced period of his life, and contained reminiscences which went back through many years. This conclusion is confirmed by one of the fragments contained in the Codex Baroccianus 142, which were probably extracted from the lost Χριστιανικὴ ᾿Ἰστορία of Philip of Side, about 430 A.D., and have been published in the Texte ὧν. Untersuchungen.! The fragment alluded to, which is expressly referred to Papias, informs us that those raised from the dead by Christ lived till the time of Hadrian. Ἕως ᾿Αδριανοῦ naturally denotes the reign of Hadrian, and it there- fore seems proved that the work was written after 117, the year of Hadrian’s accession, but I think not necessarily after his death, 138 A.D. It may, however, have been published in the reign of Antoninus Pius. The story may very likely have been taken from the Apology of Quadratus, addressed to the 1 v. 2, 1889. DATE . 197 Emperor Hadrian This apologist says that some of those who were healed, and raised from the dead by Christ, survived “to our own times.”? This does not involve the chronological improbability of survival till the reign of Hadrian. It implies, on the contrary, that none were known to be still living when the Apology was written; but Papias, with his small intelligence, may easily have misunderstood the passage. These evidences of date are not very certain; but _I think we should hardly be safe in placing the work of Papias much earlier than 140, and it may possibly be as late as 150.2 We must remember, however, that with this com- paratively late date he must have written in his extreme old age, and that his own memory would reach as far back as the end of the first century, and possibly farther still. We proceed next to the sources of Papias’ work, a con- sideration of which involves much more serious and difficult questions. Our information is chiefly contained in an extract from the preface, which has been preserved by Eusebius,‘ and 1 Or perhaps to Antoninus Pius: see Texts and Studies, Vol. i. No. 1, “The Apology of Aristides,” by J. R. Harris, 1891, p. 10 sqq. The probable derivation of the story from Quadratus is pointed out by Harnack, l.c., note, p. 176. 2 Quoted by Euseb., ἢ. £., iv. 3. 3 Harnack thinks we cannot fix it more exactly than 140 (145) to about 160. Chronologie, i. p. 357. 4 H. E., iii. 30.---Οὐκ ὀκνήσω δέ σοι καὶ ὅσα ποτὲ παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καλῶς ἔμαθον καὶ καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσα, συγκατατάξαι ταῖς ἑρμηνείαις, διαβεβαιούμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀλήθειαν. Οὐ γὰρ τοῖς τὰ πολλὰ λέγουσιν ἔχαιρον, ὥσπερ οἱ πολλοί, ἀλλὰ ᾿ τοῖς τἀληθῆ διδάσκουσιν᾽ οὐ δὲ τοῖς τὰς ἀλλοτρίας ἐντολὰς μνημονεύουσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τὰς παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου τῇ πίστει δεδομένας, καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς παραγινομένας τῆς ἀληθεία-. Εἰ δέ που καὶ παρηκολουθηκώς τις τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἔλθοι, τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀνέκρινον λόγους" τί ᾿Ανδρέας, ἢ τί Πέτρος εἶπεν, ἢ τί Φίλιππος, ἢ τί Θωμᾶς, ἢ Ἰάκωβος, ἢ τί ᾿Ιωάννης, ἢ Ματθαῖος, 4 τίς ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν, ἅ τε ᾿Αριστίων, καὶ ὃ πρεσβύτερος ᾿Ιωάννης οἱ τοῦ κυρίου μαθηταὶ ἢ λέγουσιν. Οὐ γὰρ τὰ ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν με ὠφελεῖν ὑπελάμβανον, ὅσον τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενούσης“. * It matters little to our present inquiry whether we retain the words οἱ τοῦ κυρίου μαθηταί or not. Professor Bacon says they are “wanting in 198 PAPIAS runs as follows:—“But I will not hesitate to put down for thee along with the interpretations as many things also as I once learned well from the elders, and remembered well, strongly confirming the truth about them For I used not to take pleasure in those who say a great deal, as most men do, but in those who teach the truth; and not in those who mention the foreign commandments, but in those [who mention] the [commandments] given from the Lord to the faith, and coming from the truth itself. And also if anyone came on any occasion who had been a follower of the elders, I used to inquire into the discourses of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, 1 By which, if we are to judge from the order of the clauses in the Greek, I think Papias means that he intended to confirm the truth of his inter- pretations by relating what he had learned from the men of an older generation. some of the MSS.” (Hibbert Journal, April 1903, p. 516). Schwartz, the latest editor, gives no intimation of this, and only refers to the omission of the article of. The reading is supported by Jerome, and Rufinus partly favours it by the strange reading cetertque discipuli. The Syriac translation omits it, and Nicephorus Callisti ignores it (see Mommsen, referring to Preuschen, in an article “ Papianisches” in the Zevtsch. fiir die neutest. Wiss., 1902, pp. 156 sqq.). Different emendations of the text have been suggested ; but they are at best plausible conjectures. Among others Mommsen would expunge the words, as irreconcilable with Eusebius’s statement (in the _ article referred to). The Roman Martyrology represents Papias as testifying that Aristion was one of the seventy-two disciples. Under February 22 Papias, “sancti Joannis Senioris auditor, Polycarpi autem sodalis,” is commemorated, and then follows the statement, “Salaminze in Cypro sancti Aristionis, qui (ut idem Papias testatur) fuit unus de Septuaginta- duvbus Christi discipulis” [Ed. Rome momtl. p. 27]. If this is more than a mere inference from the statement in the preface, the reading is probably genuine. We should notice that the Martyrology follows Eusebius in making Papias a hearer of the “elder John.” I think Dr Abbott is hardly correct in saying that Eusebius “regards Aristion as living at the time when Papias wrote” (Hncycl. Brbl., column 1815). This is surely more than is necessarily implied by the words αὐτήκοον éavrdy φησὶ γενέσθαι, which would be satisfied if Papias had been at any time a hearer of Aristion and the Presbyter John. HIS PREFACE 199 or James, or what John or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and [I used to inquire into the things] which Aristion and the presbyter [or elder] John, the disciples of the Lord, say: for I did not suppose that the things out of the books were of as much use to me as the things from a living and abiding voice.” The latter part of this extract, owing to the change from . the past to the present tense,! has been taken to mean, that Papias inquired what Andrew and the rest had said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John were still saying. This does not seem a probable interpretation, for it is evident that the inquiries were carried on whenever Papias had an opportunity, and must have lasted into a time when it would be unreason- able to suppose that any immediate disciples of Christ were still surviving. I think also that ἃ λέγουσιν must refer to the time of writing, and not to the time of inquiry. Lightfoot, owing to the chronological difficulty, thinks “the tense should probably be regarded as an historic present, introduced for the sake of variety.”2 There are three objections to this: first, the tenses are used very carefully throughout the passage; secondly, there is not only a change of tense, but also a change of ἤ into τε and of ri into ἅ; and thirdly, the reference to what disciples said, naturally ends with “any other of the disciples of the Lord”; and therefore, as Aristion and John are also disciples of the Lord, there must be an intentional antithesis between “said” and “say.” Dr Salmon thinks there is an anacoluthon, and that Papias did not intend d to depend on ἀνέκρινον. He believes “the meaning, however _ ill expressed, to be that he learned, by inquiry from others, things that Andrew, Peter, and others had said, and also stored up in his memory things that Aristion and John said 1 Elev, λέγουσιν. 2 Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 150, note 3. 200 PAPIAS in his own hearing.”! To this interpretation there are three strong objections: it does not explain the. present tense; Papias has already mentioned, in the earlier part of the passage, the elders whom he himself heard, and has passed from them to another class, those who had been followers of the elders; and, thirdly, the extracts which have been pre- served from Papias do not justify us im ascribing to him so very faulty an expression of his meaning. I venture to suggest that a strict attention to the structure of the passage conducts us to a meaning different from any that has been hitherto proposed, at least so far as 1 am aware. Aéyovow must, I think, refer to the time when Papias was writing, that is to a time long after the death of Aristion and the Presbyter John. How, then, could they speak when they were already dead? There can be only one answer,—in books. There are two suppositions, under either of which the use of the word would be perfectly regular. Either they themselves may have written books, containing their own reminiscences or explanations, or others may have written books which pro- fessed to contain sayings of theirs. If we assume either of these, the distinction between the last pair of the disciples of the Lord and all the rest becomes intelligible. Papias inquired after unwritten sayings of the first set; but in the case of the two last, he inquired about written sayings, in regard to which he may have had some doubts either of their meaning or of their authenticity. Again, we obtain at last a reasonable sense for “the books.” It has often been assumed that these must be writings afterwards comprised in the New Testament Canon. But it seems absurd to suppose that Papias, however diminutive in intelligence, could think that he would get more benefit from second-hand reports of what the Apostles had said than from what the Apostles had 1 Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv., p. 186A. HIS PREFACE 201 actually written. Now Matthew is one of the names men- tioned, and we know that Papias believed that he had a work by Matthew; and we are therefore compelled to reject an interpretation which has nothing to recommend it except its tendency to show that the Gospels were not held in much esteem in the first half of the second century. But are we, then, to understand by the books, works containing a false exegesis, perhaps the writings of Basilides and Valentinus, as Lightfoot supposes?! This view does not appear to me to relieve the difficulties of the passage. “The books” are not disparaged except relatively. It is clearly implied that they were useful, though not so useful as the words of a living ᾿ voice. And again, “the books” standing without any further description must surely be books immediately connected in some way with the men who have just been named. If we may limit the reference to Aristion and John, then all becomes plain. There was no need to apologise for asking what was said by apostles to their followers. No matter what the Apostles had written, any authentic additions to their teach- ing would be welcome. But if there were books professing to contain sayings of Aristion and John, Papias might very well allege as a reason for inquiring into these sayings that he did not feel so much confidence in the books as in oral reports. He would, however, hardly feel this want of confidence if he believed that the books were written by the men themselves; and he would probably have said “their books” instead of “the books.” If, therefore, we are on the right track at all, it seems likely that the books were by some other authors, and may have borne some such titles as “ Narratives of Aristion,” “Traditions of the Presbyter John.”? If they were anony- 1 Essays, p. 160 sq. 2 That this is not an improbable title for a work appears from a reference by Clement of Alexandria*to “the traditions” of Matthias :— 202 PAPIAS mous, there would be the more reason for asking competent witnesses about their contents; and if they were pretty well known when Papias wrote, the reference before us would be sufficient. There are some points in Eusebius’ account which seem to me to confirm this interpretation. We can at once understand why Papias derived so many of his traditions from these men. This would of course be adequately explained if he had been one of their disciples; but I cannot find any proof of this. Eusebius, it is true, infers from the passage in the preface that Treneus had made a mistake in representing Papias as a hearer of the Apostle John, and affirms that Papias’ own statement is that he had received the words of the apostles from those who had been their followers, but that he had been himself a hearer of Aristion and the Presbyter John. This, however, is certainly not alleged in the words which Kusebius quotes. The historian, like Dr Salmon, may have thought there was an anacoluthon; but we are at liberty to interpret the passage for ourselves. That Eusebius was not quite sure of his interpretation appears from the words which he adds,—“ At all events frequently mentioning them by name, he gives their traditions in his writings.”! This he would naturally do if he made use of books containing their traditions. As Eusebius fails to quote anything more explicit, the just inference is that he did not remember any passage in which Papias said expressly that he had been a hearer of these men; and therefore his whole argument against the statement of Irenzus falls to the ground. That statement, whatever may be its value, must have been made on independent infor- mation ; for no one could infer from the preface that Papias had Ταύτης [τῆς γνώσεως] δὲ ἀρχὴ τὸ θαυμάσαι τὰ πράγματα, ὧς Πλάτων ἐν Θεαιτήτῳ λέγει" καὶ Ματθίας ἐν ταῖς Παραδόσεσι παραινῶν, Θαύμασον τὰ παρόντα. Δ γΟΉν., 11, 9; p. 452 sg. Potter. 1 ᾿Ονομαστὶ γοῦν K.T.A. HIS PREFACE 3 203 been a hearer of the Apostle John. The quotation leads us no farther than this, that he had himself listened to certain unnamed elders, and that he had second-hand information about several apostles,as well as about Aristion and the Presbyter John, whoever they may have been. My inference from the mode of statement is that he had also books profess- ing to contain traditions of the last two. Another fact pointing in the same direction is the following. Eusebius, having related a narrative received from the daughters of Philip, who had settled in Hierapolis, adds,— “But the same author has communicated also other things that came to him as from unwritten tradition,” ὁ among which he refers to his notions of the millennium. He then proceeds thus,—“ But he also commits to his own writing? other narratives of the sayings of the Lord of the aforesaid Aristion, and traditions of the Presbyter John.” “ His own writing” suggests somebody else’s writing; and the “unwritten tradi- tion” suggests written tradition. Although Eusebius does not mention any books, it seems from these expressions as though he perceived that Papias had used written as well as un- written sources; and, if so, the context proves that these were connected with Aristion and the Presbyter John. Lastly, the account of the origin of Mark’s Gospel, which is given on the authority of “the presbyter” (presumably John), has all the appearance of being an exact quotation from some document. It occupies fully eight lines, and is throughout in the direct construction. It begins with Μάρκος μέν, as though it were part of a longer statement. In the middle of the passage we have ws ἔφην, which would be perfectly natural in a book devoted to sayings or traditions of the Presbyter John, | but would be less in place in a casual reminiscence of the substance of his teaching. Papias’ introductory words, καὶ 1 ὡς ἐκ παραδόσεως ἂγράφου. 2 τῇ ἰδίᾳ γραφῇ. 204 PAPIAS τοῦτο ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε, favour the same conclusion. If he was recording what he once heard, we should expect “he said,” not “he used to say.” If he wished to communicate what the Presbyter was in the habit of teaching, we should look for the indirect construction; for we can hardly suppose that John was in the habit of repeating exactly these eight lines, with “as I said” in the proper place, like some guide who repeats his words by rote, nor can Papias have really meant this. But everything is explained if we suppose that this account was contained in “Traditions of the Presbyter John”; that Papias read it there; that when he met with some one who had followed the Presbyter, he questioned him about it; and that this follower replied, “Oh, yes, it is quite true, I have often heard him saying that.” Papias would then quite naturally write, “the Presbyter used to say this,” and proceed to quote verbatim from the “ traditions.” The above is only an hypothesis, but it is one which has been forced upon us by the grammatical structure of Papias’ words, and which serves to explain all the phenomena but one. This one is the failure of Eusebius to mention the existence of the supposed books. But he may not have known anything about them. Aristion and Presbyter John are very obscure men, and Papias may have incorporated in his own work everything of interest relating to them, so that the writings in question may soon have fallen into oblivion. But notwith- standing the silence of Eusebius, we have seen that he betrays some knowledge that Papias was not without written sources, and his contempt for this author’s want of intelligence may have prevented him from looking carefully into the subject. I think, therefore, that the hypothesis is at least worthy of consideration.! ΤΊ observe that Harnack thinks the reference to the “narratives” of Aristion points to some written source, but he does not pursue the THE PRESBYTER JOHN > 205 The foregoing remarks have helped to prove that the Presbyter John was a real man, and distinct from the Apostle of the same name. This will be the most convenient place to pursue the subject, and consider the hypotheses which have grown out of the allusions of Papias. Dr Salmon thinks that “the elder John” is none other than the Apostle, the only evidence of his separate existence being the fact “that Papias in his preface names John twice over,’ which he may have done out of “mere slovenliness of composition,” and he says, “it may be assumed that none of the subsequent passages in that [Papias’] work where John is mentioned speaks decisively on the present question, else Eusebius would have quoted 10. 1 cannot but regard this as unreasonable scepti- cism. The passage in Papias does not betray the required slovenliness. Eusebius shows no doubt that there were two men, and his only question is, of which of them was Papias the hearer? It must have been pretty clear that the quoted traditions of the Presbyter were not traditions of the Apostle, And the silence of history respecting this second John is no more strange than its silence about Aristion.2 Many men are prominent during their lifetime who soon pass out of public memory. The epithet “the elder” might seem to determine the question ; but Dr Salmon contends that “it can scarcely mean only that he held the office of presbyter in the Church; for then Papias would not have used the definite article as he does, not only here in the preface, but afterwards, when he subject (Die Chron. der altchr. Lit., i. p. 698, note 1). The above hypo- thesis was framed before the appearance of Harnack’s work. 1 See his Introduction to the New Testament, p. 330 sqq., and his article on Joannes Presbyter in the Dectionary of Christian Biography, iii. p. 398 899. 2 The Roman Martyrology, as we have already seen, states on the authority of Papias that Aristion was one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, and commemorates his martyrdom at Salamis in Cyprus on the 22nd of February. 206 PAPIAS cites a saying of this John with the formula, ‘This also the elder said.’” Accordingly, he thinks the word is used in the same sense as in the previous part of the passage, to denote “the venerated heads of the Church in a former generation.” It is an objection to this view that in the wider sense the title would be as applicable to Aristion as to John. It was natural that this John should be habitually referred to as the Presbyter John to distinguish him from the Apostle; and in citing traditions of the Presbyter John, especially if these traditions were contained in a book bearing that title, Papias might readily adopt the formula, “the Presbyter said.” I therefore agree with Lightfoot that the word here has its official sense ?; and if so, the existence of two Johns is established. The existence of the Presbyter John being granted, a curious and difficult question arises. Eusebius thought the elder might be the author of the Apocalypse; and in modern times it has been suggested that the Apostle John was never in Asia Minor at all, and that the John who occupied such a dis- tinguished position in the Asiatic churches was none other — than the Presbyter, who was mistaken for the Apostle by a later generation. Among advocates of this view it may be sufficient to mention Keim,? Holtzmann,* and Scholten,’ and, with a slight qualification, Harnack, who thinks that the Apostle probably ee ees a ee ee «-ῸΦφ-« visited and was known in Asia, though he is not the John οὗ Asiatic tradition.® Harnack puts forward his hypothesis, not as completely established, but as the one beset with fewest — difficulties.’ If this hypothesis could be established, I cannot 1 Introduction, p. 331. 2 Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 146. 3 Geschichte Jesu, i. p. 161 sqq., 1867. + In Schenkel’s Bibel-Lex., 1871, and Einl. in das N.T., p. 454 sqq., 1885. 5 Der Apostel Johannes in Kleinasien, 1872. 6 Chronologie, p. 678, especially note 3. 7 A somewhat similar view is defended by Aall, Gesch. der Logosidee in der christ. Lit., pp. 56 sqq. A fuller notice of the literature may be seen ~ in Bousset (Meyer, Offenb., pp. 35 sq.), who defends the same hypothesis. JOHN IN ASIA 207 see that the Johannine question would be much relieved, for the Presbyter, like the Apostle, was a disciple of the Lord, and we should simply have to transfer to him all the evidence that we have been accustomed to associate with the Apostle, and should, moreover, be burdened with some added difficulties. Harnack endeavours to set this aside by maintaining that Papias distinguishes two groups of “disciples of the Lord,” the one representing those who were such in the strict sense, the other implying a more remote relation, and being applicable to the Palestinian Christians. He thinks that the Presbyter belonged to this second group, though it is possible that, when he was a child, he may have seen Jesus.! I doubt, however, whether the same phrase can be used in these different senses in two consecutive lines; and a sufficient reason for the separate mention of the Presbyter and Aristion is supplied by the change of tense, and the special use which was made of them. We must, however, briefly review the evidence on each side. We will notice first the evidence in support of the ecclesiastical tradition. Our principal witness is Ireneus. In defending his view that Jesus was over forty years of age, he says, “ All the elders who in Asia associated with John the disciple of the Lord testify that John had delivered these things; for he remained with them till the times of Trajan.2 But some of them saw not only John, but also other apostles.”? Although the term apostles is not necessarily limited to the twelve, there can be no reasonable doubt that Irenzus refers to the twelve in this passage; for the appeal is obviously to those who were personally acquainted with Jesus. It is only natural that John should be frequently referred to as “the disciple of the 1 Chronol., p. 660 sq. 2 So far in Greek. 3 Her., τι. xxii. 5. The statement that John lived till the time of Trajan is repeated in III. ili. 4. 208 PAPIAS Lord,” for in the Fourth Gospel the word apostle is used only once; and then in quite a general sense, whereas “disciple” is of constant occurrence. We may add that “John,” if not distinguished from the Apostle, must denote the Apostle, just as certainly as Shakespeare denotes the poet. In another passage Irenzeus says that “John the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, himself too published the Gospel, while he was living in Ephesus of Asia.”? Farther on he speaks of Polycarp as “not only taught by apostles, and having associated with many who had seen Christ, but also appointed bishop by apostles in Asia, in the church at Smyrna.” He “taught the things which he had learnt from the apostles.” “And there are some who have heard from him that John the disciple of the Lord, having gone to have a bath in Ephesus, and having seen Cerinthus inside,” hastened from the bath. In his letter to Florinus, Irenzeus discloses the source of his information. When he was a boy he used to listen to the discourses of Polycarp, and he professes to have the most distinct recollection of them, “and how he reported his intercourse with John and with the rest who had seen the Lord.”* So certain is Ireneus of the correctness of his information that he introduces it into a letter of remonstrance addressed to Victor, the Bishop of Rome,’ for having excommunicated the Quartodeciman churches. He relates how Polycarp came to Rome in the time of Anicetus,® with whom he conferred about Easter; and Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp, since he had always observed the festival in the way objected to, “with John the disciple of our Lord 1 xiil. 16. 2 Her., ll. i. 1, in Greek. 3 111. iii. 4, in Greek, where he says that in his early manhood, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ [“ about seventeen,” according to Philo, De Josepho, 1], he has seen Polycarp, the latter having lived to a great age. 4 Preserved by Eusebius, H. E., v. 20. 5 About 189-199 A.D. ὁ Not later than the year 155. JOHN IN ASIA 209 and with the rest of the Apostles with whom he associated.” 1 It seems therefore abundantly proved that Irenzus’ belief that the Apostle John lived to a great age in Asia Minor was not a momentary error, but was a settled conviction, which he held without the least misgiving; and it seems highly improbable either that he misunderstood Polycarp, or that, if he did, he should never have found out his mistake from intercourse with others who must have had correct informa- tion. One thing appears to be quite certain, that there was some John in Asia Minor who was highly distinguished, and to whom Polycarp was in the habit of appealing as an authority of the first class, one who, if not an apostle, was to be ranked with apostles, We have a perfectly independent testimony from a con- temporary of Irenzus, Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus.2 A letter was addressed by him to Victor, Bishop of Rome, in defence of the Quartodeciman practice which prevailed in the churches of Asia, and a portion of this letter has been preserved by Eusebius.2 He declares that the churches are faithful to the tradition which has come down to them from “great luminaries”* who have fallen asleep in Asia, and he mentions “Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, . . . and moreover also John who leaned on the breast of the Lord, who became a priest wearing the πέταλον, 1 Preserved by Eusebius, v. 24. 2 Euseb., H. £., iii. 31. 3 Ibid., and v. 24, which contains the fullest extract. 4 Srotxeia. δ The High-priest’s golden plate. Epiphanius says that James, the brother of the Lord, wore the πέταλον, and was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, because he was a Nazarite and connected with the priesthood [Her., xxix. 4, lxxviii. 13, 14]. His statement is not of much value, especially as he is not supported by the authorities whom he names. The Martyriwm of the evangelist Mark says that he wore the petalon among the Jews. Dean Plumptre notices the interesting fact “that the portrait of Josephus, commonly found in the English editions, represents him with this petalon. I do not know,” he adds, “from what 14 210 PAPIAS both witness [or, martyr] and teacher: he sleeps in Ephesus. And moreover also Polycarp in Smyrna, both bishop and martyr.”! He refers also to Thraseas, Sagaris, Papeirius, and Melito. In this extract there can be no doubt that the Apostle John is referred to, for only to him will the description | that he leaned on the breast of the Lord apply. This state- ment has indeed been challenged by Bousset, on the ground that the narrative of the Synoptics may not be exact, and — that Polycrates describes John, not as an apostle, but as a teacher.2 But as regards the Synoptics, the question is not whether they may be in error, but whether Polycrates can have mistrusted them; and here, surely, there can be no reasonable doubt. We may add that the Fourth Gospel itself does not suggest the presence of any but the twelve at the last supper. The description of John as a disciple conforms to the early usage; and Philip is described as one of | the twelve apostles in order to distinguish him from the well- known evangelist. John, without some distinctive epithet, naturally means the apostle; and if Polycrates had meant the picture the engraving was made, but the fact seems to indicate that the © practice was not so strange as it appears to us. Josephus, it will be | remembered, claimed descent from the sons of Aaron, and it is not unlikely / that both St John and the brother of the Lord may have had a like - claim” (The General Epistle of St James, in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, p. 29, note 1). Some understand the phrase figuratively, as expressive of John’s leading position among the Christians. _ Compare Jerome’s insertion, “pontifex ejus fuit” (De Vir. ill., 45). Lightfoot, who regards the words as a metaphor, says, “the short fragment which contains them has several figurative expressions, almost, if not quite, as violent,” and thinks “the whole passage is a very rude specimen of the florid ‘ Asiatic’ style.” Still he thinks it possible “thet St John did wear this decoration as an emblem of his Christian privileges ” (see the note in St Pauls Epistle to the Galatians, 1865, p. 336). Others have doubted the genuineness of the words. See the long note in Heinichen’s Husebius, H. E., v. 24, note 3; also the note in Liicke, Com. diber das Εν. Johan., 1840, pp. 20 sq. 1 Mdprus. 2 Meyer's Kom. Offenb., pp. 43 sq. i JOHN IN ASIA 211 Presbyter, he would surely have given him his distinctive title. 1 can therefore feel no uncertainty as to the meaning of the passage. Now we must observe that Polycrates did not, like Irenzus, write at a distance, where he would have no opportunity of correcting mistaken impressions, but. in Ephesus, the very city where John was said to be buried. Here, then, we must have the tradition of the Ephesian church, and not a personal blunder of Polycrates himself. We must further observe that this was not a private epistle, but received the approval of a great number of bishops who were consulted upon the subject of the controversy, so that presumably the traditions here recorded were traditions of the Asiatic churches generally, or at least consistent with them. Further, Polycrates refers to his grey hairs, and says that he has been sixty-five years in the Lord, and had had com- munications with the brethren from all parts of the world. He was, therefore, at least sixty-five years old; and if we suppose the letter to have been written about 195 A.D., his memory would carry him back to the period when Polycarp was still alive, and Irenzus was listening to his teaching. ’ We must add that he was a follower of some of his own relatives,? and seven of his relatives were bishops, so that he must have been familiar with traditions older than his own time. If we put all these considerations together, I think they establish a strong probability that the Apostle John ended his earthly days at Ephesus. We have some direct evidence that the confident belief of Irenzeus and Polycrates was not due to a mistake made for 1 Bousset’s transfiguration of the obscure Presbyter into a distinguished resident in Jerusalem, belonging to the priestly race, reduces our whole question to one of merely academic interest ; for if the Gospel, after all, was ‘written by Christ’s dearest and most intimate friend, it matters little whether the name of the author’s father was Zebedee or not. 2 ᾿Απὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης. 3 Παρηκολούθησα τισὶν αὐτῶν. 212 PAPIAS the first time in their own generation. Justin Martyr says, “And then among us also a certain man, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, in a revelation made to © him, prophesied that those who believed our Christ would spend a thousand years in Jerusalem.”! This is a clear reference to the Apocalypse; and as that work refers to the residence of John in Patmos, it is a reasonable inference that the Asiatic tradition was already in existence when Justin wrote. Further, there is extant a letter addressed by the church in Smyrna to the church in Philomelium (in Phrygia), giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, and written not very long after that event. Its genuineness has indeed been impugned in recent times, but 1 think on very in- sufficient grounds.” In this letter Polycarp is described as διδάσκαλος ἀποστολικὸς καὶ προφητικός58. The latter epithet is explained by the belief of the writers that every word which he spoke would be fulfilled; but the former, which receives no explanation in the context, naturally refers to his early intercourse with the apostles, and is to that extent confirmatory — of the later tradition. There are two later witnesses outside the Asiatic circle to whom we must refer. Tertullian challenges the heretics to show that the first Bishop of any of their churches had been appointed by apostles or apostolic men. This the apostolic churches were able to do, “as the church of the Smyrneans relates that Polycarp was appointed by John.”¢4 Tertullian does not mention the source of his information, and he is not always correct; but taking this statement in connection with other evidence, I think we may fairly say 1 Pral., 81. 2 See the careful examination of Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part II. Vol. i. p. 604 sqq. 3 § 16. 4 De Prescrip. Heret., 32. JOHN IN ΑΒΔ’. 213 that he reports correctly the tradition of the church of Smyrna. Our other witness is Clement of Alexandria. He relates the well-known touching story about John and the young disciple who became the chief of a band of robbers. This story, he says, was handed down and committed to memory “about John the Apostle,” and in the course of it he speaks of John’s residence in Ephesus, in the neighbourhood of which the incident took place.1 Now Clement had care- fully collected traditions handed down from Peter and James, John and Paul, and one of his teachers was an Ionian of Greece, from whom he may have learnt the tradition of the Asiatic churches.? It seems probable, therefore, that we have here a distinct line of tradition, which affords independent confirmation of the statements of Irenzeus and Polycrates. It is needless to appeal to later writers. None of them contradicts the earlier statements, and we have no reason to suppose that they put us in possession of fresh sources of knowledge. The testimonies of Irenzus, of Polycrates, and of Clement are those on which we must mainly rely. In judging of the collective force of the evidence, we must not forget that the second century was a literary age. The churches freely communicated with one another by letters, and there was an abundant theological literature of which only a few fragments have survived. I see no reason why the churches of Asia should not have had as well-grounded a certainty that John had been once among them as we have that Goldsmith was once in London. Even if there were nothing but oral tradition to depend upon, still oral tradition can hardly go astray in regard to the broad fact in so short atime. The Asiatic John was a public character, known to numbers of people in various places. His name would be 1 Quis div. salv., 42, p. 949, Potter. 2 Strom., 1. i. p. 322, referred to by Lightfoot, Essays, Ὁ. 218, note 2. 214 PAPIAS handed down with the utmost veneration. If he was called the Presbyter to distinguish him from the Apostle, the name Presbyter would have clung to him. When Ireneus and Polycrates were young men, numbers besides Polycarp must have known with absolute certainty whether the Apostle had lived in Ephesus or not, and these later writers cannot have owed all their knowledge of the fact to the venerable bishop. I think, therefore, that the evidence of John’s presence in Asia Minor is entitled to command our assent unless very strong arguments can be produced against it. We must, however, in fairness look at the other side of the question. Dr Salmon, alluding to the opinion of Scholten and Keim, says, “The arguments they offer in support of their paradox are so weak that I have not thought it worth while to discuss them.”! With this judgment I am unable to agree. Some of the phenomena are certainly perplexing, and might affect our conclusion were it not for the weight of the evidence upon the other side. At all events we cannot hold an opinion with intelligence and confidence till we know what can be said against it, First, there seems to be a conspiracy of silence among the more ancient writers. In the account in Acts? of Paul’s farewell address to the Ephesian elders, there is a prediction that “grievous wolves” will enter in among them, but no ~ allusion to the future presence of an apostle. But even if we suppose the speech to be entirely invented, the writer of Acts had far too much literary skill to insert such an improbable allusion. The narrative, however, is contained among the “we” passages, so that the speech may be in substance a genuine report, and Paul’s prediction may be founded on his experience of Judaizing opposition. That the writer of Acts himself gives us no information is only in accordance with the — 1 Introduction, p. 333, note *. 2 xx. 17-38. JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 215 general plan of his work. Again, John is not mentioned in the later Pauline Epistles, notably Ephesians and Colossians, or in τ Peter. Of course not if they are genuine: if they are spurious, a forger who could produce such epistles would be equal to the avoidance of a glaring anachronism. The silence of Polycarp is less easily explained. It is natural that in writing to the Philippians he should dwell especially upon Paul, whose name alone is mentioned. But it is strange that _ he should quote so largely, not only from the Pauline Epistles, but from 1 Peter, and have such scanty allusions to the Johannine writings. It is, however, possible that Peter, whose name was prominent at Corinth in the time of Paul, and who is believed to have journeyed to Rome at the end of his life, may have been much better known than John at Philippi; and it deserves notice that the Apocalypse is as little alluded to as the Fourth Gospel, although it contains a letter to the church at Smyrna. Ignatius, again, in his letter _ to the Ephesians mentions Paul, but not John! The reference to Paul, however, is occasioned by special circumstances. Paul on his journey to his long imprisonment had stopped at Miletus, and sent for the elders of the Ephesian Church to meet him there. Ignatius stopped at Smyrna on his way to martyrdom at Rome, and received a deputation from Ephesus. It is no doubt in allusion to this resemblance in their fortunes that he says, “ye are a road of transit? of those who are slain unto God, and are associated in the mysteries with Paul the sanctified,” in whose steps he wishes to be found. A reference to John here would be quite out of place. But only two or three lines before, in the previous section, he expresses his wish to be found in the lot of the Ephesian Christians, “who also continually agreed with the apostles in the power of Jesus Christ.” This may very well be an allusion to the 1 § 12. 2 Tdpodos. 216 PAPIAS residence of John among them. The plural, apostles, shows that more than Paul are referred to, and πάντοτε suggests a repeated and long-continued connection. Clement of Rome? says that the Apostles, preaching in country and cities, appointed their first fruits to be bishops and deacons; and as they foresaw that there would be strife about the office, they made provision that, when those whom they appointed fell asleep, other approved men should succeed them. The sequel of the passage shows that some of those appointed by the apostles were living, while others had already died. This statement certainly leaves the impression that the apostolic age was over, and, though still within living memory, was seen through a perspective of many years. But even if, with Lightfoot, we place the Epistle as early as 95 or 96, or, with Harnack, 93-95, the apostles of the Romans and Corinthians, Paul and Peter, had died a generation earlier, and the language of Clement is perfectly appropriate. Still I confess I find it hard to believe that one of the greatest apostles was still living, and residing in the very city from which Paul addressed his first letter to the Corinthians. But the date of the Epistle of Clement is not absolutely certain, and if we might place it a very few years later, the last of the apostles would have gone to his rest, and the silence of the Epistle would be quite intelligible. We may also observe that the tradition that John survived till the time of Trajan can hardly claim the same degree of certainty as that of his residence in Asia; for it belongs to a kind of fact in which a mistake might much more easily be made.? Thus the silence of early documents, though we may regret it, does not furnish a strong adverse 1 42 and 44. * The Paschal Chronicle places the deaths of John and Clement in the same year ; but the former is mentioned only as what was reported, φασί. Ed. Dindorf, i. p. 470. ae en JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 217 argument. Negative evidence is notoriously precarious, and often the silence of writers about facts which they must have known is difficult to understand. For instance, in the documents above alluded to, how many things are omitted in Acts which we might reasonably expect to find, and how strange it is especially that the author does not tell us what became of Paul at the end of his two years’ residence in Rome. We may add that, if the Asiatic John was the Presbyter, and the author of the Gospel, the silence of the early writers is scarcely less perplexing; for in that case the Presbyter was the greatest Christian of his time, a man to be ranked with the Apostle Paul in the fervour of his Christian experience and the profundity of his spiritual genius. But how much may be written even in modern times without reference to the greatest men of the age, or to the teachers who are most deeply revered by the authors. The ancients did not, any more than ourselves, write for the special delectation and instruction of remote critics. Both sides have appealed to the testimony of Hegesippus. According to Eusebius! he stated that Symeon the son of Clopas, Bishop of Jerusalem, survived till the time of Trajan, when he died by crucifixion at the age of 120, and he added that down to these times the Church remained a pure virgin; but when the sacred company of apostles had died in various ways, and the generation of those who had heard the inspired wisdom had passed away, then atheistic error arose through the deceit of heterodox teachers, who, as none of the apostles was any longer left, attempted to preach their false-named Gnosis. . From this passage, it might be argued, that one of the apostles at least must have survived till the time of Trajan; but Holtzmann? objects that only Symeon is men- tioned as having reached that late period. Weiss concedes ἼΣΗ E,, iii, 32. 2 Hinl., p. 455. 218 PAPIAS that the passage is inconclusive, because Eusebius does not profess to quote the very words of Hegesippus, and where he does quote them ! there is no mention of the apostles, but only a statement that they called the Church virgin till the time of Symeon.2 I do not think, however, that Eusebius is really reporting the same passages of Hegesippus, for the one which he quotes verbally is part of the account of the appointment of Symeon as Bishop, whereas the other, of which he gives the substance, followed the account of his martyrdom. I consider it probable, therefore, that in the earlier passage we have, if not the exact words, at least the general meaning of Hegesippus; but I agree, nevertheless, with Weiss in believing that its evidence is neutral. On the one hand, it does not say that any of the apostles survived till the time of Trajan. On the other hand, there is nothing adverse to such a fact; for if Symeon outlived John, he would be the last representative of the generation of eye-witnesses. We may observe, further, that Hegesippus is evidently treating of the Church at Jeru- salem; and though the remark about its purity may be applicable to the Church at large, it would be out of place to fly off to Asia Minor and tell us that John had died there, not many years before. It must be remembered also, that Hegesippus cannot have been much older than Irenzeus, and that though he visited Corinth and Rome? we have no reason for supposing that he was ever in Asia Minor; and, therefore, unless he recorded a tradition that the Apostle John died in Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem, or something of that kind, it would be absurd to compare his authority with that of Irenzeus in the question before us. The fact is, how- ever, that he relates no such tradition, and that, for anything we know, he may have told in some part of his five books that John died at Ephesus in the time of Trajan. 1 Tn 19) 225 2 Einl., p. 365, note 4. 3 Kus., H. £., iv. 22. ΄, . 2a JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 219 It is alleged that the book of Revelation! represents all the Apostles as dead, in the passage where, after the description of the downfall of the great city, Babylon, are the words, “ Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on It is, I think, a sufficient answer to this argument that 2) her. the author of the book reckoned himself among the prophets,” so that he cannot have believed that all the prophets were dead ; and if it be said that the reference is only to the ancient prophets, we may refer to “the saints,” and we certainly can- not admit that their number was regarded as closed. The fact that James, Peter and Paul at all events had died by martyrdom is sufficient to explain the allusion, especially when we remember that the passage is prophetic, and in its references to the past, is looking back from an imaginary future. On the whole, then, it appears to me that the attempt to prove from early documents that the later tradition was erroneous must be pronounced a failure. At first, 1 fully allow, the unanimous silence of so many possible witnesses is a little startling; but when we reflect not only on the character of the particular works to which appeal can fairly | be made, but on what may be called the literary fragmentari- ness of the earliest Christian writers generally, and the strange silences that we undoubtedly find in them, our surprise wears off, and nothing is left in the shape of substantial argument. We must, however, notice the efforts which have been made to weaken the later testimony. It is urged that Irenzus in different places refers to his John as μαθητὴς κυρίου, and that both he and Polycrates were misled by the use of this expression, and confounded the Presbyter with the Apostle. To this we may reply that it is 1 xviii. 20, 2 See especially xxii. 9. 220 PAPIAS not likely that they should both fall into this mistake, and have misled all subsequent writers by such a casual blunder. Then we must remember that they were not guided by a passing literary statement, which might have been misunder- stood, but were relying upon their recollections of a time when they had abundant means of correcting any false impression. Moreover, we find that Papias himself thought “the disciple of the Lord” a sufficient description of the Apostle; and if we learn anything at all about a second John, it is that he was carefully distinguished from the Apostle by the title of the Presbyter. We must therefore conclude that “John the disciple of the Lord,’ when standing alone, meant the Apostle just as much in the time of Polycarp as in that of Irenzus. But it is said that we have positive proof that Irenzus confounded the two men; for as Eusebius points out, he says that Papias was a hearer of John, meaning the Apostle, where- as he was really a hearer, not of the Apostle, but of the Presbyter.1 But the fact is that the passage quoted by Eusebius affords no proof that he was a hearer of either the one or the other. This discloses a weak spot in Harnack’s argument. He assumes that Irenzus derived his notion that Papias was a hearer of some John from that father’s own work, and that Papias knows of only one John, namely, the Presbyter, for Asia.? But in fact there is not a particle of evidence that Papias ever met the Presbyter John; and that he had never much intercourse with him seems clearly implied in his having to rely upon others for the sayings of the Presbyter. We must add that the assumption is equally without foundation that the Presbyter was ever in Asia at all. ' In his Chronicle, Eusebius is content to accept Irenus’ statement (Schoene’s ed., ii. p. 162). Later references to Papias as Ἰωάννον μαθητής may have had their origin in the same statement.| 2 Chronologie, p. 657. 3 Poze JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 221 Aristion, who is named with him, is, as we have seen, tradition- ally connected with Cyprus. Irenzus’ statement, whether correct or not, was not derived from a misunderstanding of the passage cited from Papias’ preface, for it is coupled with the information that Papias was a companion of Polycarp, and this receives no support from the extract. I think we must infer from Eusebius’ account that, if he was ever a hearer of the Apostle, it was for so short a time that he retained no reminiscences which he thought worth recording. Perhaps Irenzeus made a mistake, and, having heard that he was a companion of Polycarp’s, inferred that he must have been one of those who had listened to John. But a mistake of this kind does not justify us in believing that he was mistaken on the main question; for he was a hearer of Polycarp’s, and distinctly remembered his person and his teaching, whereas we have no reason for supposing that he had any personal acquaintance with Papias, or that Polycarp, whenever he referred to his intercourse with John, took care to state that Papias was with him. Holtzmann,' however, thinks there is absolute proof that in one instance Irenzus has confounded the Presbyter with the Apostle; and, if in one instance, why not in all? Eusebius, _ he says, traces the chiliastic fancies of Papias to Aristion and the Presbyter John as their source, whereas Irenzus derives them from the Apostle John. But I think Holtzmann has not scanned his authorities with his usual care. Irenzus? relates on the authority of Papias, that elders, who had seen John the disciple of the Lord, remembered having heard from him how the Lord taught about the messianic times; and then 1 Brbel-Lex., p. 358. Bousset also relies upon this argument (Meyer, Offenb., p. 42). Why he appeals to the Armenian fragment in Harvey’s edition of Irenzeus (ii. p. 448) I do not know, for it agrees with the Latin text. 2 Vv. Xxxlii. 3-4. 222 PAPIAS follows the absurd passage about the vines. Now, if we interpret this by the fragment of Papias’ preface, I believe the fact must stand thus: Papias recorded what he thought he had once heard from elders who had seen the Apostle John, or perhaps only from followers of those elders. It is here that Irenzeus calls Papias a hearer of John; but if he meant that Papias himself remembered having heard the story from John, I think he would have said that Papias, or at all events an elder, and not “the elders,’ had this recollection. Eusebius is in complete agreement with this. Having made his general criticism about the two Johns, he passes on to stories which Papias received from the daughters of Philip. Then he refers to strange parables and teachings of the Saviour which had come to him “from unwritten tradition,’ among which were objectionable things about the millennium, But instead of saying that these things rested on the authority of the Presbyter John, he supposes that Papias, owing to the small- ness of his understanding, did not perceive the figurative character of “the apostolic narratives.”2 “Unwritten tradition” exactly describes the process indicated by Irenzeus, and “apostolical” points to the Apostle and not to the Presbyter. Having completed this subject, Eusebius adds, “but also he commits to his own writing other narratives of the words of the Lord, of the aforementioned Aristion, and traditions of the Presbyter John.’ I need hardly remark that “other” in Greek does not imply that the previous account came from the same source. The meaning is simply that he introduced other narratives into his work, and that these were derived from Aristion and the Presbyter John. It 1 This has been traced by Dr J. Rendel Harris to a Hebrew Midrash on the “Blessing of Isaac” (American Journal of Theology, July 1900, p. 499). It is a silly exaggeration of poetical language in the prophets. Its germ may be seen in the Book of Enoch, x. το. 2 Tas ἀποστολικὰς ... . διηγήσεις. ee eee JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS ae seems, then, that on this particular point Eusebius and Irenzeus are in complete agreement.’ If the view hitherto taken be correct, another of Holtzmann’s improbabilities falls to the ground. He thinks it most unlikely that there were two Johns, who were both disciples of the Lord, both removed to Ephesus, both lived to a great age, and both were characterized by a similar activity. But the simple fact is, that we have only the most shadowy proof that the Presbyter John was ever in Asia Minor at all. For anything that we know, he may have died in Palestine long before the Apostle John. The supposition that the Presbyter was ever in Ephesus seems due to a conjecture of Dionysius of Alexandria. In discussing the authorship of the Apocalypse, he admits that it was by some one named John. There was John Mark, but whether he was the writer he would not affirm, as, according to Acts, he turned back from Asia. He supposes it was some one else in Asia, “for they say that there were erected * two monuments in Ephesus, and each is called John’s.”* It is clear from this that Dionysius knew nothing historically of a second John in Asia, and that if he knew anything of the Presbyter John, he cannot have placed him there. The Apostolical Constitutions, a work on which no reliance can be placed, also refers to two Johns at Ephesus, of whom the second was ordained by the Apostle®; but the second is not called the Presbyter. The identification of the Presbyter of Papias with the second John of Dionysius seems to have been reserved for Eusebius®; and he offers 11 am glad to observe that Corssen, who rejects the Johannine author- ship of the Gospel, thinks that the notion of a confusion between the Apostle and the Presbyter is quite untenable. See his article, “ Warum ist das vierte Evangelium fiir ein Werk des Apostels Johannes erklirt worden ?” in the Zeitschr. fiir neutest. Wiss., 1901, pp. 207 846. 2 Bibel-Lex., p. 358. 3 Τενέσθαι. 4 Euseb., H. E., vil. 25. 5 vii. 46. 6 H. E., iii. 39. 224 PAPIAS nothing in support of it but his own conjecture. Jerome informs us that a second sepulchre was pointed out at Ephesus, and some believed that the two monuments commemorated the same John the Evangelist.’ It appears, therefore, that we have no direct testimony to the existence of two Johns in Asia Minor, and the only evidence is the alleged presence of two monuments in Ephesus, which Dionysius, who | had nothing but hearsay to go upon, assigned conjecturally to : two men of the same name. London, however, can boast two monuments of Goldsmith, one in Westminster Abbey, and another in the Temple; but this fact has not yet led to the creation of two Goldsmiths, or the denial that the same man | can be the author of such dissimilar works as “The Vicar of Wakefield,” “The Deserted Village,” and “She Stoops to Conquer.” Our Asiatic witnesses tell us nothing of a second John, and I am therefore inclined to agree with Holtzmann that there was only one celebrated man of this name in Ephesus. But if so, the whole of our evidence goes to prove that this one man was the Apostle. Of the existence of a Presbyter John in Asia we have no testimony of any kind, and we have no evidence beyond a very doubtful inter- pretation placed by Eusebius upon the words of Papias. Without following Dr Salmon, then, in denying the reality of the Presbyter, we see that there is no reason for regarding him as the perplexing double of the Apostle in Ephesus. Holtzmann? makes what I cannot but think rather a strange assertion in support of his position. He says that the Muratorian Canon, in which the Fourth Gospel meets us, as it 1 De Vir. ill., ix. There is, however, a reading “memoratas” instead of “ memorias,” and this would refer to the two epistles, the second and third, which have been just spoken of as ascribed to John the Presbyter. 2 Hinl., p. 455. JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 225 were, in the first freshness of recognized canonicity, regards Jerusalem as the place of composition, and, as the time of composition, the period when the Apostles were still united, so that the Johannine writings preceded the Epistles of Paul. On this statement several remarks immediately suggest themselves. The priority of John to Paul is spoken of in connection with the Apocalypse, and has nothing to do with the Gospel. If the composition of the Gospel is really assigned to the period before the destruction of Jerusalem, the statement certainly contradicts the usual tradition, but is in no way inconsistent with the removal of the Apostle to Ephesus, after Jerusalem was destroyed. But, in fact, the fragment says nothing whatever about either time or place of composition, and the author might look for John’s “fellow- disciples and bishops,” who exhorted him to write the Gospel, just as well in Ephesus as in Jerusalem. Considering that the fragment must have been written as late as the time of Irenzus, it is not likely that the author meant to depart so widely from the tradition of the time; and we have already seen that the tradition included other apostles, along with John, in the Asiatic residence. In this argument, then, I cannot feel any weight whatever. Another argument is that Papias places John late in his list of apostles about whose sayings he inquired, and gives no hint of his having been in Asia. But we have no reason to suppose that the list is arranged in reference to the proximity of the several apostles to Papias. John and Matthew are given at the end, we know not why. Papias knew a work by Matthew, and still he names him last, and he may place John with him, for anything we know to the contrary, as the other apostolic evangelist. Since he does not name the locality of any of the Presbyters or Apostles, it is no wonder that he did not go out of his way to tell us that John had 15 226 PAPIAS come to Ephesus, a fact which, if true, must have been as well known to his readers as to himself. Again, it is confidently alleged that Philip the Evangelist settled at Hierapolis, and was changed by tradition into Philip the Apostle. This, however, is a very questionable statement. Our earliest witness is Papias himself. He mentions Philip among the “disciples of the Lord” after whose sayings he inquired; and as his name occurs in the midst of those of apostles, it is evident that the Apostle is meant. There is no reference to any other Philip. Accordingly, when Papias relates a story received from the daughters of Philip, the natural inference is that he alludes to the Apostle. Eusebius, in this connection, calls him “ Philip the Apostle”; but, as he is not quoting, we cannot be sure that these are the words of Papias. Without these words, however, the reasonable sup- position surely is that the Apostle is meant. Our next witness is Polycrates, who, in the letter already referred to, tells us that Philip, one of the twelve apostles, sleeps at Hierapolis, and also his two daughters, aged virgins, while his other daughter rests in Ephesus. The expression Φίλιππον Tov τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων Clearly indicates a desire to dis-. © tinguish this Philip from another one, so that the statement of Polycrates is deliberate, and not an accidental error. Clement of Alexandria to some extent confirms this account when, in combating those who disapproved of marriage, he says that the Apostles Peter and Philip had children, and Philip even gave his daughters to husbands.2 This is not in strict agreement with Polycrates; but we may accept it as a general statement, and sufficiently accurate for the immediate purpose. Clement does not say anything about Philip’s residence in Asia, and the value of his testimony lies in the assertion that the Apostle had daughters. There is no appear- 1 Euseb., H. £., iii. 31, v. 24. Strom., 111. 6, Ὁ. 535- | JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 227 ance of confusion between the apostle and evangelist till we come to rather a later time. Eusebius quotes a statement from the Dialogue between Caius and Proclus, in which the _ latter is represented as saying, “ After this four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, arose in Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there, and that of their father.”! From the resem- blance to Acts xxi. 9, we may suppose that the writer had the Evangelist in his mind; but he does not distinguish Philip as such. It is quite possible that Proclus, of whose opportunities of information we are ignorant, having heard that Philip and his daughters once resided at Hierapolis, thoughtlessly identified him with the Philip in Acts. This would have been a very natural confusion, and is sufficient to explain the whole difficulty ; for no one can seriously maintain that there is a difficulty in supposing that two men of the same name may each have had some daughters. The possibility of con- fusion is proved by the curious fact that Eusebius? identifies the Apostle with the Evangelist, although he quotes from Acts the very passage in which the latter is described as one of the seven. But it is quite clear that in the opinion of the historian it was the apostle who lived at Hierapolis, and that he, through some misunderstanding, was taken to be the same as the evangelist. I conclude, therefore, that the testimony of Polycrates is perfectly correct; that there was no confusion between the two men till a later date; and that when it took place it was not of the kind required by the argument, but, instead of substituting one man for the other, identified the two.’ * i, ML, 31. edn. Ty TS SY: 3 Lightfoot also defends the statement of Polycrates; see his note in St Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, 1875, p. 45, note 3. Hilgenfeld also thinks the Apostle was in Asia, but apparently believes the writer of Acts to be mistaken, Hznl., p. 399, note 1. For the latter supposition I see no occasion. 228 PAPIAS Perhaps the most formidable evidence is presented by an alleged statement of Papias that James and John were put to death by Jews. This allegation is contained in the Chronicle of Georgius Hamartolus (of the ninth century); and as the context is of some ne importance, the passage must be presented in full. It is as follows:—* After Domitian, Nerva reigned one year; and he, having recalled John from the island, dismissed him to live in Ephesus. Then being the only survivor of the twelve disciples, and having composed the Gospel according to him, he has been deemed worthy of martyrdom. Παπίας yap ὁ ἹΙεραπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος αὐτόπτης τούτου γενόμενος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων φάσκει, ὅτι ὑπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη having evidently fulfilled with his brother? the prediction of Christ concerning him, and his own confession and assent in regard to this. For when the Lord said to them, Can ye drink the cup which I drink, and when they readily assented and agreed, Ye shall, he says, drink my cup, and be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized; and this is as we should expect; for it is impossible for God to lie. And so also the very learned Origen, in the commentary on Matthew, affirms that John μεμαρτύρηκεν, intimating that he has learned this from the successors of the apostles. And indeed also the highly learned Eusebius says in the Ecclesiastical History, Thomas has had Parthia assigned to him; John, Asia, with whom having lived he ended his days in Ephesus.” ὃ | Hilgenfeld ascribed the statement which is here attributed to Papias to a spurious work, which, according to a conjecture of Overbeck’s, had been added to the bishop’s genuine hooks.* But the notion of a spurious work is partly due to a confusion 1 2 Of John or of the martyrdom. 2 μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ. 3 Quoted in the Greek by Hilgenfeld, Hinl., p. 399, note 2. 4 Hinl., p. 63. JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 229 between the early Father and another Papias who lived in the eleventh century; and Lightfoot has shown so conclusively that Overbeck’s conjecture is a baseless hypothesis that it may be sufficient to refer to his Hssays on Supernatural Religion, p. 210 sqq., and to his Epistle to the Galatians, p. 259, note 1.2 At all events there is nothing in the above extract to suggest that the author had any work in his mind except the well-known and genuine “ Exposition of Dominical Oracles.” Its testimony has been confirmed by the extracts from the Codex Baroccianus 142, supposed to be made from Philippus Sidetes, which were published in 1888 in the Texte und Untersuchungen, v. 2. In one of these the writer says, Παπίας ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ λέγει ὅτι ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ Θεολόγος καὶ Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησανΞ3 We can hardly doubt, therefore, that some statement to this effect, or at least capable of being so understood, must have been contained in the work of Papias.* Lightfoot, writing before the publication of the fragment last quoted, thought that the statement of Georgius might be explained by a lacuna in the intermediate authority from which he drew his information, and that “the sentence may have run in the original somewhat in this way; Παπίας... φάσκει ὅτι Ἰωάννης [μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Pwuatwy βασιλέως κατεδικάσθη μαρτυρῶν εἰς ἸΪάτμον; Ἰάκωβος δὲ] ὑπὸ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἀνῃρέθη. This way of filling the lacuna was suggested by the appeal of Georgius to Origen, whose words have been fortunately preserved, and are as follows:—“Herod slew James the brother of John with the sword; ὁ dé Ῥωμαίων βασιλεὺς, ws ἡ 1 First edition. 2"P. 170: 8 Harnack attaches little value to this statement. He thinks, with Lightfoot, that words must have been accidentally omitted in the copy of Georgius ; and he then suggests that a later scribe, noticing the error, clumsily inserted “and James his brother,” and that somehow this form of the text got into the Cod. Baroc. Chronol., i. p. 665 sqq. 225. PAPIAS παράδοσις διδάσκει, κατεδίκασε τὸν Ἰωάννην μαρτυροῦντα διὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον εἰς Πάτμον τὴν νῆσον. Since the discovery of the second extract this explanation can no longer be accepted exactly as it stands; for it is clear that Papias himself must have said something which seemed to bear the interpretation put upon it by two independent writers. Nevertheless I think the true solution of the difficulty is to be sought in the direction which Lightfoot indicates, and that in any case the testimony affords no support to those who deny the Asiatic residence of John. It is most improbable that Papias affirmed that James and John were killed by the Jews at the same time; for we know from the Epistle to the Galatians that John was alive, and one of the pillars of the Church, after the death of his brother, and Luke, in relating the latter event, certainly implies that he survived, and became so generally known that the name John, when used by itself, could refer to no one else? If, therefore, Papias meant that the brothers suffered martyrdom together, his testimony is worthless; and if he does not mean that, then he may have thought that John was martyred at Ephesus in the time of Trajan. That he did not place the two martyrdoms together is shown, not only by the general probabilities of the case, but by the fact that he mentions James without any distinguishing epithet, implying that James the son of Zebedee was dead at the time when his informants were in communication with John. That he said nothing inconsistent with the Asiatic residence of the Apostle may be inferred from the words of Georgius, who calls him an eye-witness of the apostle (or of his martyrdom), and says that the latter lived in Ephesus as the only survivor of the apostles just before he appeals to Papias. That the words of the Bishop are not 1 Com. in Matth., Tom. xvi. ὃ 6. See Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 212. 2 Acts xii,/2: JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 231 quoted exactly we may infer from the epithet ὁ θεολόγος, applied to John in the second of our two extracts, for we have no reason to suppose that that epithet came into use till a considerably later date.’ I conceive, therefore, with Lightfoot, that an error has arisen from a misunderstanding of the word μαρτυρῶν, which did not in its early use imply martyrdom. We have seen that Polycrates speaks of John as a μάρτυς, and immediately afterwards gives the same title to Polycarp, who was really a martyr in our sense of the word. Origen, in the passage quoted above, is commenting on the passage, “Ye shall drink my cup, and be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized,” and regards the words as sufficiently fulfilled by John’s banishment to Patmos for his μαρτύριον3 We may infer from Georgius that Papias was illustrating the same prediction, and, if he used similar language, both Georgius and Philippus Sidetes may have misunderstood him just as the former has misunderstood Origen. But then, what about being killed “by the Jews?” . This would be explained if the Jews were represented as taking an active part in procuring the banishment of the Apostle; and that they were likely to take an active part we may judge from the statement in the letter about the martyr- dom of Polycarp that it was their custom to assist zealously in persecutions.2 This seems to be an adequate explanation of the statement ascribed to Papias, and, if adequate, then far more probable than the supposition that he gave an 1 Weiss says, after the Nicene Council: Hinl., p. 366. 2 Similarly Thecla, who survived her persecutions, is called ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ mpwroudptus (in Grabe’s ed. Spicilegiwm Patrum, i. p. 119. See Tisch., Acta Apost. Apoc., p, 63). The Apocalypse itself says of John, ὃς ἐμαρτύρησεν, i. 2. 3 § xiii. 17-18. See also Justin M., Dial., 16-17. In the Acts of John, which are of early date, the apostle is made to drink, though without effect, a ποτήριον of poison, and the Jews are represented as inciting Domitian to persecute him. 232 — PAPTAS account which distinctly contravened the later tradition, and that Eusebius and others deliberately passed it over because they saw that it shattered the whole Johannine legend. We must still notice the evidence, such as it is, of the Syrian Martyrology. This is contained in a manuscript in the British Museum, and was edited by W. Wright in the Journal of Sacred Literatwre and Biblical Record. It professes to give “the names of our Lords the Confessors and Victors, and their days on which they gained (their) crowns.” Under December 27 we find the entry, “John and Jacob (James), the apostles, at Jerusalem.” Does this mean that the two brothers suffered martyrdom at the same time in Jerusalem ? and if so, is the testimony of any value? In order to answer these questions we must notice very briefly the nature and origin of Martyrologies.? They were constructed in process of time out of local calendars. At some period in the second half of the fifth century a martyrology was formed by welding together a number of provincial calendars, Roman, Italian, Spanish, and Gallic, into what was in effect a general Martyrology for Western Europe. At Nicodemia, about the year 360, a similar Eastern Martyrology was formed out of the local calendars; and this was translated with curtailments into Syriac at Edessa, about the year 400. It is a copy of this, made in 411, which is now in the British Museum. It is of Arian origin, for it contains the entry, under June 6, “ at Alexandria Areius the Presbyter,’ while Athanasius is omitted. The so-called Hieronymian Martyrology was formed by a fusion of the Western and Eastern Martyrologies. Now, in the original calendars the entries referred only to the days on which the 1 Vol. VIII., New Series. The Syriac appeared in October 1865, Ῥ. 45 84.. and an English translation in the following January, p. 423 sq. 2 T follow the article of Dom Butler in the Journal of Theological Studies, ii, 447-458, who himself gives a summary of the results reached by Η. Achelis, Die Martyrologien, thre Gesehichte und thr Wert, 1900. JOHN IN ASIA: OBJECTIONS 233 group of martyrs was commemorated in the respective localities; and hence the same martyr is often mentioned more than once, and assigned to different places, in the large Martyr- ology, for he was actually commemorated on different days in different districts. Thus in the Roman Martyrology, John the Apostle and Evangelist has his natalis kept at Ephesus on December 27; at Rome, where he was plunged without harm into boiling oil, he was commemorated on the 6th of May. The martyrdom of his brother James was celebrated on the 25th of July. The entry, then, which we are considering in the Syriac Martyrology, tells us nothing more than that the deaths of James and John were commemorated on the same day in Jerusalem, but does not imply that they were slain either at the same time or in the same place. Indeed it does not necessarily imply that John was slain at all; for the list includes Eusebius of Ceesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who were not martyrs. The martyrology, being translated from Greek, does not present us with any independent Syrian ἢ tradition; and Mr F. C. Burkitt, in a letter which he kindly sent me on the subject, says that “the native Syriac-speaking Church had, so far as I know, no knowledge of the tradition that St John was killed at Jerusalem. According to the Doctrine of Addai (Phillips, p. 44) the book of Acts was sent to Edessa by John! from Ephesus. According to the Edessene Canons (Cureton, p. 32), John lived at Ephesus. In other words, as far as the scanty evidence allows us to judge, they seem to have inherited the ordinary Church tradition.” Mr F. C. Conybeare, however, quotes the following statement from a fragment, translated from Syriac, appended to the Armenian translation of the Commentary of Ephram :—“Johannes scripsit illud [evangelium] graece Antiochiae, nam permansit 1 What John is meant is rendered certain by the added words, “the son of Zebedee.” 234 PAPIAS in terra usque ad tempus Traiani.”! I cannot help suspecting that Antioch must be simply a blunder for Ephesus or Asia; for the needless reference to Trajan seems like a reminiscence of Irenzus. At all events the statement gives no support to the notion of John’s martyrdom in Jerusalem. In fine, a few passages may be quoted which throw some further light on the way in which John’s martyrdom was regarded by ecclesiastical writers. Chrysostom seems to imply that he was really put to death. In interpreting Matthew xx. 22, 23, he says, βιαίῳ θανάτῳ τὴν ζωὴν Kataducere.” But while he expressly refers to James’ early martyrdom, he has no historical account of John’s; and in another Homily he speaks of the tomb of the latter as well known (δῆλος), and we must suppose that he refers to the tomb at Ephesus? Theophylact, commenting on the same passage, says, ᾿[Ιάκωβον μὲν yap “Hpadys ἀπέκτεινεν, Ἰωάννην δὲ Τραϊανὸς" κατεδίκασε μαρτυροῦντα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας. Finally, a fragment relating to the same prediction, ascribed by Victor of Capua (about 480 A.D.) to Polycarp, has been preserved; and this interprets Christ’s words as meaning that while James would - suffer real martyrdom, his brother John would pass away without martyrdom, though he would endure very many afflictions and exiles, but Christ judged as a martyr a mind prepared for martyrdom.t We cannot depend upon the ascription of this fragment to Polyearp; but it shows how easily a story of John’s violent death might arise from the misunderstanding of an ambiguous word. 1 Ein Zeugnis Ephriims diber das Fehlen von c. 1 wnd 2 im Texte des Lucas, in the Zett. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, p. 193. 2 Hom. in Matt., 65. 3 Hom. in Heb., 26. * Jacobum quidem novissimum martyrio consummandum, fratrem vero ejus Joannem transiturum absque martyrio, quamvis et afflictiones plurimas et exsilia tolerarit, sed preeparatam martyrio mentem Christus martyrem iudicavit. Quoted by Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 11. iii. p. 421. JOHN IN ASIA: CONCLUSION 235 On the whole, then, we must conclude that there is no evidence whatever that John suffered an early martyrdom in Jerusalem; and the apparent evidence that he met with a violent death in Asia, in his old age, is exceedingly precarious.! I do not think Harnack adds any fresh argument in support of his thesis that the Presbyter was the distinguished Asiatic John. He seems driven into that hypothesis by his con- viction that the Apostle was not the author of the Gospel. Nevertheless he thinks the Gospel must have some connection with him, and accordingly reaches the conclusion that our Gospel is to be regarded as a εὐαγγέλιον ᾿Ιωάννου (τοῦ πρεσ- Burépov) κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην (τὸν Ζεβεδαίου). He believes that the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Christian revision of the Apocalypse all proceeded from the Presbyter,> and were written in Asia.t The acceptance of the Second and Third Epistles enables him to appeal with some effect to the term ὁ πρεσβύτερος, with which these Epistles begin.® No doubt an hypothesis of this kind would remove some difficulties ; but it rests upon no direct evidence, and it seems extremely | improbable that the man who had the genius to write the Fourth Gospel, and who was well known throughout the churches of Asia, should, through a blunder, have sunk into utter obscurity, and handed over his fame to another who was unknown to literature, and, in Asia at least, had never exercised his commanding influence. On a review of the whole argument I think that the attack on the traditional belief must be pronounced a failure, and that we may accept the united testimony of Irenzus, Polycrates, and Clement of Alexandria with reasonable confidence. | 1 See an account of different legends in Baronius, who himself places John’s natural death in the year 1o1, at the age of ninety-three. 2 Chron., p. 677. 3 P. 675, note. +P. 680, note 3. ΒΟῊΝ 236 PAPIAS We now proceed to the evidence which seems to establish Papias’ acquaintance with the Johannine writings. In the first place, we have direct testimony that Papias was acquainted with the Apocalypse. Andreas of Cesarea in Cappadocia, about the closing years of the fifth century, expressly refers to Papias, and quotes from him, in his commentary on the Apocalypse, and in his prolegomena appeals to the testimony of Papias, among others, as a sufficient guarantee of its inspiration and credibility. The commentary of (icumenius and Arethas reproduces the quotation from Papias, but probably without reference to the original source. There is, however, an added description of Papias as “successor of the evangelist John.”! There seems to be no reason for doubting the correctness of the information which we thus obtain, confirmed as it is by the evident accord with Papias in the chiliastic conclusion of the commentary of Victorinus of Pettau,? and by the statement of Hieronymus, in his Prologue to Victorinus’ commentary, that Papias at an earlier time had entertained the same opinion about the thousand years’ reign.? The use of the Apocalypse by Papias is not only important in itself, as tending to carry back the Johannine tradition to an early period, but as showing that we must not rely too confidently on the silence of Eusebius. The Apocalypse is one of the books about the use of which, in conformity with his rule, the historian was to furnish us with extracts, and yet, owing perhaps to his contempt for Papias, 1 See the passages quoted in Charteris, Canonicity, pp. 338 sq. See also de Gebhardt and Harnack, Patr. Apost. Opera, fasc. i. p. 189. * As given in its original form by Haussleiter in the Theol. Litteraturbl., 1895. I take this from Corssen, Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1901, p. 219. * Nam et anterior Papias....et Nepos .... de mille annorum regno ita ut Victorinus senserunt. Quoted by Haussleiter, “Die Kommentare des Victorinus, Tichonius und Hieronymus zur Apokalypse,” in the Zeitschr. 7. kirch. Wiss. und kirchl, Leben, vii., 1886, p. 243 note. . ae KNEW JOHANNINE WRITINGS 237 resulting in a superficial knowledge of that father’s writings, he has passed over a valuable statement. Eusebius, however, is not wholly silent about the use of the Johannine writings. He expressly says that Papias “has used testimonies from the former Epistle of John, and from that of Peter similarly.”1 This statement means that Papias quoted these Epistles, but without naming the authors; and the natural inference is that he quoted them as well-known works, which did not require a reference to identify them. It is reasonable to conclude that 1 John had been for some time in circulation ; and this again furnishes, not a proof, but one more little item of probability in favour of the early date of the Gospel. The value of this testimony has been called in question on the plea that Eusebius’ judgment or accuracy cannot be depended upon. But there is really no ground for this scepticism. So far as we are able to test the assertions of the historian by reference to extant works, we find that they are correct, and we therefore trust him in regard to writings which are no longer before us. We must, however, make a distinction. In a vast mass of literature some allusions might be overlooked or forgotten, and an author might, without exposing himself to a charge of culpable carelessness, make a negative statement which was not altogether correct. An instance of this occurs in Eusebius. He says that no ecclesiastical writer used testimonies out of the Preaching or the Apocalypse of Peter”; and yet he himself tells us in a later part of his history, that Clemens Alexandrinus included the Apocalypse of Peter in his short comments on the books of Scripture in the Institutions. He has altogether 1 H. E., iii. 39, end. Κέχρηται δ᾽ ὁ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς, καὶ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως. ᾿ 2 H. E£., iii. 3, beginning. 3 vi. 14. 238 PAPIAS overlooked the fact that Clement refers to the Preaching of Peter in five different parts of the Stromata, and gives some long extracts from it. This kind of oversight, however, 15 very different from a distinct statement that a writer has cited a book which he has not cited; and in connection with the Epistles of Peter and John we have an instance of his caution which is worth noticing. In speaking of Poly- carp he says that in his Epistle to the Philippians “he has used certain testimonies from the First Epistle of Peter,”+ but he makes no reference to the supposed citation from the First Epistle of John. That citation may admit of doubt, but the quotations from 1 Peter are numerous and unmistakable. It is therefore a legitimate inference from Eusebius’ state- ment that the quotations in Papias from 1 John were of such a character as to leave no reasonable doubt of their source. — This will be the most suitable place to examine the nature of Eusebius’ testimony. The historian quotes what Papias relates about the origin of the first two Gospels, and alleges that he made use of the First Epistle of John, but passes over the Fourth Gospel in absolute silence. From these facts it has been inferred that Papias made no use of the Johannine Gospel, and probably was not acquainted with it. At first sight this looks like a strong argument, but all depends on the purpose and the practice of Eusebius in adducing quotations from ancient writers. This subject has been exhaustively examined by Lightfoot in his essay on “The Silence of — Eusebius”’; and the results appear to me so conclusively established that I will refer the reader for details to that article, and merely summarize here the principal points. Eusebius lays down for himself two distinct modes of dealing with early references to the New Testament Scriptures accord- ing as the several books were disputed, or were universally 1H E., iv. 14, end. Essays on Supernatural Religion, ii. SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS 239 acknowledged. He will state what ecclesiastical writers have made use of any of the antilegomena, specifying which of these they used; and he will tell what they have said about the acknowledged Scriptures, and also about those that are not such. This clearly means that, while he will mark any quotations from the disputed books and present any informa- tion which he may find about them, he will not think it necessary to say that such and such writers have used the books about which no question has arisen, but will confine himself to anecdotes or particular information regarding them. His practice corresponds with his intention. He alludes to many authors whose writings we possess, and he passes over without notice abundant and express quotations from the acknowledged books, while he collects scraps of information about them, and remarks on the use of the antilegomena. One example may suffice. Theophilus of Antioch quotes the Fourth Gospel under the name of John. Eusebius mentions the three books addressed to Autolycus, 1H. Ε΄, iii. 3. See also 24, end. The former passage runs thus :— ὑποσημήνασθαι τίνες τῶν κατὰ χρόνους ἐκκλησιαστικῶν συγγραφέων ὅποίαις κέχρηνται τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων, τίνα τε περὶ τῶν ἐνδιαθήκων καὶ ὁμολογουμένων γραφῶν, καὶ ὅσα περὶ τῶν μὴ τοιούτων αὐτοῖς εἴρηται. It is hardly worth while referring to the eccentric mode οὗ accentuation adopted by Jannaris (Contemporary Review, January 1903, p. 38), τινά τε, instead of τίνα, which the context suggests, which is given, not only by older editors, but by Schwartz, and was clearly followed by the Syrian translator, The Syriac, though not quite literal, is unmistakable, “how it has been said by them concerning holy Scriptures which the Church confesses without doubt, and concerning those which are not such.” The translation of Rufinus is too loose to be of service. I think no wise man would build an argument on the proposed change of accent. See, further, Eusebius, Hzst., v. 8, where he refers to his promise to record the sayings of the older writers, in which they have committed to writing the traditions which have come down to them about the canonical Scriptures. As he then proceeds to quote what Irenzeus says about the Gospels, this passage seems decisive against limiting γραφῶν to the Epistles of Peter and Paul, as Jannaris proposes to do in a subsequent article. 2 Ad Autol., ii. 22. 240 PAPIAS but says not a word about the quotation from John. He mentions also a work against Marcion, no longer extant, in | which Theophilus must have expressed his views about the Gospels and Pauline Epistles; but on this subject our historian says not a word. He refers, however, to a work now lost, against Hermogenes, and in this he says Theophilus “has used testimonies from the Apocalypse of John.”* This is an excellent illustration of the plan which he regularly follows ; and Lightfoot points out that even “as regards the anecdotes containing information relating to the books of the New Testament, he restricts himself to the narrowest limits which justice to his subject will allow,” quoting, for instance, the principal passage from Irenzus, but omitting “to mention others which contain interesting statements directly or in- directly affecting the question.”” His treatment of 1 Peter and 1 John forms an exception to the rule, for they are among the undisputed books, and therefore the mere fact of their use by certain writers ought not to be noticed. But there is a reason for the exception. They were included among the Catholic Epistles, most of which were of disputed authenticity, and Eusebius may have thought it best to apply the same principles to the whole collection, and thus to make it clear that the two acknowledged Epistles stood on a different ) basis from the rest. : It follows from the above facts that, notwithstanding the silence of Eusebius, Papias may have quoted the Fourth Gospel to any extent, and called it by its present title, and the only inference which we are justified in drawing from our want of information is that he did not record any traditions respecting Matthew and Mark. the origin of the Gospel, such as he has given in the case of | An argument of a different kind, however, has been put | 1 H, E., iv. 24. 2 P. 48. SILENCE OF IRENAUS 241 forward with much confidence by Corssen,! and adopted with equal confidence by Professor Bacon.2 The former states that Irenzeus had pressing occasion to speak of the credentials of the Gospel, for he mentions his opponents, who, in rejecting it as an heretical work, and denying its apostolic authorship? maintained the right of historical tradition. Yet he has nothing to say on the subject, thus proving that he had no tradition to depend upon. And especially he could find no information in Papias; for he seems to make use of him in regard to Matthew and Mark, but has nothing to tell about Luke and John; and the inevitable inference is that Papias’ work contained not a syllable about them. The argument, thus stated, seems very strong; and yet I think it entirely melts away on nearer examination. In the first place, Irenzeus does not say that anyone denied the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. In the passage where he speaks of those who rejected it, he refers first to Marcion, who, rejecting the whole Gospel, boasted that he had part of it (ue. aS previously explained, he acknowledged only a mutilated Luke); then he adds that others (besides the Marcionites), in order to frustrate the gift of the Spirit, did not admit the Gospel of John. Now we have no reason for supposing that Marcion rejected the Fourth Gospel because it was a spurious work; on the contrary, we have some ground for thinking that he disliked it, not only through doctrinal considerations, but because he believed that it was the work of John, one of the Judaic apostles. Similarly some few 1 Monarchianische Prologe, in Texte und Unters., xv., 1896. 2 “Recent Aspects of the Johannine Problem,” in the Hibbert Journal, April 1903. 3 Dem Apostel absprachen. 4 Pp. 104 sqq. 5 Pp. 110 844. In his later article he limits his conclusion to the state- ment that Papias knew of nothing to record respecting the composition of the Third and Fourth Gospels (Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1901, PP 222 sqq.). I 242 | PAPIAS others may have rejected it without calling its authorship in question, though at a later time, in order to avoid the scandal of reprobating an Apostle, those who would not accept it ascribed it to Cerinthus. Of this later ascription there is no mention in Ireneus, and I am not aware that he anywhere tells us that the authorship of any Gospel was called in question. Different sects had their preferences, and adopted a canon to suit their views. For instance, the Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew; and they rejected the Epistles of Paul, not because they were spurious, but because he was an apostate from the law! But not only does Irenzus fail to make any reference to questioned authorship, but he tells us expressly how the heretics did really get rid of the authority of the Gospels. Some affirmed that the Apostles had mixed up the legal sentiments in the teaching of Christ, and even that the Lord himself had spoken under different kinds of inspiration.2 Similarly they declared that the Apostles had preached the Gospel while they still entertained Jewish sentiments, but that they themselves were purer and wiser than the Apostles. This was the reason why Marcion rejected all but his mutilated Luke. Others acknowledged the Scriptures, but changed the interpretations. Another mode of escape was found in an appeal to oral tradition, without which the Scriptures were unintelligible® And lastly, recourse was had to the notion that the Apostles — adapted their teaching to the capacity of their hearers or even that the Saviour himself had taught an esoteric doctrine in riddles and parables.’ Surely the correct inference from this mode of treatment is that Irenzeus was not aware that he 1 Tren., Her., τ. xxvi. 2; Euseb., H. E., iii. 27. 2 III. il. 2. 3 ΤΙ], xii. 12, * Ib, Also 1. iii. 6, viii. 1; and for examples, see especially 1. iii., ix., XVili.—xx. δ᾽ 1 σπ apes 7 I, EXvil. 2 SILENCE OF IRENZUS 243 had to defend the genuineness of the Gospel against an attack upon its authorship. Even in the famous and foolish argu- ment about the four Gospels, he betrays no knowledge that authorship was called in question, and his sole object is to prove that four is the proper canonical number. For him, then, as has been said before, no Johannine question existed. Like a good churchman, he accepted the four Gospels which had been handed down to him, and never thought of doubting, or having to prove, their authenticity. He dismisses those who, in addition to the Marcionites, rejected the Fourth Gospel with a few contemptuous lines; and if some obscure dogmatic cranks had asserted at that time that the Gospel was the work of Cerinthus, he would no more have thought it necessary to confute them than we should feel obliged to answer an assertion that the Seat of Authority in Religion was the work of Spurgeon. Secondly, the argument in reference to Papias appears to me quite invalid. Irenzeus! may have made use of Papias’ statements about Matthew and Mark; but there is really no proof that he did so. His statements are not quoted from that writer; and although he had to defend the authority of these Gospels against the great Marcionite school, he makes no appeal to any earlier writer, or to any kind of historical attestation. He states briefly what was generally believed, and it seems never to occur to him that anyone will call it in question. And again, instead of telling us nothing about John, he tells almost as much as he does about Matthew and Mark; for he says that he published the Gospel after the other three, while he was living in Ephesus. There is no appearance of his having invented this; and if he did not derive it from Papias, he must have relied upon general tradition and belief. Surely this simple account bears far ay aay ς 244 PAPIAS more clearly the stamp of history than some story full of details about the occasion and manner of its publication. If Papias had told this, and no more, I hardly think Eusebius would have thought it worth mentioning; but if it was a fact universally believed in Asia Minor when Papias wrote, I do not suppose he would have thought of recording it. The case of Matthew and Mark was very different. They came from distant parts, and the statement about them probably con- tained information as new as it was interesting. I think, therefore, that this latest argument in proof of the silence of Papias is founded on misapprehension. On the other hand, there is some little probability that, if Papias based his work exclusively on Matthew and Mark, we should have had some intimation of a fact, which must have struck his readers of a later time as peculiar and worthy of notice. Finally, we must consider for a moment a curious argument which is relied upon by Corssen.1 While admitting that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel, and even ascribed it to the Apostle, he contends that he had no external testimony to support his belief, and that, consequently, Christian antiquity at large had none; and he strengthens this argument by maintaining that if the Apostle really reported the absurd — saying about the vines, he cannot have been the author of the Fourth Gospel. But we may fairly reply that the latter tradition rests upon mere hearsay, leaving room for all sorts of confusion; and surely we may feel certain that the saying was not ascribed to Christ by one of his most intimate dis- ciples. A general belief in the authorship of a book is of a totally different kind. Who ever thinks of looking for strong attestation before accepting a book as. genuine? If it was — the general belief in Asia Minor, that the Gospel was the — 1 Zeitschr. f. neut. Wrss., 1901, pp. 224 864. | KNOWLEDGE OF FOURTH GOSPEL 245 work of John, at a time when numbers of men were living who could have given it an authoritative contradiction, we can hardly look for any stronger attestation, for it is not usual for authors to sign, seal, and deliver their books in the presence of chosen witnesses. In a word, particular stories retailed by a man like Papias are far less trustworthy than a general belief which was accepted as a matter of course, and was not supposed to require any authority to substantiate it. This being the case, it becomes interesting to inquire what traces there are of Papias’ acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel. We must refer, in the first place, to a passage in Irenzeus, in which an ancient interpretation of the saying in John xiv. 2 has been rescued from oblivion. It occurs in V. xxxvi. I, 2, and the Greek, which in this instance is important, has been preserved.’ It runs as follows:—“ As the Presbyters say (ὡς of πρεσβύτεροι λέγουσι), Then also [ve, at the restoration of all things] they who have been deemed worthy of the life in heaven shall go thither, but others shall enjoy the luxury of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city ; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen, as they who see him shall be worthy.? But that there is this difference (εἶναι δὲ τὴν διαστολὴν) of the dwelling of those who bear fruit the hundred-fold, and of those [who bear] the sixty, and of those [who bear] the thirty?; of whom some shall be taken up into the heavens, others shall live in Paradise, others shall inhabit the city; and that on this account the Lord said, that in the abode of my Father are many mansions; for all things 1 See Stieren’s notes. 2 It is to be observed that so far the words are in the direct construction, χωρήσουσιν, etc.; but from this point the construction changes into the indirect. 3 Τὰ ἑκατὸν, etc., clearly pointing to the Gospels, where the article does not occur, and treating the parable as well known. This point is lost in Lightfoot’s translation : Essays, p. 194. 246 PAPIAS are of God, who affords to all the suitable dwelling As his word says, that division was made to all by the Father, according as everyone is or shall be worthy.? And this is the feast-table, at which they shall recline who feast when invited to the wedding. The Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the arrangement and disposition of those who are saved, and that through steps of this kind they advance, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, but through the Son to the Father, the Son in succession yielding his work to the Father, as also has been said by the Apostle, ‘since he must reign until he put all enemies under his feet.’” On this passage we may remark, first, that it is in all probability derived from some written source. This is shown by the repeated use of the present tense, “the Presbyters say.” This is the language of a man who has a book before him, not of one who is recalling to memory words which he once heard from men long ago deceased. The same conclusion follows from the length of the passage, combined with the change from the direct to the indirect construction ; for this implies that Ireneus at first quotes his authority exactly, and then, for the sake of brevity, contents himself with giving the substance. If he had been writing from his own recollection merely, he would naturally have used the same construction, and that probably the indirect throughout. Secondly, the clause relating to the “many mansions” belongs to the report of the elders. This is proved, not only by the repetition of “the elders say” towards the close of the 1 Here ends the Greek. The last clause is as follows: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν Κύριον, ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Πατρός μου μονὰς εἶναι πολλάς. τὰ πάντα γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃς τοῖς πᾶσι τὴν ἁρμόζουσαν οἴκησιν παρέχει. The words in Jn. xiv. 2 are ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ Πατρός μου μοναὶ πολλαί εἰσιν. 2 This may possibly refer to the parable of the talents or of the pounds, or it may be a traditional saying. KNOWLEDGE OF FOURTH GOSPEL 247 quotation, but by the indirect construction; for if Irenzeus intended simply to insert an expression of his own opinion, he would of course have made use of the indicative mood. Thirdly, the authority which is cited is in all probability the work of Papias. I had come to this conclusion before the appearance of Lightfoot’s articles; but he presents the reasons for it with great clearness and force! They are mainly these: —(1) The passage accords with the method of Papias, and with the subject of his expositions. (2) No other work before the time of Irenzus satisfies the conditions. (3) The connection with a previous passage,” in which Irenzeus expressly refers to Papias as his authority, is important. The subject of the two passages is the same, and they both treat it from the same point of view. The authorities are described in similar terms ; and at the beginning of the later passage “the elders” are referred to without further description, and we therefore naturally suppose that they are the same as the previously mentioned “elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord.” And lastly, “the subject is continuous from the one to the other, though it extends over four somewhat long chapters (cc. 33-36).” Lightfoot also adduces the references to Papias in the “Hexaemeron” of Anastasius of Sinai, and in the Catena on the Apocalypse, bearing the names of (icumenius and Arethas which serve to strengthen the prob- ability reached upon other grounds; but for the argument based upon these I may be content to refer to his own pages. The reasonable inference from these facts is that Papias recorded a traditional interpretation of a saying of Christ's which is found only in the Fourth Gospel. It might be that the saying as well as the interpretation had come down by oral tradition, and had not yet been incorporated in the 1 Essays, p. 197 84η. 2 vy, XxXili. 4. 248 , PAPIAS Gospel!; and in favour of this view it might be pointed out that the words are not quite the same as those in the Gospel. I do not think, however, that any stress can be laid upon the verbal difference; for the characteristic words, which alone are important for the subject, are the same, and the change consists in substituting for one form of expression another which is strictly synonymous, and which is found in Luke 1]. 49. This kind and amount of alteration is quite in accordance with patristic usage. On the other hand, it seems likely that the “Dominical Oracles” which Papias expounded were con- tained in well-known books. Here the silence of Eusebius may be of some use to us. If Papias habitually quoted sayings which are not in our Gospels, but were either of unknown origin, or derived from some of the known apocryphal books, our historian, in accordance with his usual practice, would have noticed this fact; and I think we may justly conclude that there was nothing in the quotations which struck Eusebius as peculiar and calling for remark. Further, we know that Papias had writings which were ascribed to Matthew and Mark; and we have just seen in Trenzus’ extract how the parable of the Sower is referred to as though the readers were sure to be quite familiar with it. When, therefore, a saying which is now found in the Fourth Gospel is cited as though everyone would be certain to recognize it, we may reasonably presume that that saying was contained in some accepted book, and that that book 1 So Corssen (Monarch. Prol., pp. 109 sq.). His remark that the Presbyters could hardly have shown more certainly that they had no connection with the author of the Gospel, who did not refer to the different grades of blessedness, is scarcely sustained by the general character of ancient exegesis. In his later article Corssen withdraws from this position, and maintains that, in presence of the fact that the presbyters agree with the Gospel, the vague possibility of their dependence on another source is not very convincing. See Zettsch. f. neut. Wiss, 1901, p. 214. KNOWLEDGE OF FOURTH GOSPEL 249 was the Gospel which is so closely allied to the first Epistle of John. | I fear that in spite of the rather favourable opinion of Mr Burkitt,? small importance can be attached to a curious statement, at least in its present form, that, according to Papias, the Gospel was written after the Apocalypse, and given to the churches in Asia by John, while he was still in the body, and that Papias himself wrote it from the dictation of John. This is said to have been contained in Papias’ “ exoterica, that is, in the last five books (or, at the end of the five books, in extremis quinque libris).” A portion of this statement is given, without any authority, in a Greek proem to a Catena.2 The complete statement is contained in two Latin codices, one in the Vatican and one in Madrid.* The value of this alleged citation is, as Harnack points out,° 1 Harnack admits the probability that Papias was acquainted with the Gospel, and used it like the other Gospels, as a source for the sayings of the Lord (Chronol., p. 336, in the note). Corssen also, departing from his former opinion, is convinced that Papias was acquainted with the Gospel (Zettsch. f. neut. Wiss., 1901, pp. 212 sqq.). 2 Two Lectures on the Gospels, 1901, pp. 67 844. and 90 sqq. 3 Ἰωάννης. . . ὑπηγόρευσε Td εὐαγγέλιον τῷ ἑαυτοῦ μαθητῇ Mania. Quoted by Burkitt from Corderius, p. 68. 4 They are both quoted in Wordsworth and White’s Novwm Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi latine secundum editionem sancti Hieronymr. The important part may be quoted “ex cod. Regine Suetiz, printed from the edition of Thomasius, Opp. i., p. 344; Rome, 1747” :—“ Evangelium Johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab Johanne adhuc in corpore constituto ; sicut Papias nomine, Hieropolitanus, discipulus Johannis carus, in exotericis, id est in extremis quinque libris retulit ; descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte.” This passage occurs with unimportant variations, due perhaps to its being independently translated from the Greek, in a Prologue to John contained in the Codex Toletanus. This manuscript is assigned to the tenth century by W. and W. in the Preface, p. xiii, but this is corrected to the ninth in the Epilogus, p. 708, while Gregory puts it back to the eighth (Proleg. to Tisch., p. 991. The quotations in W. and W. are on pp. 490 and 491). 5 Chronol., p. 665. 250 PAPIAS vitiated by its singular deficiencies. The statement that John published the Gospel while he was living is nonsense as it stands, for no one could suppose that he published it when he was dead And again, John is not characterized, so that we cannot tell whether the Apostle is meant. It is even more serious that the five books have a title otherwise unknown; and it has been conjectured that the “exoterica” may have been an addition to the original work, made with the intention of claiming the authority of Papias for all kinds of apocryphal stories.2 We must add the extreme improbability that a statement of this importance should never be alluded to by ancient writers, even if Eusebius was led to neglect it by his contemptuous estimate of Papias. Mr Burkitt is convinced, by a comparison of the texts, that St Jerome, in his “De Viris illustribus,” borrowed from the document represented to us by the Prologue in the Codex Toletanus?; but if so we must conclude either that the passage about Papias was wanting or that Jerome did not believe it to be authentic.t Except for the reference to “five books,” and to Hierapolis, there might seem to be much probability in the conjecture of Corssen that “ Papias” is an error for “ Prochorus,” the ostensible author of the romantic πράξεις τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου καὶ εὐαγγελιστοῦ Ἰωάννου τοῦ θεολόγου, a work which is assigned to the first half of the fifth century.® Lightfoot’s emendations and con- 1 Might not the phrase, however, mean simply that he was still living at so late a date? Compare Eusebius’ ἔτι τῷ βίῳ ἐνδιατρίβοντα (H. L., iii. 18). 2 See the note to fragment xix. of Papias in Patrwm Apostolicorwm Opera, by de Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn; also Lightfoot, Essays on Sup. Rel., pp. 210 sq., who refutes the conjecture. See before, p. 228 sq. noe eee * Can Jerome, by his “tantum” in the article on Papias, “quinque tantum scripsit volumina,” intend quietly to set aside some spurious volumes ? 5 See Moniarchianische Prologe zu den vier Evangelien, 1896, in Teate u. Unters., xv. 1, pp. 114 sqg. The conjecture is repeated in the Zettsch. f. neut. Wiss., 1901, p. 224. KNOWLEDGE OF FOURTH GOSPEL 251 jectures, however, render the statement as it stands much less improbable than it appears to be at first sight. “The word ‘exotericis, ” he says, “ought plainly to be read ‘exegeticis, " and “extremis, which should perhaps be externis, is the Latin interpretation of the false reading cxoterzcis. Thus purged of errors, the reference to Papias presents no difficulties. We may suppose that Papias, having reported some saying of St John on the authority of the elders, went on somewhat as follows: ‘And this accords with what we find in his own Gospel, which he gave to the Churches when he was still in the body.’ ... In this contrast between the story repeated after his death and the Gospel taken down from his lips during his lifetime, we should have an explanation of the words adhuc im corpore constituto, which otherwise seem altogether out of place.” The statement that Papias wrote down the Gospel may, he thinks, have arisen from mistaking ἀπέγραφον, the third person plural, for the first person singular. Eusebius, he believes, would not have repeated an incidental reference of this kind! I think, however, that till we have fuller knowledge, this item of evidence cannot safely be relied upon, though in its emended form it does not seem intrinsically improbable. Before concluding this long notice of Papias I must consider an argument which is relied upon by Corssen.” In a passage in which Irenzus is reasoning against the opinion that Jesus taught for only one year, he advances the strange notion that he taught for more than twenty years.® He proves that Christ taught for more than one year by enumerating the Passovers in the Fourth Gospel. He then contends that Jesus, to be a perfect teacher, must have had experience of 1 Essays on Sup. Rel., pp. 210 sqq. 2 Monarch. Prol., pp. 106 sqg. Also in the Zeit. f. newt. Wiss., 1901, pp. 202 sqq. at ap oo 252 ΡΑΡΙΑΒ every age, and therefore before his death was an elder among elders. Now one declines into the elder age from the fortieth and fiftieth year, at which our Lord taught; “as the Gospel and all the Presbyters bear witness who in Asia met with John the disciple of the Lord, that John handed down these things. For he remained with them till the times of Trajan. But some of them saw not only John, but also other apostles, and heard these same things from them, and testified about a relation of this kind.” He then appeals in confirmation of this to the objection of the Jews in John viii. 57, that Jesus was not yet fifty years old, and argues that such words could be addressed only to one who was evidently more than forty, and probably not far from fifty. Corssen thinks, with great probability, that the testimony of the elders was contained in Papias. Then he draws the conclusion, from the way in which the testimony is used, that the Presbyters cannot have made any mention of the Gospel on this occasion. Irenzus treats the Gospel and the Presbyters as affording two indepen- dent testimonies, which would not have been the case if both were supposed to rest on the authority of the same man, and emphasises that of the latter more strongly than that of the former; and he even appeals to the fact that some of the Presbyters had seen other apostles as well as John, showing that these had only oral tradition to rely upon. Finally Corssen produces a “yet stronger” argument which seems to me to shatter his whole contention. The statement of the Presbyters goes decidedly beyond that of the Gospel. Pre- cisely ; the Gospel was not sufficient to prove what Irenzeus wanted. The statement made by the Jews (not by the historian), which is assumed by Irenzus to be correctly reported, required an interpretation; and by the evangelist 1 Corssen, with great probability, thinks et quinquagesimo is a later insertion made by some copyist or reader. KNOWLEDGE OF FOURTH GOSPEL 253 it is neither interpreted nor certified as conveying a correct impression. The natural explanation of the whole discussion is that the Presbyters gave what they believed to be John’s own explanation of the passage in the Gospel, and in relation to so surprising a statement it was quite in place to appeal to the authority of other apostles as well. Irenzus, by accepting Luke’s chronology, involves himself in insuperable difficulties; but the elders are not responsible for this. Apart from Luke’s somewhat uncertain statement we know nothing of Christ’s age. Matthew gives the impression that he was born considerably before the death of Herod, and the testimony of the elders is simply that Jesus was older at the time of his death than is usually supposed, and than Luke’s informant believed. It seems probable that Papias recorded their testi- mony in connection with the passage in the Fourth Gospel. In viewing the whole of the evidence bearing on Papias, I am quite aware that it is precarious; but as I have often had occasion to remark, evidence does not cease to be 1 Corssen himself, in his later article, retracts his previous opinion, and thinks that Papias and his Presbyters derived their view from the Gospel (pp. 214-221). Perhaps I ought to refer to a curious statement of an anonymous writer, of the year 810, who informs us that he had found the following passage in the commentaries of Victorinus :—“We have found in the parchments of Bishop Alexander, who was in Jerusalem, what he copied with his own hand from the exemplars of the apostles.” Then follow statements of the consulships under which Jesus was born, baptized, and crucified, giving the years 9, 46, and 58 (Zeit. f. neut. Wiss., 1901, p- 218). Why exemplars of the apostles in Jerusalem should mean the work of Papias I do not know ; but if they do, it would certainly appear that he was as ignorant as he was credulous. It is strange that anyone should know the names of the Consuls, and yet be ignorant of the date of Pilate’s Procuratorship. This, however, has no very obvious bearing on our question. I may remark that a modern investigation brings the age of Jesus very close to forty. Mr Thomas Lewin places the nativity in B.c. 6, and the crucifixion in A.D. 33 (in his Fasti Sacri; or, a Key to the Chronology of the New Testament). I take the statement from a notice of the work in the Journal of Sacred Literature, January 1866, pp. 470 sqq. 254 PAPIAS evidence because it is not of overpowering force. It is pre- cisely among these delicate probabilities that criticism has to make its way, and it is not its part to wield a bludgeon when a dissecting knife is required. Only a few fragments have survived of the works of Papias, and the evidence afforded by these fragments is of the most casual description. But from what has been said, I think we must conclude that, if we take the case of Papias by itself, the probabilities, when fairly and carefully balanced, are for, and not against, his use of the Fourth Gospel. When taken in connection with other evidence, it becomes more important, because it confirms anticipations which that other evidence induced us to form. CHAPTER VI THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS; THE EPISTLES OF BARNABAS AND IGNATIUS; AND JOHN XXI. 24. Dr C. Taytor has produced an interesting argument to show that the “Shepherd of Hermas” recognizes four Gospels. The Church is represented as seated on a bench with four feet, so that it stands securely; “for the world also is compacted of four elements.”! This reason, which Harnack describes as “mere inepta,” ? ceases to be so when Dr Taylor brings it into connection with the celebrated passage in Irenzeus about the necessity for four, and only four, Gospels. The spiritual creation corresponded with the physical in resting on a four- fold basis. The allusion is undoubtedly obscure; but this is quite in accordance with the manner of Hermas. Dr Taylor presents in detail a number of resemblances in thought and expression between Hermas and the Fourth Gospel. These are hardly such as, by themselves, to prove a literary dependence ; but when we consider them in combination with the general historical probability, established by what we know of the state of belief in the next generation, and with the apparent allusion to the four Gospels, we must admit that we have some indication that the Johannine Gospel was already incorporated in a collection which was regarded as the basis of the Church.? = Ἰ510; TI. Xili, 3. 2 Quoted by Hilgenfeld, on the passage. 3 See The Witness of Hermas to the Four Gospels, by C. Taylor, D.D., 1892. 255 256 EPISTLE OF BARNABAS We must not pause long upon the Epistle of Barnabas, as I think the evidence which it affords is quite neutral. It is curious that Keim, who impugns the genuineness of the Gospel, insists that it was known to the writer of Barnabas,! while Cunningham, whose leanings might naturally be the other way, maintains the opposite opinion.” Keim’s view is founded upon a number of resemblances in language and ideas, some of which are undoubtedly striking, and, if we were sure that the Gospel existed at the time, might justly be regarded as indications of its influence. On the other hand the doctrine of the Logos, at least in connection with that term, is absent, although Christ’s pre-existence is clearly taught*; and ὑπο most that we can fairly say is that we here have traces of Johannine thought and vocabulary which help to show that it is at least not an anachronism to assign an early date — to the Gospel. Dr Martineau, however, insists that there are “differences — . which completely separate” the two writers, Barnabas, for instance, placing the resurrection and ascension on the same day,‘ in accordance with the tradition which is preserved in Luke, which he could not have done, “without a hint of hesitation, if the Fourth Gospel, with its plain contradiction, © had been present to his hand.”*® This appears to me to be a very precarious way of deciding on the relative dates of books. It assumes a minute criticism and balancing of authorities, such as we have no reason for attributing to the writer of the Epistle; and if this anonymous author could not possibly write anything inconsistent with the Fourth | Gospel, if that work had already appeared, how could the 1 Gesch. Jesu, i. p. 141 sqq. 2 A Dissertation on the Epistle of Barnabas, gwen with the teat, etc., 1877, pp. lxxxviii sq., xciv, 60. tb Ὁ: ἘΣ Ὁ: 5 Seat of Authority, p. 206 sqq. ᾿ EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 257 anonymous author of the Fourth Gospel contradict Luke? Moreover, Dr Martineau alleges that the Christology deviates from the Pauline type; and if the writer consciously or unconsciously deviated from the view of one apostle, he might do so from that of another. As the New Testament writings represent several stages of theological thought, it required a considerable time to frame an ecclesiastical theory which seemed to embrace and harmonize them all; and we must not forget that an inferior mind, like that of the author of the Epistle, does not easily assimilate the ideas of a lofty genius. I think, therefore, that it is rash to assert either that the Epistle was influenced by the Gospel, or that the Gospel must be a later production. The allusions or parallels in the Vossian recension of the Ignatian Epistles, the one which has the best claim to be considered genuine, are more remarkable. In Philadelphians vii. are the words, “ For if some persons wished to lead me astray in the flesh; yet the Spirit is not led astray, being from God; οἷδεν yap πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει. These words are verbatim in John ili. ὃ, except that the beginning is οὐκ οἶδας. It is difficult to believe that in the use of this notice- able expression there is not dependence on one side or the other, and it can hardly be questioned that in John the connection is more appropriate and original. In the same Epistle, ix., αὐτὸς ὧν θύρα τοῦ πατρός, dt ἧς εἰσέρχονται, ᾿Αβραὰμ, x.7-r., may be a reminiscence of John x. 9, ἐγώ εἶμι ἡ θύρα δι᾿ ἐμοῦ ἐάν τις εἰσέλθῃ, κτλ. In Magnesians vii. ὁ κύριος ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐδὲν ἐποίησεν nay be based on John viii. 28, ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν; and the closing words of the section, ἐπὶ ἕνα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν ἀφ᾽ ἑνὸς πατρὸς προελθόντα καὶ εἰς ἕνα ὄντα καὶ χωρήσαντα, are strongly tinged with Johannine doctrine. In the next section we are told that “there is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, ὅς 17 258 EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS ἐστιν αὐτοῦ λόγος ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών, ὃς κατὰ πάντα εὐηρέστησεν τῷ πέμψαντι αὐτόν. 1} Here we have ἃ doctrine of the Logos, combined with a possible allusion to John viii. 29, ὁ πέμψας me μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστίν... ὅτι ἐγὼ τὰ ἀρεστὰ αὐτῷ ποιῶ πάντοτε. We should observe that the use οἵ πέμπω in relation to Christ is characteristically and almost exclusively Johannine. One other passage requires our attention. In ~ Romans vii. we meet with ὕδωρ ζῶν, as in John iv. 10, and with ἄρτον θεοῦ... ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ Χριστοῦ . . . Kat πόμα ... τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, which may be derived from John vi. 33,51, 55 (where, however, we have πόσις instead of πόμα). These coincidences appear to me sufficiently marked and numerous to make it probable that the writer of the Epistles was acquainted with the Gospel. But whether the writer was really Ignatius is far too large a question for us to enter upon ; and it is the less incumbent upon us to do so because, even if we admit the genuineness of the letters, it may be contended with some show of reason that we have no evidence of the existence of a Johannine document but only of the adoption of phrases which were becoming current in the Church, and preparing the way for the developed doctrine which was afterwards incorporated in the Fourth Gospel. _ Freiherr von der Goltz, in an elaborate work, tries to : prove that Ignatius, though influenced by Johannine thought, was unacquainted with the Gospel.* His argument seems to me to rest on a very questionable critical canon, viz., that an author will not use a Scriptural expression in a connection of his own, or give it an application which the original writer 1 T follow Lightfoot’s text ; see his note. 2 Following Lightfoot, the further Johannine expressions being in- sufficiently supported. 3 “TJonatius von Antiochien als Christ und Theologe,” in Texte wnd Unters, xii. 3, 1894. EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 259 did not intend, or fail to quote it when he might reasonably do so. How many religious writers might be proved by such a canon to have been ignorant of the Fourth Gospel. I take at random two sermons of Dr Martineau’s on “Christ, the Divine Word.” Remove the texts, and it would be hard to prove that he had ever heard of the very Gospel whose central thought it is his endeavour to illustrate and defend. The first contains two or three short phrases from the Gospel; but then these may have been current in a Johannine school; and two quotations, “He is what he is,” and “I am no Fate,” occur, pointing to an apocryphal source, which probably con- tained all the phrases apparently borrowed from the Gospel. The second has no allusion to the Gospel whatever, but shows acquaintance with the Old Testament, and suggests the possi- bility of his having seen the Gospel of Matthew. There is hardly a trace of Johannine language, and the whole working out of the thought is quite independent of the Gospel. Yet surely sermons on “Christ, the Divine Word” would be satu- rated with the style and thought of the Gospel, if the writer had been acquainted with it. If the Ignatian Epistles and the Gospel were documents accidentally discovered, and possess- ing no history, we might have reasonable doubts about their relation to one another, though to my own mind the Epistles seem, in phraseology and thought, to betray a later time than the Johannine writings. But it is only fair to remember that there is an account of them, which professes to be historical ; and the fact that Johannine thought and language had made themselves felt as far as Antioch, is to that extent con- firmatory of the history. I even venture to think that the departure from Johannine language, and the occasional en- largement of Johannine thought, in the exposition of kindred themes, resembling as it does the practice of later writers, points to a time when the Johannine document was already 260 ATTESTATION OF THE GOSPEL regarded as authoritative, and a proper source for explanation and development. We must notice one other testimony before we proceed to the views of the heretics. John xxi. 24 declares, “This is the disciple who testifies about these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.” In these words the composition of the Gospel is ascribed to an immediate disciple; and though he is not named, I suppose no one will doubt that John is intended, for on behalf of him alone among the twelve has the claim of authorship ever been advanced. Keim alleges that the date of this concluding chapter “hardly falls long before the close of the second century,’! but he gives no reason for this opinion. The chapter is undoubtedly an appendix; but there is no ground, except conjecture, for supposing that it was added after the publication of the Gospel, and it is most unlikely that it would have found its way into all our authorities if it was a spurious addition made after the rest of the work had been for a considerable time in circulation. It may, however, be reasonably questioned whether these words proceeded from the author himself or from some of his disciples. This can- not be settled with certainty, and we need not discuss it, for the decision does not seriously affect our immediate problem.? If the verse was written by the author, then the work itself professes to be by an apostle®; if it was added by friends at the time of publication, possibly after the author’s death, still the writers must have had full knowledge of the fact. In either case there is direct and wilful misstatement if the book 1 Gesch. J., 1. p. 137, note 2. 2 It is fully discussed by Prof. Klopper in en article to be referred to presently. 3 We may compare the statement of Brother Leo,—“He that wrote these things saw this many a time, and doth hereby bear witness thereof” (Mirror of Perfection, translated by Sekastian Evans, 1899, p. 39). ATTESTATION OF THE GOSPEL 261 was really written long after the last of the apostles was in his grave. Men will judge differently of this kind of literary fiction ; but I may observe that this is not a statement of the kind that might be understood allegorically, or in which the intelligent reader might be expected to see the literary artifice. If it is not true, it seems clearly intended to deceive; and for my part I find it difficult to believe that a book of this lofty spiritual type carries a deliberate falsehood on its face. If it can be made probable that the note was appended a considerable time after the composition of the work, this argument will fall to the ground; but till this probability is established, I am compelled to believe that we have here a very early attestation of the genuineness of the Gospel, and that it is very difficult on any just principles of criticism to set it aside. This conclusion does not seem to me invalidated if we suppose the whole of chapter xxi. to be an appendix written by a different hand from that of the Evangelist. This view of the chapter has been recently advocated by Professor Klépper in an elaborate article.’ He admits, on account of the diplomatic evidence, that the appendix must have been written soon after the Gospel, and was intended to remove prejudices which might arise against it owing to its departure from the synoptical narrative? But he thinks that the author of the appendix did not speak from real knowledge, but based his assertion of the truth of the Gospel partly on tradition, and partly on references to an eye-witness in the Gospel itself, in 1. 14 and xix. 35.3 It appears to me, however, that at a time soon after the publication of the Gospel there must have been numbers of men who knew perfectly well whether 1 “Tas 21 Capitel des 4 Evangeliums erliutert,” in the Zett f. Wass, Theol., 1899, pp. 337-381. a P38. 3 Pie: 262 TESTIMONY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH it was a work of John’s or not, and it is difficult to ascribe the attestation to mere conjecture, and to suppose that it would have been accepted in spite of men’s better knowledge. Moreover, the attestation does not ascribe the Gospel to John by name, and it is only through the current knowledge of the time that the “beloved disciple” has been identified with John. We have now concluded our examination of witnesses belonging to the Catholic Church. We have received a per- fectly uniform testimony from all parts of the Christian world; and in feeling our way towards the earlier portion of the second century we have met traces of the use of the Gospel which serve to confirm the fuller evidence of a later time. So far, then, as the surviving literature is concerned, Eusebius is quite justified in placing the Gospel among the acknowledged books, about which there never was any question in the Church. But Eusebius had a copious literature, proceeding from the early and middle periods of the second century, which has long ago perished; and we must conclude that there was nothing in that literature which was clearly inconsistent with the Johannine authorship of the Gospel. This condition of the facts appears to me quite irreconcilable with the sup- position that the book was sprung upon the world for the first time in the middle of the century. Both the general probabilities of the case and the direct evidence, such as it is, point to an early date, when there must have been numbers of men still living who knew whether John was the author or not. But perhaps the heretics will shed a flood of light on the misunderstandings of the Church. We must therefore turn to them, and ascertain, so far as it is still possible to do so, what was their position in relation to this question. | CHAPTER VII THE CLEMENTINE HOMILIES THE romance known as the Clementine Homilies is a Jewish- Chrstian work, of very uncertain origin and date. Dr Mariineau says it was “probably produced at Rome about A.D. 160-170,” and this is quite as early a date as can reason- ably be assigned to it. Throughout the earlier stages of the Johinnine controversy scholars were in possession of only eighteen and a half out of twenty Homilies, and it was a matter of dispute whether some apparent allusions to the Fourth Gospel were really such or not. But in 1837 Dressel discovered a manuscript in the Vatican library which con- tamed the missing portion. He was unable, however, to atiend to it for several years, and the first complete edition oi the text did not appear till 1853. ‘Then, in xix. 22, was found a reference to John ix. 2, 3, which was generally accepted as conclusive. Peter is represented as ascribing various evils to nen’s ignorant violation of the divine law, and as using these words :—“ Whence also our teacher answered those who asked him about the man who was blind? from birth, and recovered sight from him, whether this man sinned or his parents that he was born blind,’ neither did this man commit any sin nor τ Seat of Authority, p. 200. Dom Chapman adopts the view that pseudo-Clement wrote after Origen, and indeed probably not long before Eusebius. See his note on “Origen and the date of Pseudo-Clement,” in the Journal of Theological Studies, iii. pp. 436 sqq. 2 Πηροῦ, in John τυφλόν. 3 Here τυφλός, as in John. 263 264 CLEMENTINE HOMILIES his parents, but that through him the power of God* might be made manifest, healing the sins of ignorance.” Dr Martineau remained unconvinced, and thought that the author of the Clementine Homilies and the Evangelist may have used some common source. He notices the use of πηρός for τυφλός, in agreement with a phrase which is twice employed by Justin Martyr,’ and calls attention to the difference of doctrine “ which the passage elicits from the man’s congenital blindness.” We may observe, however, that πηρός does not occur within the limits of the actual quotation, and that the added words, “healing the sins of ignorance,” may be the author’s own om- ment. If he has perverted the meaning of his authority, he is not the last commentator who has been guilty of such an — offence.? Still, considering the point of view of the writer, & is conceivable that, even if the Fourth Gospel had been long in circulation, he did not draw his information directly from it. Irenzus‘ tells us that the Ebionites used only the Gospel according to Matthew. Now the great majority of the quoia- tions in the Clementine Homilies come, with more or less of deviation, from this source; and I think it is not improballe that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which correspond:d on the whole with Matthew, incorporated narratives out of the other Gospels, as well as apocryphal elements. This may possibly have been the source from which our author drew, But we are here in a region of conjecture, where it is impossible to come to any certain conclusion. Dr Martineau himself admits that the Fourth Gospel was published before this date ; and whether an unknown writer of controversial romance made - direct use of it or not is a matter of no importance. We must pass on to the consideration of the great Gnostic sects. 1 Ἢ δύναμις instead of τὰ ἔργα. 2 Apol., i. 22, where, however, the eee Κ reading is πονηρούς, and Dial., 69. In neither passage is there any distinct alltatost to the present νη ϑαν 3 See before, p. 108 seq. 41h aay. CHAPTER VIII THE VALENTINIANS THE Valentinians are the first among the great schools of heretics to demand our attention. The native place of Valentinus is uncertain; but it is customary to accept the “report” which had reached Epiphanius before he wrote his work against heresies, that the heresiarch was born in Egypt, and received a Greek education in Alexandria! The same writer says that he promulgated his doctrine? in Egypt, where remnants of the sect were still to be found; that he preached also in Rome, and at last went to Cyprus, where, though he had previously been supposed to retain some piety and orthodoxy, he finally made shipwreck of his faith* This surely does not imply, as Lipsius supposes,* that he was regarded as an orthodox teacher in Egypt and Rome, and only began to disseminate heretical opinions when he reached Cyprus, but rather that he began in Egypt, and carried on the work in Rome, though still retaining some genuine Christian belief, and only in Cyprus did he cast off the last semblance of orthodox faith. Epiphanius’ statement, therefore, is not inconsistent with that of Irenzeus,®> that “Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, and flourished under Pius, and remained there till the time of Anicetus,” although we may fully admit that this is intended to define the period of his Her., xxxi. 2. 2 ’Emoiqoato τὸ κήρυγμα. , ez, 4 Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv. 1077. § III. iv. 3. 265 266 | THE VALENTINIANS prominent heretical activity. The date thus determined is the most important point for our present discussion. If | Irenzeus is correct, and this we have no reason to doubt, — Valentinus was in Rome between A.D. 188 and 160. But we do not know when his works were written, and they may have appeared after the middle of the second century. We are probably safe in saying that he must have been born at least as early as 110, and, if not a Christian by descent, must have become one some time before 138. It is important to observe that Valentinus had some very able successors, and that the sect was divided into two schools, known as the Eastern and the Italian,| which were dis- tinguished by certain varieties of doctrine. It will be sufficient here to mention two prominent teachers, Ptolemeeus and Heracleon, both belonging to the Italian school. The former was a contemporary of Irenzus, and at the head of the party whose opinions principally attracted his attention.? The latter was apparently somewhat later, and is alluded to by Clement of Alexandria, about a.D. 193, as “the most notable of the school of Valentinus.”* Clement here quotes from him, with approval, a long and sensible comment on the passage in Luke ‘about confessing Christ, in the midst of which Mark viii. 38 is inserted, whether from the use of a harmony or from failure of memory. Whether this extract was taken from a commentary on Luke we are not informed; but that Heracleon wrote a commentary on John seems evident from Origen’s repeated quotations from him in his own commentary. 1 Hippol., Ref., vi. 35. 2 See Irenzeus’ Preface, 2. 3 Strom., iv. 9, Ῥ. 595. 4 xii, 8 Sa δ These may be seen collected in Grabe, Spictlegiwm SS. Patrum, etc., il. pp. 85 sqqg. and 237; in Stieren’s Irenzus, i. 938 844. ; corrected and enlarged by Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte, 1884, pp. 472 sqg.; and A. E. Brooke, ‘The Fragments of Heracleon, newly edited from the MSS. with an Introduction and Notes,” in Texts and Studies, i, 4, Cambridge, 1891. ————" - ~ ae TESTIMONY OF IREN AUS 267 Origen describes him as “said to be an acquaintance! of Valentinus.”2 There is no reason for supposing that Heracleon was too young to have learned from Valentinus himself; for Irenzeus alludes to him as though he had already become known as a leader of the heresy.* At all events the succession of teachers is quite continuous from some time before 140 to some time after 180. We must now investigate their relation to the Fourth Gospel. Irenzus is our first witness. He tells us that “those who are from Valentinus used most copiously that [Gospel] which is according to John.”* It might, with some apparent reason, be contended that Valentinus himself is purposely excluded from this statement, for just before, Irenzeus has mentioned Marcion himself as the mutilator of Luke, and made no allusion to his followers. Why has he acted differently in the case of Valentinus unless the use of the Gospel was confined to his disciples? Three reasons may be alleged. First, the mutilating of Luke was a definite act, which was completed by Marcion, and only accepted by his adherents, whereas the use of the Fourth Gospel was continuous. Secondly, Marcion had no successors who stood upon the same level with himself, whereas Valentinus, as we have seen, was followed by some teachers of high distinction. Thirdly, it does not appear that Ireneus was acquainted with the writings of Valentinus himself; at least he tells us in his Preface> that he has “read the commentaries of disciples of Valentinus, and met with some of them,” and that it is his intention to describe the opinions of Ptolemzeus and his followers®; so that, in the present passage, he natu- rally refers to the disciples rather than the master. If Ireneus 1 Or disciple, γνώριμον. 2 Com. in Joan., ii. 8, beginning. ° i. iv, 7. ἘΠΕ 62: 6 Τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον. 268 THE VALENTINIANS had intended to draw the distinction which is suggested, I think he would have remarked that, though Valentinus had not used the Gospel according to John, yet his followers were driven by the force of truth to do so. The phrase, “those who are from Valentinus,” therefore, might signify Valentinus and his school, and this may be what Irenzus intended; but, owing to the limitation of his reading, his personal testimony does not extend beyond the school, and, in regard to its founder, we must look upon this piece of evidence as neutral. The evidence of Tertullian is not exposed to the same uncertainty as that of Irenzeus; for with Marcion, who mutilated the Scriptures, he contrasts, not the Valentinians, but Valentinus, who used “the whole instrument.” He says that the heretics, in order to corrupt the Christian doctrine, were obliged to corrupt its instruments. This they did in two ways. “One,” he says, “perverts the Scriptures by his hand, another their sense by interpretation. For if Valentinus appears to use the entire instrument, he has, with no less crafty mind than Marcion, laid hands upon the truth. For Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the stylus, since he made slaughter of the Scriptures to suit his own matter; Valentinus, however, spared them, since he did not invent Scriptures for the matter, but matter for the Scriptures ; and, nevertheless, he took away more and added more, taking away the proper meanings even of single words, and adding arrangements of things which have no real existence.”? 1 have here rendered videtur “appears”; but I believe the meaning is, “if it is apparent, clearly seen, that Valentinus used the entire instrument,” and that there is no suggestion of mere seeming. So in Adversus Marcionem, iv. 2, Tertullian 1 51 Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur. 2 De Prescr. Her., 38. TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN 269 says, “Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem cederet.”! If the meaning “seems” be insisted upon, however, it will not affect our present question; for then the sense can only be that Valentinus’ use of the whole body of Scripture was a mere seeming, because he thrust into it any interpretation that he pleased. Again, the hypothetical form of the state- ment, instead of throwing an air of uncertainty around it, only gives it greater strength, for it is a reluctant admission of an undeniable fact; and if Tertullian had discovered that there was one important Christian document which Valen- tinus had not used, he would have triumphantly paraded his knowledge in order to strengthen his attack. Further, as it was to the New Testament that Marcion applied the knife, it must be included in “the whole instrument,” even if it be not exclusively referred to. If, therefore, Tertullian was correctly informed, we must concede that Valentinus made use of the Fourth Gospel, and that thus the statement which Irenzus guarantees for the school is expressly extended to its founder. We must, then, ask whether Tertullian was furnished with adequate knowledge. He knew the names of prominent leaders of the sect, and he was aware that the school had departed, in important points, from the opinion of its founder. He declares that in his own time Axionicus of Antioch alone maintained the rule of Valentinus inviolate. He was ac- quainted with the treatises of men who were not only his predecessors, but contemporaries of the heresiarchs themselves, and of these he names Justin, Miltiades, Irenzeus, and Proculus as the men whom he would like to follow.2 This, it must be confessed, gives little evidence of first-hand information, and I think it would be rash to assert that Tertullian had ever looked at the works of Valentinus. Still he seems to have 1 See Dr E. Abbot’s Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1880, p. 81, note 1. 2 Adv. Val., iv. and v. 270 THE VALENTINIANS been acquainted with the course of the controversy on the Catholic side from the first; and if this had indicated any marked difference between Valentinus and his followers in their use of the Scriptures, he would probably have seized upon this fact, and turned it to account. We may, therefore, fairly say that he states the impression which he had received from the Catholic side of the controversy, that the Valentinian school, including its founder, had all along made use of the whole body of Christian Scriptures. It may be said, however, that this impression might be perfectly correct, but still, if the Fourth Gospel had not appeared or been accepted in the time of Valentinus, he would have failed to use it, and this failure could not have been made a reproach against him; and hence the fact that he did not use the Gospel which became a favourite with his followers might have dropped out of sight. Whether this is probable must be judged from the view which the Valentinians took of the Gospel; and on this point we are happily not without important evidence. Irenzeus! quotes a long passage, αὐταῖς λέξεσι, from a Valentinian writer, the Greek of which has been preserved by Epiphanius.? The Latin translation adds, “Et Ptolemzus quidem ita”; and though this clause is omitted by Epiphanius, there seems to be no reason for doubting its genuineness or accuracy. ‘This extract is an attempt to prove that the Proem of the Fourth Gospel describes the first Ogdoad, and it begins with the words, Ἰωάννης 6 μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου, and John is again referred to as the author in the middle of the passage, and at the end. Except for the interpretation, Ptolemzeus quotes the book precisely as an orthodox teacher would have done. There is no sign that he is adapting himself to the position of his opponents, but he apparently accepts the LL Vil θὲ 2 Her, 25h 27 TESTIMONY OF PTOLEMAUS 271. authorship and the authority of the Gospel without question. We have, however, another document from the pen of Ptolemeus. This is a letter to a lady, whom he addresses as “My fair sister Flora,” so that there can be no suspicion of his accommodating himself to the point of view of an ad- versary. Itis on the nature and origin of the Mosaic law ; and though it is quoted by Epiphanius* to exhibit the blasphemy and folly of the author, it contains, along with some question- able matter, many sensible remarks. It deserves notice that he undertakes to produce his proofs “from the words of our Saviour, through which alone it is possible to be guided without stumbling to the apprehension of things,’* and that the passages which he cites are all contained in our Gospels. Not far from the beginning he says, “The Apostle affirms that the fabrication of the cosmos was his own |[2.. the Saviour’s], saying that all things were made through him, and without him was nothing made.”? Thus, in writing to a friend, he assumes the apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel, and assumes also that it will be so well known to his correspondent that it is needless to specify the work, or to say what apostle he means. From this passage, too, it is apparent that “John, the disciple of the Lord” in the previous extract, is no other than the son of Zebedee. In this connection we may notice an expression in the letter, “These things both his disciples and the Apostle Paul showed,” clearly indicating that “disciple” implied a closer personal relation to Christ than “apostle.” Ptolemzeus, then, is entirely at one with the Catholic tradition so far as it relates vo the origin of the Fourth Gospel. In the fragments of Heracleon we find no such explicit 1 Her., xxxiii. 3-7. 2 § 3, end. 3 Τὴν τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργίαν ἰδίαν λέγει εἶναι (ἅτε πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ γεγονέναι, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γέγονεν ουδέν) 6 ἀπόστολος, K.T.A. 4 ἃ 6. 272 THE VALENTINIANS testimony; but Origen happens to have preserved one significant line. He says that “Heracleon misapprehends, saying that ‘no one has seen God at any time, and the following words have been spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple.”!_ We cannot doubt that the “disciple” means John the Apostle, and that the name was omitted because it was common to him and the Baptist. There is an exact parallel in Chrysostom, who maintains that the “clause ‘of his fulness we all received’ belongs not to the forerunner, but to the disciple.”2 I see no reason to doubt that Origen has reported the exact words of Heracleon, for he makes a copious use of his commentary; and it follows that this distinguished Gnostic accepted the current ecclesiastical view of the authorship of the Gospel. But this is not all. The fact that he wrote an elaborate commentary on the work shows that it stood high in his estimation; and the nature i of that commentary proves that he regarded it as Holy Scripture in the highest sense. He resorts to allegorical interpretation, in the manner applied by Philo to the Old Testament, and attaches a divine significance to its simplest | expressions. , There can be no doubt, then, that the western school of Valentinians received the Gospel as the Apostle John’s with entire conviction. Can the same be said of the eastern school ? " In order to answer this question we must turn to the “Extracts from the writings of Theodotus and the so-called eastern school,” a collection of Valentinian material which is ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, and printed with his 1 Εἰρῆσθαι οὐκ ἀπὸ τοῦ Βαπτιστοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ μαθητοῦ. Com. im Joan., vi. 2, p. 177 Lom. 2 Homil. in Joan., Xiv., οὐ τοῦ προδρόμου ἐστὶ ρῆμα, ἀλλὰ τοῦ μαθητοῦ. I owe the reference to Grabe, ϑριουϊθηύυνην, ii. p. 236. GOSPEL ACCEPTED BY BOTH SCHOOLS = 273 works. In sections six and seven is contained an interpreta- tion given by the followers of Valentinus to portions of the Proem of the Fourth Gospel, and in the course of this it is stated that the μονογενής is such only within the pleroma, but when he has been seen here “he is no longer called by the Apostle μονογενής, but ὡς μονογενής, δόξαν ws μονογενοῦς, because Jesus, being one and the same, is in the creation indeed first-born, but in the pleroma only-begotten.” Again, in section forty-one we read, “The Saviour says ‘let your , light shine, . . . concerning which an Apostle says, ‘ which lightens every man coming into the world.’”* There are also several other citations from the Gospel.2 Hence we learn that an apostolic authorship was ascribed to the book, and that its words were scanned with the most minute attention as sure indications of divine truth. There is no reason for doubting that the Apostle means John, as no other apostle is ever mentioned as the author ; still we ought to observe that Luke's Gospel also is ascribed to an apostle, showing that the word was still used with something of its ancient latitude.’ Now the unhesitating acceptance and reverential use of the _ Fourth Gospel as Johannine, or at least as apostolic, by two —— widely separated schools among the successors of Valentinus, afford a strong presumption that Tertullian was right in saying that the master himself used “the whole instrument.” If he was acquainted with the Gospel, and deliberately rejected it, the unanimity of his followers in embracing the Catholic view is inexplicable, except, indeed, on the supposition that 1 The Greek in Migne has ᾿Απόστολος without an article, but this may be a mere error. ἢ See §§ 3, 9, 13, 18-19, 26, 45, 61, 65, 73. 8. § 73, “Therefore the Lord came down to give peace to those from heaven, not to those from earth, as the Apostle says, ‘Peace on the earth, and glory in the highest.’” I think the reference is not to Luke ii. 14, but to xix. 38, and that ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ought to be ἐν οὐρανῷ, as it is in the second passage in Luke, for this suits the context far better. 18 274 THE VALENTINIANS ἱ the evidence of its authorship was so strong that they, as honest men, could not deny its claims. But if the book was not published till after the time of Valentinus, his disciples must have known this, and surely, either in the east or in the west, must have looked suspiciously on a work which was unexpectedly sprung upon the world fifty or sixty years after the alleged date of its composition. It is true that the same difficulty arises in connection with the Catholic writers, and they too must have accepted as one of the early documents of their religion a book which they knew was first published in their own lifetime. But this difficulty, to me already insuperable, becomes much more formidable when we find — two conflicting parties charged with the same error. By this time the Catholics and the Gnostics were at daggers drawn. If the Catholics were credulous, the Gnosties would be suspicious; if the Gnostics boasted that they had found an apostolic authority for their dogmas, the Catholics would have been keen in following the traces of forgery. I think the only probable explanation of the facts is that for which alone we have any testimony, namely, that the Gospel was published and accepted as John’s long before the rise of the Valentinian schools, and that it was known and received by Valentinus himself. We have, however, one other witness whom we must carefully interrogate. Hippolytus, in giving an account of the doctrines of Valentinus, has the following passage :—“ All the prophets, then, and the law spoke from the demiurge, a foolish god, he says,! foolish men, knowing nothing. Therefore, says he, the Saviour says, ‘all that have come before me are thieves and robbers.”? Notwithstanding the slight verbal 1 Λέγει. 2 Φησί. 3 Ref., vi. 35, beginning. Πάντες of πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἐληλυθότες κλέπται καὶ λῃσταὶ εἰσί, John x. 8 has πάντες ὅσοι ἦλθον πρὸ ἐμοῦ κλέπται εἰσὶν καὶ λῃσταί. TESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS 275 alteration, there can be no reasonable doubt that we have here a quotation from the Fourth Gospel, especially when we take the preceding evidence into account. This, so far as I know, is not disputed; and the only question is whether the quotation occurred in the writings of Valentinus himself or in those of one of his followers. As Hippolytus does not specify the book which he had before him, it is unwise to answer this question with excessive confidence. Lipsius, a high authority, however, has no hesitation. He says, “Numerous literal citations are inserted from the original authority made use of —each of these being introduced with a φησί. Some have thought that this φησί points to Valentinus himself as the actual speaker from whose words the citation is made. But it is evident from the form of doctrine propounded in the Philosophumena that this is impossible, for that is demon- strably a younger development of the Italian School.”! If this statement were accompanied by the evidence on which it is supposed to rest, it would be easier to form a judgment of its validity; but as it is, it only expresses the opinion of a careful and learned inquirer. It would be a difficult and tedious piece of work to draw out, in the order of historical dependence, a sketch of the various phases of Valentinian speculation ; but without entering on so large a task we may make one or two observations which may help to guide us in our present inquiry. First, we have only a very few frag- ments from the pen of Valentinus himself, consisting of extracts from letters and homilies,’ so that these are precluded both by their scantiness and by their character from giving us any considerable knowledge of his system. We are therefore without any first-hand information to serve as a standard of judgment. Secondly, Irenzeus, in a very short 1 Dictionary of Christiam Biography, iv. Ὁ. 1085 ὃ. 2 These may be seen in Stieren’s Ireneus, i. p. 909 sqq. 276 THE VALENTINIANS section,) presents what he evidently regards as a summary of Valentinus’ own doctrine, as distinguished from the varying — opinions of his followers, and this differs in important respects from the account of Hippolytus. But we have seen reason to believe that Irenzeus was not acquainted with the works of Valentinus; and, therefore, if Hippolytus, in describing the theory of the heresiarch, contradicts Irenzeus, whose writings he knew and freely appropriated, it is reasonable to suppose that he does so because he possessed more authentic informa- tion. Lipsius himself treats this account as “ uncertain,” and says that “if in these short and meagre notices Irenzeus has made use of some older authority (possibly that of Justin’s Syntagma), the authority itself must probably have con- founded the doctrines of Valentinus himself with the later opinions of his school.”* Thus vanishes every appearance of external authority whereby to check the statements of Hippolytus. Thirdly, the fact that this or that doctrine belonged to the Italian school does not prove that it cannot — have emanated from the founder; for it was in Rome that he principally taught, and some of his views must have been retained by his western successors. And lastly, I may venture to observe that, in the course of so many years over which his activity extended, Valentinus himself may have developed and modified his teaching, so that even correct descriptions of his doctrine, drawn from different periods of his life, would not be in all respects identical or consistent. That this was really so there is some indication in the statement of Irenzeus, that he gave sometimes one, sometimes another, and sometimes a third account of the origin of Jesus*; for though we cannot rely upon the details in this section, we may have here ἃ genuine reminiscence of the uncertainty and variety of repre- sentation attending some features of the original scheme. tl ἀν} 2 L.¢., p. 1090. pale mee he TESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS 277 It is possible, therefore, after all, that Hippolytus may have derived his exposition from Valentinus, and it is necessary to turn to his pages to see what it is that he professes to do. It is his avowed intention, as stated in his preface, to expose the opinions of the founders of the heresies. His words to this effect will be fully quoted when we treat of Basilides. In introducing the section on Valentinus, after finishing that on Simon Magus, he says, “This, then, is the fable according to Simon, from which Valentinus, having started, calls it by other names. For .... the Aons of Valentinus are con- fessedly the six roots of Simon. But since we think we have sufficiently expounded the mythology of Simon, let us see what Valentinus also says. The heresy of Valentinus, then, is in possession of a Pythagorean and Platonic basis.” There- fore, having given a short account of these schools, he will “speak also of the doctrines of Valentinus,’’ so that “the opinions of Valentinus”? may be easily recognized by juxta- position.? Valentinus is again named twice in the next chapter as the man whose opinions are to be exposed. Having devoted several sections to the Greek philosophers, he resumes his treatment of the heresy thus:—Such is “the opinion of Pythagoras and Plato, from which Valentinus, having collected his heresy, and not from the Gospels, as we shall show, would justly be reckoned a Pythagorean and Platonist, not a Christian.”* The evident meaning of these words cannot be explained away by saying that Hippolytus, when he speaks of the founder, means the Valentinians; for not only does he refer more than once to differences of opinion within the sect, but he divides his treatise into two parts, and _ expressly separates the master from the school. The first part closes by saying that “the opinions of Valentinus have been 1 Ta Οὐαλεντίνου λέγειν. 2 Ta Οὐαλεντίνῳ δόξαντα. 5 ὅδ. ΟἽ; 4 § 29, beginning. 278 THE VALENTINIANS sufficiently stated,” and proposing to pass on to the varying dogmas of the “school,’! At the conclusion of the second part, Hippolytus has not forgotten this division of the subject. These, he says, are the things alleged by “those from the school of Valentinus.” He adds a very important statement. He has not gone into their scriptural arguments, because their dogmas have been already laboriously confuted by the blessed elder Irenzeus, from whom he has taken his account of their inventions, showing that they are Pythagorean.” This proves that Hippolytus was aware that his master Irenzus reported the opinions of the school, and not of the founder, and that he knew what he was about when he followed him so copiously ἡ in the second part, and adopted an entirely independent exposition in the first. It seems clear, then, that in this first part he believed that he was reporting the opinions of Valentinus himself, and from time to time quoting his very words. To this part, accordingly, we must turn, and examine some of its features a little more closely. The first thing that strikes us is that, although Valentinus is expressly referred to a few times in the course of the ex- position,®? and a Psalm of his is referred to and quoted,* still the doctrines are very largely presented in the form of an abridged statement by Hippolytus himself, and are ascribed to the school, as is shown by the frequent use of the plural.’ Moreover, the whole account begins with the words, “Valentinus, then, and Heracleon and Ptolemezeus and all the 1 § 37,end, There is a lacuna in the text ; but the sense is sufficiently clear. ὁ 8 55. 3 P. 272, line 82; 282, 28; 288, 45 ; 290, 72-3, 76, 79. Duncker and Schneidewin’s edition. * P. 290, 79-85. ® P. 270, 29-47, 50; 272, 58, 85-6; 274, 89-92; 276, 26, 32-35, 52; 278, 69 ; 280, 2, 3, 4; 282, 22, 23, 33, 39, 41, 47, 53; 286, 2-18 ; 288, 30, 47; 290, 86. That is twenty-three times, in two instances extending over considerable passages. ee eS Se. ee ee σκλ υλο ee CO »»:....;:-. . TESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS 279 school of these men,” and the plural is used for about half a page. But inwoven with the description are a number of quotations, marked by the usual φησί. We also meet with θέλει,3 λέγει, and ἐπιλέγει From these phenomena it has been inferred that Hippolytus quotes indiscriminately any member of the Valentinian school, and that there is no ground for attributing the citations to Valentinus himself. But this can hardly be accepted as a reasonable conclusion, As Hippolytus makes a clear distinction between Valentinus and his school, he would not impute to the founder what might be only a later development of his doctrine; but on the other hand he might reasonably extend to the sect the great leading features of the founder’s theory. A large body of the master’s teach- ing must have remained with the disciples; else they could hardly have been called after his name; and in presenting this, Hippolytus pauses four times to point out where differ- ences of opinion arose. He starts by saying that the whole school agreed in thinking that the ἀρχή of all things was a μονάς, and called πατήρ; but they were divided in opinion as to whether he could be a Father without having σιγή as a σύζυγος. Hippolytus leaves them to fight out this point among themselves, and, expressing his own preference for the Pythagorean ἀρχή, which was one and ἄζυγος, introduces his first quotation, which represents the Father as existing alone, and contains nothing about the question on which the school was divided. It uses, however, the epithet γόνιμος, which might serve very well as a starting-point for the dispute. Here, therefore, we seem to have the doctrine in its primitive form, which lay open to different interpretations. The next two points of difference, relating to the origin of the eons,’ 1 P. 270, 47 3 272, 53, 65; 274, 8, 13, 14; 276, 28; 280, 97, 1, 5, 8, 15 ; 284, 62, 70, 72, 78, 81, ὃς ; 286, 9; 288, 27. In all, twenty times. P.. 280; 7: PS 264,77. 4 P. 286, I9. 5 P. 274, 89-91. 280 THE VALENTINIANS and to the question whether the Father and Silence were included in the thirty zons,! do not throw any light upon the subject. The fourth, however, is of great importance, for it occurs in connection with the quotation which contains the passage from John. The quotation is one of the longest in the whole account, and goes on to speak of the birth of Jesus through Mary, and to give a Gnostic interpretation of the passage, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,” ete. It concludes by saying that Jesus, unlike other men, was born not only from the Demiurge, but from Wisdom and the Demiurge, “in order that the Demiurge may effect the mould- ing and preparation of his body, but the Holy Spirit may. furnish his essence,2 and he may become a heavenly Logos, born from the Ogdoad through Mary.’ Hence arose the division between the Italian and the Eastern school, the former saying that the body of Jesus was psychical, the latter that it was spiritual. The westerns appealed to the descent of the Spirit at the baptism; those in the east said — that the demiurgic art only moulded what was given by the Spirit to Mary. It will be observed that the latter argument looks like an attempt to interpret the closing and rather ambiguous words of the quotation. The quotation itself gives no decision on the point in dispute; and therefore we may fairly conclude that it is taken from a work which was composed before the disruption into eastern and western. Two or three minor points call for a moment’s attention. One of the instances of the use of φησί occurs in the state- ment about the Italian school to which we have just referred. The quotation here cannot be from Valentinus, but may be taken from Heracleon or Ptolemzus, who have just been mentioned. In the beginning of § 37, “the heresy of Valentinus,” and “the opinions held by them,” are placed 1 P. 276, 32-35. 2 Τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ. ᾿ 4 , ; TESTIMONY OF HIPPOLYTUS 281 within two lines of one another, as though the former phrase included the latter. The quotation from the Psalm of Valentinus is followed by an exposition “according to them,” showing that the disciples respected and commented on the words of the master! I have noticed, lastly, one interesting little indication that words attributed to the school by Hippolytus were really used by Valentinus. Hippolytus says, “This material man is, as it were, according to them, an inn or dwelling-place? sometimes of soul alone, sometimes of soul and demons,” οὐς 8 Clement of Alexandria* quotes from a letter of Valentinus, in which he says, “The heart appears to me to be affected somewhat like an inn (zavdoxelw),” which often has careless and dirty men in it; “so also is the heart, ... being impure, being a dwelling (οἰκητήριον) of many demons.” Naturally the connection is quite different ; but the resemblance of the figure and the identity of the words are striking. I am therefore unable to assent to the dictum that “it is quite arbitrary to fasten this quotation from the Fourth Gospel upon Valentinus in particular, as distinguished from Heracleon and Ptolemeus.”® As Dr Martineau does not state or discuss the evidence for this statement, we cannot tell whether his judgment was founded on a consideration of the whole of the evidence or not. For my part, I think that, while there is always a possibility of error in such cases, the evidence, when fairly weighed, indicates that the quotation is from Valentinus. This result is only contirmatory of previous probabilities, so that on a survey of the whole investigation I think we must conclude that it is decidedly more likely than not that the founder of the Valentinian school made use of our Gospel. 1 § 37, near end, 2 Πανδοχεῖον ἢ κατοικητήριον. 3 Ῥ᾿ 284, 55.sqq ὁ Strom., ii, p. 488 sg. ὅ Seat of Authority, p. 197. 282 THE VALENTINIANS Dr Martineau,! however, produces what he evidently regards © | as a pretty conclusive proof that Valentinus was unacquainted q with the Gospel. That I may not do any injustice to it, I ; | must quote it in full, “In the account of his system by — Irenzus,? and of the passages of scripture adduced in its © support, we find only texts from the Old Testament, from the — synoptics, from Paul, tortured into applications which they ~ will not bear; while not a single Johannine text presents — itself, though to every reader the most apposite quotations ; must occur, as lying right in the way, as at once supplying ᾿ a good argument and sparing a bad one. Thus, in support of ἢ the position that before Christ no man had known the — supreme God, the irresistible appeal is not made to John 1. 18, ‘No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, j who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him.’ This silence becomes the more striking when we turn to an ~ appendix in which Irenzus reports the later Valentinian — exposition given by Ptolemeus; for here, at last, we meet — with the Johannine texts which we so strangely miss in a system which moves among xons named ‘Logos,’ ‘Only- | begotten,’ ‘ Life, ‘Grace,’ and ‘Truth. The natural inference. would be that the master had not yet seen the book in which ~ the disciple found a welcome ally.” Dr Martineau seems here to have fallen inadvertently into — some inaccuracies, probably from want of sufficient attention — to the general scope and context of the passage. In the first — place, Irenzeus, as we have seen, professes to deal with the school of Ptolemzus, and makes no pretence of being | acquainted with the writings of Valentinus himself; and therefore, in all probability, the Scripture quotations in the — passage referred to are all taken from members of the school who confessedly acknowledged the Fourth Gospel. There is ; 1 Seat of Authority, p. 196 sq. 2 Adv. Her., i. 8, 1-14. ἊΨ π δι. eet PASSAGE ΙΝ IRENZUS ᾿ 283 not a shadow of reason for ascribing them to Valentinus, except so far as he may be represented by his disciples. Secondly, the sections referred to are not even occupied with an account of the general system, for that has been | just completed, but are devoted to an exposure of the false and arbitrary interpretations of Scripture to which the sect had recourse; and Ireneus throws together a number of miscellaneous examples, no doubt selecting those that appeared to him peculiarly absurd. To have inserted among these any texts that would have supplied a good argument and spared a bad one would only have proved that Irenzeus did know what he was about, for his avowed object is to produce bad ones. Thirdly, it is by no means certain that a Johannine text does not present itself. It is said that the passions of Achamoth are indicated by sayings of the Lord: grief, by “my soul is exceeding sorrowful”; fear, by “Father, if it be possible, let the cup pass from me”; perplexity, by “xai τί εἴπω, οὐκ οἶδα. The last words may be a reminiscence of Jn. xil. 27, where the former clause occurs, the οὐκ οἶδα being added either from mistaken recollection or from a deliberate intention of making the sense clear when the words were detached from their context. It would hardly be safe to adduce this tiny quotation as proving that the Gospel was used; but it at least might give pause to an unqualified assertion in the negative. Fourthly, the quotation from Ptolemzus is not in an appendix at all, but is part and parcel of the same passage. There is no sort of indication that Irenzus is passing on to later writers. All the previous exposition has been accom- panied by plurals, λέγουσι, φάσκουσι, etc.; and precisely the same construction is kept up, although he is introducing a long quotation from a particular author,—déidacKovor . . . λέγοντες οὕτως. It is not till the end of the quotation that Ptolemzus is mentioned, and then only in the Latin, so that 284 THE VALENTINIANS possibly the reference to him may be a note by the translator. This interpretation of the Proem of the Fourth § Gospel comes indeed at the end of the list of illustrations, and this, I suppose, must be the reason why Dr Martineau calls it an appendix. But there is ample reason for this arrangement. — The other expositions, occupying in all rather more than two pages, are very brief, and are not given as formal quotations. ' But the interpretation of the Proem is of quite a different kind. It is long, covering about a page and a half, and it is ; regularly quoted ; and therefore it was naturally kept separate from the rest. There was yet another reason for keeping it in reserve. Ireneus thought it was worth refuting, and immediately proceeds with his refutation in the following chapter. Dr Martineau’s argument, therefore, seems to have no basis whatever in the real facts of the case. Accordingly, all our evidence is on one side, and is entitled to control our judgment until fresh evidence is produced. Before we leave the Valentinians one other observation deserves notice. Dr Martineau, who of course fully admits that the Gospel was used by the school, says,’ “Yet, while they used the book, it is surprising how little its historical authority seems to have weighed with them; for in the face of its obvious chronology and plainest narrative, they attributed to the ministry of Jesus a duration of only a year, and taught that he lived on earth eighteen months after his 79 resurrection.” * We have seen that the belief in the one year’s ministry was not confined to Gnostics, and the fancy that Christ lived with his disciples for eighteen months after his resurrection is as much opposed to the Synoptics as to John. The system of allegorical interpretation disposed of all diffi- culties; and if even in the Catholic Church the Gospel was 1 Seat of Authority, p. 196. * These beliefs are attested by Irenzus, 1, iii. 2, 3. THOUGHT THE GOSPEL ALLEGORICAL δὃς looked upon as spiritual rather than corporeal, we may well ‘suppose that among the Valentinians it was regarded rather as a philosophical allegory than as literal history. But this would be far from implying that they thought less of it, or failed to ascribe to it an apostolic authority. CHAPTER IX MARCION From Valentinus we turn to his contemporary Marcion. It is said that Marcion was born at Sinope, in Pontus, where his father was bishop!; and if this be true, he must have been acquainted with Christianity from his earliest years. The dates of the several incidents in his life cannot be determined with certainty ; but the most important fact for us at present is that he had become widely known as a teacher of heresy before Justin Martyr wrote his greater Apology.” This Apology, as we have seen, was most probably written soon after 150 A.D.,3 and we must place the beginning of Marcion’s ᾿ Ὄπ ee a activity at least a few years earlier. We cannot expect to — find any evidence that Marcion made use of our Fourth Gospel, for the complaint against him is that he acknow- ledged only the Gospel according to Luke, which he mutilated in order to bring it into agreement with his own doctrines. Irenzus intimates that this procedure was defended on the plea that the apostles had preached the Gospel while they 1 Epiphanius, Her., xlii. 1. 2 See § 26, where it is said that he has influenced many “in every race of men” ; and § 58, where he is described as “ even now teaching.” 5 For the question of the dates of Justin’s works, see, besides Semisch, Justin Martyr, and Otto, De Justint Martyris Scriptis et Doctrina, the elaborate articles by Volkmar and Hort, and other evidence, referred to in the chapter on Justin Martyr, p. 85 sq. 286 é REJECTION OF APOSTOLIC GOSPELS 287 still entertained Jewish sentiments ;! and Tertullian tells us that Marcion made use of the passage in Galatians in which Paul rebukes “apostles themselves” as not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, to destroy the authority of the “Gospels which are published as genuine and under the name of apostles, or even of apostolic men, in order to confer upon his own the credit which he takes away from them,” ? and his followers argued on the same ground that their master had not so much introduced a new rule by the separa- tion of law and Gospel as reformed one that had been adulterated. From these statements it may be plausibly argued that Marcion must have known certain Gospels which he believed to be of apostolical origin, and that John is the only one of our four to which the argument is immediately applicable, Peter, James, and John being the only apostles mentioned in Galatians, though probably Mark, which was looked upon as virtually Peter’s, might also be aimed at. I think, however, that this argument cannot be pressed. I cannot, indeed, suppose that Tertullian “knew nothing about it,’* for his whole treatise against Marcion seems to indicate familiarity with the heretic’s works; but he is not sufficiently explicit for our purpose. We cannot doubt that he is correct in saying that Marcion “selected Luke,’® and rejected some other Gospels, and, in justification of his conduct, appealed to the passage in Galatians; but then the argument from this passage would be satisfied if only Matthew and Mark were in question, for the point is that Paul rebuked, not three specified men, but apostles. This would afford a plea for setting aside whatever proceeded directly or indirectly from the Twelve. And here we have the ground for the selection 1 TTI, xii. 12. 2 Adv. Mare., iv. 3. 3 Ib.,i. 20. See also v. 3, and De Prescr., 23. 4 Dr Martineau, Seat of Authority, p. 198. 5 Adv. Marc., iv. 2. 288 MARCION of Luke; not merely that its contents were more suitable, for these had to be purged of their Judaic elements, but that it was written under the authority of Paul, and not of the primitive apostles. Another passage is also appealed to, in which Tertullian | says, “If you had not purposely rejected some, and corrupted others of the Scriptures which contradict your opinion, the gospel of John would have refuted you in this case, preaching: that the Spirit in the body of a dove came down and settleci on the Lord.”! Dr Abbot and Dr Martineau, while taking! opposite views of the value of this testimony, both assume without hesitation that “evangelium Johannis” denotes our Fourth Gospel.? I cannot help thinking that this is an error, and that what is really meant is the passage in Luke about the preaching of the Baptist. It is Luke alone that speaks of the “bodily shape” of the Spirit. Marcion altogether ‘rejected’ some Gospels which related the preaching of John, and ‘corrupted’ Luke by omitting this portion of the narrative. The practice of breaking off the quotation in the middle, at the words “would have refuted you,” has concealed what I believe to be the true interpretation. These remarks prepare us to estimate the force of an argument that Marcion was unacquainted with the Fourth Gospel. Dr Martineau asks: “Who can believe that, with his anti-Judaic design to construe Christianity into a universal religion, Marcion would have taken Luke as his text-book, if the next Gospel had been ready to his hand ? It would have saved him a large proportion of the trouble and odium he incurred in making a synoptic speak sufficiently, like Paul, and supplied him with many a formula weightier 1 De Carne Christ, 3. * The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 81; The Seat of Authority, p. 198. : REJECTION OF FOURTH GOSPEL 289 than his own for the expression of some favourite ideas.” ἢ This criticism is surely made from the point of view of the Tiibingen school, and not of the ancient Church. It was the traditional belief that Luke’s was the Pauline Gospel. This alone would be a sufficient reason for its adoption by Marcion ; and his acceptance of the current opinion would explain his conviction that the Gospel had not come down in its original ‘form, but had been “interpolated by the defenders of Judaism.” 2 Again, if the Fourth Gospel was in existence, ‘and ascribed to the apostle John, its reputed authorship alone supplied an adequate ground for its rejection, for was not John a pillar among the Judaic twelve? But in addition to this, the contents would appear to a Marcionite to correspond with the authorship. The most obvious and characteristic doctrine of the Gospel is that “the Word was made flesh”; and this is in fundamental opposition to Marcion, who denied the reality of Christ’s body. The Gospel taught that the Word came to “its own,” evidently meaning the Jewish race*; that Jesus was the Christ, of whom Moses wrote, and whom the Prophets foretold; that salvation was from the Jews; that Jesus called the Temple “my Father's house” ; that it was necessary to eat the flesh of Jesus, and drink his blood; and that blood and water flowed from his wounded side—and all these were quite inconsistent with the heresy of Marcion. It would have been necessary, then, to cut away from this Gospel several of its most marked features. But there was no ground, as in the case of Luke, for doing so; for as John was a Judaic apostle, the Judaic parts of the 1 Seat of Authority, pp. 198 sq. This argument is also relied upon by - Réville, Le quat. Evang., p. 71, note. . # Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iv. 4. _ 3 Schiirer, however, thinks it clearly refers to the cosmos (Theol. Literaturz., ‘an. 9, 1886). I cannot accept this view ; and at all events Marcion may ᾿ lave understood it as referring to the Jews. 19 290 MARCION Gospel must have been genuine, and were sufficient to condemn the whole work. This argument, then, appears to me to be destitute of force. Dr Martineau, however, has a further argument. He says, “Tt is the less likely that Marcion’s disregard of the Fourth Gospel was intentional, because from Hippolytus we learn that his follower Apelles already used it, and from Origen that passages of it were cited by later Marcionites.” Farther on, Dr Martineau seems to place the Valentinians and the — Marcionites on precisely the same level in this respect, in each case the disciples using a book which was not in the hands οὗ the master. I think this hardly gives a correct impression of the facts. Irenaeus expressly says that the disciples as — well as Marcion himself rejected all the Gospels but that according to Luke*; so that it cannot be pretended that the — school gladly adopted a Gospel which was unknown to the ~ founder. For the latter supposition I do not know that there exists a particle of direct evidence. But then, what of Apelles and of the statements of Origen? Apelles, according to Tertullian, was “a disciple and afterwards a deserter” of Marcion, and in this respect occupies the same position as Valentinus, “his fellow-disciple and fellow-deserter.” ὃ According to Origen, he was a disciple* of Marcion, who “became the father of a certain heresy,”® or, as the same writer says elsewhere, “a disciple indeed of Marcion, but rather the inventor of another heresy than the one which he received from his master.”® Epiphanius gives a similar account, saying that he armed himself against his own teacher as well as against truth.” He is therefore not a 1B. 208, ? III. xii. 12, “ Marcion et qui ab eo sunt.” 3 De Carne Christi, 1. * Or, acquaintance, γνώριμος. 5 Cont. Cels., v. 54, p. 269 Lom. 6 Hom. in Gen., ii. 2, Latin. 7 Her., xliv. τ. . . APELLES 201 proper representative of the Marcionite school. One im- portant characteristic of his system is his rejection of -Marcion’s docetism, and his doctrine that Christ had real flesh, which, however, was not derived from the Virgin or human descent, but gathered together for himself from the four elements. This doctrine would remove one cause of offence from the Fourth Gospel; and if Apelles really admitted its authority, he may have deliberately departed in this as in other respects from the opinion of his former teacher. But in fact there is no evidence that he did acknowledge its authority. The only proof that he used it, so far as I know, is the statement of Hippolytus? that he admitted that Christ rose and appeared to his disciples, and showed them the marks of the nails and of his side. Though this statement is not established by a quotation, we may accept it as correct; but it proves no more than that Apelles borrowed from the Fourth Gospel a fact which fell in with his system, and does not warrant us in supposing that he accepted the Gospel as a whole. The truth is, instead of having a canon of his own, like Marcion, he gave the advice to make use of every Scripture, and select what was useful, saying that the Saviour had shown what things in Scripture had been spoken from himself, and what from the demiurge,? and Hippolytus assures us that “of the Gospels or the Apostle he chooses what pleases him.”* Such use, then, as he made of the Fourth Gospel was part of a general plan, in which he differed from Marcion, and consequently the argument founded on the single reference to it which we are told that he made falls to the ground. This account of Apelles will enable us to form a just estimate of the passages in Origen which are regarded by Dr Martineau as referring to Marcionites. Dr Martineau has 1 Epiph., 2b., ὃ 2; Hippol., Ref., vii. 38 and x. 20. 2 vii. 38. 3 Epiphanius, 2b., §§ 2 and 5. 4 vii. 38. 292 MARCION not given the references to these passages in his work, but kindly communicated them to me by letter. He appeals first to De Principiis, τι. iv. 1, where Origen gives “a definite statement of the class of heretics whom he is about to face, evidently Marcionites.” The men whom Origen proposes to confute are described as “those who think that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is another God, beside him who gave the answers of the law to Moses, or sent the prophets, who is the God of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Now, this doctrine was a common feature of Gnosticism, and therefore affords no reason for supposing that Origen had Marcionites alone in view. Accordingly he quotes indiscrimi- nately from the Scriptures, including Acts and 2 Timothy, which, like the Fourth Gospel, did not belong to the Mar- cionite canon. When, therefore, in § 3 he says that the “maintainers of this heresy” rely upon the verse, “No one has seen God at any time,”* whereas the God of Moses was | seen by him, and before him by the fathers, we cannot justly infer that this text was accepted as authoritative by the disciples of Marcion. The following section, in which the “good God” of the New Testament is distinguished from the “just God” of the Old, is more to the point; for though the Gnostics generally believed that the God of the Old Testament was inferior to the God of the New, this was a peculiarly a μέν. ἢ 4 ᾿ω.. Marcionite way of expressing the difference. As it happens, — however, the men who upheld this opinion are not said to have quoted the Fourth Gospel, their favourite text being that no one is good but one, God the Father.? Origen neverthe- less quotes the Gospel against them, without any intimation that they did not accept it: “Just Father, the world did not know thee.”* But he also quotes 1 Peter,tand throughout 1 John i. 18. 4 v. 1, p. 176; § 4, p. 183. 3 John xvii. 25 ; § 4, p. 184. 4 § 3, p. 180. LATER MARCIONITES 293 the discussion there is no allusion to the Marcionite treatment of the canon. At the beginning he refers, not to the princeps, but to the principes istius heresis, showing that he intends to refute a particular heretical doctrine, which appeared in different forms in several sects, and not to confine his remarks to a single sect. This view is confirmed by his statement in Book IV.! that of τε ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων supposed that the Scriptures of the Old Testament belonged to the “demiurge, whom Jews worship, as the demiurge was imperfect and not good.”? We must add that Apelles and his followers were likely to retain the distinction between the just and the good God, and may have helped to spread Marcionite phraseology beyond the limits of a single school. I think, therefore, that Origen is purposely vague, and that if he had intended to confine his attack to the followers of Marcion, he would have said so expressly, instead of speaking in such general terms. ' Dr Martineau also refers to the Commentarw in Hvan- gelium Joannis, ΧΙΧ. ὃ 1, where the words are under con- sideration, “Jesus answered, Ye know neither me nor my Father; if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also.” Origen tells us that the érepddofo: are of opinion that this clearly proves that the God whom the Jews worshipped was not the Father of Christ. But, as we have seen, this view was not distinctive of the Marcionites. There is nothing in the passage to prove that Origen had them in mind; and the loose term, “the heterodox,” which is repeated more than once,° suggests a wider reference. Finally, Dr Martineau appeals to a curious passage in the - Homilies on Luke In commenting on the popular thought _ that perhaps John the Baptist himself was Christ, the writer points out the danger of an excessive love, and says: “Certain 1 § 8, p. 497. 2 οὐκ ἂγαθοῦ. 3 John viii. 19. pak. E30. 5 Pp. 140, 145. 6 xxv., pp. 181 sq. 294 ΜΑΒΟΙΟΝ persons have broken out into such audacity of affection as to invent new and unheard-of monstrosities about Paul. For some say that what has been written, ‘to sit on the right hand and the left hand of the Saviour, was spoken of Paul and of Marcion: that Paul should sit on the right hand, Marcion should sit on the left. Moreover others, reading, ‘I will send you an Advocate, the Spirit of truth, do not wish to understand a third person from the Father and the Son, and a divine and exalted nature, but the apostle Paul.” We cannot doubt that the supporters of the former opinion were — Marcionites; but the text to which they refer is not in the } — ee ee ee Fourth Gospel. I see no reason for believing that the “others,” who do appeal to the Gospel, belonged to the same sect. The evidence from Origen, therefore, is, to say the least, very precarious, and is widely different from an express statement on his part that the later Marcionites had received the Fourth Gospel into their canon. It does not appear to me in the least to bear out the contention that the Marcionites gladly adopted a Gospel which was unknown, but would have been welcome, to their master. On the other hand, there is : distinct testimony that they did not do so in the Dialogus de recta in Dewm Fide, which is printed among the works of : Origen, but belongs to a later time! Adamantius quotes the — words relating to Lazarus, ποῦ τεθείκατε αὐτόν ; the Marcionite immediately replies, Οὐ γέγραπται ἐν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ εὐαγγελίῳ, thus clearly showing that the sect did not acknowledge ἢ authority of the Fourth Gospel?; and indeed he has already — insisted that there is only one Gospel, and not four, as the | 1 About 300 A.D., though it seems to have undergone some revision afterwards. See the edition by Van de Sande Bakhuysen, 1901, Hinleitung, pp. xvi and xix. 2 Sect. 1., p. 279 Lom. ; p. 36 in Van de S. Bak. CONCLUSION: EVIDENCE NEUTRAL 295 Catholics alleged. It is true that in a later passage the Marcionite says, φανερῶς λέγει ὁ σωτήρ᾽ ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι 1 This, however, cannot invalidate the previous testi- ULL. mony; for though the Marcionites might repudiate the Gospel when it was against them, they might borrow from it an argument which would be authoritative in the eyes of their opponents, and in an early part of the discussion the Marcionite promises to prove his point from the Scriptures of his opponents.2 Accordingly the broad fact remains unimpaired that the Valentinians and the Marcionites acted upon quite different principles in their use of the Scriptures. The just conclusion, then, seems to be that the evidence afforded by what we know of Marcion is neutral; but we may fairly say that there is not a single fact inconsistent with the supposition that he knew our four Gospels and accepted the traditional account of their origin, but denied the authority of three of them on the ground that they were the work either of primitive and Judaic apostles or of men waio wrote under their immediate authority. 1 Sect. 11., p. 314 Lom. ; p. 90 Van de S. Bak. 2 P. 265 Lom. ; p. 18 Van de S. Bak. “Awd τῶν ὑμετέρων γραφῶν δείξω. That ὑμετέρων, not ἡμετέρων, which is given by the MSS., is the right reading, is not only apparent from the context, but from the statement of Adamantius, ἐπηγγείλω ἐκ τοῦ ἡμετέρου εὐαγγελίου δεικνύναι, in reply to the objection in our first quotation. CHAPTER ΧΙ BASILIDES THE dates of the birth and death of Basilides are not known. It is usually said that he flourished in the reign of Hadrian (117-138 A.D.), and there is no reason for doubting the correctness of this statement. He must therefore have been well acquainted with the belief and practice of Christians in the first quarter of the second century. Unfortunately his works, with the exception of a few fragments, are lost; aud in our present inquiry we are dependent on the account of lis system given by Hippolytus in his Refutatio. In the extrads which sketch the doctrine of Basilides, undoubted quotations from the Fourth Gospel are found; and our problem is to determine whether these extracts are taken from a work written by Basilides himself. The following passages occur: καὶ τοῦτο, φησίν, ἔστι τὸ λεγόμενον ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις" Ἣν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίξει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον Again, Ὅτι δέ, φησίν, ἕκαστον ἰδίους ἔχει καιρούς, ἱκανὸς ὁ σωτὴρ λέγων Οὔπω ἥκει ἡ ὥρα μου, καὶ οἱ μάγοι τὸν ἀστέρα τεθεαμένοι38 If these words were contained in a treatise written by Basilides, then 1 This chapter, now slightly modified, appeared in the Journal of Brblical Laterature. Eleventh year, 1892, Part II. 2 vii. 22, p. 360. My references are to Duncker and Schneidewin’s edition. 5. vii, 27,.p.,376. 296 MARKS OF QUOTATION 207 the Fourth Gospel must not only be of earlier date than many critics in modern times have supposed, but it must also have been included in a recognised collection of Gospels. The evidence which may be thus afforded has been summarily dismissed on the ground that Hippolytus! mentions Basilides, and Isidore his son, and πᾶς ὁ τούτων χορός, and then cites them collectively through the whole of the following para- graph by the word φησί. We have, then, to inquire, first, whether Hippolytus is citing the opinion of the school collectively, that is to say, is presenting the general Basilidean theory in his own words, or is quoting some particular person ; and if we decide that he is quoting, we must then inquire, in the second place, whether the person quoted is Basilides. The parenthetical word φησί is usually a mark of quotation, and I believe it is for this purpose that it is employed by Hippolytus. I have examined with some care the lengthy article on the Naasseni? with a view to ascertaining Hippolytus’ usage in this matter. Here we have an abundant use of φησί, but no clue to either book or author. He professes simply to give the opinion of the school, which, though having several divisions, is essentially one. Near the beginning? he has the parenthetical φασί, which applies, however, to a very short general statement. A few lines farther on he has φησί. Throughout the exposition, state- ments in the plural, φασί (four or five times, generally with the indirect construction), λέγουσι, etc., are mixed up with passages containing the parenthetical φησί. No one, I think, can read these passages without being convinced that he has to do with quotations from some book containing an authori- tative account of the views of these Gnostics. Whether he 1 1 shall assume the correctness of the general opinion that Hippolytus is the author of the Philosophwmena, or Refutatio. 2 vy. 6-11. 3 Bit92, ts67 298 BASILIDES quotes from one or from several books we need not pause to consider, as there is nothing to indicate this except the style and tenor of the quotations. Any possible doubt as to whether the opinion of the school is cited in these places must, I think, be laid to rest by the appearance of the first person plural, ὃ μόνοις ἔξεστιν εἰδέναι τοῖς τελείοις, φησίν, ἡμῖν.1 Again, ἃ ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν μόνοι3 Farther on, ἡμεῖς δέ, φησίν, ἐσμὲν 3 Once more, ἤλθομεν, φησίν, οἱ πνευματικοί." οἱ τελῶναι. What we here learn represents, so far as I have observed, Hippolytus’ invariable usage. It is so, as we have seen, even in the article where the theories of Valentinus, Heracleon, Ptolemy, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ τούτων σχολή, are dealt with The evidence is still more convincing in the article on Basilides. In the third and fourth lines of the very first quotation, where Basilides and his school are said to be cited collectively, are these words, Ὅταν δὲ λέγω, φησί, TO ἣν, οὐχ ὅτι ἣν λέγω, GAN ἵνα “΄- rn , ef e σημάνω τοῦτο ὅπερ βούλομαι δεῖξαι, λέγω, φησίν, ὅτι ἣν ὅλως ovdev.© Lower down on the same page we have, καὶ οὐ δέχομαι, φησί, κατλ. On the next page we have, τὸ de ἠθέλησε λέγω, φησί, x.7.r. On the next page, 6, τι dv λέγω, φησίν This last passage is particularly remarkable, because it is actually introduced by ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσιν, showing, as it seems to me, conclusively, that the opinions of the school are described in the express words of one of their number. Yet again we have, viol dé, φησίν, ἐσμὲν ἡμεῖς of πνευματικοίϑ Whatever may be thought of the first person plural, can we rationally believe that these sentences with the first person singular merely “quote the opinion of the school”? It seems to me, therefore, to be fairly established that our φησί iS, aS we A eS tee Be: FP SEB: 85. SP. 1600 hie 4’ P. 164, 1. 70. . See also p. 172, 1. 13; p. 174, 1. 21, 25. - © vi, 20. ὃ vii. 20, pugge; gaye ΤΡ ον ἐς as. 8 vii. 25, p. 368, 1 77. one PROBABLY QUOTED BY HIPPOLYTUS 209 _ should expect, indicative of genuine quotation from a particular ~ author. | If this, then, be admitted, we must endeavour to answer the question, Who is it that is quoted? It may be one person throughout, or it may be now one, and now another. Are we, because this second alternative is possible, to dismiss the whole subject as incapable of affording any evidence? Surely not. Τὸ treat evidence as worthless because it is not demon- strative, is not the part of true criticism. It is precisely in these doubtful cases that critical judgment is required. We do not want the critic to help us when there can be no differ- ence of opinion, but it is his province, when a doubt is legitimate, to bring into view all the conditions which affect the question, and determine on which side the reasonable probability lies. There are two distinct lines of evidence. We must con- sider, first, what Hippolytus professes to do; and secondly, we must compare his statements with other accounts of the system of Basilides, and see whether these statements can be justly ascribed to the heresiarch himself. Now it seems most probable, from the connection of thought and from the recurrence of a particular name, that one authority is quoted throughout. That this authority is Basilides seems to be rendered highly probable by the following reasons. It is most unlikely that in an elaborate statement of this sort Hippolytus should fail to .go to the fountain-head, and especially without giving any intimation of the fact to his readers. He introduces his account with the words, δοκεῖ νῦν τὰ Βασιλείδου μὴ σιωπᾷν, alleging that the heretic’s views are those of Aristotle, not of Christ. He then devotes a few chapters to a synopsis of the doctrines of the Greek philosopher, and at the end proceeds in these words: 1 vil. 14, p. 348. 300 BASILIDES “Tf, then, Basilides be found, not in effect only, but even in the very words and names, transferring’ the opinions of Aristotle into our evangelical and saving doctrine, what will remain but that, having given back the foreign elements, we prove to his disciples that Christ will profit them nothing, as they are heathen? Basilides, then, and Isidorus, the genuine son and disciple of Basilides, affirm that Matthias has spoken to them secret discourses? which he heard from the Saviour, having been privately instructed. Let us see, then, how evidently Basilides at the same time and Isidorus and all the band of these men does not simply belie* Matthias only, but even the Saviour himself. There was a time, he says, when there was nothing.’* From this point he pro- ceeds with his quotations, repeatedly inserting φησί. It is true that in the course of his remarks he frequently alludes to Basilides and his followers in the plural number, as though he were stating the opinions of a sect rather than an individual. In all these instances, however, he is simply giving his own statements; and he sometimes supports his statements with a quotation introduced by the usual φησί. The obvious inference is that he quotes Basilides, and regards him as the accepted authority for the opinions of the school. But he also several times expressly names Basilides. The following are the instances: “For Basilides altogether avoids and fears the substances of the things that have come into being according to projection”;® here the next sentence has φησί. “Basilides calls such a thing, not wing, but ‘ Holy Spirit..”" “For the things that exist are divided by a eheawoliuenes. 5 λόγους ἀπο δ 3 καταψεύδεται, in the singular. 4 Hy, φησίν, ὅτε ἦν οὐδέν. Vii. 19-20, pp. 354, 356. δ See p. 356, 1. 84, 87; 358, 1. 95, 93 360, 1. 32, 45, 49; 366,1. 36; 368, 1, 58, 69; 370, 1. 92 ; 372, 1. 41, 42, 44; 376, 1. 1, 6, 7; 378, 1. 12, 13, 14. © wily 22, th 360, 1.26, 27. 7 vil. 22, Pp. ΟΣ ΠΕΣ PURPOSE OF HIPPOLYTUS 301 Basilides into two [which are] the prominent! and first . divisions, and are called according to him, the one thing indeed world, and the other thing supramundane [exis- tences|”?; after a few more lines of exposition there is the usual φησίν. “The account, therefore, which Aristotle has previously given concerning the soul and the body Basilides elucidates concerning the great Archon and his Son. For the Archon, according to Basilides, has begotten the Son,” etc.; and again, two lines farther down, “according to Basilides.”* Here the exposition is continued for nearly half a page, and ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν (that is, the Basilideans) introduced before φησί recurs. Hippolytus ends his whole dissertation on Basilides in these words, Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἃ καὶ . Βασιλείδης μυθεύει σχολάσας κατὰ τὴν Αἴγυπτον, καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὴν τοσαύτην σοφίαν διδαχθεὶς ἐκαρποφόρησε τοιούτους καρπούς." It seems to me that the only reasonable conclusion from this evidence is that the extracts which Hippolytus brings before us were taken from a work by Basilides him- self, and especially as no motive is apparent for neglecting the works of the master in favour of those of any less dis- tinguished follower. One or two other weighty considerations must be added. Hippolytus, in his Procemium, tells us in very express words the plan of his work. In order to accomplish his purpose of exposing the sources of the heresies, he will adopt a course described in these words: “It seems good, therefore, having first expounded the opinions of the philosophers of the Greeks, to show the readers that they are more ancient and more reverent towards the Divinity than these; then to compare each heresy with each [philosopher] [so as to show] that the 1 προεχεῖς, or “adjoining,” if we read προσεχεῖς. 2 κατ᾽ αὐτόν. 3 vil. 23, Pe 364,1. 8-10. 4 vii. 24, p. 366, 1. 46, 47, and 368, 1. 50. 5 vii. 27, p. 378, l. 40-42. 302 BASILIDES leader of the heresy! having met with these attempts has laid claim to them, having taken their principles, and, starting from these towards what was worse, constructed a dogma.” ? After another sentence he proceeds: “In the beginning, then, we shall say who were those among the Greeks who first demonstrated natural philosophy. For the leaders of the heresies? have become doctrine-stealers* of these especially, as we shall afterwards show in comparing them with one another. Rendering back his own to each of those who first began, we shall present the heresiarchs* naked and shameful.” The purpose thus clearly formed and deliberately expressed he has not forgotten, when at the opening of the Fifth Book he proceeds to his refutation. He there says: “It remains, therefore, to proceed to the refutation of the heresies, for the sake of which we have expounded the things already spoken by us, from which having taken their starting-points the heresiarchs® like cobblers, having patched together, according to their own mind, the blunders of the ancients, have presented them as new to those capable of being deceived, as we shall show in the following [books].”" After these statements, when Hippolytus tells us that he is goig to “state the opinions of Basilides,” and that he will give a synopsis of the doctrines of Aristotle, “in order that the reader, through the nearer comparison of these, may easily perceive that the [doctrines put forward] by Basilides are Aristotelian sophisms,”* and winds up by saying that “these are the fables which Basilides tells,” it does seem probable that the elaborate account, so largely given in the form of apparent quotations, is drawn from Basilides himself. This probability is still further strengthened by the summary in 1 Ὁ πρωτοστάτης“ τῆς αἱρέσεως. 2. Ῥ 6. 3 Οἱ τῶν αἱρέσεων πρωτοστατήσαντες. 4 Κλεψίλογοι. 5 Τοὺς αἱρεσιάρχας. 6 Of αἱρεσιάρχαι. 7 v. 6, p. 130. 8 vii. 14, p. 348. ISIDORE AND THE SCHOOL 303 the Tenth Book. Here “Isidore and the whole band” do not put in an appearance. The chapter begins, Βασιλείδης δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς λέγει εἶναι θεὸν οὐκ ὄντα, and ends, Ταῦτα δὲ καὶ Βασιλείδης τερατολογῶν οὐκ αἰσχύνεται. Against all this, which seems to me not contemptible evi- dence, one fact is alleged. Hippolytus mentions Basilides and Isidore, his son, and πᾶς 6 τούτων χορός, just before he begins his citations. So he does; but what does he say about them? Not that he is going to cite their opinions, and quote indiscriminately from their literature, but only that Basilides and his son affirmed that Matthias had spoken to them secret doctrines, and that father and son and the whole lot of them belied Matthias, and even the Saviour himself. Is it not the most reasonable way to endeavour to establish this last statement by drawing from the fountain- head the doctrines which were alleged to be those of Matthias? I can see no tendency in the words to prove that Hippolytus is going to depart from his plan of dealing with the leaders of the heresies, and to quote with indis- criminate carelessness any writer of the school that suits his fancy. Appeal might further be made to statements, already referred to, in which the plural number is used, showing that Hippolytus had the school in his mind. But this fact does not seem to me to establish any counter probability; for the opinions of the master may very legitimately be ascribed to the school; but it would not be legitimate, on the other hand, to ascribe to Basilides what was only the opinion of one of his unknown followers. The probabilities, therefore, appear to me to be all on one side, and make it reasonable to suppose that Hippolytus, unless he has written with almost criminal carelessness, is quoting from Basilides himself. 1 C. 14, pp. 514, 516. 304 BASILIDES There is, however, a wholly different line of evidence, — which, I think, when fairly considered, leads to the same result. The account which Hippolytus gives of the system of Basilides stands entirely alone, so much so that it is diffi- cult to understand how the section of his master Irenzeus upon this subject can relate to the same man. After careful com- parison and sifting, our ultimate authorities for the teaching of Basilides, in addition to the Refutation of Hippolytus, are Irenzeus (or the writer whom he copied), the Compendium of Hippolytus (represented by part of the account in Epiphanius, by Philaster, and the anonymous supplement to Tertullian, De prescript. heret.), and also scattered statements in Clement of Alexandria, a few particulars from the Refutation of Agrippa Castor (preserved by Eusebius, H. #., iv. 7), and “probably a passing reference and quotation in the Acts of Archelaus.”1 We have, therefore, practically to decide whether the account of Hippolytus or that of his master Ireneus is the more authentic. Now, if any one read these two accounts, knowing nothing of their origin, I think he would have no hesitation in saying that the former has far more marks of authenticity than the latter. Ireneus is content with a brief summary, and quotes from no original authority. Though he gives the doctrine as that of Basilides, there is no difficulty in supposing that he confined himself to the current opinions of the school. Hippolytus, on the other hand, produces an elaborate statement, which is evidently summarised, and to a remarkable extent quoted, from some single source; and this work, whatever it may have been, was produced by a man of thought and originality. The latter fact in itself points to Basilides, because, with the exception of his son Isidore, he was not, like Valentinus, followed by a succession of celebrated disciples. This view is 1 See Hort, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, i. 270. ~ ᾿ ACCOUNT OF IRENZUS 305 _ confirmed by a closer inspection. Soon after the beginning of his article Ireneus introduces dicwnt, and far the greater part of the statement is in the indirect construction. Farther on he has utuntur, annuntiant, nituntur, dicunt, aiwnt, and a few more similar plurals. Twice, however, he has ait, and in one of these instances the words seem to be quoted. I think we may fairly infer from these appearances that Irenzus used a secondary source, and not the work of Basilides himself, but that this source may have contained statements which were avowedly quoted from Basilides. It is interesting, then, to inquire whether these sayings are in harmony with the representations of Hippolytus. The first saying is the following: “If any one therefore confesses the crucified, he is still a servant, and under the power of those who made bodies ; but he who has denied him has been freed indeed from them, but knows the disposition of the unborn Father.” ! There is no such statement in Hippolytus, but I think it is not, in substance, inconsistent with the doctrine which he describes. The whole object of the Passion was to bring about the sorting of the things confused, and so restore everything to its proper stage of being. Accordingly the bodily part of Jesus suffered, and was restored to the formlessness; the psychical part rose up, and was restored to the Hebdomad ; and he raised up that which belonged to the summit, and it remained beside the great Archon.2 This doctrine would supply a philosophical ground for not confessing the Crucified; for such a confession would be an attachment to the bodily part of Jesus, and involve a continuance in the lowest stage of being; but the sons (the spiritual*) were ultimately to ascend πρὸς τὸν ἄνω πατέρα, The reason given by Irenzus, that Jesus did not suffer at all, but Simon of Cyrene was crucified in his place, 1 Tren., I. xXiv. 4. 2 Hippol., p. 378. SB. R65, 4. ZH) 28: © PeiraG: by. % 20 306 BASILIDES while Jesus looked on and laughed, is, to say the least, more worthy of commonplace followers than of the distinguished founder of the school. The other ait only introduces the indirect statement that prophecies were from:the fabricators of the world, but the Law from their chief, who led out the people from the land of Egypt. This agrees, at least in its general idea, with the statement of Hippolytus that it was the Archon of the Hebdomad that spoke to Moses, and that all the prophets that were before the Saviour spoke from thence." It is also perhaps worth noticing that in one parenthetical passage where Hippolytus places himself in agreement with Ireneus by referring to the doctrine of three hundred and sixty-five heavens, and the name of Abrasax given in con- sequence to the great Archon, he does not quote, but uses the expressions κατ᾽ αὐτούς and φάσκουσι. A simple comparison, therefore, of the two accounts seems to show that Hippolytus gives the truer representation of the original system. We have, however, other means of judging.2 Clement of Alexandria gives a quotation of some length from the twenty- third book of the Exegetica of Basilides,? and we are thus assured of what we might antecedently have expected, that he at all events was acquainted with the writings of the heresiarch. In the course of the Stromata he refers several times to Basilides, and several times also to his followers. In the latter instances he alludes simply to the teaching of the school, without any intimation that what is alleged is inconsistent with the doctrine of Basilides himself, except in one case in which he contrasts the immorality of the later Basilideans with the teaching of the founders of the + PS 770. 2 The comparison with Clement of Alexandria has been well treated by Dr Hort in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, but I have gone over the ground carefully for myself. 3 Strom., iv. pp. 599, 600 (Potter’s edition). ACCOUNT OF CLEMENT - 307 school. It is a fair assumption, therefore, that the allusions in Clement contain, so far as they go, a much more trust- worthy representation of the original system than the account of Ireneus. But we must remember that in the Stromata we have no detailed exposition, which was reserved for the lost Hypotyposes, and moreover the Stromata profess to deal with practical and moral rather than theoretical questions," while Hippolytus, on his side, treats only of the general theory of the universe. It is, consequently, only in quite casual points that we can look for any contact between Clement and Hippolytus. We will notice these points of contact in the order of the system. First of ἀμφὶ τὸν Βασιλείδην were accustomed to speak of the passions as appendages, προσαρτήματα, which were in essence spirits attached to the rational soul, “according to a primitive disturbance and confusion,” κατά τινα τάραχον Kat σύγχυσιν apxixnv.2 This description is regarded as representing ὁ κατὰ Βασιλείδην ἄνθρωπος, So that here the teaching of the. followers is expressly identified with that of the master. This “primitive confusion” receives its explanation from the doctrine of a σπέρμα κόσμου, which was the first creation, and contained in itself πᾶσαν τὴν τοῦ κόσμου πανσπερμίαν, that is to say, all the seminal principles of the universe.2 The whole hypothesis turned on this σύγχυσις οἱονεὶ πανσπερμίας," which existed ἐν ἀρχῇ The confusion is frequently expressed by the term ἀμορφία. It deserves notice that in arguing against the Basilideans Clement refers to τοῦ σπέρματος τῆς ἄνωθεν οὐσίας, and τὸ ἄνωθεν σπέρμα, existing in man.’ The system expounded by Hippolytus explains this. 1 See Hort, who gives references. 2 Clem., Strom., li. 20, p. 488. 3 Hippol., vii. 21. 4 Ibid., c. 27, near end. 5 P. 376, 1. 95. ὁ P. 364, 1. 95; 370, 1.53 3741. 48, 49; 378, 1. 22, 24, 25, 38. 7 Strom., ii. 8, p. 449. 308 BASILIDES Secondly, in speaking of election, Basilides distinguishes between the κόσμος and that which is ὑπερκόσμιον The same distinction between the cosmic and the hypercosmic is ascribed to the followers of Basilides.? Hippolytus tells us that Basilides divided τὰ ὄντα into two principal classes, which he called κόσμος and trepkocpta.® Thirdly, in connection with this distinction the followers of Basilides spoke of an appropriate faith and election accord- ing to each interval or stage of being, καθ᾽ ἕκαστον διάστημα." We learn from its frequent use in Hippolytus that διάστημα was the regular term for denoting successive spheres of existence.° Fourthly, Basilides supposes that justice and her daughter peace remain in the ogdoad.® According to Hippolytus what was called the ogdoad was the realm of the great Archon, who with the help of his wiser son, created the ethereal region beyond the moon.’ He does not, however, inform us why it was so named, or how the number eight was made up. Fifthly, Clement alludes to the Archon as “the very great God, celebrated in song by them.”* If we took the superlative in the sense of the greatest of all, it would not be true to the system described by Hippolytus; but the sense of “very great” is sufficient for the argument, and is indeed, as we shall see, implied by the context. Hippolytus says that the great Archon throbbed through® and was born from the 1 Strom., iv. 26, p. 639. 2 Of ἀπὸ Βασ., Strom., ii. 3, p. 434. 3 C. 23, p. 364, 1. 8-10. See also c. 25, beginning ; c. 23, p. 366, 1. 23 ; 275 ΡΒ 370, 1.3: 4 Strom., ii. 3, Ὁ. 434. © C, 22, p. 364, 1. 95; 6. 24, p. 368, 1. 63; ὁ, 25, p. 370, L Senge sumeeoe Ῥ. 372,1. 41; 6. 27, p. 374, 1. 77; p. 376, 1. 79; p. 378, 1. 21. 6 Strom., iv. 25, p. 637. ΤΟ. 23, 24. ὃ Τὸν μέγιστον καὶ πρὸς αὐτῶν ἀνυμνούμενον θεόν, Strom., ii. 8, p. 449. 9 Διέσφυξε. ACCOUNT OF CLEMENT 309 cosmic seed, and was the head of the Cosmos, a beauty and greatness and power incapable of dissolution; “for, he says, he is more unspeakable than unspeakable things, and more powerful than things powerful, and wiser than things wise, and better than all the beautiful things whatsoever thou mayest mention.”! Farther on he is called τὸν ἀρρήτων ἀρρητότερον θεόν Still, as we shall see under the next head, he had his limitations. Sixthly, Clement makes a very remarkable statement about the Archon. The followers of Basilides interpreting the saying, “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom,” “affirm that the Archon himself, when he heard the declara- tion of the ministering Spirit, was astonished at what he heard and saw, having had a gospel preached to him beyond his hopes,? and that his astonishment was called fear, and became the beginning of wisdom that sorts and distinguishes and perfects and restores.” What this gospel was, and how it came, we are not told; nor is it explained why the Archon was so astonished. We only learn from a later allusion that before his astonishment he was in ignorance*~ When we turn to Hippolytus, all becomes clear. The Holy Spirit, being unable to ascend to the highest regions, remained as a firmament between the hypercosmical things and the Cosmos; and, when the great Archon was born from the cosmic seed, he ascended as far as the firmament, which he took for the ultimate limit. He was wiser and more powerful than everything beneath, except the remnant of sonship that was still left in the πανσπερμία; and, since he was ignorant® that this sonship was wiser and better than himself, he thought that he was Lord and Sovereign. However, he produced a son much better and wiser than himself, whom 1 C. 23, p. 366. 2 C. 24, p. 368,1. 51. 3 Tlap ἐλπίδας εὐηγγελισμένον. 4 "Avvo. See Strom., ii. 8, pp. 448, 449. ὃ. Ἠγνόει. 310 BASILIDES he seated at his right hand.! The gospel came, not by descent, but by action at a distance; for the power of sonship in the midst of the Holy Spirit in the border-region com- municated the thoughts of sonship to the son of the great Archon.2 The gospel came first to the Archon through his son, and the Archon learned that he was not God of the © Universe, but was begotten, and had above him the treasure of the unspeakable and unnameable Not-Being and of the sonship; and he feared, understanding in what ignorance he was. “This,” he says, “is what has been said, the fear οὗ the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” This is the wisdom of which the Scripture says, “Not in words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Spirit teaches.” Seventhly, under the last head we met a wisdom that sorts and restores, φυλοκρινητική and ἀποκαταστατική, and on the next page there is a reference to the φυλοκρίνησις and ἀποκα- : τάστασις. With this we may connect one or two statements which serve to illustrate the process. “The followers of Basilides affirm that there is at the same time an appropriate * faith and election according to each stage of being; and conformably again to the hypercosmic election the cosmic faith of all nature follows; and that the gift of faith too is correspondent with the hope of each.”> The meaning apparently is that each stage of being has its predetermined end which it may hope to attain, and is provided with a faith adapted to the attainment of this end. Agreeably to this view Basilides represented the election as foreign to the Cosmos, since it was by nature hypercosmic,® and supposed that man knew God by nature, so that faith was not the rational assent of a self-determining soul, but a beauty of ΟΖ Ρε 366. ΣΟ ΡΞ. 3 Ἐν οἵᾳ ἦν ἀγνοίᾳ. 4 Οἰκείαν. 5 Strom., li. 3, Ὁ. 434. δ Strom., iv. 26, p. 639. ACCOUNT OF CLEMENT 311 immediate creation1 We may suppose, then, that part of the process of sorting and restoring consists in separating the election from the Cosmos, and restoring it to the hypercosmic place which naturally belongs to it. Hippolytus does not deal with election and faith; but his statements, so far as they relate to the same subjects, are in complete agree- ment with the representations of Clement. The third sonship, requiring purification, remained behind in the great heap of the πανσπερμία, when the other two sonships had gone aloft”; and this sonship was in time to be revealed and restored * to the higher region, above the limiting spirit; and Basilides said that the spiritual men were sons left behind to fashion and make perfect the souls below, that had a nature to remain in this stage of being.* Here there is clearly a doctrine of election, though the word is not used, and also the idea of a superior nature confined for a time within the lower, from which it. was destined to be restored to the place which properly belonged to it. To effect this the Gospel came.? And when the whole Sonship was above the limiting Spirit, then the creation would be pitied, and God would bring upon the whole Cosmos “the great ignorance,” in order that all things might remain according to nature, and nothing desire anything that was contrary to nature. Thus there would be a restoration ® of all things in their own seasons. For their whole hypothesis is σύγχυσις οἱονεὶ πανσπερμίας Kat φυλο- κρίνησις Kal ἀποκατάστασις τῶν συγκεχυμένων εἰς Ta οἰκεῖα.ἵ Jesus became the first-fruits of the sorting,§ and the whole object of the Passion was that the things confused might be sorted.? 1 Strom., v. 1, pp. 644, 645. See also 11. 3, beginning, p. 433. 2 C. 22. 3 ταποκατασταθῆναι. 2: O.28, 5 Ihd. ὃ »Αποκατάστασις. 7 The Greek is found p. 378, 1. 33-35. 8 Φυλοκρίνησις. ¥.0) 275 pi! 378, 135 a. 312 BASILIDES These coincidences in thought and phraseology are suffi- ciently remarkable to establish a close relationship between the account of Hippolytus and the genuine Basilides, and to prove that he is nearer the original source than Ireneeus and other writers, who contain hardly a trace of the system which was in the hands of Clement, and none of its characteristic terms. Indeed, so irreconcilable is the account of Irenxus with the allusions of Clement, that, before the publication of Hippolytus, Neander remarked that “had not Clement of Alexandria spoken of the existence among certain false followers of Basilides of practical errors precisely similar to those we meet with in this sect, we might be led to suspect that the so-called Basilideans of Irenzeus had no connection whatever with Basilides.”! On the other hand, we are justified by the above coincidences in asserting that the Basilides of Hippolytus is the same as the Basilides of Clement. It may be well, however, to produce positive proof that Irenzeus does not describe the opinions of the founder of the sect; for we have stronger evidence than the mere want of coincidence with Clement’s scattered allusions. He says that, in the view which he is describing, Jesus did not suffer, but made Simon of Cyrene suffer in his place, and seems to imply a thoroughly Docetic notion of his person. By later writers this Docetism is unmistakably affirmed.2 Not only is there no trace of this in Clement, but the reality of Christ’s humanity and Passion is assumed, even though it drives Basilides to a conclusion which he is reluctant to admit. He thinks that all suffering is a punishment for sin, either actual or potential, in the person suffering; and when pressed 1 History of the Christian Religion and Church, ii., p. 113, note i, Bohn’s edition, 2 Pseudo-Tert. ; Epiph., Her., xxiv. 4. , IRENAUS IN ERROR 313 with the case of “such a one,’! that he sinned, for he suffered, he would answer he did not sin, but was like the suffering infant. But if urged, he would say, that man, whomsoever you may name, is man, and God is just. Clement, in reasoning upon this view, says that Basilides dared to call the Lord ἄνθρωπον ἁμαρτητικόν." This is the passage where the twenty-third book of the Exegetica is quoted, so that there can be no doubt that the real Basilides was anything but a Docetist, and that Irenzeus was ignorant of his teaching. On the other hand, Hippolytus distinctly recognises the necessity of the Passion® to inaugurate the final sorting and restoration, and sets Docetism aside by affirming that the bodily part of Jesus suffered. He more- over makes the very important statement that after the birth of Jesus “all the things relating to the Saviour happened according to them® in the same way as they have been written in the Gospels”;® for this shows that he identifies the doctrine of the followers with that of the Master, and not vice versd, since he deliberately contradicts the account given by Irenzus of the later and degenerate school. He does not touch on the moral question, as this did not come within the scope of his plan. Again, Irenus says they recognised the moral indifference of actions, and of universal licentiousness. Epiphanius attri- butes the most immoral teaching to Basilides himself.’ Clement tells us that Basilideans, who were evidently (from the context) living in his own time, were more intemperate than those who were most intemperate among the Gentiles, and they defended their evil lives by an abuse of the real principles 1 Ὁ δεῖνα, understood by Clement, who had the context before him, to mean Christ. 2 Strom., iv. 12, p. 600 sq. 3 Τὸ πάθος. 4 P. 378. 5 Kart’ αὐτούς. 6 Ibid. ’ Her., xxiv. 3. 314 BASILIDES of Basilides, for they pleaded that they had authority even : to sin on account of their perfection, or that they would certainly be saved even if they sinned now, on account of the inborn election. But he is so far from ascribing immoral teaching to Basilides himself that he warns these unworthy followers that the forefathers of their dogmas did not allow them to do these things; and he quotes a passage from the Ethics of Isidorus in order to confute them.! This is a point on which Hippolytus does not touch, and there is nothing in his account to suggest that Basilides was anything but a high-minded man. I think, then, we may say that it is demonstrated that Irenzeus does not represent the opinions of the heresiarch. We do not appreciate the full meaning of Hippolytus’ departure from Irenzus till we observe that he not only was acquainted with the work of the latter against heresies, and made use of it in his treatise, but that in immediate con- nection with Basilides he transcribed a whole section, with- out acknowledgment, from the older writer. Irenzeus classes together Saturninus or Satornilus and Basilides, and treats first of the former. Hippolytus also places the two in juxta- position, but reverses the order. The article on the Syrian heretic he simply copies from his predecessor. But of Basilides he gives a far fuller and entirely different account. What could induce him to do so except the discovery that Ireneus was ill-informed, and the acquisition of what he believed to be the authentic source of the heresy? He may have made it his business to procure a copy of the Exegetica, or induced some friend in Alexandria (possibly Origen?) to send him the necessary extracts. At all events he rejects the follies current in the West, and brings before us the same strong and serious thinker that we meet in Clement. 1 Strom., ili. I, pp. 509, 510. PHRASEOLOGY 315 One other consideration remains. Clement, as has been said, gives us a quotation of some length from Basilides; does it admit of any fruitful comparison with Hippolytus ? I think it does, though the subject treated does not fall within the range of the cosmical theory. It is a favourite notion in Hippolytus that the third sonship was left behind in the πανσπερμία, εὐεργετεῖν καὶ εὐεργετεῖσθαι. It is there- fore noticeable that, in Clement’s extract, the infant who suffers without having previously sinned (at least in the present world) εὐεργετεῖται. Another resemblance is found in the frequency with which the first person singular is used, φημί, λέγω, ἴδω, ἐρῶ (five times). We have seen that the first person is similarly used in the quotations of Hippolytus, and I venture to suggest that this feature is more suited to the master defending his own thesis than to some obscure disciple arguing on behalf of another. These are certainly minor points, but they are not without their interest and value in connection with the more substantial argument which has preceded. It may be worth while noticing in this connection that in another passage where Clement cites the opinion of Basilides, though he does not quote him verbatim, we meet the words οὐσία, φύσις, ὑπόστασις, συγκατάθεσις, κτίσις, Showing, so far as they go, the Greek character of the system. Of these words we meet in Hippolytus with φύσις, οὐσία, and κτίσις 5 The two former words are far too common in philosophical dis- cussion for any stress to be laid on them; but the doctrine 1 P. 364,1. 2, 3; 368, 1. 71; 374, 1. 64, 65 ; 378, 1. 31, 39. 2 Strom., v. 1, p. 645. 3 P. 362, 1. 78-80; p. 368, 1. 64; p. 374, 1. 76; p. 376, 1. 78, 86, 93, 94, 4. ΠΡ 355, || ἡ Pe 300, be 23,27. 5 P. 360, 1. 20; p. 366, 1. 37; p. 372, 1. 31; p. 376, 1. 92, as well as in a passage quoted from St Paul, p. 368, 1.75 ; p. 370, 1. 96. 316 BASILIDES ) that a man knows God by nature falls in with the ρῥἱοῦσσθ. of the regulative power of nature presented by Hippolytus. To complete our investigation we must consider the evidence which is advanced to prove that the system described by Hippolytus is of later date than that which we find in Irenzus. The question has been re-examined by Hans Stahelin in Gebhardt and Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, VI. Band, Heft 3, in an essay on Die gnostischen Quellen Hvppolyts, u.s.w., 1890. The author starts with a reference to an article by Dr Salmon, on “The cross-references in the ‘ Philosophumena,’” which appeared in Hermathena in 1885.1 Dr Salmon pointed out that there were several suspicious agreements between the alleged writings of different sects quoted by Hippolytus; and among other hypotheses by which these might be explained, he suggested that possibly some forger had passed them off upon a writer who was known to be a collector of such goods. The main purpose of Stahelin is to examine thoroughly the question which was thus raised ; but he does not confine himself to this line of argument. The more obscure heresies do not at present concern us, and we must restrict our inquiry to the case of Basilides. The hypothesis of forgery would seem to me extremely precarious if there were far more resemblances of thought and language than are actually found between the Basilides of Hippolytus and his other heretics; for forms of opinion and — of speech are apt to become current at any given time, and there is no improbability in the supposition that successive heretics were acquainted with the writings of their pre- decessors, and may even have unconsciously borrowed from them many a phrase or metaphor. However, the points of contact in the chapters on Basilides are very few. The one on which Stahelin ? relies most is merely an emphatic way of 1 Pp. 389-402. ΞΡ Soe HYPOTHESIS OF FORGERY 317 expressing “every possible thing.” In four parallel passages there is some resemblance in the turn of expression, and in all of them some part of the very ordinary word παραλείπω occurs ; but the phrases in each case are different, and afford no proof of direct literary connection. Another parallel with the Sethians is pointed out,? which is much more striking at first sight than it is on closer examination. The Sethians had two principles, ight and darkness. Between them was pure spirit; and this spirit (or breath) was not like a wind or a breeze, but like “an odour of an unguent or of incense.”? Under Basilides we are told that the Holy Spirit retained an odour of the sonship which had left it, as a vessel, though empty, retains “an odour of an unguent’”* which was once within 1035 Here the notion of a sweet-smelling unguent is connected with the Spirit; but it is employed in one case to distinguish the Spirit from any- thing so rough and strong as wind, whereas with Basilides the Spirit is the στερέωμα, and the figure of the unguent is totally different. The latter has a far closer parallel in Horace,— “Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit odorem Testa diu.” 6 The two figures borrowed from a perfume are each so apt for the purpose of the writer that they may easily be independent of one another; and the common notion of a dividing Spirit has its source evidently in Genesis 1. Another parallel to the Sethians is found in the fact that, according to them, the object of Christ’s coming was “to disunite and separate the things that have been mingled.”” This is proved by the saying, “I came not to bring peace on the earth, but a sword.” So Basilides is made to say that 1 The passages are p. 200, l. 60 84. ; p. 238, 1. 90 84. ; p. 358, 1. 16 86. ; p- 426, 1. 19 sq.

P. 364,1. 84. The last two statements refer immediately to his “ place.” 4 P. 358, 1. 91-93. 5 0.29. A WELL-KNOWN AUTHOR 331 copy of his works through the regular channels. He was the author of twenty-four books on “the Gospel,” as we are informed by Eusebius on the authority of Agrippa Castor?; and Clement, who apparently refers to this voluminous work under the title of Exegetica, evidently considered its thoughts sufficiently weighty to deserve con- sideration. If Hippolytus seriously wished to know the principal contents of so important a composition, it is very unlikely that he would have placed himself in untrustworthy hands. This improbability is greatly increased by the fact that the account which he gives is not the result of first impressions, but is a departure as deliberate as it is complete, not only from the representations of his master Irenzus, but from those which he himself gave at an earlier period in his “Compendium,”—if at least it is rightly supposed that that work is substantially preserved in the summary of Pseudo- Tertullian. What reasonable explanation can be given of so remarkable a change except that Hippolytus, having made himself acquainted with the writings of Basilides himself, dis- covered that the accounts of the system which were current in the west when he was a youth were totally incorrect ?4 I am unable, then, to attach any serious force to the arguments by which the hypothesis of forgery is supported ; and on a survey of the whole case, I think the evidence renders it highly probable that the writer quoted by Hippolytus is Basilides himself. If this conclusion be correct, Basilides used the Fourth Gospel as one of a set of writings known as “the Gospels.” 1 Not “his” Gospel, as Stahelin says, putting “his” in inverted commas, p- 89. 2 H. E., iv. 7. 3 Strom., iv. 12, p. 599. 4 We may notice especially the use of probole by Pseudo-Tertullian, and the emphatic statement of Hippolytus that Basilides entirely rejected the ideas connected with this word. CHAPTER XI NAASSENI, PERATH, ALOGI, AND DOCETZ. HIPPOLYTUS gives an account of yet earlier heretics than those — whose views we have been considering. In describing the | opinions of the Naasseni and Peratz,’ he follows his usual plan of quoting heretical writers; but as he does not, prior to his citations, name the founders of the schools, and gives us no sort of clue to the authorship or dates of the works which he quotes, we cannot feel any confidence that the quotations carry us far back into the second century. In the course, indeed, of his exposition of the Peratic doctrine he refers to two founders (ἀρχηγοί) of the heresy under the names of Euphrates the Peratic (probably one from beyond the river, from the remote east) and Celbes the Carystian (from Carystus, a town in the south of Eubcea).? These men are mentioned also in an earlier part of the work,’ and again in the summary in the last book.t Theodoret, who closely follows the summary of Hippolytus, naturally introduces these heretics; and Origen tells us that the Ophites “boasted that a certain 1 y. 6-18. The former name is equivalent to Ophites, vaas being the Hebrew of 6 ὄφις (ὃ 6, p. 132). The Perate called themselves so because ἢ they alone were able, through their superior knowledge, διελθεῖν καὶ περᾶσαι | τὴν φθοράν, which was to come on everything γεννητόν (δ 16, p. a 2: £5, Pui 182. 3 iv. 2, where the latter is called Acembes. + x. 10, where the second name stands first, in the form of Ademes. 5 Heret. Fab. Compend., i. 17. 332 EARLIEST GNOSTICS 333 Euphrates was the introducer of their impious doctrines.” ὦ These may be the names of real men; but we know nothing of their lives or dates. We are not even informed whether they were authors; and it might be that, though they were the founders of the sect, their doctrines were committed to writing only by their successors. Hippolytus, indeed, in the section following that in which he names the heresiarchs refers with unusual explicitness to μίαν τινὰ τῶν Tap’ αὐτοῖς δοξαζομένων βίβλων, from which he gives an extraordinary quotation, about two pages long; but he supplies no hint of the authorship, and it may have been an anonymous publi- cation. He adds that the rest of their books contain the same kind of thing; and I can see no ground even for a plausible conjecture in each instance from what author the extracts are derived. In this case, then, there is, so far as I am aware, no evidence to discuss. Still it is important to observe that the Fourth Gospel is frequently referred to; for we thus learn that the representatives of the earliest Gnosticism agreed with the Catholics in acknowledging its authority.2. There is no allusion to the authorship of the book, but it is quoted as though it were well-known and recognised Scripture. The first quotation is introduced by τὸ γεγραμμένον, others by τὸ εἰρημένον, εἴρηκεν ὁ σωτήρ, OY Some similar expression. Now, quite apart from any particular evidence of the early existence of the Gospel which we have found among the Gnostics, I cannot but agree with those who regard its wide acceptance by the heretics as a most significant fact—a fact which becomes more impressive when we remember that the one great sect which disowned its authority would find in its 1 Cont. Cels., vi. 28, p. 351. See the Dict. of Christ. Biog. for conjectures about Euphrates. 2 It is quoted or referred to p. 148, 1. 24; 150, 1. 55; 152, 1. 74, 91, 92; 154, 1. 8-9; 156,1.48; 158,1. 83-84; 166,]. 13 ; 172, 1. 5, 12,13; 178,12; 192, 1, 525) 304, | 58.3 196, 1. 22, 23 ;, 198, L. 32. 334 ALOGI alleged Johannine authorship a sufficient reason for its — rejection. That not only the Catholic Church scattered — throughout so many lands, but such diverse schools of © heretics in east and west, who were so glad to pierce every © weak place in the Catholic armour, should agree to accept as — apostolic a work which was first published in the very heat of their controversies, is not easily believed. Men of even the — smallest understanding would have wanted to know why the > book had been concealed so long, and some plausible story - would have been required to account for so strange a fact. But so far as we know, not a single controversialist took advantage of his opportunities. By a tacit conspiracy between inveterate foes a most damaging circumstance was — buried in eternal oblivion ; and the opposing armies in Europe, ' Asia, and Africa agreed to respect as ancient what they knew — to be modern. The general probabilities of the case, then, support the conclusion which we have reached by an ex- amination of details, that the Gospel is older than the great Gnostic controversies, and was securely established in the respect of Christians before the serious divisions in the Church began. Thus far we have had a uniform testimony; but happily for those who are unable to accept the apostolic authorship of the Gospel, the harmony is broken by one discordant note, and the Alogi are fondled with a tenderness suitable to their small dimensions. Schiirer, who is a careful inquirer, sets great store upon their opinion, and founds on it a very serious conclusion. He says we know, “through Ireneus and — Epiphanius, that there was a party in the Church in the © second century which did not acknowledge the Gospel of John as apostolic or canonical. . . . These opponents of the Gospel of John were not heretics, but a party in the Church. — How could such a party venture to reject the Gospel if its NOT A PARTY IN THE CHURCH 3 3 5 apostolic origin was known and acknowledged? They had dogmatic grounds, to be sure, for the rejection. But after the apostolic origin of the New Testament Scriptures was once acknowledged by the Church, parties set on one side the strongest dogmatic points which were not convenient to them in quite another way—not by rejection, but by interpretation of Scripture. If the Alogoi had recourse simply to rejecting the Gospel, its apostolic origin cannot at that time have been generally acknowledged.”! It will be observed that the force of this argument depends on the assertion that the Alogi were not heretics, but a party in the Church; but Schiirer has not derived this information from either Irenzus or Epiphanius. The former, who gives them no name, refers to them in a part of his work in which he describes the treatment of the Gospels by various schools of heretics, and he places them between Marcion and the Valentinians.2 Moreover, he attributes their rejection of the Gospel to their heretical view of the gift of the Spirit, and declares that by thus sinning against the Spirit they fall into the unpardonable sin. He does not tell us whether they denied either the Johannine authorship or the early date of the Gospel, but merely says that they “did not admit” it. This statement is true also in regard to Marcion and the Ebionites; so that, if we confine ourselves to the authority of Irenzeus, we can only say that in addition to these heretics there were others who, for dogmatic reasons, did not receive the Gospel, and if we follow the prevalent conjecture, that they were influenced by reaction against Montanist excesses). Mr C. H. Turner, following older authorities, believes, on the contrary, that they were an offshoot of the Montanists, who rejected the Fourth Gospel 1 Article on “The Fourth Gospel,” in the Contemporary Review, Sept. 1801, p. 415 86. βται: ἐσ, 9, 336 ALOGI because the Paraclete was promised to the Apostles. This view ; has the advantage of enabling us to accept the existing reading of Irenzus, “pseudoprophetz quidem esse volunt.”* | In either case this goes a very little way towards proving that the Gospel was not generally acknowledged by the Church. We must turn, then, to Epiphanius, who gives a long and — rambling account of some very indefinite persons, whom, — perhaps borrowing from Hippolytus,? he nicknames Alogi? | and who are frequently identified with the obscure heretics — referred to by Irenzus, though they have nothing in common — except their rejection of the Gospel. But here, again, we are Ἷ not informed that these men were a party in the Church. On the contrary, they are placed in the roll of heretics; they are j described as “entirely strangers to the preaching of the | truth” ;5 and their doctrine is stigmatised as “heresy.”° The q only discoverable ground for Schiirer’s assertion is that q Epiphanius once remarks, “for they themselves appear to j believe as we do.”” But the very form of this sentence shows — that he did not regard them as a party in the Church; for clearly “we” are the Catholics, from whom “they” are : distinguished. It is apparent also from the context that only — 1 See the careful note in the Jowrnal of Theological Studies, 111. Ὁ. 116. The point is not important for our present inquiry. 2 This was suggested by Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part L., vol. 11. Ρ. 394. ϑ Her., li. ἣ 4 Bousset, indeed, says that Epiphanius treats the Alogi as opponents of 3 the Spirit and deniers of the gifts of the Spirit in the Church (Meyer's ~ Kom. Offenbar., p. 17). There is no reference in support of this statement, — and I can find nothing to justify it. They are, it is true, charged with “not having received the Holy Spirit” (§ 35); but this refers only to — their rejection of parts of the Scriptures: “they waged war against the words spoken by the Spirit.” There is no suggestion that they rejected | the Gospel because it seemed to favour Montanist claims. : ° 33. ὁ §§ 1, 3» 33) 35: 7 Δοκοῦσι yap αὐτοὶ τὰ ἶσα ἡμῖν πιστεύειν, ὃ 4. EPIPHANIUS’ ACCOUNT 337 one doctrine is in question: these heretics agreed with the Church about the person of Christ, in opposition to Cerinthus. We must add that Philaster, evidently describing the same people, calls them “heretics,” and says that they “remain in heresy.”! The foundation, then, of Schiirer’s argument turns out to be little better than a quicksand. Nevertheless, these Alogi are very interesting, and it is a pity Epiphanius has not spared some of his abuse in order to give us more exact information. A brief abstract of his account may enable the reader to form a just estimate of their importance. In the opening section he says that this heresy arose after the Cataphrygians, Quartodecimans, and others. He proposes to call them Alogi, as rejecting the books of John, and therefore the Logos which was preached by John. He says, “they receive neither the Gospel of John nor his Apocalypse. And if, indeed, they received the Gospel, but rejected the Apocalypse, we should say, do they then do this in accordance with exact investigation, not re- ceiving an apocryphal book on account of the things said deeply and darkly in the Apocalypse?” But since they “do not receive the books preached by the holy John,” they answer to his description of the antichrist in the Catholic Epistles? They are, however, “ashamed to contradict the holy John, because they know that he also was in the number of the Apostles, and beloved by the Lord.” They therefore endeavour to overthrow his writings in a different way; “for they say that they are not [works] of John, but of Cerinthus; and they affirm that they are not worthy [to be] in the Church.”*? This opinion proves that they under- stand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm. “For 1 Her., quoted by Charteris, Canonicity, p. 438. aS 3 8. § 3. It is worth noticing that they thus ascribe the Gospel and the Apocalypse to the same author. 22 338 ALOGI how shall the things spoken against Cerinthus be [works] of Cerinthus?” For Cerinthus thought that Christ was οὗ recent date and a mere man, but John preached the Logos © as eternal, and come from heaven, and made flesh. This proves their folly; “for they themselves seem to believe as we do,” though they do not hold the certainty of the preaching administered to us through the holy John. For they affirm “that his books do not agree with the rest of the apostles; and they seem further to attack the holy and inspired teaching. And what, he says, did he say? That in the beginning was the Word,” etc. Next follows a reference to the earlier part of the Fourth Gospel, down to the marriage — in Cana. “And the other evangelists affirm that he spent forty days in the desert, being tempted by the devil, and then having returned and received the disciples.” Epiphanius — explains that John discloses some things omitted by the others, and that the others do not begin from the very series © of events.!. Then follow remarks upon the other evangelists, — and their mode of beginning. The objection of the Alogi © proceeds thus :—“ But the Gospel in the name of John, they affirm, speaks falsely ; for after saying that the Word became — flesh, and tabernacled among us, and a few other things, immediately it says that a marriage took place in Cana of Galilee.”? Epiphanius replies that according to John Jesus — returned again to the Baptist after the temptation, but that | the evangelist passed by the things related by Matthew. — “But they say that the Gospel according to John, since it did not state the same things, is ‘uncanonical, and that they themselves do not receive it.” Further on are the words:— “But again the same persons accuse the holy evangelist, or rather the same Gospel; because, he says, John spoke about two passovers [saying] that the Saviour had celebrated them, i> a. 2 § 18. THEIR ARGUMENTS 339 _ but the other evangelists about one passover.”! Epiphanius is ready with his reply, and declares that there were three passovers. We must notice one of the arguments of the Alogi against the Apocalypse, because it seems to fix the date of the persons whom Epiphanius is refuting. Some of these Alogi raised the objection that there was a letter to the angel of the church at Thyatira, whereas there was no church of Christians in that place. Epiphanius replies, “if they say, there is not now a church at Thyatira they show that John prophesied.” For as they themselves and the Cataphrygians dwelt there, and had brought over the whole city to their heresy, there was no Church; “but now,” he continues, “on account of the Lord, in the present time, after a period of one hundred and twelve years, the Church exists and increases, and there are some others there. But then the whole Church was emptied into that according to the Phrygians.” This fusing of the Church in the heresy of the Cataphrygians, which took place ninety-three years after the ascension, was foretold in the words, “but I have against thee, that thou sufferest the woman Jezebel to deceive my servants, saying that she herself is a prophetess, teaching to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.” 5 Apparently there was no evidence that the Alogi rejected the Epistles of John; for Epiphanius mentions their doing so only as an inference,—“but perhaps also the Epistles, for these also agree with the Gospel and the Apocalypse.” ὃ From the foregoing summary we learn that the Alogi lived at Thyatira; and this fact is in agreement with the conjecture that the heretics mentioned by Irenzus were moved by opposition to Montanism. It does not, however, favour the 1 δ 23. ἘΝ. 93. ὁ 8 34. 340 ALOGI suggestion that Epiphanius has in mind the Roman Presbyter Gaius, although he may avail himself of the reply of Hippolytus to that writer. In the same passage he places them one hundred and twelve years before the time when he was writing, and we thus arrive at the year 263. It may be that we can place no reliance upon this date”; but the acceptance of it suggests some interesting points. Dionysius of Alexandria states that some before his time entirely rejected the Apocalypse, and ascribed it to Cerinthus.? Now, Epiphanius tells us that the Alogi said that the Gospel and Apocalypse were works, not of John, but of Cerinthus. In respect to the Apocalypse this suggestion had at least a show of reason, being supported by the millennarian doctrine of that work; but if it was really extended to the Gospel, it must have been by men who were ignorant of the teaching of Cerinthus, and took it for granted that if both books were forgeries they both proceeded from the same pen. I cannot help suspecting, however, that Epiphanius has himself ex- tended to the Gospel what was said only of the Apocalypse. Ireneus says nothing of the rejection of the Apocalypse, though he goes out of his way to mention Paul; and accordingly, if the same men really rejected both books, this was probably a later development. Again, Irenzus refers only to a dogmatic objection, whereas Epiphanius refers only 1 See a paper by Dr J. Rendel Harris, which was read before the Society of Historical Theology in Oxford, and afterwards printed in Hermas in Arcadia and other Essays, 1896. 2 There are some signs of confusion, either in the mind of Epiphanius himself, or on the part of his transcribers. It is clear by the position which he assigns to the Alogi that he considers them as belonging to the second century ; and this view is confirmed by the following remark upon Theodotus at the opening of Ἰῖν.,---ἀπόσπασμα ὑπάρχων ἐκ τῆς προειρημένης ἀλόγου αἱρέσεως, κιτιλ. For the possible connection of this puzzling date with Hippolytus, see Bousset in Meyer’s Kom. » CT Ῥ. 17, Anm. I. 3 Eusebius, H. H., vii. 25. ‘ ee eee ᾿ i ‘ I | [ RESULTS 341 to critical objections. Can it be that Epiphanius really quotes from a work published in 263, and that the author imitated Dionysius in his critical treatment of the Apocalypse, by finding critical reasons for an opinion which was previously entertained upon dogmatic grounds? We cannot venture to answer these questions with any confidence. Three facts, however, may be safely asserted. First, there were men (I judge that they. were very few, from the scanty notices that have reached us”) who challenged the Gospel both for doctrinal and critical reasons, and hence it appears that the Church was not allowed to accept the book in absolute blind- ness. Secondly, Irenzeus, who was in living contact with early tradition, and might, if he had thought proper, have told us a great deal that he has left unsaid, is content to notice the fact of rejection, and does not think it worth discussing; whereas, Epiphanius thinks that the critical arguments require an elaborate reply. Thirdly, there is not a trace of any argument based on historical grounds, nor is the traditional date of the Gospel in any way impugned. Surely, if the Gospel had been before the public for only a few years, the assailants would have taken advantage of this most damaging fact, and we should have had some sort of reply. In order to assist our judgment of the general value of this testimony, it should be observed that a very large part of the section is only indirectly connected with the Alogi. It is, in fact, to a great extent a treatise on the harmony of the Gospels, which even has reference to the objections of “certain of the Greek philosophers,” Porphyry and Celsus being men- 1 Died 264 A.D. 2 Here the silence of Eusebius is certainly significant. He places the Gospel without hesitation ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις, describes it as ταῖς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν διεγνωσμένον ἐκκλησίαις, and couples it with the First Epistle as παρά τε τοῖς viv καὶ τοῖς ἔτ᾽ ἀρχαίοις ἀναμφίλεκτος. H. H., 111. 24, 25. 342 ALOGI tioned by name.’ It is totally devoid of historical details, if we except the vague and confused reference to Thyatira and the date. In the passages where the arguments of others seem to be really adduced, there is no reference to the authorship of the Gospel. In the Commentary of Bar-Salibi on the Gospel of John we are told that a certain heretic “blames John, because he was not in agreement with his companions,” and that Hippolytus replies? This mode of statement seems to show that the heretic in question did not deny the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, though he questioned its accuracy. Such a view was as likely as an attack on its genuineness to call forth a defence from Hippolytus. From these facts one is almost inclined to suspect, in the absence of any better testimony, that this heresy first assumed distinct shape in Epiphanius’ own mind, and that his ideas respecting it may have been mainly founded on the testimony of Irenzeus that some heretics rejected the Fourth Gospel, and of Dionysius of Alexandria that some persons, apparently orthodox, ascribed the - Apocalypse to Cerinthus, and on the knowledge acquired in his own general reading that various writers, heathen philosophers, the Presbyter Gaius, and perhaps others, objected to the credi- bility of the Gospels on the ground of their inconsistent state- ments. That any sect was so completely composed of ἄλογοι, men without reason,as to ascribe the Fourth Gospel to Cerinthus, is almost as incredible as the fact which he attests on his personal knowledge, that the water in the fountain at Cibyre in Caria was in the habit of turning into wine at the hour when the ‘miracle was wrought at Cana, εἰς μαρτύριον τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν. 1 8. 8. There seems to be no reason for supposing that these philosophers questioned the authorship of the Gospel. See Liicke, i. pp. 69 sg. and 79. They would naturally dwell on its inconsistency with the Synoptics. Amelius, a contemporary of Porphyry, describes the author as βάρβαρον, but does not name him (Euseb., Prep. Εναη,, xi. 18). 2 See Dr J. R. Harris, lic. 3 § 30. DOCETA 343 Iam unable, therefore, to attach much importance to these obscure heretics; but so far as our information can be relied upon, it renders more impressive the universal consensus as to the early date of the Gospel, and the all but universal con- sensus as to its authorship. One other heresy calls for a moment’s attention. So much importance has been attached to the Docetic Acts of John in recent discussions that it is necessary to notice them, though, as I do not think they contain a solution of our problem, our notice must be brief. In 1896 Corssen published a very able article on “ Monarchianische Prologe zu den vier Evangelien,” in the Texte wnd Untersuchungen, volume xv. In the course of this he speaks of the Acts of John, ascribed to Leucius Charinus. From the fragments known at that time it was apparent that this was a Docetic work. Corssen points out that our Gospel puts into the mouth of the Apostle John a sharp protest against the doctrine delivered by the same Apostle in the Acts. While the Gospel thus deliberately contradicts the teaching of the Acts, the Acts on their side betray no acquaintance with an exposition contrary to their own. Hence it appears certain that the author of the Gospel was acquainted, if not with the work of Leucius himself, at least with the traditions which Leucius had not indeed created, but only thrown into literary form. This being the relation between the Evangelist John and the John of the Acts, we can understand why the author of the Fourth Gospel came to ascribe his book to the Apostle. The next year Dr M. R. James was able to publish from a Vienna manuscript an important portion of the Acts of John, including the Docetic fragments already known In an appended essay Dr James argues with great force against Corssen’s view, and maintains that Leucius was acquainted LPs 151: 2 Texts and Studies, 1897. 344 DOCETA with the Johannine writings, and evaded their authority by the supposition that “St John wrote for the multitude certain comparatively plain and easy episodes in the life of the Lord: but that to the inner circle of the faithful his teaching was widely different.”! To this view Hilgenfeld replied in an elaborate article on “ Der gnostische und der kanonische Johannes δον das Leben Jesu.”? He endeavours to show that the apparent references to the Gospel are either delusive or interpolated, and points out that the accounts of the calling of the Apostles, and of the closing scenes of Christ's life, are quite unlike those of the Evangelist. On whichever side we may think the probability lies, the question is one which admits of no absolute decision. We learn from Hippo- — lytus* that at least one Docetist appealed to the authority of the Fourth Gospel; but the writer of the apocryphal Acts, if he wished to contradict the clear teaching of the Gospel, would naturally show scant respect for its narrative, and yet might not wish formally to enter into a polemic against it. Accord- ingly, while the evidence that he knew the Gospel may be : regarded as uncertain, the evidence of his ignorance of it is equally inconclusive.* On the other hand, while the Evangelist 1 P. 149. The text in its completest form appeared in 1898, under the editorship of Max. Bonnet, in Acta Apost. Apoc., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, 2 Zertschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1900. 3 Ref. omn. Her., viii. 10. 4 I do not remember noticing in the discussion what seems an obvious reference to the composition of the Gospel in the part published by Tischendorf in 1851. After speaking of the Apocalypse, and John’s return to Ephesus, the writer describes him as ἀπομνημονεύων ὅσα ὃ κύριος αὐτοῖς ἔλεγεν (Tisch., p. 272; Bonnet, p. 160). It is possible that this is not part of the original text, for Bonnet gives reasons for thinking that the whole narrative of the Roman journey has been retouched by a later hand (p. xxviii). Liechtenhan assumes, as though it were beyond question, that the writer of the Acts was acquainted with the Gospel (see his article, “Die pseudepigraphe Litteratur der Gnostiker,” in the Zeit. f. newt. Wiss., 1902, pp. 229 sq.). And Carl Schmidt, the most recent investigator, thinks that the dominant critical opinion has established the thesis that the Ἃ he δ," a ' ἢ ᾿ "4 ἣ i Ἶ a 7 a { ¥ a -_ ee τυ αμοου συ" τ εν εν τ σῶν ΚΞ αν ACTS OF JOHN 345 confessedly rebuked Docetic errors, I do not know that there is a particle of evidence that he was acquainted with the work of Leucius. That work contains some of the essential ideas of Valentinianism, and must be put as late as the rise of the great Gnostic systems, when we have seen reason to believe that the Gospel was already in existence. That Docetism in some form was an early and widespread error there can be no doubt; but even Ignatius attacks it much more explicitly and emphatically than 1 John! 1 John, warning the readers that the spirit of antichrist is already in the world? seems to indicate an incipient stage of error, whereas in Leucius it is developed in all its monstrous absurdity, and introduced into a fictitious narrative which can hardly have been invented till long after the Apostle’s death. I do not think, therefore, that the Acts of John throw any real light upon our problem. These relics of an obscure past naturally awaken interest; but the chief feeling which they kindle in my own mind is one of gratitude to the authorities of the early Church for having saved Christianity from rotting away in such a heap of abject rubbish. author of the Acts knew the Gospel and the other Johannine writings, and made abundant use of them (“Die alten Petrusakten im Zusammenhang der apokryphen Apostellitteratur,” in Texte und Unters. N. F., ix. 1, 1903, p. 26). 1 See Ad. Trall., especially ix. and x., and Ad. Smyrn., 1.--ν. et oie CHAPTER XII RESULTS OF THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE WE have now reached the end of our inquiry into the external evidence. It is difficult to sum up in a few telling and decisive lines the results of a prolonged investigation, which has involved, at almost every step, the consideration of a number of details, and the balancing of delicate probabilities. These things do not strike the imagination, or furnish suit- able materials for a brilliant picture, which, by possessing clearness of outline and the symmetry of an artistic com- position, may captivate the reason. The impressions which they have made have not been driven in with the triumphant force of an advocate’s plea; and it is easy, if we are so inclined, to allow these impressions to fade away one by one, and tell ourselves that the external evidence after all amounts to very little. Thus Schiirer says that “the only external evidence of any importance is that of Irenzus,”! and tries to show that that practically amounts to nothing. Now I think we deceive ourselves as to the force of evidence by forgetting its cumulative character. Some critics dismiss this, that, and the other piece of evidence as not even worth examining, because it is confessedly not conclusive. But supposing we have several independent arguments in support of a certain conclusion, and that each of these arguments 1 Contemporary Review, September 1891, p. 413. 46 . a «ὦ... Δ RESULTS OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 347 taken by itself is very doubtful, yet their combined force might amount to a high degree of probability. To make this plain, let us reduce it to numbers. Let us call certainty one, and let us have five arguments in support of a certain conclusion, of such a kind that each establishes a probability amounting to only one half. Then, if we take only one argument, while the positive evidence points to the conclusion, the chances of some unknown error will amount to one half, and we must say that it is a toss up whether the thing is so or not. But the chances of error in all five would be, not i, but =4,; in other words, five independent pieces of evidence, each of which alone would leave us in a state of complete indecision, would establish a probability which, in all practical affairs, would at once control our judgment. Now, in the case of the Gospel, I do not think that the items of evidence are in this state of equilibrium. We cannot of course reduce such things to exact numerical values; but, so far as I am able to judge, the evidence has usually preponderated over the chances of error, and in some cases decidedly so, and thus the combined force of the several arguments establishes a very high degree of probability. We must remember, too, that within the domain of external evidence this probability is opposed, not by a counter probability, but by mere chances of error. In regard to the early use of the Gospel there is no opposing testimony; and the attack is engaged, not in confronting the witnesses with others who give a different report and are supposed to be more trustworthy, but in showing that the witnesses are good for nothing. The only semblance of adverse evidence is of a negative kind, and rests on the absence of allusions to the Gospel in some of the scanty literature which has reached us from a very early time. I believe, therefore, that the concurrent evidence which we have reviewed, even if in its separate details it may 348 RESULTS OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE be thought inconclusive, yet in combination presents a probability of such a cogent character that it can be set aside only by an arbitrary exercise of judgment, a judgment influenced by considerations lying outside the proper field of inquiry. We must, however, distinguish two points in the con- clusion which we have reached, for they possess different degrees of probability. First, the attestation is perfectly unanimous in favour of the early date of the Gospel, for in _ this even the dubious Alogi are supporters of the Catholic view. Moreover the date can be much more strongly guaranteed than the authorship of a book by a testimony given eighty or ninety years after the alleged time of com- position. No one can bear direct testimony to the authorship of a book except one who has seen it written; but every one can tell whether he read a book when he was young or not, and can often say whether it came into his hands as a work which had been long in use. Accordingly, when several men agree in treating a book as written long before they were born, it is exceedingly unlikely that they are mistaken. In such things there is a widespread and continuous tradition, which experience teaches us to trust. Critics speak of Trenzus as though he had fallen out of the moon, paid two or three visits to Polycarp’s lecture-room, and never known any one else. In fact, he must have known all sorts of men, of all ages, both in the east and the west, and among others his venerable predecessor Pothinus, who was upwards of ninety at the time of his death He must have had numerous links with the early part of the century, and he must have > known perfectly well whether the Gospel was older than himself or not. 1 think, therefore, that the universal testi- mony, combined with the direct indications which we have 1 Letter from Lyons and Vienne, Eusebius, H. £., v. 1. ag ae ee en RESULTS OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 5349 found of the early use of the Gospel, ought to satisfy us upon this point, unless very convincing evidence can be produced on the other side. | But the second point, that the Apostle John was the author, can hardly claim the same degree of confidence. The testimony is not quite so unanimous, though I confess I cannot myself take the Alogi much more seriously than the attempt in our own time to prove that Bacon was the author of Shakespeare’s plays. But though the attestation is thus _ nearly the same as in the previous case, the thing attested is in a very different position. Though our witnesses, with the exception of the Alogi, agree in representing John as the author, none could assert this on his personal knowledge. All we can justly say is that the work was almost universally regarded as John’s, and that this was the traditional belief of our first informants. As this tradition was so widely spread, and as there is no other tradition, I think we are further justified in concluding that the Gospel must have been received as John’s from the time of its publication. But if it was issued soon after the Apostle’s death by some writer who chose to keep himself unknown, and on the ground either of its own title or of internal evidence, was pronounced to be John’s, and generally accepted as such, the phenomena of the existing attestation would be sufficiently explained; in other words, we have no testimony which affords us any security against an error of this kind. We can only ask whether such an error is probable or not. If John continued till the end of his life to labour in Palestine, it is difficult to understand how a book published far away from the circle of his immediate disciples came to be ascribed to him. An English book published in London would not be easily attributed to a German who had lived 350 RESULTS OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE and died in Hanover; and a Greek book published in Ephesus or Alexandria would not be ascribed to an Aramaic speaking Jew who had lived and died in Palestine. But supposing so singular a blunder had been made, the Apostle’s disciples would have protested, for they at least would have known that this foreign composition was not the work of their master; and accordingly, if the Johannine authorship obtained credence at all, it would at least have been a matter . of dispute from the first. But if the Apostle really resided in the country where the Gospel was published, the case is not much better. It is asserted that the style and doctrine of the work are quite irreconcilable with the views and education of the Apostle John, Schiirer apparently regarding this as the only solid argument which is left against the Johannine authorship. If this be true, it must have been far more obviously so at the time of publication than it is now; and the disciples, including Polycarp, would have indignantly protested against this attempt to misrepresent their teacher. But if, on the contrary, the Gospel was such a one as the Apostle might have been expected to write, and simply put on paper the old familiar lines of his teaching, then it might have 2) been accepted as “the Gospel according to John,” even if not actually written by him. Such an hypothesis reduces the question of immediate authorship to one of subordinate importance ; but even in this case the false ascription does not seem very likely. The writer would have been known, and got credit for his good intentions, while any deficiency could have been ascribed to him instead of the Apostle; just as our Second Gospel has been assigned to Mark, and not to Peter, the substance of whose teaching it was supposed to have preserved. Or if the author succeeded in hiding his identity, still the numerous friends of John must have known pretty well whether he had written a Gospel or not, and the work RESULTS OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 351 would have come down to us with some marks of doubt attaching to its origin. On the whole, then, I cannot but think that the external evidence of Johannine authorship possesses great weight, and, if it stood alone, would entitle the traditional view to our acceptance. We must now direct our attention to the internal evidence, and see whether it strengthens or invalidates the conclusion we have reached. SECTION 1] INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE TRADITIONAL VIEW CHAPTER I THE AUTHOR AN ARAMAIC-SPEAKING JEW THE internal evidence of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel has been examined with such care and completeness, especially by English writers, that I cannot hope to contribute any fresh material to the subject ; nevertheless, it is necessary for me to give a rapid survey and judgment of the several lines of argument.! Our object is to ascertain how far the indications in the book itself support or are consistent with = eS the traditional account of its origin. Do these make it ‘4 eredible or incredible that it was written late in the first century, by a Palestinian Jew, an immediate | disciple of Christ’s, after a residence of several years in an important Greek city? In the present section we will notice the evidence which seems to favour the traditional view, re- 1 For further details I may refer to the late Bishop Westcott’s Introduction, Professor Sanday’s Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and three articles by the late Bishop Lightfoot in the EHzpositor, Fourth Series, vol. i., 1890. 352 ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE FESTIVALS 5353 serving objections for connected discussion under a separate head. First, then, there are many indications that the writer was a Jew. He was acquainted with Jewish festivals; and not only with the Passover, which is mentioned several times, and with the feast of tabernacles,! but with the less known feast of lights, described as τὰ éyxaiva,? which was instituted by Judas Maccabeus to commemorate the purification of the temple from the pollutions of Antiochus Epiphanes. The last mentioned was celebrated in December; and the writer casually mentions that it was winter at the time. He was also aware that the last was “the great day” of the feast of tabernacles, and in the words which he ascribes to Christ on this occasion he seems to allude to the libations of water from the Pool of Siloam.’ So in viii. 12, in the words “I am the light of the world” there is probably an allusion to the light of the golden candelabra at the same festival* These candelabra were in the court of the women. The author does not tell us this; but he says that Jesus spoke these words in the treasury,° and the treasury, we know, was in the court of the women. The libations and the lights symbolised events in the journey through the wilderness, the water from the rock and the pillar of fire, and it is only when we bear this in mind that the full force of Christ’s words becomes apparent. Now, these delicate allusions, which we have to interpret by information derived from other sources, seem to point to an 1 vii, 2. and Abraham rejoiced to see his day,® and Isaiah saw his glory and spoke of him.” The dis- course on the bread of life is connected with the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would produce a sign similar to the bestowal of manna in the wilderness. This is not expressly stated in the Gospel; but our knowledge of it at once explains the apparently abrupt language of the people, “What sign doest thou?... Our fathers did eat the manna.” Now, all this brings us back into Jewish sur- roundings. We are not in the midst of a philosophical school in a Greek city, but the most universal principles are dis- cussed in their relation to a Jewish audience, and in their connection with Jewish beliefs. The Logos-doctrine is indeed present, as it were, in the background of the exposition, and though its terminology is absent, gives their meaning to the grandest utterances; but it is not the doctrine of Greek phil- osophy ; it is the doctrine of the proem, which treats Jesus as the summing up and realisation of the divine thought for the world. All this seems to point to a Jewish author. I am not sure, however, that it is inconsistent with Gentile author- 1 iv. 25. Alt) 27; Si yi Aa: Aad. 34. 5 v. 39, 46. 6 wilt. 66. wien At. 5. γι. 20. 6εῇ. 356 THE AUTHOR A JEW ship, for even the Gentile Church was deeply imbued with Jewish ideas; and a Gentile who, like Justin Martyr, was engaged in controversy with the Jews, would naturally know a good deal about the nature of their beliefs and their mode of argument. An interesting and purely incidental agreement with history has been pointed out, especially by Lightfoot,t in connection with the religious sects. The Sadducees are not mentioned in the Fourth Gospel, but in their place the chief priests appear. Now, at this time, the high priests belonged to the Sadducees, so that the apparent deviation from the other Gospels is only verbal. Their Sadducean character comes out in a curious and undesigned way. We learn from Josephus” that the Sadducees were obliged to accede to the dictation of the Pharisees, because otherwise they would not have been tolerated by the multitude. Accordingly, in the Gospel, the Pharisees take the initiative, the one exception being after the raising of Lazarus, when the doctrine of the resurrection was in question. Josephus elsewhere remarks — on the rudeness of the Sadducees both to one another and to their equals.* Agreeably to this representation, Caiaphas bursts out with the words, “Ye know nothing at all, and do not reflect.” This purely incidental correspondence with the facts of history is indicative of an author who was familiar with the circumstances of the time and place about which he was writing. Another evidence is to be found in the writer’s familiarity with the Old Testament, and his evident ascription to it of divine authority. “Grace and truth” are with him, no doubt, antithetical to the “law,” as they were with Paul; but no sanction is given to the Gnostic rupture of historical con- 1 P. 86 sq. 2 Ant., XVI 1 3 Bell. Jud., 1. vill. 14. 1 xe HIS PORTRAITURE OF THE PEOPLE 357 tinuity between the old and the new covenants. Christianity is an expression of the highest aspirations of Judaism, and a fulfilment of its prophecies! This relation to the Old Testa- ment is, of course, what we should expect in a Jewish writer ; but I do not think it is incompatible with Gentile authorship. The Old Testament was received as of divine authority in the Gentile Church, and Jewish modes of interpretation were to a large extent adopted; and it is quite conceivable that a thoughtful Greek might so imbue himself with Old Testa- ment ideas as to exhibit the acquaintance with it and the respect for it which are apparent in the Fourth Gospel. Justin Martyr’s writings alone are sufficient evidence of this. More important, I think, is “the portraiture of the people,” which is described at length by Westcott?; for this would be drawn easily and truly by a writer who had lived among the circumstances, whereas the information would not be easily acquired by an historian looking back upon distant events, and, if acquired, would not be presented so artlessly afd in- cidentally as to be often overlooked by the reader. There is the multitude, 6 ὄχλος, with their changeable feelings and convictions, who at one time would have made Jesus king, and 1 See especially i. 45, iii. 14, v. 46, Vi. 45, vil. 37 (alluding to the water from the rock), viii. 12 (perhaps alluding to the pillar of fire), 56, x. 34 sq., Xli, 14 8q., 37 8η., xiii. 18, xv. 25, xix. 24, 28, 36 sq. See these treated more at length in Westcott, Introduction, p. vii. Also Dr August Hermann Franke, Das alte Testament bei Johannes, ein Beitrag zur Erklérung und Beurtheilung der Johanneischen Schriften. Gottingen, 1885. There is a thoughtful review of this work by Schiirer in the Theol. Literaturz., Jan. 9, 1886. He thinks the author has made a most serviceable collection of material, but is so strongly prepossessed in the apologetic interest as to render his arguments of little value. In denying the influence of Hellenism he is not justified by the evidence, and in making the Evangelist place the old and the new revelations on the same level he is swayed by a false orthodoxy, and fails to recognise the pervading thought of the Gospel, which regards the revelation in the person of Christ as distinct and supreme. 2 Introduction, pp. Vili sqq. 358 THE AUTHOR A JEW who took no part in the closing scenes. There are the “Jews,” chiefly, if not exclusively, inhabitants of Judea, the repre- sentatives of Judaic narrowness and unbelief, though there too exceptions were to be found Among these appear the Pharisees and the chief priests, whose characters, as we have already seen, are drawn with historical fidelity.’ Lastly, under. this head, we must observe that the universal- ism, which is thought to be so anti-Judaic in this book, is distinctly Jewish in its conception. It is quite conceivable that a Jewish Christian might turn completely against his own people, and treat their ancient claims as the result of prejudice and arrogance; for converts are not always just and tender towards the party they have left. But it is not so with the writer of this Gospel. He fully recognises the prerogative of the Jews, and his indignation at their unbelief is partly due to this cause, for they had Moses and the prophets to teach them. The Logos was not known by the world, in which it was; so it came to its own, τὰ idua—evidently the land οὗ Israel—and its own people received it not. | The temple was the house of Christ’s Father, and for that reason ought not to have been desecrated into a house of merchandise.* To be “truly an Israelite” was the highest 1 See x. 21, xii. 42. 2 See the details in Westcott. 3 i. τι, Schtirer, in the review of Franke already referred to, dog- matically pronounces this reference of τὰ ἔδια and οἱ ἴδιοι to be impossible in the connection, which admits only a reference to the world and mankind ~ generally. This is a question of exegesis into which we cannot now enter αὖ length ; but it seems to me very clear that the words introduce a limitation of ὁ κόσμος. Though the Logos was in the world, as the light of every man, the world did not know it. So it came more particularly to its own, who were chosen out of the world to receive with especial fulness the word of God. But even they, with certain exceptions, did not receive it ; and 50, finally, still narrowing its range in search of an abiding home, it became fiesh in Jesus Christ. While taking this view, I quite agree with Schiirer that the reference is to the λόγος ἄσαρκος. =n. 36, THE LANGUAGE OF THE GOSPEL 359 commendation, and “the teacher of Israel” was expected to understand spiritual things.? The (promised) salvation was “from the Jews,” who worshipped what they knew? The good shepherd’s “own sheep” are Jews, though he has “other sheep which are not of this fold,’ which also he must lead, that there may be one fold, one shepherd.* ΑἹ] this falls in with the sentiment of a Jew, who felt that his race had had great privileges, and been called to a glorious work, but, when the crisis came, had proved unequal to their opportunity, and through a blind conservatism had clung to the decaying casket, while they flung away the imperishable gem which it contained. The foregoing arguments tend to show that the Gospel may have been, and probably was, written by a Jew; the following, it is contended, prove that he was an Aramaic- speaking Jew, and therefore a native of Palestine rather than of Ephesus or Alexandria.° The language of the work is Greek, and it is alleged by those who impugn its apostolic authorship that it is pure Greek, and presents no certain instances of Hebraism. This might be true to the fullest extent, and yet afford no evidence that the writer was not a native of Palestine ; for it is by no means inconceivable that a Palestinian Jew, who resided for many years in a Greek city, might acquire a perfect Greek style, and the assumption that the Apostle John could not have done so is pure assumption, and nothing more. The language, however, is not really such as was likely to proceed from the pen of one to whom Greek was a native tongue. It is not easy to define the qualities of style; but if any one will take the trouble of reading a few pages of the Gospel, and 1}. 47: ATL) BO. δ ν 22: 4 x. 133. ϑηῆ 9 10. 5 Harnack seems to assume it as obvious that the author was a Palestinian. Chronol., i. p. 678, note 2. > 360 THE AUTHOR A JEW then a few pages of Plato or Thucydides, I think he will be at once struck with the difference, and feel that the rich and flowing style of Greece has been reduced to its simplest elements. Instead of its full periods and carefully connected | clauses, we have a succession of short statements, tacked together with the most artless monotony. This distinction is immediately perceived even if we take as our standard such simple Greek as that of the Enchiridion of Epictetus. Or we may compare the proem of John with the preface of Luke. The latter consists of a single sentence. In about the same space the former has no less than eleven sentences, either connected by καὶ or left without any connecting particle. The same difference is apparent in a comparison with Paul, though Paul was not only a Hellenistic Jew, but was educated in Jerusalem, and presumably quite familiar with Aramaic. Or lastly, since the author is sometimes supposed to have been deeply imbued with the thoughts of Philo, we may observe that the styles of the two writers are absolutely different. — The Greek of the Gospel is in fact precisely of that kind which a foreigner would most easily acquire. But, further, the peculiarities which distinguish it from classical Greek are Semitic in their character. As Lightfoot remarks, this is shown by “the connecting particles,” and also “ by the parallel- ism of the sentences, by the repetition of the same words in different clauses, by the order of the words, by the syntactical constructions, and by individual expressions. Indeed, so completely is this character maintained throughout, that there is hardly a sentence which might not be translated literally into Hebrew or Aramaic, without any violence to the language or to the sense.”! These peculiarities cannot be explained by the supposition that the writer’s style’ was affected by the use of Aramaic documents, or by the adoption 1 Articles, pp. 16 and 17. QUOTATIONS FROM OLD TESTAMENT 561 of the Greek of the LXX. as a kind of sacred language; for it is not marked by the obvious Hebraisms of a too literal translation. The purity of the Greek, combined with its general Hebraic structure, points to an author whose native tongue was Aramaic, and who learned Greek sufficiently well to speak and write it correctly, but too late in life to become imbued with the genius of the language. The phenomena οὗ style, then, which the Gospel exhibits, appear to be in harmony with the traditional view. It may be said, indeed, that one engaged in the fishing trade by the lake of Galilee would have spoken Greek from his early years. This may be true to a certain extent; but he would probably have spoken it only in his business transactions, and would have habitually spoken, and probably always thought, in Aramaic. I feel more confidence in the preceding argument than in the following, on which Lightfoot lays considerable stress. The writer of the Gospel several times follows the LXX. in his quotations from the Old Testament; but in a few instances he fails to do so, and appears to have had either the original text or a Targum before him. In xii. 40 there is a quotation from Isaiah vi. 10, “He has blinded: their eyes, and hardened their heart,” etc. The rendering is quite different from that of the LXX.; but neither does it follow the Hebrew. It both transposes and omits clauses, whereas the LXX. adheres to the order of the original. Both alike alter, though in different ways, the Hebrew imperative, “make fat the heart of this people,” etc. We might infer from this that it is simply an example of loose, memoriter citation. Lightfoot, however, presses the following argument:—‘The LXX. translators taking offence, as it would seem, at ascribing the hardening | of the heart to God’s own agency, have thrown the sentence 1 Articles, p. 19 sqq., and a letter in the Unitarian Herald, dated May 22, 1871, in reply to some strictures by the Rev. R, B. Drummond. 362 THE AUTHOR A JEW into a passive form: ‘The heart of this people was made fat, and with their ears they heard heavily, and their eyes they closed,’ etc., so as to remove the difficulty. If, therefore, the evangelist had derived the passage from the LXX., it is inconceivable that he would have reintroduced the active form, thus wantonly reviving a difficulty, unless he had the original before him.” This argument might be strengthened by referring to the fact that the same passage is quoted in Matthew xiii. 15, and that there the translation of the LXX. is followed; for we thus learn that the Johannine was not a current Christian form of quotation. Still I cannot believe that the author had the original before him at the time of composition; and the most that we can justly say is that his reminiscence of the passage was very slightly, if at all, con- trolled by the current Greek rendering.! The next instance is less open to objection. In xiii. 18 there is a quotation from Psalm xli. 9, “He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.” Here the writer substitutes for the familiar word, ἐσθίων, of the LXX. (a word which he never employs) the unusual τρώγων, which is found in the New Testament only once outside of his own Gospel, Matthew xxiv. 38. This, however, is the mere substitution of a synonym; what is of more importance is that he corrects ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν into ἐπῆρεν ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ THY πτέρναν αὐτοῦ, “he lifted up his heel against me,” a translation of the Hebrew retained by our Revisers. This correction cannot be accidental. The instance on which Lightfoot lays the greatest stress, and which might seem the most decisive, is in xix. 37, ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν This is a quotation from © Zechariah xii. 10, where the Hebrew has, “they shall look — 1 The striking expressions of the LXX. are wholly wanting, and the — agreements are only in such ordinary phrases as ἴδωσι τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς, and ἰάσομαι αὐτούς. QUOTATIONS FROM OLD TESTAMENT 363 unto me whom they pierced,” or “unto him,” according to some manuscripts, as the Revisers tell us in the margin. The LXX. is quite different, ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο, “because they danced in triumph” or “insulted.” It is clear that the translators read 17?) (leaped) instead of 727 (pierced). Here there can be no question that the LXX. has been corrected by reference to the original, and the only doubt can be whether the correction is due immediately to the author of the Gospel. As Franke puts it, the evangelist either had recourse to the original text or made use of another Greek translation in addition to the LXX. Schiirer* admits the dilemma, but is inclined to accept the second member of the alternative. He points out that ἐξεκέντησαν is found in other citations from Zechariah. It is in Revelation 1. 7, where, though the prophet is not mentioned, it is clear that this passage, along with one in Daniel, was in the writer’s mind. Now, if the author was the same as the writer of the Fourth Gospel, this was only an earlier instance of his recourse to the Hebrew text. But if he was different, still he was a Jew, and may have recognised the error of the LXX. Here we must observe that the quotation in the Gospel cannot be taken from Revelation, because the agreement 15 confined to a single word. The passage is cited twice by Justin Martyr; and according to Schiirer the citations are of such a kind that they go back directly to Zechariah, and not to one of the New Testament passages. The first is in Apology, 1. 52, where Justin professes to quote seven con- secutive lines from Zechariah. As, in the investigation of the Gospel question, our apologist is sometimes treated as a model of accuracy, it is worth observing that the quotation is made up of very incorrect reminiscences of Zechariah ii. 6, Isaiah xlii. 5, xi. 12, Zechariah xii. 10-12, Joel 11. 13, Isaiah 1 In the review, l.c. 364 THE AUTHOR A JEW Ix. 17, lxiv. 11. In the midst of this extraordinary} compound, and quite detached from the connection in} Zechariah, occur the words as they stand in the Gospel. In| these circumstances it does not seem to me wholly impossible} that Justin may have derived them from the evangelist. The second instance is in Dialogue 14, where the words are ὄψεται ὁ λαὸς ὑμῶν Kal γνωριεῖ εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν, and are not} expressly quoted, and are referred to Hosea. This, again, does not prove any familiarity with the text of Zechariah. Schiirer further detects an allusion to this translation in the Epistle} of Barnabas vii. 9. But here there is no certain reference} to Zechariah ; the word is not the same, being κατακεντήσαντες 3} and it is derived, as the context shows, from a purely imaginary quotation about the scape-goat (apparently supposed to be in Leviticus). I cannot think, therefore, that} Schiirer’s contention is proved, and that as early as the date} of the Apocalypse there must have existed a Greek text of} Zechariah which contained the reading ἐξεκέντησαν. More} important is the remark that the word stands in Aquila and Theodotion, and that indications are accumulating that the latter is considerably older than is generally assumed. We must observe, however, that Theodotion reads καὶ ἐπιβλέ- Yovrat πρὸς μὲ εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν. The quotation, therefore, is ἢ not taken in its entirety from Theodotion any more than from ἢ the LXX. Supposing, however, that it was proved that the | quotation was derived from the later version, we should be obliged to ask why the evangelist here abandoned the LXX., | unless, from his knowledge of the original text, he was aware that the earlier translators were wrong. Merely to say that | the text of Theodotion may have been in existence, and may | have been used in this particular passage, explains nothing. : 1 Field, Origenis Hexaplorum que supersunt. Aquila reads σὺν ᾧ ἐξεκ. ; ἢ but the first words are not given, QUOTATIONS FROM OLD TESTAMENT 36s _ As a further test of this hypothesis we may turn to Psalm xli. Ὁ (LXX., xl. 10), where Aquila and Theodotion read κατεμεγα- λύνθη μου wrépva. This translation, although it corrects the πτερνισμόν of the LXX., does not explain the Johannine rendering. The passage in Isaiah is not given; but, in confir- mation of Lightfoot’s argument, we may observe that Symmachus translates, “This people made their ears heavy, and shut their eyes,” etc, so that he goes even beyond the LXX. in altering the doctrine of the passage, and throws the entire blame upon the people themselves. It is, perhaps, not unfair to conclude that the intermediate translators had some similar method of escaping the difficulty. I cannot but think, therefore, that the recourse to Theodotion is rather a makeshift, which is not supported by evidence, and, if it were, would not materially alter the argument. Nevertheless, the argument is open to some doubt. The undertaking of the later Greek translations, like that of our own Revised Version, must have been suggested by the known errors of the ancient text; and it is quite possible that, before any revision was actually undertaken, it may have become a matter of common knowledge, among those who cared for the Scriptures, that certain passages required emendation. The Christians would naturally turn their attention chiefly to Messianic quotations; and it is con- ceivable that there may have grown up, whether in writing or not, an anthology of passages useful in controversy, which differed more or less from the current Greek translation. This is, of course, only conjecture; but I think it affords a possible explanation of the phenomena of the Johannine quotations.! 1 See all the quotations classified in Westcott, Introduction, pp. xiii. sq. It appears that, while in three cases the evangelist agrees with the Hebrew against the LXX., there is no case where he agrees with the LXX. against the Hebrew. Franke produces several allusions to Scriptural language which accord with the Hebrew, not with the LXX. (Das a. T. bei Jo., pp. 286 sqq.). CHAPTER II THE WRITERS KNOWLEDGE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE AN important argument is founded on the writer’s knowledge ~ of the topography of Palestine. He is the first known writer | who mentions Cana of Galilee, so described apparently in order to distinguish it from another Cana in Coelo-Syria!; | and he was aware that it was necessary to “go down” from ~ this to Capernaum.? In this connection we may observe that, while Luke, a Greek writer, calls the sea of Galilee a lake, and never a sea, our author retains the local practice, which is also followed by Matthew and Mark, and calls it a “sea,” — and never a lake. When he first mentions it, however? he ~ adds to the “sea of Galilee” τῆς Τιβεριάδος, either to explain — to his Greek readers what was meant or to indicate the part — of the lake which he had in his mind. He also evinces his knowledge that Tiberias was situated on the shore* It must be remarked, however, that writers of the first century never speak of the sea “of Tiberias,” which from the second century became more and more the official description.? This might seem to point to a second century date for the Gospel. But, in the first place, it is difficult to suppose that the reading Tis 1 ii, I, 11; iv. 46; xxi. 2. See Josephus, Ant., xv. v. 1. ΜΙ ὙΠ iV) a7, AO, G1 ova Vee 4 vi. 23. δ So it is stated by K. Furrer in an article, “Das Geographische im Evangelium nach Johannes,” in the Zettschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, pp. 261 sq. 366 _ KNOWLEDGE OF TOPOGRAPHY 367 TadiAaias τῆς Τιβεριάδος is original, and the name of the town may be a later explanatory gloss. And, secondly, if the gloss has proceeded from the Evangelist himself, it is hardly necessary to cross the borders of the first century ; for we cannot be sure when the later name began to be used, and the text, if genuine, points to a transition from the old to the new designation. If this remark be correct, the mention of “the sea of Tiberias” in xxi. 1 can hardly be used to prove the later date of the final chapter. We may observe, moreover, that Pausanias, whom Furrer cites as the first Greek writer to use the later expression, speaks of λίμνη, not θάλασσα, Τιβεριάδος. In regard to the remaining topo- graphical features delineated in chapter vi., Furrer, speaking from personal observation, says they are surprisingly clear and exact. He alone is acquainted with a “Bethany beyond the Jordan,”* but he is quite aware that there is another Bethany about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem?; and, accordingly, when he first refers to the latter, he distinguishes it as the village of Mary and Martha,’ just as he distinguished Beth- saida as the city of Andrew and Peter. This is a very natural way for an old friend to refer to a village where he had held sweet converse with people whom Jesus loved; but it does not resemble the manner of a distant historian. While we are in the neighbourhood of Bethany we may refer to a touch of local knowledge on which Lightfoot lays some stress. In the account of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem,’ this Evangelist tells us that the people “took the branches of the palm-trees,” as though he were alluding to some familiar scene, the palm-trees which he knew so well on the Mount of Olives, not far from Bethany, “the house of dates.” Matthew Δ 28. aaa, 18: 5 ΧΙ ἢ 4 Articles, pp. 89 86. 5 xil. 12 sqq. 368 KNOWLEDGE OF TOPOGRAPHY and Mark are content with the more indefinite term, “the trees,” and Luke omits this feature of the narrative altogether. Not far off was the “brook Cedron,” or, more properly, Kidron. ' | This is referred to by John alone as having been crossed by’ Jesus on his way to the Mount of Olives, so that here again, we have an evidence of local knowledge, which is introduced quite casually, and might just as well have been omitted. We cannot dwell upon the correctness of the description of it as a “winter torrent ” (so the word ought to be rendered, instead of “brook ”), for this might have been derived from the LXX.! We cannot now discuss the various readings. If τῶν (instead — of τοῦ) κέδρων, which is supported by a great preponderance of the Greek authorities, be correct, and not an error of copyists, it only shows that occasionally (as in the passage — cited in the note from the LXX.) the Hebrew name was changed ~ into a Greek one with almost the same sound, though quite a different meaning—a sort of change which is by no means without example. The Hebrew, Kidron, means “black” or “dark,” and Westcott suggests that it may have been so called, not from the colour of the water, but from the “dark ” trees that grew close by.? We may pass now to other parts of Palestine. The writer knows the situation of Jacob’s well,* and that it is deep,* which it is. He knows that there was a mountain close by, where the Samaritans worshipped.© He knows that there were cornfields in the neighbourhood.® Every feature is true to the locality ; yet nothing is described. It is the woman who lets us know the depth of the well, and the presence of the mountain; and it is Jesus who alludes to the cornfields to illustrate his discourse. We are not told the name of the 1 See, for instance, 1 (3) Kings xv. 13, ἐν τῷ χειμάῤῥω τῶν κέδρων. 2 Commentary, p. 267. 3 iv. 6. 4 ἡγ, 11. © ἀν: 20: 6 iv) 35. ΝΟ δοῦν ἡ. ἡ χυλὸν ον κω AENON 369 mountain, or that the Samaritans had a temple there. There is a total absence of the literary art of a distant narrator. The author seems to have vividly before his own mind the scene which he knew so well in former days, and quite to forget that his readers cannot possibly know it as well as he does himself. This mode of treatment appears to me to be a; strong evidence of first-hand knowledge. One difficulty, how- ever, there is,—the allusion to a city called Sychar!; but this we must reserve till we are treating objections. Again, the writer is acquainted with the little known city of Ephraim, situated north-east of Jerusalem. And, lastly, he mentions the otherwise unknown Aenon, where there were “many waters.”? The name is certainly Semitic, being formed from py, a fountain, whether it be an adjectival form, or the Chaldee plural, or a compound, meaning the well of the dove. We cannot therefore ascribe it to the invention of a Greek writer. Besides, we are told that this place was near Salim, and the allusion to what was done beyond the Jordan + shows that it was in western Palestine. Now, “a place bearing the name of ’Aynin has been found not far from a valley abounding in springs to the north of Salim, which lies not far to the east of Nablous.”®> Whether this be the ay. Ἐς 2 ΧΙ ΟΝ * ii, 24, eu. 26. 5 Westcott, Commentary, p. 58, with a reference to Palestine Exploration Report, 1874, pp. 141 sg. The page in the reference is wrongly numbered. The article is on pp. 191 sq. of the “‘ Quarterly Statement” of the Palestine Exploration Fund. ’Aynun is three or four miles north of the springs. Lieut. Conder remarks that it is “on one of the main lines through the country from Jerusalem to Nazareth. It has been suggested that our Lord’s journey through Samaria was with the object of visiting the Baptist, and, were such the case, he ‘needs must’ pass by Shechem in order to arrive at the springs of Wady Far‘ah ”—the springs in question. An objection to this identification is the distance (about seven miles) from Salim to the springs. Dr Mommert, in a recent work, thinks the locality was on the east of Jordan ; but Schiirer finds his arguments unconvincing. (Aenon und Bethania, die Taufstdtten des Téiufers, 1903. Reviewed by : 24 370 KNOWLEDGE OF TOPOGRAPHY Aenon intended or not, the Semitic name is an evidence of local knowledge. And we must once more observe how casual is the allusion which places it on the west of the Jordan. There is no statement to this effect; it is simply that the speaker’s language is exactly adapted to the situation. No less interesting are the allusions to places in Jerusalem, I have already given instances of the writer's knowledge of the temple, and this is hardly made more impressive by the mention of Solomon’s porch!; for this might possibly have been suggested by Acts 111. 11. Yet even here there is an instructive little difference between the two writers. The author of Acts, as though referring to something not familiarly known, speaks of “the porch which is called Solomon’s”; the evangelist, as though reviving an ancient habit, simply gives the name to which he had been accustomed, “Solomon’s porch.” More remarkable is the allusion to the time in which the temple was built.2. The Jews are repre- sented as saying that the ναός was built in forty-six years, This is such a casual statement that we cannot suppose it to have been introduced in order to display the writer’s archzo- logical knowledge. The fact cannot have been learned from Josephus, for Josephus expressly says that the vads was built in a year and six months.* Here, then, there is at first sight a complete departure from historical accuracy. The connected Schiirer in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, May 9, 1903.) Furrer selects the springs of ’Ain-Fara, about two hours distant from Jerusalem, the ravine higher up being called Wadi Selém (“Das Geographische im Evan. nach Johan.,” in Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, p. 258). Dr Cheyne conjectures that for rod Σαλήμ we should read Ἱερουσαλήμ, and identify Aenon with ‘Ain Karim (Encycl. Bib., Salim). Bretschneider thought there was no such place, and that the writer, through ignorance, mistook hnyv, fontes, in the book which he used, for the name of a city (pp. 96 sqq.). . But it is very unlikely that a Greek author could have read an Aramaic book at all. . 3, σ᾿ 28. 3 ii, 20. 3 Ant., XV. xi. 6. I do not remember seeing any notice of this. BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE a7,1 works, however, were not completed till the reign of Nero.! The total time, therefore, occupied in the rebuilding was far more than forty-six years; so that the time mentioned in the Gospel does not correspond with a well-known fact, but can be found only by reckoning the number of years which elapsed from the beginning of the work till the moment when the words are said to have been spoken. But this period is not very easily ascertained. Josephus tells us that the work was begun in the eighteenth year of the reign of Herod? Now Herod received the title of king from the Romans in B.c. 402 This date is too early, and would give a longer period than is mentioned in the Gospel. We find, however, that Herod did not become king de facto till the year 37 B.c.,* and we thus reach the year 20-19 B.c. for the beginning of the building. The addition of forty-six years brings us to 27 or 28 A.D. This corresponds closely with the chronology of Luke; and, though there is some uncertainty about a year or two, yet, as Lightfoot remarks, “after all allowance made for this margin of uncertainty, the coincidence is sufficiently striking.”® It is most unlikely that a Greek teased himself with this troublesome investigation, and then allowed his antiquarian knowledge to slip out in such a way that no one would take any notice of it; and the statement is most easily explained by ascribing it to the writer's recollection. The use of vads can hardly create a difficulty, for it takes up the word used by Jesus, and might be loosely applied to the temple with all its connected ornaments and buildings, without which the sanctuary itself might hardly seem to be complete. Elsewhere the writer invariably uses ἱερόν. 1 Ant., XX. ix. 7, τότε καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐτετέλεστο. 2 Ant., XV. Xi. I. 3 Josephus, Ant., XIV. Xiv. 4. 4 Ant., XIV. XV. 14, XVi. 2. 5 Articles, p. 91. 372 KNOWLEDGE OF TOPOGRAPHY There are some other local touches which are not likely to have proceeded from a Greek. We are told that “there is in Jerusalem, at the sheep-gate, a pool,t which is called in Hebrew Bethzatha.”2 I follow here the reading of Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, instead of the usual Bethesda.? No other Jewish writer mentions this pool, and there is some uncertainty about the meaning of ἐπὶ τῇ προβατικῇ. There was a gate known by this name, which is mentioned in Nehemiah iii. 1, 32, xii. 39; but there πύλη is always expressed, and no instance is cited of the omission of this word. This pool, however, notwithstanding some uncertainty as to its situation,t cannot have been invented by a Greek ; for, whichever reading be correct, the name can be explained from Aramaic. Bethesda represents sipnnv3, the house of mercy, or, perhaps, as Brose suggests, Nqws ma, “locus effusionis ” ;° Bethzatha, xn na, the house of the olive. Now, a Greek, writing long after the destruction of Jerusalem, was not likely to know anything about this pool; and if he invented it, and obtained an Aramaic name for it from some friendly — Jew, he would most probably have told us what the name meant. But all is as we should expect, if the writer simply speaks from his own recollection. The Pool of Siloam is well known, and we cannot lay much stress on the mere fact that it is referred to.® But 1 Or rather “a swimming-bath,” κολυμβήθρα. a ee 3 See a note on the reading by Nestle in the Zeitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, pp. 171 sq. * A pool, which seems best to correspond with the description, was discovered by Herr K. Schick ; and a full account of it is given in the “Quarterly Statement” of the Palestine Exploration Fund for 1888, pp. 115 sqg. Some further particulars are given in 1800, pp. 18 sqq. ® See two articles by Brose on “ Der Teich Bethesda” in the Theolog. Stud. und Krit., 1902, pp. 133 844. ; and 1903, pp. 153 sqg. He thinks the troubling of the water was caused by the discharge, through a canal, from one of the receptacles in the temple containing the blood from the sacrifices. SENG. SILOAM, AND GABBATHA 373 the author tells us that it means “sent,” whether he regarded it as typical of Christ, the “Sent” of God, or because he was struck with the sending of the blind man to it, or simply referring to the intermittent sending forth of the water. Now this interpretation could not easily be derived from the Greek form of the word. The original is mby applied to the sending or outflow of the water. This is transliterated into Σιλωάμ by the LXX. in Isaiah viii. 6. The writer, therefore, accepts the current Greek form, but, without giving any explanation to his readers, falls back on a Semitic word, which, to all appearance, he must have derived either from his actual knowledge of the place or from his familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures; and then he gives it an inter- pretation which, though probably not the one from which the pool really received its name, is nevertheless gram- matically admissible.* , That the Pretorium and Golgotha are mentioned is not surprising, as we hear of them in the other Gospels; but John alone informs us? that Pilate’s tribunal was in a place called “pavement,” or in Hebrew Gabbatha. The use of a pavement or mosaic for the tribunal is in agreement with Roman custom ; but what deserves particular notice here is that the popular name did not correspond with that used by the Romans. The writer does not say that the place was named Gabbatha, which is by interpretation Pavement, but rather implies, I think, that the two names had different meanings, although he does not translate the Aramaic word. The latter, whatever be its precise derivation, seems undoubtedly to have been given to the place from its elevated or open 1 “Sent” would be properly my, but the other form is said to be admissible as a strengthened participle kal, with a passive meaning, or a form of the participle piel. Liicke is inclined to believe, on other grounds, that the clause is an early gloss. ie se am ee 374 KNOWLEDGE OF TOPOGRAPHY position! What Greek of the second century was likely either to know this or to invent it? In regard to the whole argument founded on the topo- graphical knowledge of the writer, I think we must say that it is confirmatory of the traditional view. A Greek native of Palestine, or one who had travelled or lived some time there, might, no doubt, have a considerable knowledge of the country. But I do not think the latter would present his knowledge in such an incidental way. He would feel the need of giving some fuller description of places which had interested him, and he would not be content with casual local touches, which are perfectly correct, but quite inadequate for the uninstructed reader. Nor would he allow his little items of Aramaic knowledge to slip so artlessly from his pen. This last difficulty would apply also to a Greek native of Palestine, though such a one might have picked up some scanty acquaint- ance with the popular dialect. It is not, of course, impossible that a Greek may have collected the necessary information; but there is nothing in this part of our subject to suggest — Greek authorship, and the facts fit most easily into the old belief that the work was written by a Jew who was familiar with Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem. 1 See the commentaries, and Keim, Gesch. Jesu, 111. p. 365, note 2. According to Dalman, the original word, x7n33, properly denoted baldness on the front part of the head, and was a suitable designation of the open space before the tower of Antonia, which served as a place of justice. Die Worte Jesu, i. 1898, p. 6. CHAPTER III ALLEGED SIGNS THAT THE WRITER WAS AN EYE-WITNESS THE argument is pushed a step farther when it is maintained that the Gospel contains various indications that the writer was an eye-witness of the events which he records. For instance, he specifies particular days, for no apparent reason. except that he remembered them,’ and sometimes even mentions the hour.2 He often names the disciple who was the speaker, even when the remark is not of great conse- quence; Philip? Andrew,‘ Thomas,’ Judas not Iscariot. He tells us that Malchus was the name of the servant whose ear Peter cut off’—a fact of no importance, but one likely to be mentioned if the writer really knew the high-priest,? and related the occurrences from memory. I have already referred to his knowledge of various places, and have only to remark here that he connects various incidents with them, frequently for no discoverable reason beyond the fact itself? We must add to these particular examples the graphic character of the work throughout. Take especially as instances of this the scene with the woman of Samaria, the healing of 345:20, 35, 49) Heads 2 i. 39, iv. 6, 52. oWwie' 2aav. δ 4 vi. 8. 5 xi. 16, xiv. 5, as well as the more important occasion, xx. 25, 28. πος ἵν 23. 7 xviii. Io, 8 xviii. 15. 9 See Salmon, Introd., pp. 325 844. ; Weizsiicker, Untersuch., pp. 253 866.» 262 sqq. 375 376 THE AUTHOR ΑΝ EYE-WITNESS the blind man, the raising of Lazarus. What perfect pictures these form, harmonious in every part, and presenting in detail a variety of character in entire consistency with the alleged circumstances. The Gospel is sometimes spoken of as though it were a monotonous unfolding of the Logos doctrine, and brought before us a number of shadowy puppets, marked by no distinguishing features. I cannot but think that this view is partly owing to the prepossessions of critical dog- matism, but partly also to the identity of style and tone which, wherever you may open the book, at once betrays the author. The simplicity is not the simplicity of Genesis or Homer, in which we forget all but the persons and events that are brought before us; the dramatic power is not that of Shakespeare, in which the author is hidden behind his own creations. On the contrary, everything seems more or less transfused with the individuality of the writer; and I think this fact sometimes causes us to overlook the wonderful variety of character that passes before us, and the graphic nature of some of the descriptions, which imprints the scenes for ever more on the imagination. To the above argument, however, I am unable to attach the weight which is given to it by many writers. It is valuable as pointing out the consistency of the book with the external evidence; but as an independent proof of authorship, I doubt whether it can be relied upon. The introduction of names and details is quite in accordance with the usage of apocryphal composition. In the story about the wonderful vine in the millennium we are told that Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked how such productions would be effected! Elsewhere it is said that “Salome asked, how long shall death have power.”2 Clement of Alexandria 1 Trenzeus, V. xxxiii. 3. 2 Clem. Al., Strom., iii. 6 and 9, pp. 532 and 539 sq. APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE 377 informs us that the saying, “Let the dead bury their dead, but follow thou me,” was addressed to Philip In the Prot- evangelium of James we are introduced to Joachim and Anna, the parents of the Virgin Mary, to the high-priest Reuben, and to Anna’s servant Judith? and an anecdote is told about Salome.? In the Acts of Pilate the woman with the issue of blood appears under the name of Bernice‘; the two thieves, who were crucified with Jesus, are called Dysmas and Gestas®; and Phineas a priest, Adas a teacher, and Angzus a Levite, are represented as having heard Jesus speaking to his disciples after the resurrection.6 From the History of Joseph the Carpenter we learn the names of Joseph’s two daughters, Assia and Lydia.” The exact date of Joseph’s death is fixed, the 26th of the month Abib®; and the account of the old man’s closing hours, which is put into the mouth of Jesus himself, is related with a graphic detail which might be thought to betray the hand of an eye-witness, if anyone cared to maintain such an absurd thesis. The narrative, too, of Christ’s descent into Hades and victory over it, in the second part of the Acts of Pilate, possesses a picturesque vividness which is certainly not founded on any credible tradition. The Fourth Gospel and these apocryphal productions belong, of course, to wholly different orders ° of literature, and I am not comparing them except in the one point of their being so circumstantial and graphic in their descriptions. Indeed, the craving for this is the parent of apocryphal literature. We naturally wish to make clear and sharp to the imagination what history has left in dim and vague outlines; and even modern and critical lives of Christ 1 Strom., iii. 4, p. 522. 2 §§ 1 and 2. 3 §§ το and 20. 4 Or Veronica. In the Greek, Form A, § 7. 5 ite? 9. 7 §2. The book belongs, perhaps, to the fifth or sixth century. 8 §§ 15 and 29. 378 THE AUTHOR AN EYE-WITNESS are by no means free from conjectural details, which give warmth and colour to their representations. The discerning reader takes these at their true value, and, having some imagination of his own, is perhaps as much offended as helped by their insertion. But many find them necessary in order that the ancient scenes may assume reality and life within their thought; and they soon confound together as equally true the pictorial embellishments and the historical nucleus around which they are grouped. I see no reason to suppose that the apocryphal Gospels were meant to deceive any more than Milton’s Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. The difference between a poor and a grand imagination, between pedestrian prose and ethereal flights of poetry, does ; not seriously affect the motive of composition; and it is not inconceivable that some prose-writing Milton might compose a Gospel intended to exhibit, through scenes partly historical, partly bodied forth by the imagination, the profoundest meaning of Christ's message to the world, and that in the course of time more sluggish and less aspiring minds would confound together the symbol and the fact, and mistake for things of | earth what was to be spiritually understood. These con- siderations certainly shake my faith in the argument founded on the supposed marks of an eye-witness; for amplitude of detail is not characteristic of an eye-witness, nor, if it be drawn from the writer’s imagination, is it necessarily an evidence of fraud.1 There is another reflection also which throws doubt upon this argument. It is sometimes said that to produce an 1 We may add that details, such as an eye-witness might give, may be handed down by tradition. In illustration of this the Rev. J. A. Cross points out the greater detail in the Synoptics, in the accounts of the feeding of the five thousand, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and the occurrences in Gethsemane. (See an article in the Ezpositor, 4th Series, vi., 1892, pp. 127 844.) THE WORK UNIQUE 379 antrue narrative possessing such verisimilitude as the Gospel would have been quite beyond the capacity of any writer of the second century: such an author would be without example; such a work would be a literary miracle. In making this allegation people seem to forget that the book is in any case unique. Whether it be true history, or the offspring of spiritual imagination, or a mixture of both, no ‘one, so far as we know, could have written it in the second or any other century, except the man who did write it; and to assert that an unexampled, unknown, and unmeasured literary genius could not have done this or that appears to me extremely hazardous. In this connection we cannot forget that the author’s fullest graphic power is displayed in narratives, such as that of the raising of Lazarus, which are most exposed to objection on purely critical grounds, or, like the conversation with the woman of Samaria, at which John was not present. CHAPTER IV CONCLUDING ARGUMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS ONE or two other detached arguments must be noticed before we leave this portion of our subject. Attention has been called to the fact that our author refers to the Baptist simply as John, without the addition of 6 βαπτιστής or ὁ βαπτίζων; and it is suggested that he does so because his own name was John, and he was the only man with whom the Baptist was likely to be confounded. This argument does not strike me as possessing much force. Neither Mark nor Luke intro- duces the distinctive epithet, when John is first named, and neither writer ever appends it except through the reported words of another. If it be said that at all events a writer of the second century would have used the familiar designation, I may observe that Justin Martyr names John several times; but, when he first introduces him, he does not describe him as the Baptist, and, unless I have overlooked some passage, he only once calls him so except when he is expressly quot- ing from the Gospels. Indeed, he omits it even when he is alluding to, though not quoting, passages in the Gospels where it occurs. I am afraid, therefore, that this argument, which at first sight has an enticing look, must be dismissed. I may allude here to a suggestion of Weizsicker’s, that so : : much stress is laid upon the testimony of the Baptist because : there were disciples of his still left in Ephesus, who may 380 2 ἡ DEPARTURE FROM TRADITION 381 have been involved in the controversy against the Christian faith! This is interesting, but hardly amounts to an argu- ment. ; The Gospel, as we have seen, departs widely from the synoptical tradition ; and it is contended that no writer of the middle of the second century would have ventured on such a deviation, or, if he had ventured on it, could have hoped to procure acceptance for his book. If we are obliged to suppose that the Gospel was from the first intended to be taken as literal history, I think there is great force in this argument. Many differences from the synoptics lie upon the surface, and were perceived and felt to be difficulties at an early period. Before the date of Justin's apologetic writings we know that certain Gospels were established in ecclesi- astical use as the authentic records of the life and teaching of Christ, and that these (even if they were not our present Gospels) were on the whole conformed to the synoptical account. A new Gospel which obviously departed from this account, and even seemed to contradict it in important points, would have been sure to excite suspicion and opposition ; and consequently a writer who wished to procure acceptance for new incidents and new theological thoughts would have tried to fit them into the framework of the older history. This : argument diminishes in force in proportion as we recede towards the first century, and approach the time when there ‘was still a living tradition, and the synoptics were less _ exclusively in occupation of the field. I cannot but think, however, that the effect of this consideration is lessened if we once admit that the writer consciously imported an ideal element into his work, and that at the time of its publication it was accepted as less strictly historical than the older ~ narratives, as a spiritual interpretation rather than a literal 1 Das Apost. Zert., Ῥ. 549. 382 CONCLUDING ARGUMENTS record of Christ’s life. But even on this supposition I think that a writer who was utterly unknown and without public influence (for this must be part of the hypothesis) would have anticipated the attacks of a much larger party of Alogi than actually arose, and would not have encumbered himself with needless difficulty by forsaking the accepted ecclesiastical lines. This argument, therefore, certainly appears to possess some force in vindicating the early date of the Gospel. It has no direct bearing on the authorship except to this extent, that those who regard the Gospel as strictly historical — maintain very justly that only one who personally knew the facts would have ventured to remodel the current ; tradition. This will. have less weight in proportion as we are obliged to admit the presence of onbistorioall elements. Finally, it is urged that the total absence of allusion to the ' great controversies of the second century is conclusive proof of i the early date of the Gospel. It is admitted on all hands that — the work has a theological purpose. It is maintained by those who deny the Johannine authorship that it is, to say the least, — deeply coloured by the thoughts of the writer; and certainly — in his Proem he has free scope for exposing the errors of his day. How is it, then, that he moves serenely upon his own heights, and takes no notice of the strife that raged beneath — him, and threatened to rend the Church into fragments ? ‘The . distinguishing features of the second century are the rise and — growth of the great Gnostic systems, the appearance of Montanism, and the Paschal controversy; and we must re- — member that the two last particularly concerned Asia Minor, © -. ome where the Gospel is said to have been written, and the first not only sought a home in various parts of the empire, but — — especially affected Alexandria, to which some would transfer — — our evangelist. I think we may safely affirm that, if we Ἄν. NO ALLUSION TO LATE CONTROVERSIES 383 except Docetism, which is said to have been a very early form of heresy, no one could suspect, from reading the Gospel and First Epistle of John, that such controversies ever existed, and that there is not a single passage which receives a clear and unquestioned illumination from our knowledge of them. It is true that allusions have been discovered to these exciting themes. But can anyone seriously believe that the very obscure transference of the last supper to the evening of the 13th of Nisan was really intended to influence the Quartodeciman controversy ? Where is the sign of polemical intent? Would not a writer with such a purpose have made it perfectly clear that he really did transfer the day, instead of leaving it to be inferred from passages not directly connected with the subject, and would he not have pointed out in some way the bear- ing of his altered history on the point in dispute? So, again, the passages about the Holy Spirit might be used by the Montanists, but who could infer the existence of Montanism from the passages? If the controversy had already begun, would there not be something to indicate that there were conflicting views, something to favour or to rebuke the Phrygian extravagance? And once more, the presence of Gnostic terms only renders more impressive the utter silence about Gnostic systems, and points to a time when the latter had not yet arisen. If the Gospel occupied the place which is traditionally assigned to it, then naturally the Gnostics borrowed some of its phraseology, and the faint resemblances that exist are fully explained ; but it is not likely that, if the conflict had begun, the writer would appropriate Gnostic terms without a word of explanation, and without a line of rebuke for those who used them in the propagation of error. In all these questions the evangelist transports us to an earlier period with an unstudied ease and completeness which, I think, cannot be adequately explained by his desire to preserve 384 CONCLUDING ARGUMENTS historical verisimilitude. It is true we are dealing with a unique writer, to whom the ordinary laws of evidence are not — always applicable ; but in this connection we may remark on ~ the eagerness with which he attacks what he regards as error, and his unsparing condemnation of unbelief. His was not the temperament to leave without reproof doctrines which he thought were desolating the Church. In the | Epistle, moreover, the plea of historical verisimilitude is not applicable; and there he attacks vigorously certain errors (probably Docetic), but gives not a hint of the — controversies which troubled Justin Martyr and Irenzus. Surely the reasonable inference is that they had not yet — arisen. Thus, then, in surveying the internal structure of the — Gospel we meet with a great number of facts which are such — as we should expect if the traditional account of the author- 7 ship be true. Some of these are not, indeed, inconsistent with a different hypothesis, and, if we possessed no external evidence, might leave us in doubt how we ought to interpret them, but, taken in combination with the existing testimony, they support it by their easy correspondence with it. There — are other particulars, however, which afford distinct and independent confirmation of the traditional view, or of certain parts of it, and seem quite to preclude the supposition of a — late Greek authorship. When we unite the two bodies of — evidence, and remember the cumulative character of each, it seems to me that we have an amount of proof of the Johannine authorship which ought to command our assent, unless very strong evidence can be produced upon the other | side. When men, instead of endeavouring cautiously to appraise the arguments on the conservative side, simply kick — them over as worth nothing, I think they have abandoned — their function as critics, and come into court as advocates — OBJECTIONS TO BE TESTED 385 furnished with a brief. I will try not to imitate them in testing the force of objections, and, even when I think these are without weight, I will at least treat them as suitable for examination, and exhibit the grounds of my judgment. We must now proceed to these, the final branch of our inquiry. 25 SECTION III OBJECTIONS TO THE TRADITIONAL VIEW CHAPTER I PASSAGES ABOUT THE EYE-WITNESS In considering the objections which are urged against the traditional view, we may examine first the few passages In — which the existence of an eye-witness is alluded to. Dr Salmon confidently cites these as a claim made by the author himself — “to have been an eye-witness of our Saviour’s life.”1 The © passages are John 1. 14, xix. 35, xxl. 24,and 1 Johni. 1. We have already referred to John xxi. 24, and I expressed my , own opinion that it is a testimony of considerable weight. Dr Martineau, however, takes it as a proof that the alleged author was already dead, and, if I correctly understand his argument, that it was therefore a deliberate falsehood.2 But there are such things as posthumous works; and if an editor says that a work is by Thomas Carlyle, though Carlyle may have been some years in his grave, this can hardly prove that the work is not by Carlyle, and that the assumed editor is playing a trick. In this connection it is urged that the 1 A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, ὦ 386 é . ἢ ἦ Ν δ 1885, p. 325. 2 Seat of Authority, p. 208 sq. eS a ἡ —— Ε, THE LAST CHAPTER 387 allusion to the failure of a supposed prophecy that the disciple should not die (xxi. 23) proves that he must have been already dead. I am not satisfied that this argument is conclusive ; for it is surely conceivable that the aged disciple, feeling death stealing upon him, might point out that no words of Jesus justified the expectation which had arisen among some of his devoted friends. Moreover, so false an editor would most probably have made the matter a little plainer, and have altered completely the supposed form of prediction ; for it is not at all evident what is meant by the disciple’s abiding till the coming of Jesus, and nevertheless dying. Had Jesus come already? We are not told, but are left to gather the explanation from previous passages which have no direct bearing on the subject. If, nevertheless, we admit that the disciple was dead, this might only prove that the appendix, notwithstanding its similarity of style, was not from the same hand as the rest of the Gospel—a view which has been sometimes taken quite independently of the present question. The former supposition appears to me the more plausible ; for I think even an immediate disciple of John’s, writing in all good faith after his master’s death, would have made his meaning clearer. At all events, it seems wholly improbable that anyone should think it necessary to remove the surprise at the death of the Apostle “whole decades” (as Dr Martineau suggests) after that event had taken place’; and surely, if he had gone out of his way to remove a surprise which must have disappeared of itself long before, he would at least have told his readers whom he referred to. Later legend had a different way of dealing with the question, and said that the body of the saint was only slumbering in 1 This is admitted by Weizsicker, who thinks the passage proves that the Apostle was dead, but that he had died not long before. Das apost. Zert., Ῥ. 533 84.γ) 536 8. 388 PASSAGES ABOUT THE EYE-WITNESS its Ephesian tomb, as was shown by the motion of the dust above it." In considering the internal evidence I did not refer to i. 14, or to 1 John i. 1, because I think the interpretation of them is doubtful. If we are already convinced that the Gospel and Epistle are from the pen of the Apostle, then we naturally understand these passages as referring to his own experience, and regard them as confirmatory of our previous opinion. But as their statements are expressed in the plural number, they seem to include others besides the writer, and might, perhaps, only indicate the historical fact that the Word or the Life had become an object of sight and touch. In this case “we” would denote Christians in their corporate unity, and ascribe to the general body what was the actual experience only of the first disciples, the emphasis not being on the ~ persons, but on the act of seeing. This explanation does ποῦ interfere with the correct reference of ἐθεασάμεθα to eyesight, — and not to mental vision. Nevertheless, the contrast between “we” and “you” in 1 John i. 3 seems to give a limited range — to the former, and, on the whole, the interpretation which includes the writer among eye-witnesses appears to be the © easiest, though I cannot feel sufficient confidence in it to use — it as an argument. The remaining passage, xix. 35, has been used as an argument against the Johannine authorship, and Dr Martineau 1 See Westcott’s note on the passage. Others thought he had been translated like Enoch and Elijah. The authorities are cited in Liicke, i. p. 40. Weiss, following the opinion of many critics on both sides of the larger controversy, thinks that the chapter is not genuine, but was added to the Gospel after the death of the evangelist (Hinleit., p. 601, Anm. 3, } where references are given). See also the arguments in Liicke, who thinks — the chapter was added by a later hand (ii. pp. 825 sqq.), and in the article — by Kloépper already cited. Harnack thinks the section presupposes the death of the disciple whom Jesus loved, but that nevertheless it must be — ascribed to the same author as the rest of the book (Chron., i. p. 676). THE WITNESS OF THE CRUCIFIXION 389 puts it forward as if it were quite unanswerable, and had never been weighed by any competent judges, and deemed by them wanting! Having related the piercing of the side of Jesus, and the flowing forth of blood and water, the writer adds, “and he that has seen has borne witness, and his testimony is genuine (ἀληθινή), and he (kaxeivos) knows that he says true, that ye may believe.” Dr Martineau comments as follows :— “These are words that can inform the reader only of a third person’s testimony. And though the following clause, ‘and he .... knoweth that he saith true,’ has been supposed, as a declaration of consciousness, to be predicable only of the writer himself, the inference is barred by the demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος, which no speaker can use of himself. It is as if the author said, ‘ And that is a man who does not speak at random, but only when sure that his word is true.” In considering this argument, let us, in the first place, assume that it is unanswerable. Still the passage would not disprove the Johannine authorship; for there was no law forbidding John to appeal to the testimony of another. It is quite conceivable that, while he was attending to Mary, who had just been committed to his care, he did not see the piercing of the side, but was told of it afterwards by some one in whom he had entire confidence. In fact, the only ground for assuming that the witness was the beloved disciple rests on the prior sup- position that he is identical with the evangelist. This has been generally assumed; and the argument, which we must now consider, is that this assumption, which has somehow suggested itself so easily to multitudes of readers, is barred by the very form of the expression. I am not sure whether Dr Martineau means that a writer 1 Seat of Authority, pp. 209 sg. Harnack also relies upon this argument ; Chron., i. pp. 675 sq.; and more recently Klopper thinks it “impossible” that the writer could refer to himself (Zeit. f. wiss. Theol., 1899, p. 377). 390 PASSAGES ABOUT THE EYE-WITNESS could not speak of himself in the third person, or that, if he did, he could not refer to himself as ἐκεῖνος. The first point q may be sufficiently disposed of by the examples of Thucydides, Xenophon, Caesar, and Josephus. A plausible argument against the accepted authorship of the Memorabilia might be advanced upon this ground. The writer uses the first person again and again in the opening pages of his work, without telling us who he is; and then he suddenly relates a conver- sation which Socrates once had with “ Xenophon.” What can be plainer than that Xenophon, like Critobulus and Alcibiades, who are spoken of at the same time, was different from the writer? Yet no one doubts for this reason the genuineness of the Memorabilia. Now, it has been commonly assumed that the author of the Fourth Gospel does allude to himself, in this and other passages, in the third person, although he withholds his name. In this supposition, considered simply in itself, — there is no sort of improbability; whereas it is, I think, improbable that a writer who is so fond of supplying us with names would have failed to provide one for the beloved j disciple if he was looking back upon him, as he was upon Peter and Thomas, from the point of view of a distant historian. If, then, we admit that the writer may have referred to himself in the third person, why may he not have applied to himself the demonstrative ἐκεῖνος ἡ A man speaking of himself in the first person would undoubtedly avoid it; and if, in the course of his speech, he adopted for a moment the third person, still indicating himself, he would say “this” (ὅδε), and not “that.” But if an historian thinks proper to describe himself throughout in the third person, as if he were someone else, I cannot conceive why he should not call himself ἐκεῖνος on any occasion when he would naturally apply that word to another. In the verse before us, as Alex. Buttmann τ. ili. 8 sqq. THE WITNESS OF THE CRUCIFIXION 391 long ago pointed out, ἐκεῖνος simply resumes the previous αὐτοῦ, and is quite synonymous with it. There is a good example of this kind of resumption in v. 38 and 39. Instead of ἐκεῖνος we might have had ovros, and this, I think, is more usual in the classics, unless strong emphasis has to be expressed. The evangelist, however, for whatever reason, has a decided preference for the former pronoun. I find that he uses it by itself as a subject forty-seven times in the Gospel, and six times in the First Epistle, making a feature in his style which must strike the most casual reader. In the other historical books I notice only eleven similar instances.1 Nevertheless, it is not necessary to maintain, with Steitz, that our author’s usage is to be explained by his adoption of ἐκεῖνος as the translation of the Hebrew xin.2 Buttmann, although he has not observed the extent of the Johannine peculiarity, shows that, so far as mere grammar is concerned, the use of ἐκεῖνος is always conformed to Greek practice. He takes, however, the common-sense view which I have presented above, that, if a man speak of himself in the third person, he will employ the language which is applicable to the third person. We have a good example of this in ix. 37, where Jesus says to the man who had been blind, ὁ λαλῶν μετὰ σοῦ, ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν, Where ἐκεῖνος is in all probability the subject, resuming ὁ λαλῶν, and the speaker is undoubtedly referring to himself. Two instances 1 Matt. xv. 18; Mark xvi. 10, 11, 13, 20; Luke xi. 7, xvill. 14, xxii. 12 ; Acts v. 37, XV. II, xxi. 6. 2 See the article by Dr Georg Eduard Steitz, “Ueber den Gebrauch des Pronomen ἐκεῖνος im vierten Evangelium,” in Theol. Stud. wnd Krittk., 1859, Pp. 497-506. 3 See his “Besprechung” of the last-mentioned article in the next volume, pp. 505 sqg. Steitz bas a rejoinder in 1861, pp. 267-310; and Buttmann once more replies in the Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologte, 1862, pp. 204-216. Their different views do not affect our immediate question. 4 Meyer refers to 2 Cor. x. 18 to illustrate the construction. It is, however, possible to take ἐκεῖνος as a predicate. 392 | PASSAGES ABOUT THE EYE-WITNESS ~ i quoted from the classics by Steitz are decisive. In the . “. , . ΕΣ Anabasis! we read:—’Ezret δὲ Ξενοφῶν ἐτόλμησε, γυμνος ὧν, — ἀναστὰς σχίξζειν ξύλα, τάχα ἀναστάς τις καὶ ἄλλος, ἐκείνου ἀφελόμενος, ἔσχιζε. Again, in Aristophanes, Nubes? the second disciple asks, οἴμοι, τίς ἡμῶν πυρπολεῖ THY οἰκίαν; Strepsiades, referring to himself, answers, ἐκεῖνος, οὗπερ θοϊμάτιον εἰλήφατε. To show that literary usage, even in modern times, does not always conform to critics’ expectations I may be permitted to refer to Thackeray’s Esmond. The story is told as an autobiography, but the hero consistently uses the third person throughout. According to the rule he ought never to apply the pronoun “that” to himself. Never- theless, on one occasion he does so:—“In this report the Major-General was good enough to mention Captain Esmond’s name with particular favour; and that gentleman carried the despatch to head-quarters the next day.”* This example is the more telling, because it is, 1 believe, the only one through- out the work. So far, then, as the grammar is concerned, the 4 | 1 ραν, See verse in question is perfectly neutral in the controversy; but there are one or two more general considerations which ought not to be overlooked. If the author referred to himself, there is no difficulty in understanding the appeal. It is as though he said, the writer himself witnessed this event, and is quite certain of the correctness of his testimony. But if he was relying on the authority of a third person, we naturally wonder why we are not told who this person was. The man who knew the name of the high-priest’s servant might have found a name for this important witness; for the people whom he addresses, if they lived in the middle of the second century, would hardly have been induced to believe by such a vague allusion. | Again, the witness is represented as still living, and that in BV αν "1.5: 2 1497 sq. 3 Book 11. ch. xv. THE WITNESS OF THE CRUCIFIXION 393 such a way as not to suggest the subtlety of literary art. Aéye might refer to an author who was long deceased, but οἶδεν points to a living man; and therefore, unless we suppose that the appeal to the eye-witness is altogether a piece of literary fiction, it is inconsistent with the late date which has been assigned to the work. While, therefore, no argument against the traditional view can be derived from the structure of the passage, the general probabilities of the case seem to incline in its favour. We must observe further that if the eye-witness be the same as the disciple of xxi. 23, the earlier passage must have been written during his lifetime, and the later one must have been added after his death. It is, however, possible (though, I think, very improbable) that the witness was not the disciple; and if a person different from the author is really meant, it may simply follow, as has already been pointed out, that the Apostle himself is appealing to someone else. This is the view which I should be disposed to take if the argument founded on ἐκεῖνος appeared to me to be valid. The fact is, we have no ground for identifying either the witness or the beloved disciple with the Apostle John except the tradition which is declared to be worthless. Dr E. A. Abbott suggests that the writer may have intended ἐκεῖνος to mean Christ, of whom it is always used in the Epistle! This suggestion is not made in an apologetic interest, as Dr Abbott rejects the Johannine authorship; but if it be correct, it destroys the objection founded on the use of ἐκεῖνος. I think, however, that Kldépper’s objections to this suggestion are valid.” 1 Encycl. Btb., ii., 1809, note 3. 2 Zeit. f. wiss. Theol., 1899, p. 378. Blass thinks the whole of verse 35, and its position, are uncertain (see his article “ Uber Ev. Joh. 19, 35,” in the Theol. Studien wu. Krit., 1902, pp. 128-133). οι προ κε ΥΩ CHAPTER ἢ ALLEGED SIGNS THAT THE WORK IS BY A DISCIPLE OF THE APOSTLE WE must now consider some allusions which have been thought to betray the hand of a disciple of the Apostle rather than of the Apostle himself. “The disciple whom Jesus loved”! has been commonly supposed to be the evangelist himself. But, on the other hand, it is urged that this is rather the language of an admiring follower, and that we can hardly ascribe to the Apostle himself a claim which might seem a little presumptuous. In answer to this we might resort to the plea that, apart from the Gospel itself, the only means we have for estimating the self-assertiveness of the ν᾽ Se ee a ee ee ge ee Ω Apostle John is the request that he and his brother might δῦ on the right and on the left hand of Christ in his kingdom, so 4 that some little grain of vanity may have remained in the old — man as he looked back on his intimacy with one who was — greater than any philosopher or emperor. But surely the i words may have been the expression, not of vanity, but of j gratitude. Paul says, “T live in the faith of the Son of God, é who loved me and gave himself for me.”? This is the language of devotion and humility; and may not John have © felt that the deepest thing in his experience was the fact that ἢ Jesus had loved him, and treated him as an intimate friend, — i i Sil, 23, xix 26, xx. Ὁ, xxk 97, 20. 2 Gal. ii. 20. 394 a THE’ DISCIPLE WHOM JESUS LOVED 395 and that he was the one disciple who, above all others, would have been lost, not knowing what spirit he was of, unless that love had found and chosen him, and wrought in him a change great and marvellous? That he did not mean to limit this love to himself is plain from his own-account. He says that “Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus,”! that “having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end,’? and he alludes generally to the love which Jesus bore to his disciples.» We may add that a follower of John’s would not have been likely to use such vague language. Why should he have withheld the name of the man whom he wished to glorify ? And why should he have simply told us that Jesus loved him, instead of saying that he loved him particularly, and treated him as his most intimate friend? And why does he tell us so very little about him, and nothing except when he is involved in a narrative which has to be told about someone else? I do not think, therefore, that the passages, when fairly considered, point to a disciple of John’s as the author; and still less are such obscure allusions intelligible on the part of a later writer. It is, however, contended further that the supposed disciple of John manifests a desire to exalt his master above Peter. In xiii. 23 he makes him recline in the bosom of Jesus, while Peter has to beckon to him to ask who the traitor was. But, as Westcott points out, this incident, if we interpret it by the custom of reclining at meals, really shows that Peter occupied the first place after Jesus himself, and John the second. In xviii. 15 84. it is “the other disciple” who is known to the high-priest, while Peter has to wait to _be brought into the palace by him. In xx. 2 804. it is hard to PERS ἃ 2 Xi'f. 3 xill, 34, XV. 12. * See his note on the passage. δ THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE see where the alleged superiority comes in. Mary goes to © Peter first. Peter goes first into the tomb, while the other | disciple waits for the arrival of his bolder companion. The only inferiority attaching to Peter is that he cannot run so fast. So in xxi. 20-23, the only advantage enjoyed by the disciple is his longevity. Surely one who wished to exalt John might have invented something more striking than acquaintance with the high-priest, fast running, and long life, wherewith to dignify him; and these are not the kind of things to which the writer generally attaches most value.} On the other hand, it is pointed out that Jesus, the first time he meets Peter, confers upon him the name of Kephas?; that here, as in the synoptics, it is Peter who makes the great confession that Jesus was the Christ, “the holy one of God” ?; and that at the end Peter seems to be ordained the chief shepherd of the Christian flock.* Some other indications that the Gospel proceeded from John only through the mediation of a disciple are pressed by Weizsacker. He thinks that this hypothesis will explain the ascription to Jesus himself of the high claims which are made on behalf of his person and his work. These might have been put forward by the Apostle himself, and interwoven with the discourses of Jesus as an interpretation of their deeper meaning; and then the disciple might have confused the report with the exposition. This would explain the monotony of the speeches, and the presentation of Christ’s 1 See the last two arguments in favour of mediate authorship pressed by Weizsicker, Untersuch., Ὁ. 300; Apost. Zeit., p. 532 sg. Klépper dwells also on the rebukes administered to Peter in xiii. 6-10, 36-38, and xviii. 10 sq. and on the presence of the beloved disciple at the crucifixion — (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1899, p. 365, note 2). But the rebuke in Matthew Xvi. 23 is far more severe, and plain facts may account for something. ee 3 vi. 68 sq. 4 xxi. 15 sqq. See Weiss, Hinleit., p. 588, Anm. 3. Chrysostom says of John, πανταχοῦ τῶν πρωτείων τῷ Πέτρῳ παραχωρεῖ (Hom. in Matt., 65). HIGH CLAIMS OF JESUS 397 _ person, which, in spite of concrete features, bears the character _ of abstraction.t This argument will, of course, have no weight _ with those who regard the Gospel as strictly historical; but if we are obliged to adopt the view which was presented in the earlier part of this work, it would undoubtedly give an easy explanation of some obvious difficulties. But in human affairs the easiest explanation is not necessarily the true one, and, when it runs counter to the only testimony we possess, does not readily command our assent. It is not incredible that the Apostle himself may have mixed up report and exposition, and that the monotonous and abstract character which is complained of may be the result of a uniformity of impression which was due to his own idiosyncrasy. It is clear that we are dealing with an author of peculiar gifts and tendencies, and we cannot apply to him a mode of criticism which would be suitable enough to an average writer of the nineteenth century. Plato gives us a picture of Socrates founded, I presume, on genuine reminiscence, and with many a genuine touch of local and personal fact, and still presented through a series of ideal scenes; may not an Apostle have portrayed the Master of his heart’s devotion in colours drawn from half a century of vivid experience of his indwelling spirit, and blended together the actual and ideal in lines which are no longer separable ? If this be possible, it will serve as an answer also to the argument that the hypothesis of mediate authorship explains the mixture of the original and certain with the uncertain? But independently of this answer, I think the hypothesis is inadequate; for the Gospel is not composed of a series of graphic descriptions, bearing all the marks of autoptic testimony, blended with another series where we discern the vague outlines and shadowy amplifications of tradition, 1 Uniters., p. 298 sq. . 2 Unters., p. 299 sq: 208 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE but, as we have seen, the most questionable narratives stand — out with all the distinctness that an eye-witness could lend to them, so that no critical analysis can separate the genuine Johannine from the current popular tradition. Whatever un- historical elements you introduce into the Gospel, it bears the marks of the same personality throughout ; and therefore its phenomena are most easily explained by supposing that both the actual and the ideal proceeded from the same pictorial imagination, which conceived, with equal vividness, the remembered event and the allegorical setting of spiritual truth. Lastly, Weizsiicker urges that the relation to the synoptics is natural in a follower of the Apostle’s, but not in the Apostle himself! We have seen reason to believe that the evangelist was acquainted with the synoptical Gospels, certainly with the synoptical tradition.2 But we must be careful not to exaggerate the degree of dependence. It is by no means obvious. It has been disputed by able critics, and is now generally recognised only in consequence of a careful and minute examination. Now a primitive apostle could not avoid being acquainted with the primitive apostolical tradi- tion, which, indeed, he must himself have helped to form. This tradition must have been perfectly familiar many years before the Fourth Gospel was written, and why the Apostle John should not occasionally drop into the well-known words I cannot conceive. I see no evidence that the writer was obliged to depend on the synoptics for his language and materials; and the real difficulty is that he so persistently goes a way of his own, and has no scruple in setting the synoptics aside. This last feature is much less easily under- stood in the supposed disciple; and, indeed, it seems probable | that, if a disciple resorted to the synopties at all, instead of 1 Unters., p. 299 sq. 2 Pp. 15 sq. MEDIATE AUTHORSHIP IMPROBABLE 399 simply relying on his recollections of John’s teaching, his dependence would be much more ample and striking. This argument, therefore, seems more against than in favour of the hypothesis we are considering. Thus the suggestion of mediate authorship, though it is in my opinion incomparably more probable than the notion that the Gospel was written in the middle of the second century, and never had any connection with John, and though at first sight it promises a solution of serious difficulties, yet on closer examination appears to be unsatisfactory, and does not afford the required relief. On the other hand, the con- cealment of the name of John is hardly intelligible in a disciple. What could have been his motive? Would he not rather have made it at least as prominent as it is in the other Gospels? Mark does not conceal the name of Peter. The mention of Mark suggests another objection. The second Gospel was ascribed indirectly to Peter, and yet it bore the name of Mark; the third was ascribed in the same way to Paul, yet it bore the name of Luke. According to this analogy the Fourth Gospel, if it had been written by a disciple of John, would have passed under the name of that disciple, and would have been referred to John as its original source only in the records of tradition. A view akin to the foregoing is recommended by the authority of Wendt, who has worked out a theory of the composite origin of the Gospel with great care and minute- ness.'. He believes that the speeches, together with some little historical connection, are derived from a genuine Johannine document, and that the evangelist, who is not the Apostle, made use of this, and incorporated it in his own narrative. He carefully distinguishes this from an hypo- 1 Das Johannesevangelium. Hine Untersuchung seiner Entstehung und _ seines geschichtlichen Wertes, Gottingen, 1900. 400 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE thesis of interpolation, and fully admits the unity of © structure of the existing Gospel He compares the evan- — gelist’s work to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, in which earlier sources have been revised and inserted. This hypo- thesis helps to mediate between those who ‘accept and those who reject the Johannine authorship, and presents some attractive features; but as it would require a separate treatise to review it in detail, I must be content to state very briefly a few general reasons why it has hitherto failed ; to convince me. The grounds on which it rests are mainly two: first, the presence of primary and secondary elements in the narrative, which point to a combination of first-class authority with uncertain tradition; and secondly, breaks in the connection, and apparent dislocations, which betray the hand of a reviser. In regard to the first of these, it is surely conceivable that even an eye-witmess of most of the events which he records might, after the lapse of half a century, endeavour to refresh his memory through the recollections of other men, and that even where he did not do so he might remember some things with greater clearness and accuracy than others. In regard to the want of coherence, so far as it exists, we must suppose either that the original writer was deficient in the power of consecutive thought, or that the reviser stupidly broke up and misplaced what he found as a continuous discourse. Which view is the more probable must depend on the mental ; constitution of the two writers. Now Wendt recognises the — fact that the writer of the source was wanting im literary skill, and, in spite of the depth of his reflections, he had not | the art of presenting clearly to others the connection and progress of his thoughts* And although he explains the breaking up of discourses by the reviser, and the transference 1 P 204. ᾿ WENDT’S HYPOTHESIS 401 of different parts of the same address to different historical occasions, by the occurrence of some remark or some new question, which he mistook for a transition to a new speech delivered at a later time; nevertheless Wendt is compelled to resort to the hypothesis that the evangelist relied on his memory of the source, acquired by having read or heard 10. This is rather a strange supposition if the man had a written source to refer to; for the incorporation of a whole work in his own narrative has no resemblance to the quotation of a text or two of Scripture, which must have been very difficult to find in an ancient manuscript, and which one could easily remember with sufficient accuracy. But if we suppose that the editor relied on his memory, he would surely introduce something of his own characteristic style into his report, especially if, as Wendt says, he made the material his own and revised it3—an hypothesis which is necessary to explain the unity of the book. But confessedly he has not done so ; for the language is that of the First Epistle of John, which is by the author of the source And further, the style of the whole Gospel is the same, so that we have to assume that the reviser was such a perfect literary mimic that he was able to fling away his own style, and so to write as to be indistinguishable from another man. It does not seem probable that such a master of literary craft would introduce the puzzling dislocations which the hypothesis seeks to ex- ᾿ plain; and it is easier to believe that these are due to an original author, who had a very special mental constitution, and, in his rapt spiritual vision, had little care for the archi- tecture of logical thought. The grounds, then, on which the hypothesis rests are not very convincing. But there are also some considerations εν τὸ er. 2 Pp. 84 and 100. 3 P. 51. * See p. 159 “ἘΣ 402 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE which seem opposed to it. The first is the fact, already adverted to, that the source is in style and vocabulary in- — distinguishable from the rest of the Gospel. Even if the evangelist deliberately chose to adapt his style to that of the source, and possessed a sufficiently tenacious memory to retain the phraseology of the source as exactly as if he had it before him and copied it, it is hardly credible that in his own part he should never have betrayed the differ- ence of hand, or allowed any characteristic expression to escape him. There is only one word on which Wendt relies. The source represents Christ as always speaking of his ἔργα, while the evangelist uses the term σημεῖα. This difference is so minute that, if it really indicates a lower point of view as we pass from the source to the evangelist, it can only increase our wonder that the latter has not dis- closed his hand more frequently. But surely it is not imcon- ceivable that an Apostle might be aware that Jesus habitually referred to his “works,” while he himself looked upon these works as “signs.” This supposition is seen to have some force when we review the particular cases that come under consideration. It is evident that Jesus sometimes uses the word ἔργον in a much wider sense than “miracle.”! Now, there are sixteen instances in which Christ speaks of his works. In seven of these it appears to me that “signs” would not be appropriate? In eight others “works” is more suitable than “signs,” as the former word seems intended to convey a larger sense.? Only in one instance would σημεῖον be quite as appropriate as ἔργον Again, we must observe that the word σημεῖον is not altogether excluded from the speech of Jesus,’ and is frequently used by others than the 1 iv. 34, xvii. 4. 2 iv. 34, ix. 4, X. 37, 30, ai a) ee 3 v. 20, 36 twice, x. 25, 32 twice, xiv. 12, xv. 24. # i, 21: 5 iv. 48, vi. 26. WENDT’S HYPOTHESIS 403 narrator!; and, on the other hand, the word ἔργα is used by the brothers of Jesus.2, Thus, on the whole, the words are used in conformity with the sense which it is intended to convey. When the miraculous character of an event is indicated, σημεῖα is commonly used. When the divine excellence of Christ’s activity is the prominent thought, ἔργα is preferred. It is surely quite in keeping with his- torical probability, and with the picture in the synoptics, that Jesus himself should lay more stress on the faithfulness and beneficence than on the marvellousness of what he did, and that the disciple should see in the miracles the “signs” of the Messianic calling. Accordingly the sole indication of difference in phraseology to which Wendt is able to appeal turns out to be rather hollow; and this almost absolute lack of linguistic evidence makes the hypothesis exceedingly precarious. Secondly, there is no direct external evidence of the exist- ence of such a source, and it is not easy to believe that a genuine Johannine writing would have been allowed to dis- appear utterly in its separate form. Appeal is made to the similar fate of Matthew’s Logia. If we grant that Matthew’s Logia was really a collection of sayings, with some little historical explanation, still it would have occupied a very different place from the Johannine document. Not only was it in Aramaic, but it can have been little more than a collection of quite familiar sayings, which formed the staple of evangelical teaching, and therefore would not bear the personal stamp of the Apostle who thus acted the part of editor. But the supposed Johannine source lies outside of the general tradition, and, however it may have been founded on real recollections, has the indubitable mark of its author, and would have been cherished as an original 111.18, ili. 2, Vi. 30) Vil, 31; 1m) τὸ ΣΧ. 21, X1. 47. a vil. Θὲ 404 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE work, the last precious legacy of the first generation of disciples. This reasoning is confirmed by Wendt’s appeal — to Ignatius and Justin Martyr, who, he thinks, exhibit — acquaintance with the source, but not with the Gospel. If the source was so widely spread, and separately known at so late a date, the absence of all reference to it, and its total disappearance as a separate work, seem extremely improbable." For these reasons, then, I think we must continue for the — present to treat the Gospel as the work of a single author. | But a large part of our inquiry will remain unaffected, or, | in the opinion of some, will receive confirmation, if Wendt’s conclusions should be ultimately established.’ The foregoing considerations are largely applicable to the very 1 There are some good criticisms, going more into detail, by the Rev. R. W. Stewart, in the Expositor, Jan. and Feb, 1903, and by Dr Lock, in ~ the Journal of Theological Studies, Jan. 1903. 2 It ought not to be forgotten that a similar hypothesis was propounded by Chr. Hermann Weisse (Die evangelische Geschichte kritesch und phil- osophisch bearbeitet, 2 vols., 1838). He conjectures that there may have been a work like the λόγια of Matthew, containing speeches of Jesus, and — also of John the Baptist, which John treasured in his memory, and wrote down without any thought of publication. After the Apostle’s death his — adherents wished to make these notes, or Studien, as Weisse calls them, known to others ; and the editor’s only design was to present them in a form which seemed to him necessary to make them intelligible, and adapt them to the taste of his expected readers. He was not aware that the knowledge which he had of the events which he described was in the highest degree imperfect and uncertain. Weisse accounts for the difference of style from that of the speeches of Christ in the Synoptics by the supposition that John wrote for a doctrinal purpose. A connected system of doctrine shaped itself in his mind, suggested, but not immediately conveyed, by his Master’s teaching ; and he endeavoured to put together for his own private use what he remembered of that teaching as seen in the light of his system. Hence it is quite intelligible that his own thoughts were so largely interposed. “It is less a Christ-image than a Christ-notion awe John gives ; his Christ speaks not from his person, but about his person.” (See i. pp. 102 sqq., 11. pp. 184 sg.) This hype is brought under examination by Liicke, i. pp. 141 sqq. BACON’S HYPOTHESIS 405 careful statement of Professor B. W. Bacon His principal contribution to the subject lies in his appeal to Tatian, who, in his arrangement of the Fourth Gospel, anticipates some of the results of modern criticism. Professor Bacon believes that this surprising fact cannot be explained “by any assumed critical sagacity on the part of scribe or harmonist,” and that, therefore, extracanonical sources must have been employed. In order to assist the judgment of the reader, I subjoin Professor Bacon’s re-arrangement of the Gospel, and also Tatian’s :— “J. The ministry in co-operation with the Baptist. [i. 1-18], 19-51, [ii. 1-11], iii. 22-iv. 3 (442). IJ. The Galilean ministry. (iv. 46a %), 11. 12, iv. 460-54, vi. 1-71. III. The period of exile and Samaritan ministry; Jesus at the Feast of Pentecost. iv. 4-42 (431%), v. 1-47, vii. 15-24 (iv. 45 2). IV. The visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles. vii. 1-14, 25-30, iii. 1-21, vii. 31-36, 45-52, 37-44. V. The visit at the Feast of Dedication. x. 22-25, 7*, 8a, [85*], 10-18, 26-39, ix. 1-x. 5, 9*, 19-21, viii. 12-59, x. 40-42. VI. The period of retirement in Ephraim. xi. 1-57, xii. 20—36a, 1-19, 42-50, 360-41. VII. The final Passover. ii. 13*, 14-22, [23-25*], xiii. 1-15, [16], 17-19, [20], 21-35, xv. 1-xvi. 33, [xiii. 36-38], xiv. 1-31, xvii. 1—xviii. 13, 24, 14, 15, 19-23, 16-18, 250-40, xix. l-xx. 31 [xxi 1-25].” 5 Tatian’s rearrangement of the Fourth Gospel. i. 1-ii. 11, iii. 22-iv. 3a, iv. 46-54, ii, 230-25, vi. 10-71, iv. 4-45a, γ. 1-47, iv. 450, vii. 1-31, v. la, ii, 14-22, iii, 1-21, vii. 31-52, viii. 1 Tn an article on “ Tatian’s Re-arrangement of the Fourth Gospel,” in the American Journal of Theology, October 1900 ; and in An Introduction to the New Testament, 1900. 2 “The transpositions underscored with a straight line rest upon internal evidence only ; that underscored with a wavy line is supported by the Sinaitic Syriac. The rest, including all the major transpositions, are supported by Tatian.” “Passages apparently less primitive than the surrounding sections are enclosed in [ ]. * indicates a corrupted text.” 406 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE 12-xi. 57 (without a break), xii. 1-2, 9-11, 3a, 3b-8a, 16, 12-13, 17-36a, 42-50, 360-41, xiii. l-xix. 17, xix. 23-24, 19-22, 25-27, xix. 28-xxi. 24, xx. 210 (repeated), xxi. 25.1 Now it will be observed that Tatian presents the whole of the Gospel, with the exception of a few verses, of which the | substance is taken from the Synoptics. The natural inference surely is that he had the whole Gospel before him, and that the rearrangement is his own work. If the Gospel was at that time in the order in which he presents it, its existing order is quite inexplicable; and if, having the whole Gospel in its present order, he fell back upon extracanonical sources as more trustworthy, it is not easy to account for the total disappearance of these, for the lack of all allusion to them, and for the Church’s preference for a badly-arranged com- pilation. I think, however, that the Diatessaron bears witness throughout to the author’s mastery of his material. He has rearranged the other Gospels as well as the Fourth. The order in which Mark appears may serve as a basis for com- parison, and is as follows :— i, 1-39, ii, 1-iii. 19, iv. 21-25, iv. 85-v. 43, vi. 7-13, iii, 19-30, vi. 30-31, iii, 31-35, iv. 1-20, iv. 26-34, vi. 1-6, vi. 14-29, vi. 32-vii. 37, i. 40-45, viii. 1- χ, 52, xi. 15-18, xii. 41-44, xi. 12-14, ΧΙ, 19-xii. 37, xiv. 3-9, xi. 1-11, xii. 38-40, xiii. 1-13, xiv. 1-2, xill. 14-37, xiv. 10-54, xiv. 66-68, xiv. 55-65, xiv. 69-xvi. 20.? Mr J. H. Hill reckons here twenty displacements, while in Matthew there are twenty-one, and in Luke i-ix. 50 there are eight, in xx.-xxiv. there are six, and in the intermediate sections “there are so many that it has been found impossible to decide which parts are displaced and which are not.” In 1 The above only indicates the order. There are numerous breaks where synoptic material is inserted. 2 There are, of course, numerous breaks where other material is introduced. ἡ SUGGESTED TRANSPOSITIONS 407 John, on the other hand, the displacements are only ten! A striking example of the boldness of Tatian’s method is afforded by his account of the visit of Jesus to Nazareth, related in Luke iv. 16-30. He divides this into two visits. In the | first the people are friendly, and the account ends with the statement that all wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth. A good way further on the rest of the narrative is presented, interwoven with the brief record in Matthew and Mark. It seems clear that this violent change was made purely upon critical grounds. I am unable, therefore, to see that Tatian affords us any evidence of the existence of earlier and more authentic written sources under- lying our present Gospel. There can be no doubt that a changed order in the Fourth Gospel would remove from it some of the most serious his- torical difficulties; but if it should be finally proved that the present order is not that which was originally intended, I think it will be more reasonable to ascribe the change to some kind of accident than to the blundering of a compiler who displays an extraordinary literary genius. Chapter xxi. seems to show that the book underwent some kind of editing before it was given to the public, and it is conceivable that some of the author's sheets may have got displaced. This does not seem altogether improbable in the case of complete episodes, beginning, like chapters v. and vi., with μετὰ ταῦτα. 1 The Earliest Life of Christ ever compiled from the four Gospels, being the Diatessaron of Tatran, literally translated from the Arabic Version, by the Rey. J. Hamlyn Hill, B.D., 1894, pp. 30 sq. 2 Archdeacon J. P. Norris suggested many years ago that Chapters v. and vi. ought to be in an inverse order. He thought vi. and xxi. might both have been written after the completion of the first draft of the Gospel ; and if vi. was written on a separate parchment, it might have been inserted by very early copyists in the wrong place. He points out several items of similarity connecting Chapters vi. and xxi. He mentions that “Ludolphus de Saxonicé, whose Vita Christi was the 408 THE WORK BY A DISCIPLE On the whole, however, I am inclined to attribute the apparent displacements to the original writer, who cared more for the associations of thought than for the order of chronology, and who might refer back to what he had recently written without reflecting that the continuity of thought was sup- posed, historically, to be interrupted by change of time and scene. - f great text-book of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, seems to take it for granted (without assigning any reason) that the sixth chapter of St John ought to precede the fifth.” See his article, “On the Chronology of St John v. and vi.,” in The Journal of Philology, vol. iii., 1871, pp. 107 sqq. Further references to the literature of the subject may be seen in an article by H. Holtzmann on “Unordnungen und Umordnungen im vierten Evangelium,” in the Zeit. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, pp. 50 844. ἊἝἜ x 7 ΐ } CHAPTER III ALLEGED ANTI-JUDAIC CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL AND GREEK PHILOSOPHICAL TRAINING OF THE AUTHOR IN this chapter we have to consider the two arguments which, ‘in Schiirer’s opinion, remain with unimpaired force.! It is said, in the first place, that the character of the Gospel is inconsistent with the character of the Apostle. We may review this objection under the two heads of John’s general character, and of his Judaic position. James and John received from Jesus the surname of Boanerges, the sons of thunder, and this seems to imply a certain vehemence of disposition. It was they who wished to 6811 down fire from heaven on an inhospitable Samaritan village. It was they who, with the assistance of their mother, begged that they might sit on the right hand and on the left of Jesus in his kingdom.* It was John who told how they had forbidden a man to cast out demons in the name of Jesus, because he followed not with them.> Then there is the well- known anecdote how John, hearing that Cerinthus was in the bath to which he had gone, rushed out lest the building should fall on him. Irenzus relates this story on the authority of some who heard it from Polycarp. This is not first-rate 1 Contemporary Review, Sept. 1891, p. 409 sq. 2 Mark iii. 17. 3 Luke ix. 54. * Matt. xx. 20 sqqg.; Mark x. 35 sqq. 5 Mark ix. 38; Luke ix. 49. 6 Tren., III. iil. 4. 409 ν 410 THE GOSPEL ANTI-JUDAIC evidence; but such tales are generally adapted, though ofte with exaggeration, to some familiar trait in the character ὁ the man about whom they are told. Are we to infer fro these accounts that the Apostle John was such a passionate ambitious, and intolerant man that he could not possibly hav written the Gospel? To answer this question we must tak a few other facts into account. John seems to have belonged,§ with his brother James and Peter, to an inner group amon the Twelve; and Jesus can hardly have selected him for thi peculiar intimacy unless he found in him something congenia to his own spirit. Further, John is by no means prominen in such records as we possess of the early years of the Church He is mentioned along with Peter in connection with th healing of the lame man.!’ He was sent with Peter intof Samaria after Philip had preached the Gospel there? But we are told nothing of his personal action, and it is clear that Peter was the leading spirit. Paul refers to him as one of the “Pillars” at Jerusalem*; but here again it is evident that Peter and James were the acting and influential men, and this impression is confirmed by the corresponding narrative in Acts, where the two latter are represented as determining | the vote of the assembly, while John is passed over in silence. All this seems to show that John was felt to have the weight | and capacity of a leader, but was holding his energies inj reserve, and perhaps allowing men of lower spiritual gifts to step before him. A quiet and thoughtful temperament is by no means inconsistent with a certain vehemence, when, on occasions, the pent-up fire flashes forth; indeed, the very violence of feeling may help to foster an habitual quietude, lest word or deed should betray too deep an emotion. Then it is surely not without significance that in the three narratives which are cited from the Gospels to prove the overbearing 1 Acts iii, and iv. 2 Acts vill. 14. 3 Gal. ii. 9. 4 JOHN’S CHARACTER 411 temper of John we are expressly told that Jesus corrected : him. Are we to suppose that these rebukes made no impres- ‘sion? Is it not more likely that they sank deep into his heart, and that the agony of beholding his Master’s crucifixion made them ineffaceable? Then, if not before, began that long development which changed the youthful son of thunder into the aged apostle of love. But now let us notice some corre- ‘sponding features in the Gospel. Nowhere else is the necessity for a profound and searching spiritual change so earnestly insisted on; nowhere else is Jesus more recognised as the inspirer of a new life, without which men are dead and fruitless. Was the writer speaking without experience, or was he conscious of a change that went down to the roots of his being, and made him a new man in Christ? This birth from above, however, does not obliterate, but only glorifies the natural disposition; and amid the tranquil flow of the Gospel the ancient vehemence flames out with hot denuncia- tion: “He that disobeys the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him”!; “ Ye are from your father the devil, and the desires of your father ye will do”?; “ But he said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the purse, and carried what was put in it.” On the score of general character, then, I am unable to recognise any inconsistency between what we know of the Apostle John and the author of the Fourth Gospel. The more special portion of this argument consists of the allegation that John belonged to the Judaic party in the Church, and that the Gospel is anti-Judaic. Of the opinions of the Apostle in the controversy between Paul and the Judaizers the only evidence which we possess is contained in the Epistle to the Galatians. The argument founded on the action of James, Kephas and John, as there described, is 1 iii. 36. 2 viii. 44. 3 xii. 6. “12 THE GOSPEL ANTLJUDAIC presented so fairly by Schiirer that I give it in his words: “When they saw that Paul had been intrusted with the Gospel of uncircumcision, and when they perceived the grace which was given to him, they joined hands in fraternal fellowship with him (ef. especially verses 7 and 9). They had therefore hitherto presupposed the observance of the law on the part of those who believed in Jesus, as something which went without saying. And they wished still to limit them- selves (Gal. 11. 9), in their own activity, to the circle of those who observed the law (to ‘the circumcision’). They acknow- ledged Paul’s work to be legitimate, but on their side they had no desire to take part in it.” .... Whether John “was more disposed to fraternise with the stricter James or was like the freer Peter we do not know. But even in the latter case it must be acknowledged that he still observed the law for himself. Peter even did not dare to emancipate himself from it. This holding fast to Jewish custom presupposes a high estimation of it which does not agree with the funda- mental thoughts of the Fourth Gospel. To the Evangelist the Jewish law has become something foreign.” ἢ This argument suggests several remarks. If the pillar Apostles, up to the time of Paul’s visit, had taken for granted that the law was to be observed by all Christians, their view of its relative importance must have been undergoing a momentous, though silent, change; for otherwise they could not, after an interview, have abandoned the Judaic position. On the hypothesis, the step which they took was as serious as it would be for a Roman Catholic to acknowledge the grace given to a Unitarian, and concede that all which separated them was non-essential. To give Paul the right hand of fellowship was to forsake the fundamental principle of Judaism, and to issue forth as freemen into a new era. This 1 Article, p. 409 sq. ; / JOHN’S PRINCIPLES 413 advance, which was practically boundless in its significance, being an open declaration that faith in Christ was sufficient, and that the observance of the law was unnecessary, was made even by “the stricter James.” I dwell upon this point because it is incomparably the most important in the narrative, and yet it is sometimes studiously ignored, and its far-reaching consequences are commonly overlooked. Here we have the conscious acceptance of a new principle; all further change into the highest spirituality of thought and practice was but development from this seed, which had been germinating in secret, and then first sprang into recog- nition. The absence of desire to take part in the work of preaching to the Gentiles may have been due to want of gift and train- ing as well as to personal disinclination. The Jews required the Gospel as well as the Gentiles. Paul himself recognises the legitimacy of the Gospel of circumcision, and there was no reason why the older Apostles should have forsaken the work in which they were already engaged. But it is also true that men require time before they can perceive the full results of a newly-acknowledged principle; and nothing could be more natural than continuance upon the old lines till thought and experience brought the need of a further change. The same consideration will explain why John, while fully conceding Paul’s principle, nevertheless did not himself abandon the observance of the law, if it be true that he did not abandon it. From the Pauline point of view it was a matter of perfect indifference whether he observed it or not: neither was circumcision anything nor uncircumcision. Accordingly, so long as he remained in Jerusalem, both prudence and custom would induce him to follow the old practices. His doing so might have implied his personal respect for the law, such as men are required to entertain for the law of the 4I4 THE GOSPEL ANTI-JUDAIC community in which they live, but would not have evinced a religious estimation of it so high as to be inconsistent with Paul’s doctrine. Nor can I see that it would be inconsistent with the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel. That Gospel represents Jesus as putting his own interpretation on the law of the Sabbath, just as the other Gospels do, but I know not ; on what ground it can be maintained that “to the Evangelist — : ἣ the Jewish law has become something foreign.” This is certainly not proved by the references to “your law” and “their law”+; for the object in these passages is not to : condemn the law, but to show that the one authority which / the Jews themselves recognised condemned them. Indeed, in ΠΝ one of the passages it is taken for granted that the words οὗ the law must be fulfilled? and in another it is assumed that “the Scripture cannot be broken.”* Undoubtedly the atti- tude towards the law is not that of a Pharisee or of a strict Jew; but we have seen that this was consciously left when - John gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul. From that moment he must have seen more and more clearly that the law was the Jews’ law, and not the Christian or universal law. , It is admitted, however, by Schiirer that John may have — gone with the freer Peter; but then he maintains that even Peter “did not care to emancipate himself from” the law. This statement is not, I think, borne out by the facts. Paul distinctly affirms that Peter was in the habit of living as a Gentile, ἐθνικῶς ζῇς, for this must be the meaning of the present tense, because at the precise moment when Peter was addressed he was living as a Jew. So marked was this © freedom of Peter’s that Paul treats his withdrawal from the Gentiles as an act of hypocrisy. A lapse which carried away —— ee ee ὸὺ σὰ ie + Wil. SO) oo WM. 19. E34 αν, 2k, ? XV. 25. aie ok, ΕΣ 4 Gal. ii. 14. ᾿ JOHN’S EXPERIENCES 41: ‘even Barnabas, and left Paul completely alone, must have been temporary; and at all events Paul’s express testimony remains that for a time, and until his personal fears were aroused, Peter agreed with him, not only in theory, but in practice. John, therefore, may have done so, and may never have been guilty of a timid departure from his principles. So far we have been reasoning as though it were alleged that the Gospel was written a week or two, and not forty years, after the council in Jerusalem. How much may John’s mind have ripened during those forty momentous years? Men do not necessarily lose their loyalty to their nation because the government commits a crime; but the crucifixion of his beloved teacher must have shaken John’s faith in the entire system of which that crime was the natural outcome. For a time he would persuade himself that it was due to some temporary delusion, and hope to win over his countrymen. Then persecution assailed his own house. His brother James was killed by Herod, and the Jews were pleased.1 These bitter experiences may have helped to ‘prepare his mind for the judgment which he gave at the council. After the council the rancour of the Jews continually increased, and all hope was gradually extinguished of winning them to the Christian cause. Paul had been rescued from destruction in Jerusalem only by the intervention of the Romans. The strict and blameless James had died a martyr’s death. The fiercest passions of a wild fanaticism had brought the Roman legions on the scene. Fire and sword had deso- lated the holy city and the Temple itself. The sacrificial system had come to a violent and ignominious end; and the Rabbis had been obliged to save Judaism from utter extinction by accepting a large part of the Christian protest, and admitting that spiritual sacrifices were sufficient. But still 1 Acts xii, I-3. 416 THE GOSPEL ANTI-JUDAIC their animosity was not stayed, and Christianity and Judaism drifted farther and farther apart. Would it be contrary to human nature if the Apostle, after such appalling experiences, came to speak of his countrymen as “the Jews,’* to look upon them as the embodiment of all that was opposed to the will of God, and to the progress of his kingdom, and to regard the law as being, however divine in its origin and scope, nevertheless the law of Moses, the law of a single people, and far beneath the universal grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ ? Critics write as though an apostle must be as wooden as a Dutch doll, impervious to the agonies of wounded affection, blind to the lessons of history, though traced in letters of blood, and with a soul tightly locked against the Spirit of God. For my part, I cannot believe that a Boanerges was so immovable and stupid. We may refer here to a remark of Dr Martineau’s. He says, “No Israelite, sharing the memory of the λαὸς θεοῦ, could, like the evangelist, place himself superciliously outside his compatriots, speak of their most sacred anniversaries as ‘feasts of the Jews,’ and reckon the Jews among the common ἔθνη of the world.”* This statement is unaccompanied by references. On the feelings with which the Apostle would be likely to regard his countrymen sufficient has already been 1 There is a thoughtful article by Dr. Belser on “ Der Ausdruck Ἰουδαῖοι im Johannesevangelium” in the Theologische Quartalschrift, 1902, pp. 168-222. The term is used sometimes to denote the Jews as a nation, in distinction from other nations. Sometimes it means Judzans, as distinguished from Galileans or Perzans. And often it refers to the leaders of the Jewish people, the representatives of unbelieving Judaism. And sometimes it is applied to inhabitants of Judza who believed in the Messiahship of Jesus. He compares this varying usage to a similar indefiniteness in the use of μαθηταί, and thinks that it is explicable only by the fact that the author was committing to writing what he had often said, in order to assist the memory of those who were familiar with his teaching, and thus confirms the genuineness of the Gospel. 2 Seat of Authority, p. 212. “FEASTS OF THE JEWS” 417 said, and I am not aware of any passage in which the author “places himself outside the Jewish race, in the sense of not : belonging to it by birth. It is the custom of historians to refer to their own countrymen by their historical name, instead of constantly describing them as “our people,” or by "some equivalent phrase. Even Paul, though not writing history, speaks of being beaten by “Jews”!; and why a Jew writing among Gentiles and for Gentiles should not call the Passover and the feast of tabernacles “feasts of the Jews” Icannot conceive. That the description is simply historical, ‘and not used with any contempt, appears from the fact that, when the information is once given, it is not repeated, and the “feast” is not accompanied by the addition to which exception is taken*® The remaining charge, that the writer reckons the Jews among the common ἔθνη of the world, seems to be founded on some misapprehension. The ἔθνη are “nowhere alluded to in the Gospel; but the chief priests and Pharisees refer to the nation in its political connection as τὸ ἔθνος, and the evangelist takes up and repeats the phrase.* ‘Pilate also, in speaking to Jesus, uses the words τὸ ἔθνος τὸ gov This employment of ἔθνος in the singular is very different from reckoning the Jews among the ἔθνη, and that it is not inconsistent with Jewish authorship is sufficiently proved by its occurrence in the LXX° I am unable, there- fore, to feel any real force in these objections. We may notice here the only other argument on which ΟΠ 2Cor. xi. 24. Thucydides speaks of “Athenians” ; Livy, of “Romans” ; _ Josephus, of “ Jews.” 2 See v. 1, vi. 4, Vii. 2. ‘The πάσχα of the Jews” is mentioned in ii. 13 j and xi. 55, and perhaps the feast is so characterised because the Christians _ too had their πάσχα. 3 See ii. 23, iv. 45, vii. 8, 10, 11, 14, 37, Xi. 56, xii. 12, 20, Xill. I, 29. 4 xi. 48, 50, 51, 52. 5 xviil. 35. | © See Ex. xxiii. 11; Levit. xxi. 1; Deut. iv. 6; Isa. 1. 4 ; Zeph. li. 9 ; Hag. ii. 15; Wisd. xvii. 2. 27 Ν᾿ 418 AUTHOR’S PHILOSOPHICAL TRAINING Ἶ Schiirer is disposed to rely. He thinks “the Greek philo- sophical training of the author” is inconsistent with the alleged origin of the book.! It would be easier to estimate the force of this argument if detailed proof were given of the philosophical training. In the case of Philo proof would” be unnecessary, simply because it is so abundant throughout his writings. The style, the mode of thought, the terminology, | the express allusions and quotations place the matter at once and obviously beyond the reach of controversy. But all ' these indications fail us in the Fourth Gospel. The style, as we have seen, is not constructed upon Greek models. If we except a few lines of the Proem, the thought moves throughout in a wholly different region, and the characteristic problems of Greek philosophy are passed by in silence. With ; the exception of the word λόγος the terminology of the schools is absent; and λόγος is a term which is found ἴῃς the LXX. If we take only the designations of the supreme ἣ Being, and compare their paucity and simplicity with the : rich variety and philosophical flavour of those used by Philo, we must be struck with the difference. This difference is all-pervading. If we omit the first few verses, I cannot recall to mind a single passage where the mode of expression - even suggests the thought that the writer must have been reading Greek philosophy. It is needless to say that direct allusions and quotations are entirely wanting. Where, then, is the evidence of Greek philosophical training? Simply in the theory which is sketched in such broad outlines in the Proem, and in the doctrine of the Logos, which contains some Stoical elements, but has not a trace of the characteristic Stoical vocabulary. This seems to point to a man who had been without philosophical training, but through the necessities of his position had been brought into living contact with the 1 Article, Ὁ. 409. 4 DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 419 ᾿ _ problems of his time, and under the impulse of spiritual i _ genius had struck out some grand lines of thought, which " might be afterwards developed into a philosophy. This latter process had already begun in the time of Justin the _ philosopher and martyr, whose philosophical training is mani- ‘ fest, and who tries to throw around the soaring ideas of r inspiration the network of philosophy, and force them into _ the cage of scholastic dogma. But the writer of the Gospel follows a different method. He does not define, and elaborate, _ and prove by a disciplined dialectic, but places before us, as _ it were, a series of spiritual pictures, which every man may interpret according to the measure of soul which is in him. In the doctrine of the Logos he seems to place himself between _ Jews and Greeks, and to appropriate a common term as the expression of a uniting faith. It is as though he said, You Greeks behold in Christ the consummate Reason, that Reason _ of which I have so often heard you speak, which dwells eternally with God, and in which you have seen the divine basis of the universe and the indwelling light of man; you Jews behold in him that Word of God which spake to your _ fathers, and was handed down in your Scriptures, but for you who believe is no longer inscribed in tables of stone or of parchment, but of flesh. If we combine with these con- _ siderations the evidence of the author’s Judaic training, on which we have already dwelt, I think we shall see that the book itself points to a Palestinian Jew who in later life was brought into some sort of loose contact with current modes of thought among the Greeks. This is precisely what the traditional account would lead us to expect, and I am therefore unable to attach any more weight to this than to the other of the two arguments which alone, in Schiirer’s opinion, retain any validity. CHAPTER IV COULD THE PORTRAIT OF JESUS HAVE BEEN DRAWN BY A PERSONAL FRIEND ? It is affirmed with great confidence that the portrait of Jesus which is presented by the Gospel could not possibly have been drawn by a personal friend. Weizsacker regards this argument as decisive of the question. He compares the Gospel in this respect with the Apocalypse, and says that the division between the present view of the author and the actual intercourse with Jesus of Nazareth is no less than that between the seer and the Lamb or the dread form of the heavenly judge. That the Apostle, the beloved disciple, who lay beside Jesus at the table, should have represented his former experiences as intercourse with the divine Logos made flesh is a still greater riddle. No power of faith and of philosophy can be imagined sufficiently great to extinguish the recollection of the real life, and substitute for it this miraculous image of a divine being. In Paul, who never knew Jesus, it is intelligible; but in a primitive apostle it is unthinkable It is exceedingly difficult to form a just estimate of this argument; so much depends on the extent of our agreement with the author, on the interpretation of the book, and on our understanding of an oriental mind. For those who accept the whole work as strictly historical 1 Das ap. Zett., p. 535 sq- 420 te NATURE OF THE BIOGRAPHY 421 Ὶ the difficulty does not arise. From this point of view an _ apostle alone could give the needed attestation, and state _ with authority the fundamental doctrine of the Gospel of Christ. I have not been able, however, to adopt this : position. We have been compelled to admit that the book is rather an interpretation of the inward and essential mean- _ ing of Christ’s life than an exact delineation of its outward incidents; and therefore for us the question arises whether such an interpretation could have been given by one who had known Jesus as a man, and lived with him in the _ intimacy of friendship. A complete answer to this question could be reached only through the exegesis of the entire work, and therefore I must be content with some very general remarks. It seems to me that the individuality of the writer, whoever he may have been, is so peculiar that we cannot apply to him criteria of probability which would be suitable enough for an ordinary Englishman or German of modern times. He certainly has not strung together a number of gossiping reminiscences in order to gratify our curiosity. There is a sort of remote and solitary greatness about the principal figure, which does not suggest the familiar companion, or allow us to see what I may call the every-day personality of Jesus. But this is only saying that the personality of Jesus was transcendent and unique in the experience of the writer, and that the little bio- graphical details which bring men closer to us, and make them live in the imagination, were swallowed up in the religious significance of his person and his work. Have we not all met men with whom none but a coxcomb would take liberties, owing to the inherent dignity and power which obviously belonged to them, and can we not believe that the devout and mystic mind of an oriental, who had found in Jesus the secret of eternal life, and had pondered for fifty im ie 422 PORTRAIT NOT DRAWN BY A FRIEND ὃ ᾿ years on the source and meaning of that life, might be so ἣ absorbed in the moral and spiritual impression as to have — a reverent shrinking from dwelling on those traits in his — Master which would seem to ally him with ordinary humanity? If it be said that this might be so, but that the disciple could not think of the dear friend and teacher, with whom he had walked and talked, as a divine being from another sphere, as not strictly a man at all, but as a mani- fested God, I can only reply at present that I cannot so interpret his thought. The humanity of Jesus is not for- gotten. Heis the Son of man. His body is not a phantasm, but composed of flesh, from which, when wounded, blood and water flow forth. He is tired with a journey, and sits down to rest himself.1. He weeps.2. His soul is troubled? He is troubled in spirit.* He has a cup (of suffering) to drink.® But it is still more important to observe that his spiritual being is represented as absolutely dependent on God. He is sent by God.° He describes himself as “a man’ who has spoken to you the truth which I heard from God”®; “the things which I speak, therefore, as the Father has said to me, so I speak”; “all things that I heard from my Father I made known to you.” He acted and spoke by command- ment of his Father, and he continued in his Father’s love because he kept his commandments." He did nothing from himself, and the Father left him not alone, because he did always the things that pleased him.” All this implies that it was as man that he listened to the voice of God, and reverently obeyed it; and it may remind us of what Xenophon said from a lower plane of religious life, that t ‘iv, 6. Pe ae: ΧΙ ΣΝ ΞΧΠΥ 2s, δ Xvid, Τ 6 Passim, 7 ἄνθρωπος. 8 viii. 40. Ot.) ee 10 xv. 15. See also viii, 26, 28, 38. τ χ 18, Xi. 4G, Xiv. 31,, XV. ΤῸ, and cf. ἔν. 594: 12. vill. 28 sq Cf. v. 30. HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS 423 Ὁ Bvccrates “did nothing without the judgment of the Gods.” 1 ᾿ Accordingly, Jesus offers prayer, the act of communion between the finite and the infinite. It is owing to the : Father that he lives? His judgment is just because he ἢ seeks not his own will, but the will of the Father? He and } God are repeatedly spoken of as though they were quite dis- tinct: for instance, faith in him is to be superadded to faith in God‘; in him, as the Son of man, God is glorified,> with which we may compare what Paul says of himself, “they glorified God in me.”® To this we must add the emphatic declaration that the Father is the only real God.’ So far, then, we have the picture of a profoundly religious and devoted man, such as a loving friend might undoubtedly draw ; and before we proceed to another aspect of the picture, we must observe that these features are not rare and accidental, but pervading and characteristic. Now it appears to me that the expressions which seem to convert Jesus into a superhuman being, and which we would not apply either to ourselves or to any of our friends, instead of being inconsistent with what has been just pointed out, inevitably flow from and complete it. The pathway to the highest communion with God is through the lowliest self- surrender and submission; and he who speaks only what he hears from the Father, and does only what the Father com- mands, will become so pure an organ of the eternal Spirit that in seeing him we shall see the Father. He and the Father will be one, not from any independent and underived greatness, not because they are co-equal, but because the selfish and personal life is lost in the Divine. If we are not too dull spiritually to feel the possibility of this, to discern 1 ἄνευ τῆς τῶν θεῶν γνώμης. Memor., IV. vill. 11. ews 57. a Po 8 ΘΈΣΙΝ: Ἢ: 5 xill. 31 sq. 6 -Gal. 1, 24. T evi 3. (Of. v.44 WR 2h 424 PORTRAIT NOT DRAWN BY A FRIEND it indeed within ourselves as the ideal of sonship, however obscure and distorted by the clinging remnants of passion and self-will, can we not imagine that to the deep, searching, — dissatisfied soul of the young Apostle Jesus had become the ~ central revelation of God, of nature, and of man, and that, ᾿ A se ures as he looked back upon the days of dear intimacy with the ~ friend whom the Jews had crucified, he remembered how the — words of the teacher used to thrill through him, and carry © him heavenward, till he seemed to stand in the very presence ~ of the Father? Adversaries did not perceive this, because — their eyes were blind, and their ears stopped, and their heart hard; and even apostles, like Philip, had been strangely in the dark, and thought that the Father could be shown other- — wise than in the spirit of a surrendered life. But love, which had experienced the birth from above, pierced the transparent — veil of the flesh, and recognised the universal and redeeming love of the Father glowing in word and deed. Greatness, evoked by a higher greatness, understood, and bowed before that heavenly power, knowing whence it came, and refused to reduce to the level of mere human opinion that which broke up, as with the voice of God, the deeps of everlasting life within the soul. In all this there is nothing that goes beyond the possibilities of friendship, unless we are deter- mined to bring John down to the level of the populace at Nazareth, who thought that there could not be anything unusual in Jesus, because he had a father and mother, and brothers and sisters, like any ordinary mortal. But what if it be one of the gifts of genius to pass behind the sordid drapery of things, and discern their divine meaning and power? If this was the case with John, may not the bereaved disciple have felt that Jesus came spiritually with the Father to dwell in his otherwise desolate heart, that he was henceforth the way, the truth, and the life, and that in him might be seen, full of grace and truth, the sum of that eternal Reason of which philosophy had gained but a partial 4 JESUS REGARDED AS THE MESSIAH 425 Ἢ vision, of that Word of God which had come to ancient prophets with intimations of a glory to be revealed, and which Rabbis had turned into a hard and deadening rule? To these more general considerations we must add the fact, which will not be denied, that the immediate disciples of Jesus regarded him as the Messiah, and therefore believed him to be a solitary man among men, sent by God on a unique mission, and, for the purposes of that mission, clothed with unique powers. His sharing this belief, therefore, does not remove the author of the Gospel from the circle of personal friends. The Messiahship of Jesus, however exalted and spiritualised, pervades the teaching of the book; and it provides a basis for further development and interpretation, and may have contributed to the unfolding of those higher views on which we have already dwelt. I am obliged, then, to dismiss this objection as founded to a large extent on a misunderstanding, both of the work and of its author." 1 Xenophon could not speak from the religious height of the evangelist, but I cannot help quoting once more his touching words, as affording at least a distant parallel to the sentiment of a writer who had the imagination of an oriental, and the love of one who had found through agony the peace of an assured faith :—rav δὲ Σωκράτην γιγνωσκόντων, οἷος ἦν, of ἀρετῆς ἐφιέμενοι πάντες ἔτι καὶ viv διατελοῦσι πάντων μάλιστα ποθοῦντες ἐκεῖνον, ὡς ὠφελιμώτατον ὄντα πρὺς ἀρετῆς ἐπιμελείαν. Ἐμοὶ μὲν 5)... - ἐδόκει τοιοῦτος εἶναι, οἷος ἂν εἴη ἄριστός τε ἀνὴρ καὶ εὐδαιμονέστατος. Mem., Iv. Vili. 11. CHAPTER V THE UNHISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE BOOK WE come now to what has always appeared to me the most f formidable argument against the Johannine authorship, and ἢ one which I think has been in reality the most largely operative, though it has not played a very prominent part in the controversy; I mean the unhistorical character of | the book. It seems to be assumed on both sides that, if} John be the author, then the Gospel must be the most authentic life of Jesus which we possess; and while it is contended on one side that, beingJohn’s, it must be strictly historical, it is taken for granted on the other that, not being historical, it cannot be John’s. This, then, is the alternative which we have to consider from the point of view of those who recognise in the Gospel the presence of a large ideal or allegorical element. Those who see in it nothing but pure} history cannot feel the pressure of this argument, and I do not wonder that they look upon the Johannine authorship as irrefragably established. I am unable, however, to accept this position. In our preliminary survey we saw critical reasons for doubting the accuracy of the narrative in several particulars; and I must frankly add that, on general grounds affecting the whole question of the miraculous, I am unable to believe that such miracles as the turning of water into wine and the raising of Lazarus were really performed. We 426 NATURE OF MEMORY 427 must add that the inaccuracies, if they are such, are not of the kind that can be easily set down to failure of memory. There is such a thing as misremembering; and it is even possible for a man to feel sure that he remembers having been present at a scene that took place many years before, when, in fact, he was not there, but had only heard an account of what occurred, and then, in the lapse of time, had changed what he was told into a personal experience. We may easily suppose that the author of the Gospel had ‘a memory which could be guilty of such lapses, and that the vividness with which he pictured things in his imagination may have sometimes led him to change his visions into tealities. This might account for considerable inaccuracy of detail, but hardly for the extensive reconstruction of the history which the Gospel exhibits. I cannot believe that any trick of memory could lead a man to believe that the raising of Lazarus had taken place if nothing of the sort had really occurred. We are therefore thrown back on the hypothesis of a deliberate construction of narrative as a pictorial embodiment of spiritual truth. I need not repeat what was said in the early part of this work about ancient views of history, and the traces of an original belief that the Gospel was theological and allegorical rather than his- torical; but I may venture on two further observations. First, many things in the thought and character of Jesus may have become plain to the Apostle after the decease of the former; and as he looked back, and pondered on the lesson of that wonderful life, he may have come to care less and less for the mere outward incidents, and more and more for the inward meaning and power of the total manifestation. Jesus seemed still to come, and make his abode in the bereaved heart of the disciple? At the hour of his departure he had still 1 xiv. 23. 428 GOSPEL UNHISTORICAL had many things to say, but had left them to the revealing power of the spirit of truth! The disclosures of that spirit became part of the teaching and revelation of Christ, and the things which it spoke within the listening and reverent soul were only interpreting variations of what Christ had said and done on earth. John may therefore have determined to write a life in which, disregarding the bodily things as already sufficiently provided for, he could set forth spiritually what the Messiah and Son of God had become to him. This view does not preclude the possibility, or even probability, that much genuine history is mingled with the narrative, and I am very far from supposing that the whole is a tissue of allegories, on the model of Philo’s interpretations of the Old Testament. The lessons are spiritual, not philosophical, and are conveyed through the whole impression of a narrative, and not through particular phrases, names, and incidents. Further, if this view leaves some of the outward things in a state of uncertainty, it represents the work as a genuine reminiscence and descrip- tion of the impression which Jesus made upon a man who was susceptible of soul-stirring experiences, and characterized by a singular depth and delicacy of spiritual discernment. If we do not learn from him the very words which Jesus spoke, we learn what he said to a sensitive and loving heart. | Secondly, the difficulty is not much relieved by the sup- position of a later and unknown authorship, for in that case we must regard the Gospel as almost wholly an ideal repre- sentation. The stories are not like the last gleanings of oral tradition, which still remained after the synoptic group was completed ; for they are too definite in time, place, and cireum- stances, and above all in their intrinsic meaning and purpose, to be regarded as legends which the writer carelessly accepted as veritable history. We are therefore driven to the sup- 2 Evi. ἈΣΤΩ͂Ν q OBJECTION NOT FATAL ἡδὺ position that the author deliberately departed from the current tradition, and, with full consciousness of what he was about, = his spiritual Gospel. Nevertheless we must suppose ἢ hat he wrote in all good faith, for the notion of imposture connection with such a work cannot be entertained. I cannot think that a man in the middle of the second century 3 more likely to fulfil these conditions than an apostle. All depends on the idiosyncrasy of the man; and it is mere self- ¢ eception to conjure up an unknown figure, and fancy that ν e escape from all difficulties by attributing to this whatever ‘we please. It may be said indeed that one with a personal I nowledge of the facts would be less likely to introduce ideal narratives than one who knew them only by tradition. But thi sis by no means certain. The very form of the tradition ‘must have been sacred to communities which based their life v pon it; and most men would hesitate long before departing fi om it, and, even if they wished to idealize, would bring their fresh narratives clearly within the accepted framework. On the hypothesis, then, of late authorship, the ideal character of the Gospel still presents a problem which requires substantially the same solution as is demanded if we accept its apostolic For these reasons I am unable to regard even a large admission of unhistorical elements as fatal to the traditional view. I do not pretend to have reached a solution which ¢ isposes of all difficulties; but it is one to which the evidence, when fairly interpreted, seems to conduct, and which, so far as I can judge, is encumbered by fewer difficulties than other hypotheses. CHAPTER VI IGNORANCE OF PALESTINE AND JEWISH USAGES THE argument indicated by the above title must be noticed, although it has been abandoned by Schiirer, and was long ago declared even by Keim to be without validity By others it has been thought that the writer’s ignorance of Palestine and of Jewish usages is such as to prove that he was no native of the country. Dr Martineau relies upon this argument”; but he presents a very diminutive list of supposed errors, and we must therefore conclude that he has selected those on which alone he thinks reliance can be placed. Accordingly it will be sufficient if we attempt to estimate the strength of these. | First, he says, “no companion of Jesus could have placed the scene of the Baptist’s testimony to Jesus in ‘ Bethany beyond Jordan’—a place unknown to geography.” For “geography ” here we ought to substitute Origen, for it was he that made inquiries about the localities frequented by Jesus and his disciples, and assures us that there is no place of the name of Bethany in the neighbourhood of the Jordan; and he therefore decides, against the authority of almost all the manuscripts, and of Heracleon, in favour of a reading Bethabara.? This solution of the difficulty has not been accepted by later critics, and we must allow the reading 1 Gesch. Jesu, i. p. 133- 2 Seat of Authority, p. 212. 3 Com. in Joan., Tom. vi. 24, p. 237 sq.. Lom. 430 , BETHANY BEYOND JORDAN 431 ἣν Bethany” to stand. Let us suppose, in the first place, that there is really an error; would this be fatal to the Johannine authorship? Is it impossible for a man to make a mistake about his own country? Is it impossible for his memory to : slip in recalling the name of a village or a district which he visited sixty years ago? I do not say that it is likely; but I think it is far less unlikely than that a writer who had got up his geography with the minute care displayed by the author of the Gospel, if he was a distant Greek, would have gratuitously burdened himself with the name of a place of which he had never heard. But in truth there is no need to “suppose an error. All we know is that two hundred years : after the event Origen was unable to find Bethany. Some have thought that the name may have been changed into Bethabara, both words having substantially the same meaning, the former “the house of a ship,” the latter “the house of “passage,” indicating a ferry. Lieutenant Conder thought it Ἶ referred to the well-known district of Batanea or Bashan, the name of which is still preserved in Ard el-Bethaniyeh+; and ‘ ‘if this conjecture be correct, Origen no doubt made his inquiries Bona wrong basis. Another conjecture is that it 1s a corruption of Bethnimrah, mentioned in Joshua xii. 27, where there was 3 an abundant supply of water. Furrer, again, discovers it in a ruined place named Betane, and in Betane recognises the Arabic form of Betonim, which is referred to in Joshua xiii. 26. The irregular change of ¢ into th may have been “suggested by the resemblance to the familiar Bethany in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. From this place to Cana of “Galilee is a journey of twenty hours. Again, it is quite 1 Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund, October 1877, Pp. 184 844. | 2 Encyclo. Bibl. : 3 “Das Geographische im Evan. nach Johannes,” by K. Furrer, in the Leitschr. f. neut. Wiss., 1902, p. 257 86. 432 IGNORANCE OF PALESTINE conceivable that in the course of two centuries, in which Palestine was brought to utter political ruin, the little village ~ may have simply disappeared and been forgotten, or its : name may have been changed into another bearing no ΤΕ ΣΘΕΙΒΙΗΣΙΒΒ to the pezinal either in sound oe sense. Six or Dunleary, but it has long been known only as Kingstown, a : name which it received in 1821. The Rev. J. S. Porter tells” ἱ us that in the neighbourhood of Belfast, “if Lasnagarvey ἵ happened to be mentioned, perhaps not one person in five i hundred would know whereabouts it was situated; yet it is the only name by which, until the beginning of the last fi century, the large and flourishing town of Lisburn, within less ᾿ than eight miles of Belfast, was known.”! Another instance ~ is furnished by the town of Portarlington, which was formerly — Cootletoodra2 Changes of name are not without example — in Palestine. Bethsaida became Julias; Panium, Cesarea — Phillipi; Accho, Ptolemais. In the last two instances, how- j ever, the original name survived, with slight modifications, — proving how tenacious is an old and popular designation, so that it seems more likely that an obscure village disappeared than that it acquired a new name in the mouths of the — common people. But how many places have disappeared in — Palestine, and with what difficulty are once familiar sites being — identified by men who are far more skilled in exploration than Origen can have been? If eighteen centuries have destroyed so much, may not a ninth part of that time, not the least disastrous in the history of the country, have effaced one or two of the scenes clearly remembered by a disciple of Jesus? With these various possibilities before us I am unable to attach even an infinitesimal weight to this alleged ignorance of geography. | ' The Fourth Gospel is the Gospel according to St. John, 1876, p. 23. 2 Smiles, Huguenots, p. 383. ee ΑΝ SYCHAR: SEA OF GALILEE 433 The objection derived from the mention of Sychar! is not now pressed. Socher or Sichra is referred to in the Talmud, and is now generally identified with the village of Askar, half a mile from Jacob’s well.” I may refer here to a supposed geographical error which has been pressed upon my attention. In vi. 1 the writer says, “after these things Jesus went away over the sea of Galilee.” ᾿ As the events in the previous chapter took place in Jerusalem, the author, it is inferred, must have imagined that the Galilean lake was close to the capital. This is a very improbable piece _ of ignorance even for a distant Greek writer; and if we believe that the writer was not ignorant, the brevity of the expression seems most natural in the case of a native who δά. lived upon the shores of the lake, and for whom the eastern side had always lain across the water. That the author was _ not ignorant we may infer not only from his general know- _ ledge of Palestine, but from the fact that he places Samaria _ between Judea and Galilee? that he is acquainted with the “mountain ” beside the lake, and is aware that the lake had to _ be re-crossed to reach Capernaum. We may also fairly plead _ that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the verse, and that μετὰ ταῦτα does not necessarily mean “the moment these things were over.” A return to Galilee may have been assumed by the writer as a matter of course. I am therefore unable to - take this objection very seriously.* Perhaps I ought to refer to a difficulty connected with the Riv. 5 2 See Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix xv., vol. ii. p. 764. See also an article by Professor George Adam Smith in the Expositor for 1892, vol. vi. pp. 464-472. He accepts the identification _ with ’Askar, and considers the arguments for and against it. = iv. 3, 4. 4 If we may suppose that chapters v. and vi. have been transposed, the _ difficulty, such as it is, disappears. ee 28 434 IGNORANCE OF JEWISH USAGES mention of “ Bethsaida of Galilee.”! The only Bethsaida that is known was not in Galilee, but just across the border; and it is sometimes supposed that there must have been also a Galilean town of the same name, or that the writer is inaccurate, and betrays his late date. The true explanation probably is that, at least by the time of the Jewish war, the name “Galilee” was used rather loosely. Thus Josephus calls Judas who raised the revolt against the Census “a Gaulonite,” and a few sections further on “the Galilean.” 2 The next instance of alleged ignorance is that the writer has “invested Annas as well as Caiaphas with the prerogatives of high priest,” a statement which is explained in a note by a reference to John xviii. 19, 22, 24, “ Annas therefore sent him (not ‘had sent him’) bound to Caiaphas the high priest.” If all the difficulties were removed from this passage by assuming that “the high priest” in verses 19 and 22 referred ~ to Annas, we should have to consider whether such a use of q language was possible to a native of Galilee. Annas had been high priest, and five of his sons rose to the same dignity? Caiaphas, who filled the office from 25 to 36 A.D. is said by the evangelist to have been the son-in-law of Annas, and I am not aware that there is any reason for doubting the assertion. At all events we may judge from Luke iii. 2 and Acts iv. 6 that the two men were closely united, and that Annas retained such ascendancy that a non-Palestinian writer could give him precedence over Caiaphas, and even describe him as the high priest. It may be, then, that his was really the governing mind, and that in popular use he retained his title. Τῇ, therefore, the evangelist really applied the term high priest to Annas, it would not necessarily prove that he was a eh ey | 2 Ant., XVII. i. 1,6. See also xx. v. 2; B.J., ἅτ Viii. 1. * Josephus, Ant., xx. ix. 1, + Josephus, Ant., XVIII. 11. 2, iv. 3. HIGH PRIESTS , 435 foreigner; and I see nothing incredible in the supposition that Annas took a prominent part in bringing about the arrest of Jesus, and that he was the first to see and examine him privately, while the superintendence of the proceedings before the Sanhedrim properly devolved on Caiaphas. I cannot, however, persuade myself that anyone but Caiaphas is meant by “the high priest.” The writer, in common with the other “evangelists, uses ἀρχιερεῖς to denote the leading priests!; but there is no appearance of his applying the word in the singular to more than one man. In xi. 49 and 51 he says that Caiaphas was high priest that year. The word here, being a predicate, has not the article, and Caiaphas is intro- duced as “one of them,” that is, one of the apxepets; but still it is clear that he is singled out as holding a pre-eminent office, which enabled him, though without understanding what he said, to utter words of prophecy. We hear next of “the servant of the high priest,’? and, as there is nothing to indicate what high priest is meant, it is obvious that the well- known head of the Jewish priesthood must be intended. Three verses further on we are again told that Caiaphas was high priest that year; and accordingly, in the following verses, 15, 16, 19, 22, “the high priest” can only mean Caiaphas, and especially as we are once more reminded in 24 that he was “the high priest.” “The high priest,” two verses further on, must surely be the same; and this con- firms the previous conclusion that “the palace of the high priest ὃ visited by Peter and the other disciple belonged to Caiaphas, and not to Annas. All this would be beyond 1 vii. 32, 45, xi. 47, etc. According to Schiirer, the term applied only to ‘those who actually held, or had held, the high-priestly office, together with the members of the few prominent families from which the high priests still continued to be selected.” Thayer, in Grimm’s Lexicon of the New Testament. 2 xviii. Io. me gti See 436 IGNORANCE OF JEWISH USAGES question if it were not for verse 24, which introduces such confusion into the whole narrative as to suggest heroic remedies, the removal of the verse as a gloss,! its transposition and insertion between 13 and 14,2) or giving a pluperfect meaning to the aorist.2 We need not at present discuss these suggestions; for I cannot admit that the unexpected statement in this verse is to upset the plain interpretation of what has gone before and what follows. The difficulty is not connected with any presumed authorship, but is inherent in the structure of the narrative itself, and would be pre- cisely the same if the work had been composed in the tenth century instead of the first. For these reasons, then, I think this objection too must be dismissed. 1 Recently by Bousset, who would also remove ἀπὸ τοῦ Καιάφα from verse 28 (Theol. Literaturz., 1903, No. 6, col. 165). 2 This is actually effected in the Sinaitic Syriac. Verses 16-18, containing the first part of the account of Peter’s denial, are also transposed, and inserted between 23 and 25. The whole narrative thus gains in coherence, and the difficulty about the high priest vanishes. Syr™™, in verse 13, omits ἦν γὰρ πενθερὸς τοῦ Καϊάφα, and the margin inserts, in place of these words, e Annas mistt Ieswm ad Caiapham. Syr’™s, after ἐκείνου, inserts misit ewm igitur Annas vinctum ad Caiapham. Similarly Cyr*11, Codex 225 inserts the words after πρῶτον. (See Tisch., an loco.) 8 For this we may compare Matthew xxvi. 48 (which has the aorist apparently in a pluperfect sense) with Mark xiv. 44, where the pluperfect is used. A similar remark applies to Matthew xxvii. 18 compared with Mark xv. 10. In John iv. 45 ἦλθον has a pluperfect sense. There is a pretty close parallel in the use of the aorist in Iliad, i. 12, ὃ yap ἦλθε θοὰς ἐπὶ νῆας ᾿Αχαιῶν, where the time of ἦλθε is earlier than that of the preceding statement, νοῦσον ἀνὰ στρατὸν ὦρσε κακήν. We may also see Plato’s Symposium, 203 B, ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐδείπνησαν ... . ἀφίκετο ἡ πενία, compared with 217 D, ἐπειδὴ ἐδεδειπνήκει, διελεγόμην. We should observe that the reading in John is doubtful. Tischendorf and W. H. read ἀπέστειλεν οὖν ; but several authorities read δέ, and several more omit the connecting particle altogether. 1 think we can easily explain the insertion of a word by copyists ; but if we omit it, the verse becomes simply a note, and its time need not be in any way determined by what precedes. The allusion to this indignity might be suggested by the statement just made, that one of the servants had struck Jesus. ee οος- SN a eee 7 x ὄν —— σ᾿ — oe wo 77 HIGH PRIEST'S OFFICE ANNUAL 437 The next objection is that an apostle would not “have represented that office [the office of high priest] as annual.” This statement is supported, without discussion, by referring to xi. 49, 51, Xvill. 13, where it is said that Caiaphas was ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου. Dr Martineau adds in a note, “H. Holtzmann attributes this mistake to the author’s familiarity with the practice in Asia Minor of annually changing the high-priest of the new temple dedicated to the worship of the Emperor, the year being called by his name. Lehrb. d. Einlettung wm die N. T. 469 (2te Aufi.).” Dr Martineau here assumes that the prima facie interpretation of the evangelist’s words is necessarily the true one, and gives no hint that another view is possible. Nevertheless many able commentators think that the words do not refer to a supposed annual tenure of office, but to the fact that “that year” stood out in John’s memory as the one decisive year in his own and the world’s history.1. It is pointed out that even a Gentile who had made himself so well acquainted as the evangelist proves himself to have been with Jewish affairs could not have fallen into such a mistake as is alleged” I may add that the threefold repetition of the words, which is quite unnecessary, seems to give them a certain solemnity, as though they indicated something of higher importance than an annual change of office. Alford objects that they cannot mean “‘in that remarkable year, as we have no instance of time being so specified,” and he would therefore refer them to “some official distinction from Annas (the High Priest de 1 See Liicke, De Wette, Meyer, Westcott. 2 The author of the Paschal Chronicle, however, has not escaped this error. He assures us, ἐνιαύσιος δὲ 6 τῆς ἑκάστου ἀρχιερωσύνης ἣν χρόνος, and founds on this supposed fact a futile argument as to the duration of Christ’s ministry (i. p. 417 sq.). The cases, considering the centuries of changing circumstances that elapsed between the two writers, can hardly be considered parallel. 438 IGNORANCE OF JEWISH USAGES jure), the exact nature of which is lost to us.” This unusual employment of ἐνιαυτός, however, might be explained as an allusion to the ἐνιαυτὸν Κυρίου δεκτόν of Isaiah 1xi. 2, which, in Luke iv. 19, is applied to the year of salvation, and which afterwards became an accepted description of the period of Christ’s ministry. This suggestion receives some confirma- tion from the fact that it is only in this phrase that John uses ἐνιαυτός, and elsewhere prefers ἔτη As evidence that this view is not a mere apologetic evasion, invented as a reply to modern criticism, I may mention that Origen takes no notice of the difficulty about the tenure of the high priest’s office, and therefore presumably did not interpret the words in the way which modern criticism demands; but he does explain “that year” as the one “when our Saviour completed the economy in suffering for men.”? He points out that circumstance was sometimes the cause of prophecy, and so it was with Caiaphas; his temporary gift was due to “his being high priest that year in which Jesus was going to die for the people, that the whole nation perish not; for of other high priests ... none prophesies, but only the high priest of the year in which Jesus was going to suffer.”* If the language of the Gospel had been equally full, and the words had been, “Caiaphas was high priest in the year in which Jesus was crucified,” no difficulty would have been felt. The unusual form of expression, if we are to give it that inter- pretation, may be explained by the keenness with which that particular year was impressed on the disciple’s memory; and we may add to our reference to “the acceptable year of the Lord” the fact that the year was marked by the recurring Passover, and that the high priest, although he did not hold LL 20, Wi Savills 57. 2 Com. in Joan., Tom. xxviii. 12, p. 337. 3 Ib. 15, p. 357 sq. Similarly Origen speaks of “that year” in Hom. in Levit., ix. 5, p. 351. 1 : NO PROPHET FROM GALILEE 439 an annual office, nevertheless discharged annual functions. Although, therefore, the interpretation which Dr Martineau puts upon the phrase is the one which most readily suggests itself, it is by no means certain that it is correct, and, while admitting that it creates some difficulty, I do not think it can counterbalance the mass of evidence which has been produced of the writer’s familiarity with Jewish affairs, or prove that his knowledge was that of a Greek antiquarian, and not of a native Jew. } Again, it is said that a companion of Jesus would not “have so forgotten Elijah and Nahum as to make the Pharisees assert that ‘out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,’ ” the references in a note being John vii. 52, 1 Kings xvii. 1, Nahum 1.1. Itis admitted that there is some error in the statement here ascribed to the Pharisees; but commentators seem strangely divided as to the precise nature and extent of the error. Elijah, we are told in the verse appealed to, belonged to Gilead, not to Galilee. Nahum was from Elkosh, which, according to Hieronymus, was in Galilee, but is placed by others in Assyria.!. Dr Martineau’s two instances, therefore, are at least doubtful; but Jonah, whom he does not mention, was confessedly from Galilee,” for we are told in 2 Kings xiv. 25 that he was of Gath-hepher. The derivation of the prophets from Galilee would appear, then, not to be a very obvious fact, or one which might not be overlooked even by a careful reader of the Scriptures. It is conceivable, as has been suggested, on the assumption that we have here an accurate report, that the Pharisees were hurried by polemic 1 See Liicke and Meyer. 2 This has not escaped the notice of Bretschneider (Prob., p.g9). He suggests that the difficulty has induced transcribers to change ἐγήγερται into éyelperar. The change certainly lessens, if indeed it does not entirely remove, the force of the objection ; but the weight of the authorities for the latter reading is too great to be resisted. 440 IGNORANCE OF THE SCRIPTURES zeal into a rash statement which could not stand the severe scrutiny of Bretschneider. But as critics ascribe the error, not to the Pharisees, but to the evangelist, we have to consider whether it is one which an apostle was likely to make. For my part, I can see no improbability in the supposition that he made a slip of so venial a kind. We are told in Acts iv. 13 that Peter and John were unlearned and ignorant men'; and it is surely possible that such men might have overlooked a fact which is by no means apparent on the surface of the Scriptures. How many unlearned and ignorant Englishmen could tell whether a great statesman had ever arisen out of Northumberland? A Galilean, accustomed to the scorn with which the men of the North were treated by the Rabbis of the metropolis, might very well put such a sentiment into their mouths. A Greek, on the other hand, would hardly have thought of such an objection, and, if he had thought of it, would have taken pains to ascertain whether there was anything in it. I am therefore inclined to think that the error, such as it is, was more likely to be committed by a native than by a foreigner. 1 ἀγράμματοι καὶ ἰδιῶται. CHAPTER VII THE OBJECTION FROM THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCALYPSE net oo a ARRIGO chapter in seas controversy was ‘were so contrasted in style and in thought as to betray r iversity of authorship; and this was put forward with such confidence as an unimpeachable critical canon that any one who hesitated to accept it was supposed to be sunk in a mere slough of orthodox prejudice. So far as we know, this argument was first used by Dionysius of Alexandria, who, 2 ssuming the apostolic authorship of the Gospel to be beyond dispute, denied in consequence that of the Apocalypse. In odern times the order of his inference has been reversed. ti has been maintained that the Apocalypse is indubitably authentic, being one of the best attested books in the New ‘Testament, and being sufficiently narrow and Judaic to be worthy of one of the most intimate of Christ’s disciples. On tie other hand many who were just as competent and truth- oving as their opponents found this reasoning unsatisfactory. {Some accepted the Johannine authorship of both works, and ‘though not blind to differences between them, thought that Ἷ these had been exaggerated, and were not more than might be accounted for by diversity of subject and distance in the 442 AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCALYPSE times of composition, while many resemblances lent confir-§ mation to the traditional view.1 Others denied the genuine ness of the Apocalypse, and tried to show that the externa evidence in its favour was by no means so strong as that b which the authorship of the Gospel was guaranteed. Thes various opinions open a large field of inquiry; but we nee not enter on it just now, for “critics” seem to have abandone this line of argument, and to have made up their minds tha the Apostle had nothing to do with either one book or th other. What seems to me the most important question at present turns on the value of external evidence. Though I do not think that the Apocalypse is so strongly attested as the Gospel, nevertheless I think the testimonies are very strong, and would be admitted to be so in any ordinary dis- cussion in the domain of general literature. If, then, it could be proved that the Apostle had no connection with the Apocalypse, although the famous argument against the genuineness of the Gospel would be thereby destroyed, yet at the same time the value of the external evidence would be impaired. We here meet with a problem which can be solved only by a complete introduction to the Apocalypse; and that involves a task on which we cannot now enter.? I will only say for myself that, while I have experienced a difficulty, on internal grounds, in ascribing the Apocalypse to the Apostle, 1 See a good summary of this position in Dr Salmon’s Introduction. * There is an admirable account of different theories regarding the origin and composition of the Apocalypse, and a clear statement and estimate of results, by Professor George A. Barton, in an article on “The Apocalypse and Recent Criticism,” in the American Journal of Theology, October 1898. The weight of the external evidence in favour of the Apocalypse is hardly affected by the statement of Jerome, in a recently recovered homily, that Polycarp received the work ; for he does not tell us his authority for this statement, and he places Polycarp between Irenzeus, who accepted, and Dionysius, who rejected, the Johannine authorship of Revelation, while both alike accepted its canonicity. See Anecdota Maredsolana, vol. iii. Pars. ii., ed. Germanus Morin, 1897 ; Tractatus de Psalmo, i. pp. 5 89. AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCALYPSE 443 . have never been convinced that two extremely dissimilar Jworks might not proceed from the same author, and I have elt that in the midst of such wide differences there are urious reminders of the language and thought of the pvangelist; and perhaps the somewhat conflicting evidence might be explained by the supposition that the author, 7 ile describing his own visions, used and worked up for (Christian purposes some earlier apocalyptic writing or : The question of the Apocalypse is far from settled; and while it is still sub judice we must judge % the Gospel upon its own merits. If we test the external evidence with all caution, and think that it possesses a a asonable strength, and if we then find it confirmed by the internal evidence, and not seriously shaken by counter- xiticism, we must accept it as genuine, at least till some new evidence, whether arising from the Apocalypse or from any other source, demands a reversal of our judgment. CHAPTER VIII THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY 1 WE come now to an argument which was at one time}; advanced as a conclusive demonstration that the Fourth}; Gospel could not have proceeded from the Apostle John,|/ which is now abandoned as delusive even by some of those} who reject the Johannine authorship, but which Dr Martineau } has pressed with undoubting confidence in his final work, The Seat of Authority in Religion. His judgment gives ἃ ἢ new vitality and interest to the question, which more than } justifies a full examination of the evidence. The attractive- ness of the subject, moreover, is by no means confined to its bearing on the Gospel, but extends to the history of an ancient controversy and the growth of discipline in the Church, so that the historian and antiquarian as well as the critic may find something congenial in its treatment. | The argument as it affects the Gospel may be stated as | follows: The Synoptic Gospels contain the primitive apostolic — tradition, and they concur in the statement that Jesus partook of the regular Jewish Passover on the evening of the four- teenth of Nisan (that is according to our mode of reckoning days, for with the Jews the evening was the beginning of the fifteenth), and consequently represent the crucifixion 1 This chapter originally appeared in the American Journal of Theology, July 1897. It now contains some slight additions. 444 STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT 445 jas taking place after the Passover had been eaten. The [Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, places the Last Supper on |the evening of the thirteenth, and the crucifixion on the fe urteenth, before the Passover was eaten It might be jurged, at this point, that as the last Gospel is at variance }with the primitive apostolic tradition, and as John was one of the two disciples who were sent to prepare for the Passover,” the claim of Johannine authorship becomes quite jinadmissible. This, however, is only a particular instance jof the larger argument founded on the unhistorial character οὗ the work, and it is one of the instances in which the accuracy of the Fourth Gospel may be most plausibly defended. |The present contention is of a different kind. The churches fof the province of Asia, and some of the adjoining districts, |celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day of the month at the time when the Jews kept the Passover, and in defence of this custom they appealed to an ancient usage which had been sanctioned by the Apostle John. It is maintained that Ithis celebration must have been an annual commemoration of the Lord’s Supper; that therefore John must have placed the Last Supper on the fourteenth, and cannot be the author ‘of the Gospel. If these points could be all established, the argument would certainly seem to be conclusive. A curious modification, however, which makes the argument much less telling, is introduced when it is denied that John was ever in Asia Minor at all, for then the Asiatic usage is severed from all connection with him, and he may have written the Gospel which opposed that usage. The only thing that can be said in this case is that the Gospel, being in conflict with the practice of the Asiatic churches, cannot have been received by them as a work of the Apostle’s. This last position has 1 See the discussion of this question in Book I., Chapter IV. 2 Luke xxii. 8. 446, PASCHAL CONTROVERSY not, outside of the present argument, a particle of evidence but if it could be established, the reply might fairly be made that they rejected it on dogmatic grounds, and because it was not written by a man that they foolishly confounded with the Apostle, and that therefore their scepticism could not be) set against the belief of the rest of Christendom. To maintain at the same time that the Asiatics had a correct tradition and impression of John’s Judaic tendencies, and that all other traditions related to a man who was not the real John, is. obviously absurd. We may, accordingly, confine ourselves to the most telling and consistent form of the argument; and as the whole question is one of considerable interest, I will go a little more into detail than the simple purpose of refutation requires. Before entering on an account of the early controversy, I may venture to remark that the very confidence with which the argument is pressed excites a preliminary suspicion that there must be a flaw in it, because it would legitimately lead to consequences which are quite contrary to the fact. Mr Tayler, for instance, says: “The Gospel which we find in general circulation under the name of John before the close of the second century contains statements respecting the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples so entirely at variance with the belief on which the Quartodecimans, as their very name implies, founded their practice, that, had they recognized it as a work of John, it is impossible they could have appealed in their defence to his sanction. What is more remarkable still, those who were opposed to Quartodeciman usage, and wished to enforce a catholic uniformity through- out the church, never once thought of appealing in the earlier stages of the controversy to the statement in the Fourth Gospel which was decidedly in their favour. A word from one standing in so close a relation to Jesus as the beloved — a Σ μνυν.. ..... HISTORICAL SKETCH ἜΜ. Apostle would have settled the question for ever. Yet not ill quite the end of the second century do we find the name of John adduced to support the catholic view.”! The eader naturally asks, Then why did not the appeal to the ourth Gospel settle the question forever? The objectionable practice and the controversy continued for more than a century after the word was spoken by one who was believed to be the beloved Apostle, and the dispute was settled at last by an appeal, not to John, but to Constantine. Yet the Asiatics were never charged with holding false views in regard to the Gospel, but their entire orthodoxy, except in a point of discipline, was fully and frankly admitted. The argument, therefore, proves a great deal too much, and consequently creates a suspicion of some fundamental flaw. We will now proceed to a brief historical sketch, which will be a useful preparation for the discussion of details. Eusebius? relates that in the closing years of the second century there was no small disputation because the parishes of all Asia (that is, probably of the province), appealing to an ancient tradition, thought that they ought to observe the fourteenth day of the month as the Feast of the Passover of Salvation, the day on which the Jews were directed to kill the lamb. Accordingly on this day, on whatever day of the week it fell, they put an end to the fast, whereas the churches throughout all the rest of the world, following an apostolic tradition, thought it unbecoming to terminate it on any other than the day of our Saviour’s resurrection. Synods of bishops were held, letters were circulated, and there was a con- currence of opinion that the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection 1 An Attempt to Ascertain the Character of the Fourth Gospel, 1867, p. 117. ἈΠ i. ¥. 23. 8 Tod σωτηρίου πάσχα, so-called, presumably, to distinguish the Christian from the Jewish Passover. 448 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY from the dead should not be celebrated on any other than the Lord’s Day, and that on this day alone should the fast at the Passover be terminated. Several of these writings were extant in the time of Eusebius, and we should observe that among the bishops to whom he particularly refers are those of Pontus, for we thus learn that the Quartodeciman view did not extend over the whole of Asia Minor. The bishops of Asia, however, were not convinced ; and their leader, Poly- crates, addressed a letter to Victor of Rome, defending their | position. A portion of this letter has been preserved by Eusebius. Polycrates says: “We therefore keep the day not in a reckless manner, neither adding nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep.” He proceeds to specify Philip, one of the twelve apostles, “and moreover, also, John, who leaned on the breast of the Lord, who became a priest, having worn the petalon, and martyr and teacher: he sleeps in Ephesus.” Among more recent bishops, then deceased, he names Polycarp, Thraseas, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito, and says that “these all kept the day of the Passover on the fourteenth, according to the Gospel, transgressing in nothing, but following according to the rule of the faith.” He himself followed the tradition of his relatives, among whom he was the eighth bishop. He had been sixty-five years in the Lord, had met with brethren from all parts of the world, had gone through every holy scripture, and was not alarmed, for those who were greater than he had said, “We must obey God rather than men.” He could mention the bishops whom he had summoned at Victor’s request, who were very numerous, and signified their approval of the epistle. Victor’s reply to this letter was an attempt to excommunicate as heterodox the parishes of all Asia, together with the neighbouring churches. So extreme . 1 Tbid., 24. 2 "Apadiodpyntov. — HISTORICAL SKETCH 449 measure, however, did not meet with universal approval, and remonstrances were addressed to the bishop of Rome, urging him to have some regard for peace, and for unity and love towards his neighbours. Among others, Irenzeus wrote in the name of the brethren in Gaul. He admitted that the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection ought to be celebrated only on the Lord’s Day, but he admonished Victor not to cut off whole churches of God for observing an ancient custom. For, he added, the dispute was not only about the day, but about the very form of the fast, some fasting one day, some two or more; and these varieties, which arose at an earlier time from simplicity and ignorance, did not disturb their mutual. peace, but the difference of the fast proved the harmony of the faith. He then proceeded to relate an event which carries back our history from thirty to forty years. The presbyters who presided over the church of Rome before Soter (going back as far as Xystus, 115-125 A.D., according to Lipsius) did not themselves observe [? the day], and nevertheless they remained at peace with those who came from the parishes in which it was observed, although the contrast was made more obvious by the proximity. Never were any rejected, and the Roman presbyters, though not themselves observing, sent the Eucharist to those who observed! And when the blessed Polycarp was staying at Rome in the time of Anicetus (2155 A.D.), the latter could not persuade him not to observe, as he had always observed with John, the disciple of our Lord, and with the rest of the apostles with whom he associated; nor was Anicetus persuaded to observe, for he said that he ought to adhere to the custom of the presbyters before him. Nevertheless these two men had communion with one another, and in the church Anicetus allowed Poly- _ 1 This circumstance clearly indicates a difference between the celebration _ of the Eucharist and the celebration of the Passover. 29 450 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY | ἠδ 1 carp to celebrate the Eucharist, so that they parted in peace. Ireneus does not tell us, in the quotations which Eusebius | has given, from what sources he derived his information; but he must have had ample opportunities of learning the facts, — and I see no reason for calling them in question. Returning to the time of Victor, we find an incident of some importance, which is related only too briefly by Eusebius! The bishops of Palestine met together and drew up a letter in which they made a lengthened statement * about the tradition which had come down to them, from the succession of the apostles, in regard to the Passover. On this most interesting point we are unfortunately left without — information, and we cannot say to what apostles they appealed, or through what men the tradition had come down; but in comparing this with the Asiatic tradition we must remember that considerably more than a century had elapsed since the last apostle left Palestine, and that the country had been so ριον". a σισν distracted by insurrections and wars that there may well have been some break in the continuity of ecclesiastical customs, whereas in Asia our evidence professes to go back to the time of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of John. Nevertheless the Palestinian bishops themselves attached great importance to their decision, for at the end of the letter they expressed a desire that a copy should be sent to every church, so that they might not be responsible for those who “easily led their own souls astray.” They added that a letter had been received from Alexandria, from which it appeared that there also the same holy day was observed. That day, as we have seen, was a Sunday; but what Sunday we have not yet been told. | Kusebius gives us one other glimpse into the controversies | about the Passover in the second century.? Melito, bishop 1 Thid. 25. 2 Πλεῖστα διειληφότες. 3 H. E., iv. 26. HISTORICAL SKETCH 451 of Sardis, who is mentioned in the ietter of Polycrates as a supporter of the Asiatic custom, wrote two books on the Passover. The historian quotes only three lines from this treatise, and tells us nothing of its purport; but we learn that it was written in consequence of a great controversy which arose in Laodicea about the Passover, when Servilius Paulus was proconsul of Asia,! on occasion of the martyrdom of Sagaris. It is generally assumed that this controversy related to the point in dispute between the eastern and the western churches, and it is possible that on the death of Sagaris, who, as we have learned from Polycrates, was a Quartodeciman bishop, there may have been an attempt to introduce the western custom; but we must bear in mind that this is pure conjecture, and does not rest on a particle of evidence. Irenzus, as we have seen, expressly tells us that the controversy was not only about the day; and this particular dispute may have been about the fast, or about the meaning to be attached to the day, or about the evan- gelical chronology. Be this as it may, Melito’s work induced Clement of Alexandria to write a treatise of his own on the Passover, but hardly as a formal reply, for Eusebius only says he has mentioned Melito’s essay as the cause of his composition. Some fragments have come down to us of a work by Apollinaris of Hierapolis on the same subject,’ and it has been supposed that it too was written in reply to Melito; but of this there is no evidence whatever, and it is certainly curious that critics who so readily disbelieve facts which are more or less strongly attested, so confidently accept statements which are not supported by testimony of any kind. What the position of Apollinaris really was we shall have to consider further on. In spite of the strong measures adopted by Victor, the 1 About 164-6 A.D. 2 Preserved in the Chronicon Paschale. 452 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY Se several churches continued in the observance of their respective customs till the time of Constantine, and the : settlement of this question was one of the objects with which the Council of Nica was summoned.! It was decreed that all should celebrate the paschal festival at the same time,’ and a letter from the synod announced the good news that : all the brethren in the East, who formerly kept the Passover with the Jews, would henceforth act agreeably to the Roman — practice. Constantine himself appealed to the churches ἴῃς a letter which deals with the question at some length.* But even these combined authorities were not sufficient to ; terminate the controversy. Epiphanius tells us that men i were still writing and disputing about it in his time, and that the Audians persisted in keeping the Passover with the Jews.” Some of the Novatians also, in the latter part of the { fourth century, dissented from the general practice, in opposi-- tion to the custom of their own sect.6 But we need not dwell upon these later events; for any details which throw light on the subject under consideration will be noticed in the following discussion. ; We must now endeavour to interpret this ancient con- troversy, and examine its bearing on the Johannine author- ship of the Gospel. We must consider first the origin, extent, and meaning of the celebration known among the carly Christians as the Passover.’ | There can, I think, be no doubt that it was imported into Christianity from Judaism, though probably from the first it received an altered significance. Jewish Christians would 1 Socrates, i, 8. 2 Sozomen, I. xxi. 6. 3 Socrates, i. 9. * Given in Euseb., Vit. Con., iii. 17-20; Socrates, i. 9 ; Theodoret, Ee Hist., 1. 9. 2 τ Nowe στ Ὁ ΒΟΌΣ "ἂν 28, Vv. 21, vil. 5 ; Sozom., vI. xxiv. 6-7; VII. xviii. 7 Td Πάσχα. ORIGIN OF THE CELEBRATION 453 naturally keep the Passover with their countrymen, but would do so in remembrance, no longer of the deliverance from Egypt, but of Christ; and as the Old Testament was accepted by the Church as sacred Scripture, the ceremony would easily pass on to the Gentiles, who would look upon their own rite as the true and spiritual fulfilment of the law. That this was actually the course of events may be inferred from all the evidence at our disposal. The name of the festival is simply a repetition in Greek letters of the Aramaic form of nbs, the Hebrew word for Passover. The preservation of the same name points to con- tinuity of practice; and we must observe that the use of this Jewish name is not local or temporary, but universal and permanent. Everywhere the old writers assume that the feast in question is the Passover, and that it had been and was still kept by Jews as well as Christians. The significance of this fact is lost if we translate the word by our Easter; and I have therefore retained the translation which is habitually given to the Hebrew term. How this festival of Jewish name was celebrated in the earliest times, and to what extent it partook of the character of the Passover, our authorities do not inform us. In the fourth century it was regarded as the chief celebration in the year; the night before was turned into day by the splendour of the illuminations; and Easter day itself was kept with the utmost religious joy by all sections of the people! No doubt the ceremonial would tend to become more magnificent as time went on; but from the first it must have had some- thing to distinguish it from all other feasts, and to give appropriateness to the name by which it was called. The argument against the Johannine authorship of the Gospel 1 See details and authorities in the Dvctionary of Christian Antiqutties, article, “ Easter, ceremonies of.” 454 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY requires that at least its principal feature should have been the commemoration of the Last Supper on the presumed anniversary of the day when it was actually eaten; but this supposition is exposed to fatal objections. In the first place, it is totally destitute of evidence. Secondly, there would have been nothing distinctive in such a celebration, for the Lord’s Supper was administered every week. But most important of all in our present inquiry is this, that if the question had been on what day it was proper to commemorate the Last Supper, the controversy must have had quite a different form from that which it actually assumed. The dispute could not have been between the fourteenth day of the month and the first day of the week, but must have been . between the thirteenth and the fourteenth days of the month, the advocates of the former appealing to the Fourth Gospel. There would then have been real grounds for asserting an inconsistency between the alleged Johannine practice and the Johannine Gospel; but of any question whether the thirteenth or fourteenth day should be kept there is not a trace. The Western Church might, however, have preferred regulating even the commemoration of the Last Supper by the day of the week and not by the day of the year, but if so, Thursday, and not Sunday, would have been the proper time. The sup- position, therefore, that the Passover was merely an annual celebration of the Lord’s Supper must be discarded. With this conclusion the date of the Last Supper ceases to have anything to do with the controversy, and the argument collapses. | It has, however, been supposed that the eastern festival was much more Jewish in form than the western, whereas the Fourth Gospel wishes to separate the Last Supper from the Passover. Even if this were true, it would not signify, unless the question had arisen in what form the Last Supper should MODE OF CELEBRATION pais be celebrated ; but of this there is not a trace. Still it will be interesting to inquire how far the allegation can be sustained. All Churches agreed, as we have seen, in calling the festival the Passover, and thus recognising its Jewish origin. In accordance with this name it was formerly supposed that at the time of the paschal controversy the whole Church kept the Jewish Passover, and that a lamb was slain; but after- wards it was admitted that this was not the case with the Western Church, but only with the Eastern. But Schiirer, on whose authority this statement is made, adds that even the latter view is now generally given up. He maintains that certainly the Quartodecimans did not kill a lamb, for that portion of the celebration ceased even among the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, and even before that time the Jews living away from Palestine partook of an ordinary meal. It may be doubted whether the argument from Jewish custom is conclusive. The Jews naturally dispensed with the lamb when the Temple was destroyed ; but the Christians recognised the Church as the true temple of God, and its members as spiritual kings and priests; and they might therefore consider it proper to kill the lamb wherever they were residing, and may have adopted that custom before the destruction of Jerusalem. At all events we are not without some traces of this custom. Epiphanius, speaking of the manner in which “the holy Church of God” celebrates the Passover, says: “ We _take the sheep from the tenth day, recognizing the name of Jesus on account of the iota.”? Elsewhere, having quoted the “commandment to take a sheep from the tenth day of the Ὧ8᾽ and keep it till the fourteenth, he adds that the > 2 See-his dissertation, “De controversiis paschalibus sec. p. Chr. n. sec. exortis,” delivered July 26, 1869 ; translated in the Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. (1870), which last I have used, § iv. 2 The first letter of Jesus, and the symbol for ten. Her., 1. 3. 456 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY Church continues to observe the Feast of the Passover, that is, the appointed week, following the arrangement of the apostles themselves, from the second day of the week, which is the purchasing of the sheep; and if the fourteenth day of the month fell on the second or any subsequent day of the week, the sacrifice of the sheep went on. The Quartodecimans also would seem to have used the sheep, for Epiphanius ἢ urges as an inconsistency in their practice, that, if they keep the Passover on the fourteenth, they have need to take the sheep — from the tenth, and keep it till the fourteenth, and so their fast would continue, not for one day, but for five. These passages certainly suggest a general practice of killing a sheep at the Passover on the part of Christians. In the ninth century one of the charges brought by the Greek against the Roman Church, and repudiated by the latter as false, was that they blessed and offered a lamb at the Passover, according to the custom of the Jews, upon the altar, together with the Lord’s body. The charge may have been untrue in its precise form; but that it was not without foundation appears from a reference by Walafrid Strabo to the error of some “who consecrated with a proper [or special] benediction the flesh of a [or ‘the,’ the Latin leaving it doubtful] lamb at the Passover, placing it near or under the altar, and on the day of the resurrection partook of the flesh itself before other food for the body; and the order of this benediction,” he adds, “is still observed by many.”® The formula of benediction has been preserved,‘ and it is stated in one of the Roman rituals that ἃ 1 Her., xx. 12. =e: 3 De rebus eccles., c. 18. 4On the day of the Holy Passover, after the celebration of Mass, the following Benedictio agni in Pascha was pronounced in the Secretarium : “Post celebratam Dominice sanctz Pasche solennitatem, postque etiam transactos jejuniorum dies, jam animabus spiritualibus dapibus refectis de mensa tus majestatis, offerimus famuli tui pro hujus fragilitate corpusculi aliquantulum reparandi, hance usui nostro concessam creaturam agni, MODE OF ΟΕΙΕΒΕΒΑΤΙΟΝ. 457 lamb was solemnly partaken of by the Pope and eleven cardinals! The lamb was roasted, and the benediction pronounced, and the whole ceremony was in imitation of the Last Supper, as, indeed, is expressly stated, “in figure of the twelve apostles around the table of Christ, when they ate the Passover.” The lamb is not brought into connection with the | altar; and it was to such a connection, and not to the eating of the lamb, that the Greek Church objected. The ceremony took place in the Secretarium, after the celebration of Mass in the Church.” The Pope, having partaken of the lamb, handed : it to the next basilicarius, saying, “Quod facis, fac citius. Sicut ille accepit ad damnationem, tu accipe ad remissionem.” Distribution was then made to the rest who were present.® At the same time a curious custom prevailed “in the Catholic Church within the Roman state,” which further illustrates the connection of Easter with the Passover. The archdeacon moulded a preparation of wax and oil into the likeness of lambs, and these wax lambs were distributed among the people in the church after Mass and Communion, on the poscentes ut eum ore proprio nobis signantibus benedicas, ac dextera tua sanctifices, et universis ex eo sumentibus ministrata munuscula grata effici praestes, atque his cum gratiarum actione perceptis te DEUM, qui es cibus vite et anime nostre, magis et inhianter desideremus, et indefesse fruamur.” This is immediately followed by a Benedictio aliarum carnium, in which there is an allusion to the command given to Moses and “thy people” to eat a lamb in Egypt, “in figura agni Domini nostri Jesu Christi, cujus sanguine omnia primogenita tibi de mundo redemisti.” See Melchior Hittorpius, De divinis Catholice Ecclesix Officis ac Minsteriss, Coloniz, 1568, where an Ordo Romanus is printed from an old manuscript. The above quotations are from p. 79. There is a full account of the offices for the entire period of Easter celebration ; but the above are sufficient for our purpose. 1 See Gieseler, Kirchengesch., τι. i. § 41, note 12, to which my attention was called by J. J. Tayler, p. 122, note. 2 See the account quoted in a previous note from Melchior Hittorpius. 3 See Mabillon’s Musewm Italicum ; Lutecie Parisiorum, 1867-9, the Ordo Romanus auctore Benedicto (written before 1143), Tom. ii. p. 142; also auct. Cencio, pp. 186-7. 458 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY Saturday following Easter Sunday, that, “as the children of Israel in Egypt inscribed the sign T on the thresholds of their houses, that they might not be smitten by the angel, so we also ought to write this sign on the threshold of our houses by faith, from the blood of the passion of the Immaculate Lamb, Christ, lest we be smitten by the devil and by faults.” Urban V. (1362-1370) sent the emperor (Charles IV.) one of these wax lambs as “a great gift,” accompanied by some Latin verses, which show that it was expected to act as a charm.” In the foregoing accounts it is clear that the survival of the proper Passover was also a memorial of the Last Supper, and at the same time of the death of Christ as the true Paschal Lamb. It was not, however, celebrated on either the thirteenth or fourteenth of the month, but on Easter Sunday, when it brought the days of the fast to a close. The connection with the Passover has not been wholly forgotten in later times. In the Mis- sale Romanum authorized by the Council of Trent, Easter is still the “dies pasche,” and “on this day particularly” thanks are given to God, because “ Christ our Passover was sacrificed ; for he is the True Lamb, who has taken away the sins of the world.” Even the paschal symbols have not wholly dis- appeared from modern times. The following statements of Cardinal Wiseman’s are interesting: “The midnight service of Easter-eve, now performed on Saturday morning, gives a similar coincidence,? and stronger authority for this con- nection.* Before the Mass new fire is struck and blessed, and a large candle, known by the name of the Paschal candle, being blessed by a deacon, is therewith lighted... . This 1 [bid. in several “ Orders,” pp. 31, 138, 144 8.) 163, 202, 375 8ῆ.γ) 509 sq. 2 Iiid., Ordo auct J. Gaietano, p. 377. 3 Referring to lighting the church with twenty-four candles. 4 Between the lights and their mystical application. MODE OF CELEBRATION 459 year! being the seventh of the pontificate of the present Pope, you will have the opportunity of witnessing another very ancient rite, only performed every seventh year of each reign. This is the blessing of the Agnus Dei, waxen cakes stamped with the figure of a lamb. It will take place in the Vatican Palace on Thursday in Easter Week, and a distribution of them will be made in the Sistine Chapel on the following Saturday. The origin of this rite seems to have been the very ancient custom of breaking up the paschal candle of the preceding year, and distributing the fragments among the faithful. Durandus, one of the eldest writers on church ceremonies, tells us that on Saturday in Holy Week the acolytes of the Roman Church made lambs of new blessed wax, or of that of the old paschal candle, mixed with chrism, which the Pope, on the following Saturday, distributes to the faithful.”* The Prayer-book of the Church of England introduces the words “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us” at morning prayer on Easter Day. Mr Tayler? refers also to the practice of the Armenian Christians, who not only ate a lamb on Easter Sunday, but actually smeared their doorposts with its blood.* 1 18309. 2 Durand., “ Rationale Divin Offic., lib. vi. cap. 69, p. 349.” Four Lectures on the Offices and Ceremonies of Holy Week, as performed im the Papal Chapels, by Nicholas Wiseman, D.D., 1839, pp. 104-6. My attention was called to this work by the Rev. C. Hargrove. Lambs made of sweetmeats may be still seen in abundance in the shops in Rome* at Easter. 3 P 122, note, 4Mr F. C. Conybeare tells me that this is still the case, only they kill a sheep, not a lamb, and that the Greeks have the same practice. In a paper read before the Society of Historical Theology in Oxford, March το, 1898, Mr Conybeare quotes from a letter written shortly after A.D. 1150, by Nerses of Rom-kla, an account of the ritual connected with the offering of the Paschal lamb. Further, “ Nerses notes that it was not only inculcated by St. Gregory, whom he declares to have been as much inspired by the Holy Spirit as any other of the apostles, but was also in 46ο PASCHAL CONTROVERSY These instances certainly “justify the conclusion that in the Christian pascha there was a gradual transition from Jewish to Christian usage,’! or perhaps we should rather say, a gradual dropping of Jewish symbolism for Christian facts; but it seems to me a very strange inference that “the original dispute between the Quartodecimans and the Catholics related to something more fundamental than a mere reckoning of days,” ? for the instances which are cited point to Catholic practice, and Mr Tayler himself has to concede that “Jewish usage lingered longer in the West than in the East,” and that this is “contrary to what might have been expected from the earlier stages of the controversy.” It would be truer to say that it is contrary to the hypothesis on which Mr Tayler’s argument is so largely based. We should observe also that the distinction between Quartodecimans and Catholics is quite misleading for the period to which our inquiry properly belongs. The Quartodecimans were Catholics, and in spite of Victor remained within the com- munion of the Church. If we pass for a moment to another region, a similar testimony reaches us from eastern Syria. In a Homily on the Passover, written by Aphraates in the year 343-4, there is a passage in which the Christian festival is shown to correspond, point by point, with the ancient institution. The Redeemer himself was the lamb, of whom not a bone was vogue in the Roman Church. Gregory, he says, did not invent the rite of immolating a lamb at the Passover, but ‘ received it from the Roman (by which he need not mean the Greek) Church, and he handed it on to us, just as it is still practised in the entire Church of Europe, with greater care even than among ourselves. For when the lamb is roasted, they lay it under the altar at the time of the sacrifice (7.¢., Mass) on the day of the Passover, and after the communion of the mystery the priests divide it, and give a share to each, an” eat it within the church itself before they take any ordinary food.’ ” Tayler, p. 122. 2 Ibid. : ne ae ὦ» MODE OF CELEBRATION 461 broken; and most of the ceremonies receive a spiritual or figurative interpretation. But a real lamb seems to have been offered as a symbol of the Lamb of God, for the com- mandment not to eat the Passover raw or boiled with water is explained quite literally: “The sacrifice which is offered in the Church of God is roasted at the fire; and it is not boiled, and is not offered raw.” Such language is not applicable to the elements of the Eucharist, and must refer to an actual lamb; and this inference is confirmed by a sentence a little further on: “ And if he says, ‘Eat it as men who hasten away,’ this is fulfilled in the Church of God in this wise, that they eat the lamb ‘as men who hasten away,’ standing on their feet.”? So far, then, the evidence seems to warrant our saying that in the Church generally the Passover was a continuation of the Jewish festival, and resembled it sufficiently to justify the retention of the ancient name; and that, if a lamb was eaten, this practice was certainly not distinctive of the (Juartodecimans. The Church retained a clear consciousness of the connection between its own Passover and the Jewish, and, though alter- ing the day of celebration, appealed to the original command- ment as of fundamental importance in determining the proper date for the observance. Thus the writer of the Paschal Chronicle (about 630 A.D.”) calls attention to the fact that 1 See “ Aphrahat’s des persischen Weisen Homilien aus dem Syrischen tibersetzt und erlautert,” von Dr Georg Bert, in Texte und Untersuchungen, ili. 3; Hom., xii. § 6, p. 191. 2 The Paschal Chronicle extends to the year 627, but, according to the title in the best manuscript, ought to reach the year 629. Holstein, the Pope’s librarian from 1636 to 1661, is said by Ducange to have had a codex containing a shorter and earlier form of the Chronicle, reaching only to the year 354, and omitting some of the matter before that date which is found in the longer form. MHolstein’s good faith was subsequently questioned ; but the careful researches of Mr F. C. Conybeare seem con- 462 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY “the law expressly prescribes the holy and blessed Passover of God, at the same time indicating the month in which one ought to do this, and ordering the day to be observed with great accuracy,” and proceeds to show why the Christians, though basing their calculations upon that day, postpone the keeping of the festival till the following Sunday.’ But the legal Passover was only shadowy and typical; Christ himself was the true Lamb in the Feast of the Passover, as the evangelist John teaches, and suffered in the feast. This is also written by the blessed Paul.? Accordingly, when the typical and shadowy Passover was brought to an end by being fulfilled, “the genuine Passover of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God began, in memory of which every year the Church of God celebrates the holy feast of the Passover, keeping without error the fourteenth day of the first lunar month, in which the legal Passover was ordered to be observed”; but if this fell upon the Lord’s Day, the cele- bration was postponed till the following Sunday.’ It is clear, then, that even at a comparatively late period the Church professed to keep the Passover in obedience to the require- ment of “the divine law,”* only departing from the letter of the commandment, as it did in other instances, and filling the shadowy form with a Christian significance. There is nothing in the earlier accounts inconsistent with this view, while clusively to prove that Ducange was not mistaken. See his article, “On the Date of Composition of the Paschal Chronicle,” in the Journal of Theological Studies, 11. pp. 288-298. 1 Pp. 28 sqq., ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1832. 2 P. 10 sq. 3 P. 16. See also p. 419, and p. 423 sq. ,where it is said that the apostles handed it down to the churches to keep the fourteenth of the first lunar month, and the writer adds as a reason for putting off the celebration till the following Sunday, “that we may not feast with the Jews.” Epiphanius also says the law was not destroyed, but fulfilled, the type was not annulled, but presented the truth (Her., 1. 2). 4 See p. 29, line 21. AGREEMENT IN MODE OF CELEBRATION 465 some points are, as we shall see, distinctly confirmed; so that we may, I think, regard it as established that the Christian Passover was a continuation of the Jewish, more or less modified to suit Christian ideas. We must now inquire whether there was any material difference between the Asiatic and the other churches except in regard to the time of observance; for it is sometimes thought that the Quartodecimans kept the feast in a much more Jewish way, and that one object of the Fourth Gospel was to detach the festival from everything connected with Judaism. At first sight some of the allusions to the controversy may seem to justify this opinion. Socrates, in introducing the subject, contents himself with saying that some were anxious to celebrate the feast in too Jewish a way. Sozomen uses similar language,” and refers to Quartodecimans as those who imitate the Jews.* On this subject the letter of Constantine speaks very strongly. It seemed unworthy to celebrate the most holy feast conformably to the custom of the Jews. Let there be nothing common with the most hateful mob of the Jews. We should have no communion with the practices of such wicked men, the slayers of the Lord. Eusebius, too, in referring to the discussion of the Passover question at the Council of Nicza, says that finally the easterns gave way, and thus one festival of Christ was established, and they withdrew from the slayers of the Lord, and joined their fellow-believers, for nature draws like to like These statements, if they stood alone, might lead us to suppose that the general body of the Church was bitterly 44,8. ih, MVEA 3 VII. xviii. Io. 4 From a writing “On the Feast of the Passover,” printed in Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, iv. pp. 209-216, § 8. This is a large section of the work on the Passover presented by Eusebius to Constantine, preserved by Nicetas, Serrarum Episcopus (end of the eleventh century), in his great manuscript catena to Luke. See Editoris monttum, prefixed to the extract. ae 464 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY hostile to a Jewish mode of celebrating the Passover, to which Quartodecimans tenaciously clung. But the moment we ask what it was that was Jewish in the Quartodeciman practice, — this supposition is dispelled. There is one invariable answer ;— the Jews were not to prescribe the time of the Church’s festival. Constantine says that the controversy was “about the most holy day of the Passover,” and the decision of the — Council was that all, everywhere, should keep it on one and the same day. Sozomen also says that “it seemed good to the Synod that all should keep the Paschal festival at the same season,” and mentions no other point of dispute It is to this single question that all the arguments are directed, and I cannot recall any charge against the Quartodecimans of | following the Jews in any other objectionable particular. The argument, therefore, founded on the contrary supposition completely breaks down. But we are not without positive evidence that it was only the scruple about the day which separated the Quarto- decimans from their brethren. Polycrates, in his letter, says, “We therefore keep the day without recklessness, neither adding nor taking away,’ and, having referred to the apostles and bishops whose authority he followed, declares that these — all kept the fourteenth day “according to the Gospel, trans-— gressing in nothing, but following according to the rule of | the faith.” This, I think, is equivalent to a statement that, except in regard to the day, they followed the general practice of Christendom. It was on account of this single peculiarity that Victor wished to excommunicate them. It is to this that Irenzeus addresses himself in his remonstrance. | He refers, indeed, to differences of practice about the length — of the fast, but this is only to convince Victor that mere varieties of usage cannot justify an excommunication. It Lee Τὶ AGREEMENT IN MODE OF CELEBRATION 46ς fseems clear that the Roman bishop had not included the } nature of the fast in his indictment, and in any case this had nothing to do with Judaism. The testimony of Hippolytus is explicit. He ranks the Quartodecimans among heretics, and describes them as “of a quarrelsome nature, uninstructed in knowledge, too contentious in disposition”; and still he has nothing to bring against them except their observance of the fourteenth day. “In everything else,” he says, “they agree with all the things handed down to the Church by the apostles.”! Epiphanius also says, “they hold everything as the Church,” but in regard to the Passover have been led astray by Jewish fables. The only Judaism which he ascribes to them is their adhesion to the fourteenth day, and the practice of the Church which he justifies is the departure from the Jewish day.? In speaking of the Audians, a sect who followed the Quartodeciman practice, he explains what is meant by “observing the Passover with the Jews”; “that is,’ he says, “at the season in which the Jews keep their feast of unleavened bread, then they themselves are eager to hold the Passover.” ὅ Not only, then, is there no ground for the assertion that — the Quartodecimans clung to a peculiarly Jewish mode of celebration, which had been sanctioned by the Apostle John, and was repudiated by the evangelist and the majority of the Church, but such a notion is distinctly contrary to all the evidence we possess. We must now inquire a little more fully into the character and meaning of the celebration. It was a festival, a time of rejoicing. This would follow from its being regarded as the Passover, for the Passover is always spoken of as a feast, and was signalized, not by a fast, but by a characteristic meal. Accordingly, the Christian Passover is referred to as a feast 1 Ref. omn. her., viii. 18. 2 Her,, 1. 8. Her., Ixx. Ὁ: 30 466 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY so constantly that it is needless to refer to particular instances. I will notice only two writers who dwell upon its festive character. Eusebius alludes to it as a more splendid feast than that of the Jews. It took place at the — most delightful time of the year, and at this season the Saviour of the whole cosmos, the great luminary, lightened the world with the rays of piety, and peoples everywhere kept the feast of their liberation from manifold atheism. There- fore no labour was allowed, but they imitated the rest which they hoped for in heaven; “whence not even in our prayers do we bend the knee, nor do we afflict ourselves with fasts.” So full of joy was the time that they feasted for seven whole weeks, till “another great feast,” Pentecost, came in+ Gregory Nazianzen dwells in exalted language on the splendour of this “feast of feasts and assembly of assem- blies.”?2 To the general testimony I know of but one exception. Tertullian alludes to “the day of the Passover, in which there is a common and, as it were, public religious observance of a fast.”’? Here, however, the writer is not describing the Easter ceremonial, but merely refers to the more public character of the fast which then took place, in contrast with the more private fasts which it was possible to conceal; and we may therefore assume that he is describing, not a characteristic of the day in the African churches, but a characteristic of the fast which, as we shall see, was ter- minated, at the supposed hour of the resurrection, on Easter morning. This interpretation is confirmed by another passage, where are the words, “When Jeremiah says, ‘and I will gather them from the ends of the earth in a festive day,’ | he signifies the day of the Passover and of Pentecost, which is properly a festive day.”* “Festive day” seems intended 1 In Mai, §§ 2-5. 2 Quoted in}jChron. Pasch., p. 428. 3 Jejunii religio ; De Orat., 18. 4 De Baptismo, 19. MEANING OF THE CELEBRATION 467 to describe either day indifferently. Be this as it may, there can be no doubt that with the mass of Christians the Passover was kept as a festival, a time of rejoicing. Was this also the case with the Quartodecimans? If I correctly understand Mr Tayler, he thinks not. He maintains that the Jewish Christians “kept as the oldest Christian pascha the anniversary of the farewell supper on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan.”! A little farther on he says that “an obvious contrariety was soon experienced between the Jewish and the Christian idea associated with the word pascha. To the Jew it expressed rejoicing—the memory of deliverance ; to the Christian it suggested, in the first instance, the remem- brance of sorrow and loss, the death of his benefactor and best earthly friend. To the one it was a festival; to the other it was a fast.”2 But, strangely enough, when we pass over a few pages we meet with the following objection to the theory that the Quartodecimans commemorated, not the Last Supper, but the death of Christ: “If the death-day of Christ was observed on the fourteenth of Nisan, it must have been observed as a fast day, and would, therefore, have been in harmony with the prolonged course of fasting which preceded the anniversary of the resurrection. But the com- plaint against the Quartodecimans, as we have seen, was this—that by keeping the fourteenth of Nisan they inter- rupted with a feast, which the old pascha or Passover properly was, the continuous fasting of passion week.”? This is, I believe, perfectly correct as a statement of the fact; but then it is not easily reconciled with the previous passage, and it is quite as fatal to Mr Tayler’s own view as to the one against which it is urged. It becomes necessary, however, to examine the evidence relating to the Quarto- decimans’ usage on this point. 1, P. 114. pee ee 8 Ῥ, 121 84. 468 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY We have already seen that the one charge brought against them was that they kept the Passover on the wrong day, and there is not a particle of evidence that they violated the practice, common to Jews and Christians, of treating the celebration as a feast. Eusebius says, “They thought they ought to keep the fourteenth day of the moon at the feast of the saving Passover,” so that it was necessary to terminate the fast on that day, whatever day of the week it might be, where- as the other churches thought they ought not to break the fast except on the day of the resurrection; and to this effect was the decision come to by various synods. This clear statement is confirmed by the letter of Constantine. His objection to the Quartodecimans is that they “fulfilled that most holy feast in conformity with the custom of the Jews.” He thought it most impious that there should be discord in regard to such a feast, for the day of our liberty which the Saviour handed down was one; and it was “unbecoming that in the same days some should be devoted to fasts, and others be holding banquets, and that after the days of the Passover some should be engaged in feasts and recreation, and others be given to the appointed fasts.” The sum of the whole matter was that the minority gave way, and “it was agreeable to the common judgment of all that the most holy feast of the Passover should be celebrated on one and the same day.” All this is so explicit that there can be no doubt what was the nature of the question in the time of Constantine, and what Eusebius believed it to have been in the time of Polycrates. Eusebius had all the documents before him, and in the passages which he quotes there is nothing inconsistent with this view. The whole dispute turns on the observance of one day rather than another. The fragment from the letter of Irenzus, too, while pointing out that different ΤΕ By, 23. THE PRECEDING FAST 469 churches had different usages in regard to the character and length of the fast, makes no suggestion that the Quarto- decimans regarded the Passover itself as a fast, and his language is fully explained by the supposition that their one error consisted in keeping the feast too soon. We need have no hesitation, therefore, in accepting Eusebius’ testimony, and believing that from first to last this was the one point which caused a division in the Church. I may add that among heretical sects, Montanists, Novatians, Audians, which con- formed more or less closely to the Jewish time, there is no hint that the Passover was ever anything but a feast! To this extent, then, the whole Church remained “ Jewish,” that the Passover bore distinctly the marks of a festival. The celebration was, as we have seen, preceded by a fast. This was under no fixed rule, but was of varying length in different places. Irenzeus, in his letter, says some fasted one day, others two, others more, and some for forty hours of day and night. By the time of Eusebius the fast had extended to six weeks, or, more exactly, forty days, in imitation of the zeal of Moses and Elijah.2 But we learn from Socrates that even in his time this was not a universal custom ; for instance, the Romans only fasted for three weeks, making an exception of Saturday and Sunday. In Constantinople and the sur- rounding countries as far as Phcenicia they extended the fast to seven weeks, while the Montanists restricted it to two.4 According to the Apostolical Constitutions the fast was to be kept for six days before Easter Sunday, and to terminate at cock-crow on the morning of that day.’ As the Church was without a fixed rule in regard to the duration of the fast, so 1 See Sozomen, vi. xxiv. 6, 7, VII. xviii. ; Socrates, v. 21, 22; Epiph., Her., 1. 1, 1xx. 9. 2 In Mai, §§ 4-5. i 22 4 Sozomen, VII. xix. 7. Sows re. 18: 470 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY was it with respect to the precise character of the abstinence, and the meaning to be attached to it. With Eusebius it was “a symbol of sorrow, on account of our former sins, and in memory of the saving passion.”® Iam not aware, however, that there is any ground for attributing this meaning to it in earlier times. A distinct memorial of the passion would not have lasted for forty days, and it seems most likely that the fast was originally an ascetic preparation for the great festival of the redemption; that its length was determined by local feeling or by Old Testament examples; and that every- one attached to it such significance as the season and a time of self-discipline suggested. That the passion should be specially remembered on the previous Friday is only what we should expect. According to the Apostolical Constitutions one object of the fast was to mourn for the destruction brought upon the Jews by their impiety; for even Christ himself wept over them, as they knew not the time of their visitation. The fast was to be kept on the Wednesday and Friday on account of the betrayal and the passion, and to be more strictly observed on the Friday and the Sabbath, when the bridegroom was taken away. We need not, however, dwell further on these varieties of usage. Sufficient has been said to show that for centuries the Church was largely tolerant of local custom. An exception was made in regard to the Quartodeciman peculiarity because the Passover was the great festival of the year, and, as Constantine said, it seemed unbecoming that Christians should not unite in the time of its celebration. Other differences were quite subordinate, and did not mark such an obvious line of separation within the Christian Church.* 1 Soc., zbid. 2 In Mai, § 11. 3 Ap. Const., v. 15, 18. 4 For fuller information and references about the fast, see Schiirer, De Controv. pasch., § vii. TERMINATION OF THE FAST 471 That the fast terminated, at the latest, very early on Easter morning we know from express testimony. The first part of a letter addressed by Dionysius of Alexandria to his “beloved son and brother Basilides” relates to this question.) Basilides, who, as we learn from Eusebius,? was bishop of the parishes in Pentapolis, had consulted Dionysius about the hour for concluding the fast. He did so owing to a difference of opinion among the brethren, some thinking they should do it at cock-crow, others “from the evening” (that is, the evening before Easter Sunday), the brethren in Rome, as was alleged, following the former practice, “those here” (in Egypt, or perhaps the East generally) closing the fast sooner. He was at a loss how to fix an exact hour; for while it would be “acknowledged by all alike” that they ought to begin their festivities after the time of the resurrection of our Lord, and to humble their souls with fasts up to that time, the Gospels contained no exact statement of the hour at which he rose. Dionysius in reply considers the accounts in the Gospels, and then pronounces his opinion for the guidance of those who inquire at what hour or half hour or quarter of an hour they ought “to begin the rejoicing at the resurrection of our Lord from the dead.” He blamed as negligent those who were in Ὁ great a hurry, and ended the fast before midnight; he highly applauded those who held out till the fourth watch; aiid those who took an intermediate position he would not olest, for all were not equally tolerant of the six days of fasting, and these days were kept with very different degrees of strictness. Mr Tayler® says that the “strong assertion” in this passage (that all would acknowledge that the fast should terminate at the hour of the resurrection) “should be 1 A careful edition of the letter is contained in Routh, Relig. Sac., 111. pp. 223 sqq. * Hi. £., vii. 26. 3 \P. 1 2. 472 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY noticed, as marking the point which the triumph of the Catholic principle had already reached,” and, further, that “it is quite evident. ... that in the time of Dionysius the word πάσχα, in the view which had then become predominant in the Catholic Church, had passed on from its original association with the fourteenth of Nisan to a fixed position in the first day of the week, on which Christ was believed to have risen, and had acquired a meaning equivalent to — our Easter, as the anniversary of the resurrection.” These remarks appear to me to be very misleading; for they surely imply that the state of things portrayed in the epistle was comparatively recent, and that the general body of the Church had once been Quartodeciman, and had undergone a gradual change, which was still in progress. But of this there is not a particle of evidence. When we first hear of the question, the Roman custom is fully established, and believed to rest on a very early tradition. When it was introduced it is impossible to say with confidence; but there is no ground of any sort for the implied suggestion that the churches of Rome and Alexandria were ever Quartodeciman. Whether the Passover commemorated only the resurrection will appear in the sequel. Before leaving the subject of the fast we must observe that the night before the day of the Passover was spent in a vigil! The reason for this observance was twofold; because in it Christ returned to life after his passion, and was, in it, to receive his kingdom.2, Hieronymus relates a tradition of the Jews that Christ would come in the middle of the night, as in the Egyptian time when the Passover was celebrated ; and to this he traces the apostolic tradition that in the day of the vigil of the Passover it was not allowable to dismiss 1 See an account of vigils in Constit. Apost., v. το. 2 Lactant, Div. Inst., vii. 19. THE VIGIL 473 |the people before midnight, while they awaited the advent lof Christ. After that time, presuming that they were secure, all kept the festal day. Now a narrative in Sozomen 2 connects the feast of the resurrection with this vigil, and distinguishes it from the Passover. He tells us that after the deposition of John (Chrysostom), “when the forty days’ fast was already ceasing, in the sacred night itself in which the annual festival in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ is celebrated, his partisans were driven out of the church,” and on the following day they celebrated the Passover in a public bath, under bishops and presbyters and the rest whose function it is to administer ecclesiastical affairs. This seems to imply that even at this late period the dis- tinctive feast of the resurrection took place at night, at the proper hour for the cessation of the fast, and that the Passover, whatever may have been the mode of its celebration, was a separate rite, with its own significance. It is therefore not safe to assume that in the Catholic Church the Passover had become simply “the anniversary of the resurrection,” though, as we shall see, the memory of Christ’s triumph over death entered largely into the Christian interpretation of the festival. In endeavouring to ascertain the meaning of the Christian Passover we may begin with a late writer, whose statements are sufficiently full and explicit. The writer of the Paschal Chronicle, having remarked that Christ, as the true Lamb, was sacrificed for us at the feast of the legal Passover, and rose the third day, when the priest was required to offer the sheaf, says that the typical Passover was brought to an end, the real Passover having come. In memory of this the 1 See Gieseler, Kirch., 1. i. § 53, note 11. See, also, Socrates, vii. 5, “ the accustomed vigil.” 2 VIII. xxl. 474 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY Church kept the Feast of the Passover every year; and the writer describes this as “the holy feast of the resurrection of Christ our God from the dead.”1 Although the Passover is here called the feast of the resurrection, it is clear from what goes before that the memory of the passion was included. The resurrection was the crowning event, and presupposed the death, whereas the death did not necessarily presuppose the resurrection; and accordingly a reference to the resur- rection might include both the death of the true Lamb and the presentation of the first fruits from the dead. Elsewhere the author points out the propriety of celebrating the feast of salvation after Christ’s resurrection, which took place on the sixteenth of the month,? and from this year Christians began to keep the quickening feast of the resurrection? It appears, however, that there were some who blamed the Church for applying the name of πάσχα to the feast of the resurrection, not knowing apparently the meaning of the word‘; for it is a Hebrew term signifying a passing over, a going out, an overstepping. The Church, therefore, necessarily applies the name of πάσχα not only to the passion of the Lord, but also to his resurrection; for it is through his passion and resurrection that human nature has obtained the passing over, and going out, and overstepping of him who has the dominion of death ; for if the death of Christ bestowed this boon upon us, much more his resurrection, when he rose from the dead, the first fruits of them that slept. The Israelites were instructed to call only the fourteenth day Passover, owing to the events of their history; but the Church, for the reason given, necessarily assigns this name not only to the passion and death of Christ but also to his resurrection. The author concludes his discussion with the ge ae NS ΚΕΡῚ 15. θῆς 8. P, 42ο. * The writer probably refers to a confusion between the word and πάσχω. MEANING OF THE CELEBRATION 475 ords, “Christ our Passover was sacrificed and rose for us, d we call the death and the resurrection of the Lord assover.”! It is clear, then, that in the opinion of this iter of the seventh century the Passover was a com- emoration of the two great acts of redemption, but that here was a tendency to lay the chief stress on the closing act of triumph over death. As the Passover had this twofold reference, it 15 not sur- rising that earlier writers allude to it sometimes under one f its aspects, sometimes under the other. Sozomen speaks ἢ the “first day of the resurrection feast.”? The feast as a hole would naturally commemorate the more joyful event, nd yet the first day, the proper Passover, might seem to ite it with the passion, which had just preceded. Socrates accordingly assigns to the “Feast of the Passover "dee emory of the saving passion.”* Going back to a still earlier time, we find that Constantine describes it as “the feast from which we have received the hope of immortality,” and yet in the same letter he says that “our Saviour has handed down as one the day of our liberty, that is, the day of the most holy passion.” Eusebius combines the two ideas, but makes the memory of the passion the more prominent. The Jewish Passover, he says, was only typical, as is proved by Paul's saying, “Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us.” The Baptist gives the reason for the sacrifice: “ Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”* It is clear that the passion is here the uppermost thought; and we must observe that Eusebius sees no inconsistency between this and a feast of liberty,> and the celebration of that feast on the Lord’s Day. Indeed, he insists that, whereas the Jews killed the sheep of the Passover only once a year, “we of the new 1 Pp. 424 sqq. 2 vil. xix. 6. 8 ν΄. 22. 4 In Mai, 8 1. § § 3. 476 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY covenant on each Lord’s Day celebrate our own Passover, are always filled with the saving body, always participate in the blood of the sheep, always gird up the loins of our soul with purity and sobriety,” are always delivered from Egypt; for we must do these things, not once a year, but every day “Wherefore also every week we celebrate the Feast of our Passover, on the saving and dominical day, of the true Sheep through whom we were redeemed, fulfilling the mysteries.” And again he says that we ought to eat the Passover with Christ, removing from our minds all the leaven of wickedness and anointing the doorposts of our mind with the blood of the Sheep sacrificed for us; and this not at one period of the whole year, but. every week.2. And yet again he says, “ We celebrate the same mysteries through the whole year,’ fasting every Friday in memory of the saving passion, and every Lord’s Day quickened by the sanctified body of the same saving Passover, and sealing our souls with his precious blood.* The weekly celebration referred to must be the Lord’s Supper and we are thus reminded that even the Lord's Supper was not a mere memorial of Christ’s farewell meal, but com- memorated the new covenant and the price which was needed for its ratification, the body broken and the blood shed upon the cross; and in declaring the Lord’s death until he came it at least suggested the thought of the resurrection. But I do not think we can infer from the words of Eusebius that the Passover consisted only of the Lord’s Supper; for he clearly implies that there was an annual festival which must have been distinguished in some way from the weekly service. He only extends the name to the Lord’s Supper because it was a constant memorial of the true Passover Lamb, and ought to be followed by the spiritual results which were symbolized Ὑ the Jewish ceremonial. 1§7. 2 ὃ 11. 3. § 12. MEANING OF THE CELEBRATION 477 4 A little earlier, Peter, bishop of Alexandria,! quotes from πὸ Trecentius the statement, “For we have no other purpose han to keep the memory of his passion, and at the time when those who from the beginning were eye- -witnesses have ng Ended down.”2 This description of the feast is not called in ' aestion by the bishop, whose object it is to refute the view of Trecentius that the Jews were always in error, and that sven their ancient celebration of the Passover had nothing ἰς do with Christians. We may, therefore, accept this as another example of the indifference with which the feast was | described as a commemoration of the passion or of the resurrection. Going back for another century, we find that é fertullian, in recommending suitable days for baptism, connects the Passover with the Passion,? while he reserves the resurrection for Pentecost‘; but this is quite an incidental expression suggested by another subject, and can hardly be taken as a proof that the African Church did not com- m memorate the resurrection as well as the passion at their ik assover. We must now turn to the Quartodecimans. We have already seen that the only point of controversy between them nd the rest of Catholic Christendom related to the day of celebration. We might, therefore, infer that they too kept the Passover in memory of the passion and resurrection ; and this inference is confirmed by such evidence as we possess. Accord- in ng to Eusebius, in whose time, we must remember, the ΟΜΝ was still agitating the Church, the Quarto- a imans kept the Feast of the Passover on the day on which the Jews were commanded to kill the sheep, and thus termin- ated the fast without regard to the day of the week, whereas 1 Appointed 300 A.D. 2 Chron. Pasch., p. 7- 8 Cum et passio domini in qua as danas adimpleta est. 4 De Baptismo, 19. y 478 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY the rest of Christendom thought the fast ought not to be broken except on the day of the resurrection, and a deer 2 was issued by letters from various synods that the myste y of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead should not k 5 celebrated except on the Lord’s Day, and on this day alone they should bring the fast to an end! Here it is evident that in the Church at large the memory of the resurrectio n was an essential part of the celebration; and it is equall y clear that it was so with the Quartodecimans, for the point of the objection to them is not that they confined their com- memoration to the Last Supper or to the passion, but that they broke the fast, and thereby commemorated the resur- rection too soon. No doubt the killing of the sheep reminded them as well as their opponents of the passion; but of a commemoration of the Last Supper of which Jesus partook with his disciples there is not a hint. Theodoret, in his very brief article on the Quartodecimans, says that they kept “th 2 p) Feast of the Passover” on the fourteenth day of the moon, and, having misunderstood the apostolic tradition, did not await the day of the Lord’s resurrection but celebrated “the; memory of the passion” on whatever day of the week the fourteenth might fall? He might seem here to distinguish) the memory of the passion from that of the resurrection, and to ascribe only the former to the Quartodecimans. But I do not think this is intended; for it in no way affects the point of his objection, and the one really included the other. He makes it probable that it referred to the joyful as well as the mournful part of the closing scenes of Christ’s earthly life ; and it was quite as inappropriate to celebrate one as the other on any day of the week indiscriminately. In any cas 5 there is no reference to the Last Supper. 4 ps Sen Cee eS 2 Heeret. fab. comp., iii. 4. ΣῈ." DISPUTE ONLY ABOUT THE DAY 479 ‘ We must turn, however, to such contemporary evidence as we possess. This fully confirms the representations of Eusebius. Polycrates, in his letter, speaks simply of keeping ἃ particular day, and not only makes no allusion to any difference of meaning attached to the day, but says expressly that in keeping it they transgressed in nothing, but followed “according to the rule of the faith.” We have not the words of Victor’s decree of excommunication; but from Irenzeus’ | , letter of remonstrance we may safely infer that it was based solely upon the difference in the time of observance. Irenzeus _concedes that the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection ought to be celebrated only on the Lord’s Day, clearly implying that this was the point in dispute. He then informs Victor that this was not the only subject of debate; again, I think, ‘implying that this was the only one of which the Roman bishop had taken notice. What other source of variation, then, does he mention? Not a difference in the character of the celebration, not a difference in the events which were commemorated, but only a variety in the length of the preceding fast. This did not interfere with the communion of the churches, but only confirmed the harmony of the faith. Eusebius gives us only portions of the letter; but the ‘implication clearly is that in like manner the observance of this day rather than that ought not to interrupt communion. He supports this argument by an appeal to history. He says that the Roman bishops from Xystus! to Anicetus,? though not themselves observing, nevertheless maintained communion with those who did observe*; and when Polycarp visited _Anicetus, though neither could persuade the other to depart _ 2 About 115 aD. 2 Died about 166. _ 8 Ἐτήρησαν, μὴ τηροῦντες, etc., have no object expressed ; but it seems Ἷ evident from the whole scope of the epistle that the fourteenth day must be understood. } 480 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY from an ancient custom, the latter permitted the former to celebrate the Eucharist in the church. Finally, the only part of the epistle from the bishops of Palestine which Eusebius" thinks it necessary to quote contains an assurance that “in Alexandria also they celebrate on the same day as we do,’ as had been learned by an exchange of letters. Thus all our evidence combines to show that the whole con-_ troversy turned upon the day on which the Passover should” be celebrated, and here the question lay, not between two consecutive days of the month, but between a fixed day of the month and a fixed day of the week. ‘ We must now review the arguments which were advanced on each side, so far as the fragments which have come down to us will enable us to do so; for we shall thus gain a clearer insight into the nature of the controversy, and test the modern allegation that the Quartodeciman practice was founded on~ the Synoptic chronology, that of the rest of the Church on the Johannine. First of all, appeal was made on both sides to tradition. The Asiatics appealed to the example of Philip of Hier- | apolis, one of the twelve apostles, John of Ephesus, who leaned on the breast of the Lord, and an unbroken succession of bishops!; and, according to Irenzeus, this appeal was made by Polycarp, when he visited Rome, and found there a different custom from his own.? On the other hand, the Roman Anicetus appealed only to the custom of the Presbyters who preceded him; and it is remarkable that Irenzus, while agreeing with the Roman custom, traces it back only to the time of Xystus. It is not till a much later period that we hear of a western reliance on the apostles Paul and Peter.’ Eusebius tells us that the bishops of Palestine, at the time of 1 Letter of Polycrates. 2 Letter to Victor. 3 Socrates, v. 22. Sozomen, VII, xix. I. ; ty THE ARGUMENTS EMPLOYED ~— 481 _ the controversy with Victor, referred to the tradition which : had come down to them from the succession of the apostles. ' Socrates seems to treat all these traditions as of little value, because none of the combatants could produce a written _authority.!. I think this is almost an unreasonable scepticism | in regard to the statements of Irenzus; but however this may be, it seems evident that before the controversy broke out the different customs had become established, and were followed as a matter of course till they were challenged from _ the outside, and then appeal was made in the first instance to tradition, and only afterwards more elaborate arguments were sought for to justify a practice which had become intertwined with the religious affections of the people.” When arguments were at last resorted to, it is impossible _ to say in what order they were devised and marshalled; but we may conjecture that recourse would be had in the first instance to the Jewish law. The festival was, by universal consent, the Passover; and about the observance of the _ Passover very precise directions were given in the law of ~ Moses. Accordingly, Pseudo-Tertullian tells us that Blastus (ὦ Quartodeciman Montanist in Rome) affirmed “that the _ Passover ought not to be kept except in accordance with the law of Moses on the fourteenth of the month.”* Hippolytus too refers to the Quartodecimans’ regard for what was written in the law, that he should be cursed who did not keep the commandments‘; and Epiphanius chides them for 1 Th. 2 In regard to the Palestinian appeal to the apostles I may venture to suggest that the apostles were not very likely to adopt the somewhat complicated Roman mode of reckoning Easter, or to depart from the Jewish day of celebrating the Passover ; but having kept the Passover at the usual _ time in memory of the passion, they may have observed the following Sunday with peculiar solemnity in memory of the resurrection. Thus a _ starting-point would have been supplied for divergent practices. 3 Adv. omn. heer., ἃ 8. | 4 Ref., viii. 18. 321 482 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY making use of the saying in the law, “Cursed is he who shall not keep the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month.” ' These precise words are not found in the Old Testament, but they are contained inferentially in the curse against all who — did not observe the law.” The reply to this argument was easy: it would carry the © Quartodecimans a great deal further than they were willing — to go. They would be cursed if they were not circumcised, if — they did not pay tithes, if they did not bring offerings to — Jerusalem.? As the Apostle had said, they would be debtors — to do the whole law, if they bound themselves to one ᾿ commandment. The true Passover had come, and was ΠῸ longer to be kept in the letter. The Jewish ceremonies were ~ only a shadow of things to come, and now that Judaism had — been changed into Christianity, the literal and typical rites of the Mosaic law had ceased. It was not the purpose of the Saviour or his apostles to legislate about feast days, but to introduce an upright life and piety. And if the Quarto- — decimans thought that they ought to follow the Jewish ~ practice because Christ did so, then they ought to do every- — thing else which he did in a Jewish fashion.6 We must πού, however, conclude from this mode of reply that the opponents © of the Quartodecimans had detached their feast from the — Passover, and become indifferent to the ancient law, but only — that they were willing to interpret it with a certain latitude — of meaning. As the writer of the Paschal Chronicle says, the typical Passover came to an end through the death and resurrection of Christ, the true Passover; and in memory of Pa ee ee ee 1 Her.,.J. 1. 5 See also the account of Sabbatius in Socrates, vii. 5. 3 Epiph., ἐδιά., 2. * Hip., ibid. 5 Euseb. in Mai, § 1 ; Socr., v. 22, near beginning, See also a “ Discourse on the Resurrection ae ἀεί ” attributed to Epiphanius (Migne, column ~ 468 sg.), and Aphraates, Hom., xii. 4. δ Socr., tbhid. See also Gieron. Pasch., pp. 12, 16. THE ARGUMENTS EMPLOYED 483 _ this event the Church of God kept the holy feast every year, _ “observing without error the fourteenth day of the first lunar | month, in which the legal Passover has been ordered to be celebrated, after the advent of the day in which the Holy . Spirit taught that the spring equinox begins”; and if this _ happened to be Sunday or any succeeding day of the week, the feast of the resurrection was kept on the following Sunday. Thus the fourteenth day of the month, that is to- say, the full moon at or after the vernal equinox, was care- fully noted by the westerns as the indispensable basis of their calculations, and they thus showed their regard for the law, although they departed from its letter. This account is substantially confirmed by Eusebius some centuries earlier. In his treatise on the Passover he gives a brief description of its original institution, as the source of the Christian observ- ance, of which it was typical?; and in none of the replies to the Quartodeciman argument is it maintained that the Christian feast was not ‘the Passover, and was in no way dependent on the ancient commandment. Why, then, it may be asked, was not the fourteenth day universally observed? For if the day was a matter of in- difference, it would have been most natural to adhere to the established custom. The change was partly owing to con- tempt for the Jews, and a wish to be dissociated from them as much as possible—a state of mind which finds strong ex- pression in the letter of Constantine. I can hardly suppose, however, that this was really operative in the first instance, and much better reasons existed. Among the Jews, it is alleged, certain irregularities had arisen. In order to bring the lunar year into agreement with the solar it was necessary 1 Pp. 15 sq., 18 86. 2 Mai, 88 1 and 6-7. See also Epiph., Her., 1. 2, and Aphraates, Hom., xii. §§ 1-4. 484 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY periodically to intercalate a month. In consequence of this — the determination of the equinox was sometimes neglected, so that, when the year was reckoned from one vernal equinox to another, the Jews sometimes celebrated two Passovers in one year, and none in the next. To keep the Passover in this i ate aaa sem ΕΙΣ way before the equinox was a violation of the law; and it was contended that, though the Jews in ancient times had observed the correct time for the feast, they had ceased to do so from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem under Vespasian ; or, according to another opinion, from the date οὗ the crucifixion. There was, therefore, a real reason for ; refusing to follow the Jews in their time of celebration, even on the part of those who considered themselves bound by the commandment; and Socrates tells us that this led to a | division among the Quartodecimans themselves, some thinking Ἶ that they ought to follow the Jews, whilst others maintained : that the Passover ought always to come after the equinox in the Roman month of April Here, then, was the first cause of divergence, the Quartodecimans for the most part adhering to the Jewish determination of the season; the westerns, who were accustomed to the solar year, universally celebrating the feast after the equinox. | This cause of divergence, however, is not mentioned in the earliest accounts, and it does not explain why the westerns departed from the fourteenth day. The reason for this may be gathered from the nature of the Christian festival, and is clearly stated by Epiphanius.? Regard was paid to three 1 v. 22. On the general subject, see the same chapter; Sozomen, vu. xvii. 7 ; Euseb., edited by Mai, § 12; Constantine’s letter ; Epiph., Her., 1. 3 (the words should be noted : παρατηρούμεθα μὲν τὴν τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην, ὑπερβαίνομεν δὲ τὴν ἰσημερίαν, φέρομεν δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἁγίαν κυριακὴν τὸ τέλος τῆς συμπληρώσεως" λαμβάνομεν δὲ τὸ πρόβατον ἀπὸ δεκάτης), ΙΧχ. 11 ; Peter of Alex. in Chron. Pasch., pp. 4 844. ; Dionysius of Alex. in Euseb., H. E., vii, 20; Const. Apostol., v. 17. 4 Her. 1.3, lex: 11-12, THE ARGUMENTS EMPLOYED 485 measures of time, the solar year, the month, and the week. _ The first decided the equinox, after which the festival must be held. The second fixed the fourteenth day, on which, under the law, the sheep was to be killed, and on which, accordingly, Christ was crucified. But a week was observed instead of a single day, partly because the sheep was set apart from the tenth day to the fourteenth, and partly because the events connected with the true Paschal Lamb were not limited to a single day, but comprised the resur- rection which took place two days after the passion. The fourteenth day, therefore, was comprised within the week ; _ but the breaking of the fast, and the celebration of the festival, were postponed till the Lord’s Day. If, however, the fourteenth fell on a Sunday, the feast was put off till the next Sunday. I cannot suppose that this was due merely to a wish to differ from the Jews; but it seemed only natural to dedicate the fourteenth to the memory of the passion, and therefore to include it within the period of the fast. There was also a further reason for postponement in the fact that the resurrection took place subsequently to the fourteenth. The writer of the Paschal Chronicle says that the postponement was made for two reasons: first, it would have been contrary to law to terminate the fast on the thirteenth, before the moon was actually full; and, secondly, it would have been unbecoming to carry on the fast into the Lord’s Day. It was therefore necessary to put off the celebration ; but then, as the number ten includes the number nine, so the later date includes the earlier. There is nothing in this explanation inconsistent with our oldest authorities, and it enables us to see how easily the conflicting 1 Pasch. Chron., p. 424. For the dislike of the Jews see also Constantine’s letter. 2 See Pusch. Chron. pp. 413 84.) 30 84. 3 Ρ, 30. 486 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY usages arose. The Jewish festival passed into the Christian Church, and was kept in memory of the death and resurrection of Christ, the great redemptive work which was symbolized by the ancient deliverance from Egypt. Nothing could be more natural than the Asiatic adherence to the time pre- scribed by the law; and, on the other hand, as the Church became more and more Gentile, it was equally natural to modify the time in accordance with Christian memories, and keep the festival of the resurrection only on the Lord’s Day. The propriety of the latter observance constituted, as we have seen, the stress of the argument in the first instance. So far the arguments on each side have little or no bearing on the Gospel question; but we come now to an allegation which, if it could be substantiated, would lend some support to the opponents of the Johannine authorship. It is that the Quartodecimans relied on the Synoptic chronology, and rejected the Johannine, whereas the westerns adhered to the latter, and set aside the former. This contention appears to me to be founded on an entire misconception of the con- troversy, and not to be supported by the facts. In order that the argument might be valid, the dispute ought to have | been whether the Christian Passover was to be kept on the thirteenth or the fourteenth day of the month. Of such a dispute there is not a trace. The westerns, as we have seen, were as particular about observing the fourteenth of the month as the Quartodecimans themselves; only, instead of holding the feast on that day, they calculated from it the _ Sunday on which the celebration should be kept. The con- troversy, therefore, was not between adjoining days of the month, but between the day of the month and the day of the week, and consequently was in no way connected with the varying chronology of the Gospels. This being the case, it is not surprising that no allusion to different opinions OPINION OF IRENZUS 487 Ἵ about the Gospels occurs in the histories of the controversy, and among the arguments contained in any connected _ treatise against the Quartodecimans there is no appeal to ; the Fourth Gospel. This fact would be unintelligible if the _ westerns had really supposed that the Gospel of John settled i the question. It may be asked, then, What support is there : for the modern allegation? It rests on a few arguments i which have come down to us in complete isolation from their context; and as they relate to the date of the Last _ Supper, it has been assumed that they are parts of the en Oe halal Quartodeciman controversy. We must examine these, as well as some other statements on the same subject, and I believe we shall find that the difference of opinion about the evangelical chronology did not coincide with the separation between Western and Quartodeciman, but that defenders of both views were to be found on both sides, and that instead of admitting a discrepancy between the Synoptics and John, | they had, with hardly an exception, some way of forcing the Gospels to speak with one voice. Before we proceed to the fragments themselves, we must notice the opinions of a few well-known writers, that we may have at least a small body of assured fact on which to base our judgment of a more obscure question. Turning first to Irenzeus, we find a chapter in which he is specially defending the Johannine chronology against the opinion of the Valentinians, represented by Ptolemzus, that the ministry of Jesus lasted only for one year. He refutes this opinion by pointing out the number of Passovers which, according to John, the disciple of the Lord, Jesus had celebrated, and he assumes without remark that finally Christ went up to Jerusalem, ate the Passover, and suffered on the following day. Here, then, while appealing to the Fourth Gospel, he 1 1. xxii. 3. lid 488 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY tacitly assumes that in regard to the Last Supper and the crucifixion it. is in agreement with the Synoptics. This testimony is important because, as we know, Irenzus thought the Quartodecimans mistaken, and therefore, according to the hypothesis we are considering, he ought to have believed that Jesus partook of the Last Supper on the thirteenth, and was crucified on the day of the Passover; yet he gives not a hint that any difference of opinion on this question existed. It further deserves remark that, in connection with his whole argument, he appeals to “all the elders who in Asia had intercourse with John the disciple of the Lord.”! This surely proves that it was possible for Asiatics at once to acknowledge the authority of the Fourth Gospel, and yet to believe that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover. We should observe also that Irenzeus wrote a treatise on the Passover,” and was, therefore, in all probability quite familiar with the arguments current in his own day. I doubt whether Trenzus can have intended to contradict the foregoing plain statement in a later passage,? in which he represents the institution of the Passover as prefiguring the suffering of the Lord; for Christ might very naturally be regarded as the true Pascha, even if his death did not precisely coincide with the slaying of the paschal lamb. In any case the argument from the earlier passage remains unaffected. Origen, also, in commenting on Matthew xxvi. 17,‘ follows the Synoptical account, and this without any allusion to a different date in John, although he was keenly observant of differences between the Gospels. This is the more remarkable because he thinks it well to meet an argument which was founded on the Synoptical record. Owing to the fact, he says, that Jesus celebrated the Passover corporeally in the A Beg. 2 See Fragment vii. in Stieren’s edition. sa Jee. Se iP * In Matt. convmentariorum series, § 79, pp. 405 sqq. (Lom.). OPINION OF ORIGEN 480 Jewish fashion, some of the inexperienced may fall into Ebionism, and maintain that we, as imitators of Christ, ought _ to do likewise. To this he replies that Jesus was made under _ the law, not in order that he might leave under the law those who were under it, but that he might lead them out of it. It _ was, therefore, unbecoming in those who had been previously outside the law to enter into it. Accordingly Christians came out from the letter of the law, and through a spiritual celebration fulfilled all things which were there commanded to be celebrated corporeally. They cast out the old leaven of malice and iniquity, and kept the Passover with the -unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, Christ feasting along with them according to the will of the Lamb, who said, _ “Unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye will not have " life abiding in you.” Here, then, we find the Fourth Gospel _ referred to, and Jesus represented as the Paschal Lamb, and που ΠΟΥ τς : yet not a hint of any error in the usual interpretation of the Ἢ Synoptic chronology. We must further observe that there is no allusion to the peculiarity of the Quartodecimans. The - question turns, not on the day of observance, but on the ; manner of observance. The people who are corrected fall - into Ebionism, a reproach which was not brought against the Quartodecimans; for though they were thought to resemble the Jews too closely in one particular, they were recognised f as orthodox, and, as Eusebius says, when they gave way on the one question of the day of observance, they withdrew from _ the slayers of the Lord, and joined their fellow-believers, for nature draws like to like! And, again, one of the objections against the Quartodecimans was that, although they followed _ the Jewish reckoning, they did not carry out the legal prescriptions with sufficient care; for they confined their | celebration to a single day, whereas they ought to have chosen 1 In Mai, § 8. See τ τ. 490 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY the sheep on the tenth day, and so fasted for five days, thus conforming to the general practice of the Church im cele-— brating a whole week.! We learn, then, from Origen’s remarks, what we have already learned from the letter of Treneus, that the controversy about Easter was not limited to the Quartodeciman peculiarity. So important a division within the bosom of the Catholic Church brought the whole subject into prominence, and afforded an opportunity for broaching every kind of view. The legal requirements, the relation of the law to Christianity, the ceremonies to be observed, the narratives of the Gospels, the year of the crucifixion, and the days of the Last Supper and the death of Jesus, all came under discussion.2 We are not, therefore, warranted in assuming that there were only two compact parties, and that every argument and allusion must refer to the single point by which they were divided from one another. At one extreme were the men corrected by Origen, who thought they must adhere to the letter of the law. These were in all probability Quartodecimans, though we are not told so; but it does not follow that they were representatives of the orthodox churches of Asia Minor. At the other extreme we are told of one Aerius, a contemporary of Epiphanius, who maintained that Christians generally were clinging to Jewish fables, and ought not’ to observe the Passover, “for Christ our Passover was sacrificed.”? This view would fall in with the gnostic tendencies of the second 1 Epiph., Her., 1. 1, 3, Ixx. 12. 2 For the fullest examples of treatises on the Passover, see Euseb. in Mai, and the Hom. of Aphraates. I may refer also to the treatise of Irenzus, for we are told that he spoke in it of the practice of not bending the knee, and mentioned the feast of Pentecost, from which we may conclude that, though his work was probably called forth by the Quartodeciman contro- versy, it was not limited to the particular point in dispute. See Stieren, Fragment vii. 3 Epiph., Her., lxxv. 3. OPINION OF EUSEBIUS 491 eentury, but I have not observed any allusion to it at that period. Between these extremes came the Catholic Church, with its agreement about the general principles, and its internal division about the day of celebration. These varieties must be borne in mind in our subsequent investi- : | The opinion of Eusebius, which is fully explained in his ἜΝ is particularly interesting and important, because it ; is given in connection with the Quartodeciman controversy, = his statement is clearly a reply to a Quartodeciman argument; and nevertheless he adheres to the Synoptical "-... The following is his mode of reasoning: “ But ae if anyone? should say that it has been written that on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came and said to “the Saviour, Where wilt thou that we make ready for thee to ea ‘eat the Passover? and he sent them to such a one, having enjoined upon them to say, With thee I keep the Passover, we will say that this is not a commandment, but a history of an event that happened at the season of the saving passion ; but : to relate an ancient practice is one thing, and it is another to legislate and leave injunctions for the future. But, further, the Saviour did not keep the Passover with the Jews at the ἕ time of his own passion; for he did not himself celebrate his “own Passover with his disciples at the time when they [the Jews] killed the lamb; for they did this on the day of _ preparation ® on which the Saviour suffered; whence neither did they enter into the pretorium, but Pilate comes out to them ; but he himself, a whole day before, on the fifth day of the week,‘ reclined with the disciples, and eating with them, said to them: With desire I desired to eat this Passover with 1 In Mai, §§ 8-12. 2 No doubt, from the connection, a Quartodeciman. 3 That is, Friday. * Thursday. 492 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY you. Dost thou see how the Saviour did not eat the Passover with the Jews?” Since the practice was new he desired it, but the old customs were not desirable, “but the new mystery of his new covenant, which accordingly he communicated to his own disciples, was, as we might expect, desirable to him, since many prophets and righteous men before him desired to see the mysteries of the new covenant.” The Passover of Moses was not suited to all nations, as it had to be celebrated in Jerusalem ; wherefore it was not desirable. But the saving mystery of the new covenant was suitable to all men, and naturally was desirable to him. After he had had the feast, the - chief priests laid hands upon him, for they did not eat the Passover in the evening; for otherwise they would not have - had time to interfere with him. They took him to Caiaphas, and then to Pilate, and then the Scripture says that they did not enter the pretorium that they might not be defiled. But on that very day of the passion they ate the Passover, demanding the saving blood, not on behalf of themselves, but against themselves. “But our Saviour kept his own desir- able festival, not then, but a day before, reclining with the disciples.” From that time Christ withdrew from the Jews and attached himself to his disciples. “Therefore we also ought to eat the Passover with Christ,” removing from our mind all the leaven of wickedness, and filled with the unleavened bread of truth and sincerity, having the true circumcision, and anointing the posts of our mind with the blood of the Sheep sacrificed for us; and this not at one period — of the whole year, but every week; and let our preparation be “a fast, a symbol of sorrow, on account of our former sins, and in memory of the saving passion.” The Jews fell from the truth from the time when they plotted against the Truth itself, driving from them the Word of Life; “and this the Scripture of the sacred Gospels presents clearly; for it OPINION OF EUSEBIUS 493 testifies that the Lord ate the Passover on the first day of unleavened bread; and, as Luke says, they did not eat their customary Passover on the day on which the Passover ought to have been killed, but on the following day, which was the second day of unleavened bread, and the fifteenth of the ‘moon in which, our Saviour being judged by Pilate, they did not enter the pretorium ; and therefore they did not eat it accord- ing to the law on the first day of unleavened bread, when it ought to have been killed; for they themselves, too, would have kept the Passover with the Saviour; but from that time, together with their plot against our Saviour, blinded by their own wickedness, they fell from all truth. But we celebrate ‘the same mysteries through the whole year,” fasting every ‘Friday in memory of the saving passion, and every -Lord’s Day quickened by the sanctified body of the same ‘saving Passover, and sealing our souls with his precious blood. It was necessary to quote this passage at length, not only on account of its intrinsic interest, but because its position is ‘completely misunderstood even by so careful a student as ‘Schiirer1 He declares that Eusebius replies to the Quartodeciman argument that Christ really ate his own Passover on the thirteenth. There may be some little obscurity in the former part of the argument, which is all that Schiirer quotes ; but the concluding section is perfectly explicit, and clears up whatever might have been doubtful in the previous exposition. It will be useful to analyze the several thoughts. First, let us observe the nature of the Quartodeciman argument. It is not that the annual festival was ἃ com- memoration of the Last Supper, and that therefore it ought 1 De cont. pasch., § v. 3. Belser falls into the same mistake in his article in the Theologische Quartalschrift, 1896, pp. 551 sq. 2 pl τὴν 494 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY to be kept on the same day as the meal it was designed tc bring to memory. It is that Jesus himself observed th ‘ Passover, and observed it correctly, on the fourteenth day of the month, and that therefore his disciples ought to do the same, instead of keeping their Passover on a day of the month which Jesus had never sanctioned. To this argument Eusebius makes two replies: First, he urges that though it was quite true that Jesus had kept the Passover at the time alleged, an” historical record did not constitute a commandment: in other words, the mere fact that Jesus celebrated his Passover on a particular day did not create a binding rule for his disciples. Secondly, although he adhered to the legal day, nevertheless he did not eat his Passover with the Jews; for they post- poned their observance till the next day, the second day of unleavened bread, and the fifteenth of the month, and so fell away from the truth. To appreciate the force of this argu- ment we must remember that one of the reproaches against the Quartodecimans was that they kept the feast at the same time as the Jews, and one of the objections made to this practice was that the Jews had got wrong in their calculations, and that therefore Christians ought not to follow them. Here Eusebius dates their error from the year of the passion, and shows that Jesus kept a Passover of his own, apart from the Jews. This is proved first by the words recorded in Luke?!: “ With desire I desired to eat this Passover with you.” “ This Passover” was not the ordinary one, but that in which the mystery of the new covenant was instituted. It was only as new that it could be desired; for an old practice, which comes as a matter of course, is not an object of desire. And, further, Jesus desired to eat “with you,” with his disciples, and not with the Jews. Thus he separated himself from the Jews in the meaning which he attached to the festival. But, 1 xxii. τς. OPINION OF CHRYSOSTOM 495 ewe eam See secondly, he did so in regard to time likewise; for they kept the Passover on the wrong day. This appears from the fact that they had time to carry out their plot against Jesus, from their inability to enter the pretorium, and from Luke’s statement that the day of unleavened bread was the day when the Passover ought to have been killed, implying that it was ‘not killed at the proper time. Thus it appears that Eusebius accepted the chronology of the Synoptic Gospels, and brought the Johannine account into agreement with it by pushing on the Jewish celebration of the Passover from the fourteenth to the fifteenth day of the month. The same view was taken by Chrysostom. He says: “The Sanhedrin passed the night in watching for the accomplishment of their foul purpose: for they did not even at that time eat the Passover, as St John says. What are we ‘to say? Why, that they ate it on another day, and brake the law. Christ would not have violated the proper time,. but ὶ these men violated it, who were trampling on ten thousand laws. Boiling over, as they were, with rage, and having often attempted to slay him, and been unable, now that they had gotten him in their power, they chose even to give up the Passover the more surely to glut their murderous appetite.’ ? ; that is, the passion of Christ. And this also has been so fulfilled that on the first day of unleavened bread you put Christ to death.”* The day on which the lamb was killed is called “the first day of unleavened bread” in Matt. xxvi. 17; and that this is the day which Tertullian meant is expressly stated in an earlier passage, in which he says that the passion was completed “on the first day of unleavened bread, in which they killed the lamb towards evening.”® The curious thing about this statement is that Tertullian quotes the words of Matthew which distinctly refer to the day before the passion, and 1 He has just referred to the original Passover in Egypt. 2 Dial., 111. δ Bix, wae ΤΙ, * Adv. Jud., το. ES 6: 500 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY follows the Synoptics in assigning only one year to the}}; ministry, saying that Christ was about thirty when he} suffered! In what way he harmonized these views does not appear. , We come now to the fragments preserved in the Paschal Chronicle which have played such a conspicuous. part in the} inquiry into the nature of the Quartodeciman controversy, and to assist our judgment of the meaning and value of these ἢ fragments it will be advantageous to summarize the arguments } which we have found in treatises of which the complete context is before us, and several of which expressly relate } to the question about which the Catholic Church was so seriously divided. The question was whether Christians ought to keep the Passover at the same time as the Jews, on the fourteenth of Nisan, whatever day of the week that might be, or only on Sunday, the Sunday being that which followed the first full moon after the vernal equinox. In favour of the western practice it was urged that it was supported by apostolic tradition; that the feast of the re- surrection ought not to be kept before Sunday; that the law, being only typical, was not to be kept in the letter; that the record that Jesus kept the Passover on the four- teenth did not constitute a commandment; that he himself was under the law in order to bring men out from under the law”; that the Quartodecimans, though so strict about the day, did not keep the law properly; that the Jews had got wrong in their calculations, so that their Passover was sometimes before the equinox; that Jesus did not eat the last Passover with the Jews, because the Jews broke the law, and postponed their celebration; and, finally, that 8, 2 This may be included as appropriate, though actually said in relation to another point. | ἊΨ SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS 501 Christians ought not to have any part with traitorous Jews, ‘It appears, therefore, that from existing works we gain a pretty complete picture of the controversy, and yet we have not found a vestige of an appeal to the peculiar view of the Fourth Gospel Nay, we have found that Irenzus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, who wrote against the Quartodeciman practice, adhered to the Synoptic account of the Last Supper, as also did Origen, Chrysostom, and probably Justin. The conclusion is inevitable that the appeal to the Fourth Gospel was not a salient argument; that those who make it are expressing an individual opinion, and not the opinion of a party; and that their object is not to exalt the thirteenth above the fourteenth of the month, which had nothing to do with the question, but to show that Christ, in the last meal, when the new covenant was instituted, was not associated with the Jews. We have seen that some writers on the western side do not deny or object to Christ’s recorded association with the Jews, while others get rid of it, not through an alleged anticipation of the Passover by Jesus, but through a postponement of it by the Jews. Bearing all - this in mind, we turn to the Paschal Chronicle. We must notice first the author’s own statements. His _ object, we must remember, is simply chronological, and he _ does not quote his authorities for the purpose of refuting the » Quartodecimans, but in order to confirm his own system of ealculation. He has to determine the correct paschal cycle and to ascertain the precise date of Christ’s death in order _ that he may reckon the first Christian cycle from that definite 1 Photius, indeed (Bibliotheca, 115, 116), cites two anonymous writers, as saying that Christ did not keep τὸ νομικὸν πάσχα. One of the works is directed “ agaiust Jews, and the heretics with these, and those called Quarto- _ decimans.” It would seem, however, that the author appealed to the Synoptics ; for he points out that Christ did not use the lamb or unleavened bread, but ate ἴδιον μυστικὸν δεῖπνον. 502 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY point. Now there were two sources of uncertainty: (1) the Jews may in the year of the crucifixion have kept the Passover in the wrong month; and (2) it was not agreed whether the passion took place on the fourteenth or on the fifteenth day. His first object, therefore, is to show that the Jews kept the Passover correctly until the destruction of Jerusalem under Vespasian, and for this purpose he quotes Philo, Peter of Alexandria, and Athanasius. Thus it was proved that the Passover at which Christ suffered was held at the proper time. The next question is: Was the moon full on Thursday or Friday? The crucifixion took place on | Friday. We learn from the evangelist John that Jesus as the true Lamb suffered at the Feast of the Passover, that is, on the fourteenth day of the month.” Accordingly the problem was to find the year, within certain obvious limits, in which the first full moon after the vernal equinox fell upon a Friday. In order to establish his thesis that Christ was crucified on the very day on which the Jews were to eat the Passover, he 1 Pp. 3-10. It has been supposed that Athanasius refers in this extract to the Quartodecimans. He speaks of “contentious persons, who have invented for themselves questions, under the pretext indeed of the saving Passover, but in reality for the sake of their own strife, because seeming to be of us, and boasting to be called Christians, they emulate the acts of the traitor Jews.” “For,” he continues, “what sort of even plausible defence could be made for them since it has been written, ‘On the first day of unleavened bread,’ and ‘In which they ought to kill the Passover.’ But it was done properly at that time, but now according to what has been written, they do always err in their heart.” I hesitate about making use of this fragment, because even if Athanasius is attacking the remains of Quartodecimanism, which held out against the decision of the Nicene Council, it does not follow that his argument would be applicable to the orthodox Quartodecimans of an earlier time. Still it deserves notice that his conclusive argument is an appeal to the Synoptics, and that the only — thing that this appeal can refute is the opinion that not the Last Supper but the crucifixion itself took place on the day of the Passover. We have here some indication that the Quartodecimans of the fourth century relied upon the chronology of the Fourth Gospel to justify their practice, 2 P. 10 sq. VIEW OF PASCHAL CHRONICLE 503 : appeals first to the familiar texts in the Fourth Gospel; and ; to guarantee the correctness of the reading he refers to “the accurate books, and the very autograph of the evangelist, _which has been kept till now by the grace of God in the _ most holy church of the Ephesians, and is there worshipped by the faithful.”1 Next he adduces the testimony of Paul, “Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us,’ and not as some, carried away by ignorance, affirm that he was betrayed when he had eaten the Passover; which neither have we learned _ from the holy Gospels nor has any of the blessed apostles handed down to us anything of the kind.” On this statement we must remark that the Synoptic Gospels are represented as agreeing with the Johannine, that there is no mention of Quartodecimans, and that among the men “carried away by _ ignorance” we have found several of the most learned theo- logians on the anti-Quartodeciman side. Our author, it is _ true, assumes that the fathers are in agreement with him, and - out of “much testimony of the holy fathers of the Church” proceeds to quote, as a “few” samples, passages from Hippo- _ lytus, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Clement of Alexandria. _ These writers, therefore, are not cited in connection with the _ Quartodeciman controversy, and their relation to it can be _ learned only from their historical position, and from the _ evidence afforded by the extracts themselves. In a later portion of the work our author adduces an argument from the Synoptic Gospels. It is clear, he says, that Jesus did not keep the Passover on the fourteenth, but celebrated the typical supper before this, when the sanctification of the _ unleavened bread and the preparation of the feast took place, for he did not give his disciples the sacrificial lamb and un- _ leavened bread, but bread and a cup.” Ὶ 4} 1P,. τι, The same words are used in relation to the same text on p. 411. 2 P. 409 sq. 504 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY We will now take the extracts in their order. The first is from the Syntagma of Hippolytus, Agaznst all Heresies, and — is as follows: “I see, then, that the affair is one of contentious- | ness; for he says thus: ‘Christ kept the Passover at that — time on the day, and suffered; wherefore I ought also to do in the same manner as the Lord did.’ But he has been led astray, not knowing that at the time in which Christ suffered he did not eat the legal Passover; for he was the Passover which had been preached beforehand, and was made perfect on the appointed day.”' The person who is here attacked — was in all probability a Quartodeciman, and may have been Blastus, who is mentioned as such by Pseudo-Tertullian, Agammst all Heresies.” When the Asiatic custom was challenged, and it became necessary to seek for arguments to defend it, nothing could be more natural than to turn to the Gospels and show that Christ himself had kept the Passover on the day appointed by the law. This was allowed by some of the ablest of their opponents, and we have seen that there were different ways of getting out of the argument, the genuineness and authority of the Fourth Gospel being admitted all the time. Hippolytus, departing from the opinion of his master Irenzeus, disposes of the difficulty by denying the fact. It deserves remark that in his later work, the Refutatio, while he still thinks the Quartodecimans contentious he does not refer to this argument. Had he discovered that though it was put forward by Blastus, it was not commonly used by the Christians of Asia Minor ? ! The second extract is taken from the first book of Hippo- 1 Ὁρῶ μὲν οὖν ὅτι φιλονεικίας τὸ ἔργον. λέγει γὰρ οὕτως" ἐποίησε τὸ πάσχα ὃ Χριστὸς τότε τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἔπαθεν" διὸ κἀμὲ δεῖ ὃν τρόπον ὃ κύριος ἐποίησεν, οὕτω ποιεῖν. πεπλάνηται δὲ μὴ γινώσκων ὅτι ᾧ καιρῷ ἔπασχεν ὃ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἔφαγε τὸ κατὰ νόμον πάσχα. οὗτος γὰρ ἦν τὸ πᾶσχα τὸ προκεκηρυγμένον καὶ τὸ τελειούμενον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ ἡμέρᾳ. 8 8, HIPPOLYTUS AND CLEMENT QUOTED τος i lytus’ work on the Passover: “That he did not speak falsely either in the first or in the last is evident, because he who long ago predicted, ‘I will no more eat the Passover,’ * assuredly took the supper before the Passover, and did not eat the Passover, but suffered; for not even was it the time for eating it.”* The interest of this passage is that it gives us one more glimpse into the way in which the Synoptics were harmonised with John, and proves that Hippolytus, at all events, had no intention of pitting one Gospel against the rest. We may notice next the two extracts from the work of Clement of Alexandria on the Passover, as they do not give rise to any controversy. He says that in former years Christ kept the regular Passover, but ceased to do so when he proclaimed himself as the Paschal Lamb. Accordingly he suffered on the fourteenth, and the chief priests and scribes did not enter the pretorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover without hindrance in the evening. “With this exactitude of the days both the Scriptures all agree and the Gospels are in harmony. The resurrection also testifies to it; at least he rose on the third day, which was the first of the weeks of the harvest, in which it had been enacted that the priest should offer the sheaf.”* These passages call 1 See Luke xxii. 16. 2 Οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς πρώτοις οὐδὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐσχάτοις ὡς οὐκ ἐψεύσατο πρόδηλον, ὅτι 6 πάλαι προειπὼν ὅτι Οὐκέτι φάγομαι τὸ πάσχα εἰκότως τὸ μὲν δεῖπνον ἐδείπνησεν πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα, τὸ δὲ πάσχα οὐκ ἔφαγεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔπαθεν. οὐδὲ γὰρ καιρὸς ἦν τῆς βρώσεως αὐτοῦ. ᾿ 9 Τοῖς μὲν οὖν παρεληλυθόσιν ἔτεσι τὸ θυόμενον πρὸς ᾿Ιουδαίων ἤσθιεν ἑορτάζων ὃ κύριος πάσχα᾽ ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐκήρυξεν αὐτὸς dv τὸ πάσχα, ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἀγόμενος, αὐτίκα ἐδίδαξε μὲν τοὺς μαθητὰς τοῦ τύπου τὸ μυστήριον TH 1, ἐν ἣ καὶ πυνθάνονται αὐτοῦ, Ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι τὸ πάσχα φαγεῖν ; ταύτῃ οὖν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ 6 ἁγιασμὸς τῶν ἀζύμων καὶ ἣ προετοιμασία τῆς ἑορτῆς ἐγίνετο. ὅθεν ὃ ᾿Ιωάννης ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ εἰκότως ὡς ἂν προετοιμαζομένους ἤδη ἀπονίψασθαι τοὺς πόδας πρὸς τοῦ κυρίου τοὺς μαθητὰς ἀναγράφει᾽ πέπονθεν δὲ τῇ ἐπιούσῃ ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, αὐτὸς ὧν τὸ πάσχα, καλλιερηθεὶς ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων. ᾿Ακολούθως ἄρα τῇ ιδ΄, ὅτε καὶ ἔπαθεν, ἕωθεν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς 506 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY for only one or two remarks. We have seen that treatises on the Passover embraced a variety of subjects, and necessarily 4 included the question of the day, which involved the year, οὗ. Christ’s death; so that there is nothing here which can even — suggest that Clement is arguing against the Quartodecimans. — Again, although he appeals to the verse in John, without which the case would be weak in the extreme, he nevertheless assumes that all the Gospels are in agreement. We are now prepared to criticise the fragments of Apollinaris’ work on the Passover. He says: “There are, then, persons who, owing to ignorance, are contentious about these things, being affected in a pardonable way; for ignor- ance does not admit of accusation, but requires instruction. And they say that on the fourteenth the Lord ate the sheep with the disciples, but himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread, and they relate that Matthew speaks in accordance with their opinion. Hence both their opinion is — inconsistent with the law, and the Gospels seem, according to them, to be at variance.” The next extract from the same treatise is a rhetorical glorification of the fourteenth day of the month. “The fourteenth day,” he says, “is the genuine Passover of the Lord, the great sacrifice; the child of God instead of the lamb; the bound one, he who bound the strong man; and he who was judged, the judge of the living and the dead; and the one who was betrayed into the hands of sinners to be crucified, he who was exalted on the horns of the unicorn; and the one who had his holy side pierced, he who poured forth out of his side the two purifiers, water and blood, word and spirit, and was buried in the day of the τῷ Πιλάτῳ προσαγαγόντες οὐκ εἰσῆλθον εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον, ἵνα μὴ μιανθῶσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀκωλύτως ἑσπέρας τὸ πάσχα φάγωσι. ταύτῃ τῶν ἡμερῶν τῇ ἀκριβείᾳ καὶ αἱ γραφαὶ πᾶσαι συμφωνοῦσι καὶ τὰ εὐαγγέλια συνῳδά. ἐπιμαρτυρεῖ δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις᾽ TH γοῦν τρίτῃ ἀνέστη ἡμέρᾳ, ἥτις hv πρώτη τῶν ἑβδομάδων τοῦ θερισμοῦ, ἐν ἣ καὶ τὸ δράγμα νενομοθέτητο προσενεγκεῖν τὸν ἱερέα. " Y APOLLINARIS 507 τοὶ Passover, the stone being laid upon the tomb.”! The value of these extracts, in their bearing on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, is supposed to consist in this, that Apollinaris is attacking the Quartodecimans, and alleges against them the date of the crucifixion which is found in the Johannine Gospel, whereas they rely upon Matthew in their defence of a custom which they inherited from the Apostle John. The inference is inevitable that they cannot have regarded as Johannine the Gospel which they controverted on the authority of Matthew. This argument appears to me to rest on a complete misconception. First let us suppose that Apollinaris was not a Quarto- deciman. It does not at all follow that he is attacking Quartodecimans; for he makes no allusion to the Quarto- deciman practice. The discussion of the date of the Last Supper necessarily entered into the question of Easter, and we have not hitherto met with any evidence of the prevailing -Quartodeciman opinion on this point. We have learned from Hippolytus that one Quartodeciman believed that Jesus ate the legal Passover at the time of the passion; but other Quartodecimans may have taken a different view. Accord- ingly, Apollinaris may be attacking the observers of the western custom like Ireneus. The simple fact is that the Opinion which Apollinaris advocates seems to have been taken 1 Bist τοίνυν οἱ δι’ ἄγνοιαν φιλονεικοῦσι περὶ τούτων, συγγνωστὸν πρᾶγμα πεπονθότες ἄγνοια γὰρ ov κατηγορίαν ἄναδέχεται, ἀλλὰ διδαχῆς προσδεῖται᾽ καὶ c λέγουσιν ὃτι τῇ ιδ' τὸ πρόβατον μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν ἔφαγεν ὁ κύριος, TH δὲ μεγάλῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῶν ἀζύμων αὐτὸς ἔπαθεν, καὶ διηγοῦνται Ματθαῖον οὕτω λέγειν ὧς νενοήκασιν" ὅθεν ἀσὐμφωνός τε νόμῳ 7 νόησις αὐτῶν καὶ στασιάζειν δοκεῖ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ εὐαγγέλια. Ἡ 18’ τὸ ἀληθινὸν τοῦ κυρίου πάσχα, ἣ θυσία ἡ μεγάἄλη, 6 ἀντὶ τοῦ ἂμνοῦ παῖς θεοῦ, ὃ δεθεὶς ὁ δήσας τὸν ἰσχυρόν, καὶ ὃ κριθεὶς κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, καὶ ὃ παραδοθεὶς εἰς χεῖρας ἁμαρτωλῶν, ἵνα σταυρωθῇ, ὁ ὑψωθεὶς ἐπὶ κεράτων μονοκέρωτος, καὶ ὃ τὴν ἁγίαν πλευρὰν ἐκκεντηθεὶς ὁ ἐκχέας ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς αὐτοῦ τὰ δύο πάλιν : > a ee καθάρσια, ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα, λόγον καὶ πνεῦμα, καὶ ὃ ταφεὶς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ TH τοῦ πάσχα ἐπιτεθέντος τῷ μνήματι τοῦ λίθου. 508 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY up with some eagerness about the end of the second century, being supported also by Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Tertullian. In later times it was defended by the unknown author of the Paschal Chronicle. But, in spite of : the charge of ignorance, it was rejected by Origen, Eusebius, ᾿ Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and, I believe, by the later Church — generally... The necessary inference is that this particular — point did not affect the Quartodeciman controversy one way Ἶ or the other. If the Quartodecimans relied, as they might ; naturally do, on the fact that Jesus ate the legal Passover (of course believing, as so many have done since, that the Fourth Gospel was in harmony with the Synoptics), it was a_ tempting reply that he did not do so, as was proved by the | testimony of John. But this reply failed to establish itself, for the evidence of the Synoptics was too clear to be resisted ; and other means of rebutting the argument had to be tried. As we have observed, even Hippolytus does not venture to repeat it in his Refutatio, But, secondly, I see no evidence that Apollinaris was any- thing but a Quartodeciman. He was bishop of Hierapolis, and as Philip of Hierapolis is the first of the Asiatic luminaries mentioned by Polycrates, it is probable that it was still a Quartodeciman city, and had had a succession — of Quartodeciman bishops. We must add that Polycrates certainly implies that there was entire unanimity among the bishops in that region of the world. Schiirer relies upon the fact that Apollinaris is not mentioned in the list which Polyerates gives of distinguished Quartodecimans in his letter to Victor, though he was a celebrated man, while — some of those who are named played no great part in the - 1 Some of the chronologists seem to have taken the same view as the writer of the Chron. Pasch. See an anonymous extract in Dindorf, ii, p. 118, and another, in Latin, p. 222. ἡ APOLLINARIS _ 509 ‘Church But then Polycrates names only those who “have fallen asleep,” and does not give the names of the “multitudes” of bishops who came together to consider the question, and signified their approval of his letter. Among the latter may have been Apollinaris, who was a contemporary of Irenzus,? and would not have been a very old man at the time? Another item of evidence is furnished by the manner in which he speaks of those whose opinion he is combating. Hippolytus, living in the neighbourhood of Rome, might easily fall into contemptuous language towards men whose numbers and weight were not familiar to him; but it is not likely that Apollinaris, unless he was a singularly conceited and ill-tempered man, would use similar language about all his brother bishops, including men of the greatest learning and distinction. Eusebius tells us that Melito, bishop of Sardis, wrote two books on the Passover, and that these apparently were called forth by a discussion which arose at Laodicea about the Passover, at the time when Sagaris was martyred, in the proconsulship of Servilius Paulus. Of the nature of this discussion we are not informed; but as Sagaris and Melito were undoubtedly Quartodecimans, and as we have no intimation that the church of Laodicea was ever any- thing else, it seems probable that the subject of debate was not connected with the Quartodeciman practice. Clement’s treatise was occasioned by that of Melito, but we are not told that it was an answer to it. The work of Apollinaris may have had the same origin, or it may have been an independent contribution to the Laodicean discussion. But 1 De cont. pasch., Wot: 2 Kuseb., H. £., iv. 21. 3 We can only say that it is probable that he died before the end of the century, as Serapion, Bishop of Antioch at that time, refers to him as : though he belonged to the past—vyevouevov ἐν Ἱεραπόλει τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἐπισκόπου. - Quoted by Eusebius, H. E., v. το. EEE 4 About 164-6. H. E., iv. 26. 510 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY supposing that it was an attack on the universal practice of the catholic Christians of his country, is it likely that he — would venture to ascribe to contentious ignorance the opinion | of one of the most learned and orthodox bishops of his time? And if a man who set himself against the prevalent opinion — and practice obtained a bishopric at all, would not such action — have excited a storm, and made it impossible for Polycrates to assume, as he evidently does, that there was an unbroken unanimity in the Asiatic churches ? 3 It is perhaps of small importance that Eusebius does not ascribe to Apollinaris any exceptional position; for he had not seen, and accordingly does not mention, his work on the ~ Passover. But if he had heard of any dissenting party in j Asia Minor, he would probably have noticed it; and we can : hardly suppose that in the remonstrance addressed to Victor — there would have been no allusion to this party, and no remark on his injustice in endeavouring “to cut off in the | mass the dioceses of all Asia, together with the neighbouring churches.” * Lastly, the glorification of the fourteenth day is just what we should expect in a Quartodeciman. If the fourteenth was the day in which the true Passover was sacrificed, and Christian redemption was brought in, surely that was the one day on which Christians ought to celebrate the feast. The only objection to this argument is the baseless hypothesis ~ that the Asiatic Passover was a commemoration, not of the passion, but of the Last Supper. That some Quartodecimans | distinctly professed to keep the feast on the day of the passion we learn incidentally from Epiphanius,? who tells us that they claimed to have found from the acts of Pilate that the Saviour suffered on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, and they wished to keep the Passover on 1 Euseb., H. E., v. 24. 2 How’ Wt, | APOLLINARIS 511 δ that day, whatever the fourteenth might be. Of course men who adopted such a custom really ceased to be Quartodeci- mans; and there is no apparent reason why Epiphanius classed them under that head except that they wished to keep the precise anniversary of the crucifixion. For these reasons, then, I believe that Apollinaris was a Quartodeciman ; and if so, we learn that Quartodecimans, like other Christians, were divided in opinion about the order of ' events in the closing scenes of Christ’s life. These conflicting opinions had nothing to do with the great question which Separated the two parties, except so far as they were dragged into it by individual writers. If a Quartodeciman believed that Jesus kept the regular Jewish Passover, what more natural than to appeal to his example; if he believed that Jesus, being himself the Paschal Lamb, was slain on the fourteenth, again what more natural than to appeal to this fact as marking the unalterable day for the Christian celebration? It is very probable that the majority on their side, as on the side of the western practice, accepted the Synoptic dates, which are far clearer than the Johannine, and in some way harmonized the latter with the former. The only distinct allusion to an inconsistency between the Gospels on this point is in the first fragment of Apollinaris; but he does not say that the men whose ignorance he attacks “maintained that the Gospels were contradictory, but only that according to their view they seemed to be so. This is, to his “mind, a conclusive argument, and it is pretty clear that he expects it to be equally conclusive to others. “The Gospels” ‘ are evidently an accepted and authoritative collection, among which the thought of contradiction was inadmissible. No ‘ doubt the ignorant men were quite ready to retort the charge, and it would be interesting to know how Apollinaris managed to explain away the unambiguous language of Matthew. This 512 PASCHAL CONTROVERSY practical ascription of infallibility to the evangelical records i in complete accordance with the results of our whole inquiry. The four Gospels had been long in possession of the field as _ the most authentic documents of Christianity, and as we have not found elsewhere, so neither can we find in the fragments — of Apollinaris, the minutest particle of evidence that the Christians of Asia Minor looked askance at the Gospel which — was ascribed to the beloved disciple whose traditions still ἱ "ἢ : ᾿ This long inquiry has had chiefly an historical interest ; ᾿ lingered among them. but im throwing light upon the nature of early Christian — practices, and on the mutual relations of parties, it has at the i same time shown how untenable is the argument which is 4 derived from Quartodeciman usage against the Johannine ΄ authorship of the Fourth Gospel. The Feast of the Passover, as we have seen, was adopted by the Christian Church, with such modifications as circumstances rendered desirable or necessary ; and this being so, it was the most obvious and natural thing to keep it at the same time as the Jews, who were the custodians of the ancient law. John would follow the familiar custom; and although he would fill it with a Christian significance, and would probably, like Paul, recognize ~ in Jesus the true Paschal Lamb, by whose blood the new covenant between God and the world was sealed, he would see in this spiritual realization of a venerable symbol no reason for altering a time which was settled by ancient: prescription. On whatever day the crucifixion took place, it was associated with the Passover, and that festival, with its changed meaning and its deep-rooted memories of the Beloved, would be always dear to his heart, and, as it returned year by year, would bring him ever fresh messages of world- wide grace and truth. The “feast of the Jews” had become the feast of the children of God; and he himself had looked SUMMING UP 513 bf upon the Lamb, and found in him a redemption from worse than Egyptian bondage. All this would have been easier and not more difficult, if Christ had been really crucified on the | very day of the Passover; but even if we reject this as - improbable, still we can see how the two events might become synchronous in thought, and the writer of the “spiritual Gospel,” in whose mind religious ideas are apt to clothe themselves in the form of visible facts, while the fact some- times melts away into its religious meaning, might place. together in his narrative two occurrences which, for him, were indissolubly associated. The appeal of some of his remote followers to our first Gospel, in support of a practice which was alleged to be his, affords no evidence against this view, for the Gospels, having been raised into a position of equal and divine authority, had become the hunting-ground of polemics, and such arguments do not supply the reason for the observance, but are the after-thoughts of controversy. There is no tradition that John was guided by any of the considera- tions which were evoked in later times; and there is no ground for supposing that his respect for the familiar day was challenged till long after he had departed from the world. I am forced, therefore, to the conclusion that this celebrated argument against the Johannine authorship of our Gospel rests on misconception, and, so far from being decisive of the question, does not possess the slightest validity. — 33 CONCLUSION WE have now gone carefully through the arguments against | the reputed authorship of the Gospel, and on the whole have found them wanting. Several appear to be quite destitute of weight; others present some difficulty; one or two occasion real perplexity. But difficulties are not proofs, and we have always to consider whether greater difficulty is not involved in rejecting a proposition than in accepting it. This seems to me to be the case in the present instance. The external evidence (be it said with due respect for the Alogi) is all on one side, and for my part I cannot easily repel its force. A considerable mass of internal evidence is in harmony with the external. A number of the difficulties which have been pressed against the conclusion thus indicated melt away on nearer examination, and those which remain are not sufficient to weigh down the balance. In literary questions we cannot look for demonstration, and where Opinion is so much divided we must feel some uncertainty in our conclusions; but on weighing the arguments for and against to the best of my power, I must give my own judgment in favour of the Johannine authorship. ae 3 INDEX Notre.—‘‘The Gospel” means the Fourth Gospel. In the case of subjects extending over more than one page, only the first page is given. Aatt, Anathon, on the Presbyter John, 206. on the relation of the Gospel to Philo, 24. Abbot, Dr Ezra, referred to, 47, 71, 86, 269. Abbott, Dr Edwin A., on Aristion, 198. on contradiction between John and Justin, 130. on John xix. 35, 393. referred to, 86. Abgar, 497. Accho, 432. Achelis on Martyrologies, 232. Acts of Disputation between Archelaus and Manes, 326. Acts of John, 343. Acts of Pilate, 377. Aenon, 3609. Aerius against observing the Passover, 490. Agrippa Castor, 327, 331. ?Ain- Fara, 370. ‘Ain-Karim, 370. Akiba, 54. Alford on ‘‘ the high priest that year,” 437. Allegorical interpretation, 31. Alogi, account of, by Epiphanius, 337. apparent date of, 340. argument against the Apocalypse, 9. τῆς ἢ the Gospel and Apocalypse to Cerinthus, 337, 340. did not deny the early date of the Gospel, 82. estimate of Epiphanius’ account of, 341. Alogi, exceptional view of the Gospel, 9. insignificance of, 349. lived at Thyatira, 339. not a party in the Church, 335. on discrepancies between the Gospels, 77. on the title of the Gospel, 72. relation to Montanists, 335. said to be a party in the Church, , 334. Amelius, 342. Andreas quotes Papias, 236. Anicetus appealed to custom of Pres- byters, 480. visited by Polycarp, 449, 479. Annas, 434, 437. Antiochus Epiphanes, 353. Antiochus Palestinensis, 183. Antonia, 374. Aorist used as pluperfect, 436. Apelles, relation of, to Marcion, 290, his use of the Gospel, 291. Aphraates on the day of the Last Supper, 497. on the Passover, 460, 490. Apocalypse, place of, in the argument about Johannine authorship, 441. Apocryphal books, graphic, 376. Apollinaris of Hierapolis, his argument not against Quartodecimans, O7. ΚΕΝ a Quartodeciman, 508, referred to, 191, 498. wrote a work on the Passover, 451. work quoted, 506. Apollinaris of Laodicea, view of the πνεῦμα in Christ, 127. 516 Apostolical Constitutions on the fast before Easter, 469. quotation of John iii. 3, 94. Aquila, 364. Ard el-Bethaniyeh, 431. Arethas, commentary of Cicumenius and, quotes Papias, 236. Aristion, 198. Aristophanes quoted, 392. Aristotle said to be the source of the doctrine of Basilides, 299, 302. "Askar, 433. Athanasius on the wrong observance of the Passover, 502. quotation of John 111. 3, 90, 92. Atoning efficacy in the blood of Christ in John and 1 John, 167. Attalus says God has no name, 130. Audians, Quartodecimans, 452, 465. treatment of the Passover, 469. Augustine, view of the duration of Christ’s ministry, 46. Axionicus, 269. ’Ayntin, 369. Bacon on the re-arrangement of the Gospel, 405. on the reading ‘‘ the disciples of the Lord” in Papias, 197. on the silence of Ireneus, 241. on the title of Papias’ work, 195. Barcabbas, 327. Barcoph, 327. Barnabas, Epistle of, 256. Bar-Salibi, 342. Barton, G. A., on the Apocalypse, 442. Bashan, 431. Basilides, account of, in Hippolytus compared with that of Clement, 300,315. 2. Ls account of, in Hippolytus more authentic than that of [renzeus, 304. account of, in Ireneus demon- strably wrong, 312. account of, in Ireneus from a secondary source, 304. alleged deviations from better authorities, 322. authorities for the teaching of, 304. author of twenty-four books on ‘the Gospel,” 331. comparison of Hippolytus’ account with his account of the Perate, 318; with his account of the Sethians, 317, 325; with his account of the Valentinians, 319. date of, 296. doctrine of, about the Passion, 312. INDEX ' Basilides, hypothesis of a forged source for, in Hippolytus, 316. qo from, in Hippolytus, 296. reference to, in Acts of Archelaus and Manes, 326, strangeness of the system of, 329. Basilides, Bishop, on the end of the fast before Easter, 471. Batanea, 431. Baur adverse to Johannine authorship, believes that Tatian cites the Gospel, 82. thinks Justin used the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 100. Belser on date of Last Supper, 50, 52. . on Eusebius’ reply to the Quarto- decimans, 493. ᾿ on the expression “‘ the Jews” in the Gospel, 416. Bert, G., referred to, 461. Bertholdt favours authenticity of speeches, 39. Betane, 431. Bethany beyond Jordan, 367, 430. Bethany near Jerusalem, 367. Bethesda, 372. . Bethnimrah, 431. Bethsaida, 367, 432, 434. Bethzatha, 372. Betonim, 431. Blass on John xix. 35, 393. oe Quartodeciman Montanist, 481. referred to, 504. Bleek defends Johannine authorship, 9. favours authenticity of speeches, 39. supports John’s account of Last Supper, 53. thinks John right about journeys to Jerusalem, 42. Boanerges, 409. Bonnet referred to, 344. Bousset on the Alogi, 336, 340. on John xviii. 24, 436. on the Presbyter John, 206, 211, 225; Box, G. H., on the Last Supper, 52. Bretschneider on Aenon, 370. on date of Last Supper, 48. on John vii. 52, 439. Probabilia, 67. referred to, 39. thinks the Gospel independent of the Synoptics, 16. Brooke, A. E., referred to, 266, Brose on the Pool of Bethesda, 372. . 4 ᾿ Ἂ [ ᾿ 7 Ϊ INDEX Burkitt on the statement that Papias wrote the Gospel from the dictation of John, 249. on Syrian tradition, 233. ‘Butler, Dom, on Martyrologies, 232. Buttmann on the use of ἐκεῖνος, 390. CSAREA PHILLIPI, 432. _ Caiaphas, 356, 434, 437. : Cana, 366, 431. Capernaum, 366, 433. Cedron, 368. Celbes, 332. Celsus, 341. Cerinthus said to be author of the Gospel and Apocalypse, 337, 340. Chagigah, 52. Chapman, Dom, on date of Clementine | Homilies, 263. Charles IV., 458. Charteris, 236. Cheyne on Aenon, 370. Christ, representation of the person οὗ, 15, 421. Chronicle of Severus, 497. Chronicon Paschale ; Chronicle. Chronologists referred to, 508. Chrysostom follows synoptic chron- ology of Last Supper, 495. on John’s martyrdom, 234. on Luke xxii., 7, 50. on the subordination of John to Peter, 396. quotation of John iii. 3, 90, 91, see Paschal 93; 94. Church, Catholic, testimony of, summed up, 262. Chwolson on executions at the Pass- over, 55. on the Last Supper, 49. on the signs of contemporary knowledge in John, 59. on uncleanness from entering the Pretorium, 53. on the use of np, 52. Cibyre, 342. Clement of Alexandria, account of the origin of the Gospel, 32. allegory, view of, 33. blends Matthew xviii. John iii, 3, 93. comment on Matthew xviii. 3, 97. knew Apocalypse of Peter, 237. knew Preaching of Peter, 238. on the Passover quoted, 505. refers to ‘‘ Traditions of Matthias,” 201. says God is without a name, 131. 3 and 517 Clement of Alexandria, testimony about authorship of the Gospel, 74. testimony to the presence of John in Asia, 213. view of duration ministry, 46. wrote a work on the Passover, 451, 505, 509. Clementine Homilies discussed, 263. knowledge of the Fourth Gospel, of Christ’s 104. passage about regeneration, 88, 92, 94, 103. ὁ , view of duration of Christ’s ministry, 46. Clementiue Recognitions, passage about regeneration, 89. Codex ‘‘ Baroccianus 142,” 196, 229. Codex Regine Suetiz, 249. Codex Toletanus, 249. Conder on Aenon, 369. on Bethany beyond Jordan, 431. Constantine on the dislike of the Jews, 455. letter on the Passover, 452. on the meaning of the Passover, 475. on Quartodeciman practice, 463, 468. Conybeare on the Armenian obser- vance of Easter, 459. on Holstein and the Chronicle, 461. quotes Armenian fragment on John, 233. Cootletoodra, 432. Corssen argues from the passage about the vines in Papias, 244. on the Acts of John, 343. on the date of Polycarp’s martyr- dom, 188. on the interpretation of John xiv. 2 by the Elders, 248. on the silence of Irenzeus, 241. on the statement of Ireneus about the age of Jesus, 251. on the statement that Papias wrote the Gospel at the dictation of John, 250. refers to Victorinus, 236. rejects the idea of confusion between the Apostle and the Presbyter, 223. thinks Papias knew the Gospel, Paschal 249. Cotterill against genuineness of Epistle of Polycarp, 183. Council of Nica on the Passover, 452. Credner favoured Johannine authorship, 68 on the Muratorian Canon, 78. 518 Cross, J. A., on detail in the Synoptics, 378. Cumulative evidence, effect of, 346. Cunningham on _ the evidence of Barnabas, 256. Cyprian, quotation of John iii. 3, go. Cyril on Nicodemus, 102, Cyril of Jerusalem, 153. DALMAN on Gabbatha, 274. Date, evidence of, stronger than of authorship, 348. Davidson adverse to Johannine author- ship, 71. Deutsch on Haggadah, 31. Dialogue between Caius and Proclus, 227. Diatessaron, date and character of, 82. See Tatian. Dionysius of Alexandria, date of, 341. on the end of the fast before Easter, 471. says some had ascribed Apocalypse to Cerinthus, 340, 342. thinks the Apocalypse not by the Apostle, 223, 441, 442. Docetz opposed by Justin, 126. Docetist quotation of John 111. 3, 90, 94: 344. Doctrine of Addai on the day of crucifixion, 497. Donaldson on the doctrine of Justin Martyr, 114, 118, 121, 122. Dorner on the doctrine of Justin Martyr, 114, 122. Dressel, 263. ᾿ Ducange on Holstein and the Paschal Chronicle, 461. Dunleary, 432. EASTER, Roman observance of, 456. See Passover. Ebionites rejected Pauline Epistles, 242. used only Gospel of Matthew, 242, 264. Edersheim on Chagigah, 52. on Sychar, 433. Egotism of speeches in the Gospel, 38. Elijah, 439. Elkosh, 439. Epictetus, style of Enchiridion, 360. Epiphanius on the Alogi, 72, 77, 336. on the character of the Gospel, 34. on the date of Last Supper, 496. on departure from fourteenth day at the Passover, 484. on observance of fourteenth day for the Passover, 484. on the Quartodecimans of his time, 452. . INDEX Epiphanius on Quartodeciman appeal to the law, 481. . on Quartodeciman orthodoxy, 465. on the sheep at the Passover, 455. Epistle, First, of John, arguments against ascribing it to the Evangelist, 166. ᾿ attacks Docetic errors, 384. date of, relatively to the Gospel, 176. evidence that it is the work of the Evangelist, 163. Epistle to Church at Philomelium calls Polycarp apostolic, 212. Ἔργα in John, 402. Euphrates the Peratic, 332. Eusebius, accuracy of, 237. argument against the Quartodeci- mans, 491. follows synoptic chronology of the Last Supper, 491. identifies Philip the Apostle with the Evangelist, 227. nature of testimony of, 238. on the festive character of the Passover, 466. on the law of the Passover, 483. on the meaning of the Passover, 475: on Quartodeciman practice, 463, 468. silence of, 236, 341. thought Ireneus mistaken about Papias, 202. thought the Jews kept the Passover on the wrong day, 493. treatise on the Passover, 463, 490. Evanson adverse to Johannine author- ship, 67. Ewald, Paul, referred to, 64. Fast before Easter, 449, 469. Felix, Governor of Alexandria, 85. Field referred to, 364. Flora, friend of Ptolemeus, 271. Florinus, Ireneus’ letter to, 208. Forgiveness in John and 1 John, 166, Franke, A. H., on Old Testament in the Gospel, 357, 363, 365. Furrer on Aenon, 370. on Bethany beyond Jordan, 431. on the Sea of Tiberias, 366. GABBATHA, 373. Gaius the Presbyter, 340, 342. Galilee, 433, 439. Galilee, Sea of, 366, 433. Gath-hepher, 439. Georgius Hamartolus quotes Papias, 228. ᾿ ‘ ν᾿ δ " μ᾿ 4 RY 4 4 ᾿ εἰ a — ee er ψο a ἘΨΨ a tn Te Ὁ By INDEX Gieseler on the devil of Basilides, 325. referred to, 457. Goldsmith, monuments of, 224. Golgotha, 373. Gospel, Fourth, adverse to Marcion’s views, 289. analysis of, 3. and First Epistle of John, 163. anti-Judaic, 411. argument from character, 426. ascription of, to Cerinthus, not mentioned by Irenzus, 242. author an Aramaic-speaking Jew, its unhistorical 352. author’s knowledge of topography, 366. autograph said to be in Ephesus, 503. comparison of, with the Synoptics, 7. controversies of second century not alluded to, 382. delineation of Jesus in, 421. deviations from the LXX., 361. earliest view of, 32. graphic character of, 376, 379. Greek style, character of, 359. history of controversy about authorship of, 67. hypothesis that it is by a disciple of John, 394. Johannine authorship said to be irreconcilable with the char- acter of John, 409; with his views and education, 350. method of doctrinal teaching, 419. not adopted by later Marcionites, 201: not historical in modern sense, 32. not known to be anonymous, 72. not philosophical, 418. Pharisees and chief priests, 356. portraiture of the people, 357. purpose of, 21. relation of, to the Old Testament, 356. significance of its acceptance by heretics, 333. signs of an eye-witness, 375. speeches in, 16, 34. synoptic tradition assumed as known, 15; deviations from, against its acceptance, 381. unique in character, 1. universalism of, 35; Jewish in conception, 358. Grabe referred to, 266. Gregory Nazianzen on the festive character of the Passover, 466. 519 Gregory, St, referred to, 459. Grill, J., on Philo and the Gospel, 24. referred to, 71. HAGGADAH, 31. Hargrove, C., acknowledgment to, 459. : Harnack on the Acts of Archelaus and Manes, 326. on the date of Epistle of Clement, 216; of Ignatius’ martyrdom, 189; of Papias, 195, 197; of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 188. on John xix. 35, 389. on John xxi, 23, 388. on Papias as a hearer of John, 220, on Papias’ source, 204. on the Presbyter John, 206, 235. on the statement of Georgius Hamartolus, 229. ' on the statement that Papias wrote the Gospel at the dictation of John, 249. on Tatian’s Oratio, 83. thinks author of the Gospel a Palestinian, 359. thinks Papias knew the Gospel, 249. Harris, J. R., on the passage about the vines, 222. on the ‘‘ Presbyter Gaius and the Fourth Gospel,” 340. referred to, 197. Haussleiter, 236. Hegesippus on the martyrdom of James, 54- on Symeon, 217. Heinichen on the title of Papias’ work, 195. referred to, 210. Henke, 41. Heracleon accepted the Gospel as John’s, 272. read ‘‘ Bethany beyond Jordan,” ae ne a Valentinian, 266. wrote a commentary on the Gospel, 266, 272. Heretics’ mode of treating the Scrip- tures, 242. Hermas, Shepherd of, perhaps recog- nised four Gospels, 255. Herod, 371. Hieronymus on an Easter tradition, 472. refers to Papias on the Apocalypse, 436. says Polycarp received the Apoc- alypse, 442. High priests, 435. 520 Hilgenfeld admits Justin may have known the Gospel, 87. adverse to Johannine authorship, 69. editz fragments of Heracleon, 266. on Acts of John, 344. on Basilides’ doctrine of the devil, 24. A ustin’s passage about regenera- tion, 98. on Justin’s phrase “his apostles and their followers,” 159. on Philip of Hierapolis, 227. on the statement that John was slain by the Jews, 228. thinks the saying that the ass was tied to a vine was from Justin’s imagination, 150. Hill, J. H., on Tatian, 406. Hillel, 55. Hippolytus’ account of Basilides com- pared with that of Clement, 306. argument against his Basilides, 303. ‘*Compendium ” of, 331. defended the Gospel, 342. departure from Ireneus in the account of Basilides deliberate, 314, 322, 331. hypothesis that he used forged sources, 316. on the Naasseni and Perate, 332. on the Quartodecimans, 465, 481. on the Valentinians, 274. purpose of his Refutatio, 277, 301. reasons for thinking he quotes Basilides, 299. Syntagma on the Passover quoted, 504. use of φησί, 297. work on the Passover quoted, 505. History, different views of, 29. Hebrew conception of, 30. History of Joseph the Carpenter, 377. Hittorpius, Melchior, on the Ordo Romanus for Easter, 456. Holstein on the Paschal Chronicle, 461. Holtzmann against ascribing the First Epistle of John to the Evan- gelist, 164. on the confusion made by Irenzus between the Presbyter and the Apostle, 221. n ‘‘ high priest that year,” 437. on misplacements in the Gospel, 408. on the Muratorian Canon and the Gospel, 224. quoting INDEX ι ar on a passage in Hegesippus, 217. on the Presbyter John, 206. Homilies on Luke, quotation of John ili, 3, 90, 92. Hort on Acts of Archelaus and Manes, 327. on the date of Justin, 85. on Hippolytus and Clement, 306. Ienatius, Epistles of, attack Docet- ism, 345. evidence of use of the Gospel in, 257. in different forms, 181. probable date of the genuine, 189. Iken referred to, 51. Ireneus’ account of Basilides demon- strably wrong, 312. connection with Asia, 208. describes the opinions of Ptole- meus, 267. failure to appeal to Papias, 241. follows synoptical chronology of Last Supper, 487. on the age of Jesus, 251. on the Asiatic John, 207. on the bad arguments of the Valen- tinians, 282. on the fast before Easter, 469. on the Quartodecimans, 449, 468, 479. on rejecters of the Gospel, 335, 340, 341. on Valentinus, 267. quotation of John 111, 3, 90, 92, 94; 95. quotes Ptolemeus, 270. reading of John i. 13, 146. said to be mistaken in regard to John, 219. story about John and Cerinthus, 409. testimony about authorship of the Gospel, 73, 243. used a secondary source for his article on Basilides, 304. view of duration of Christ’s min- istry, 46, 207. wrote a treatise on the Passover, 488, 490. Isidore quoted, 325. referred to, 297, 300, 303, 304. JacoBl on Acts of Archelaus and Manes, 326. on the system of Basilides, 325. Jacob’s well, 368, 433. James, M. R., editor of Gospel of Peter, 152. on the Acts of John, 343. INDEX _ Jannaris on Eusebius, H. £., iii. 3, 239. Jerusalem, visits to, 42. Jewish Quarterly Review on the hypoth- esis of Chwolson, 49, 50. Jews not reckoned among the ἔθνη in the Gospel, 416. represented as persecutors, 231. said to be wrong in calculations for the Passover, 492, 494. ** Jews, feasts of the,” in the Gospel, 416. ‘* Jews, the,” in the Gospel, 416. John the Apostle, argument against presence of, in Asia, 214. Asiatic John, 207. character of, 409. conclusion that attack on tradition of Asiatic residence has failed, 235. his bitter experiences, 415. his monument in Ephesus, 223. reasons for his practice in regard to the Passover, 512. relation to the Judaic party, 411. said to have been a Quartodeciman, 480. John the Baptist, picture of, in the Gospels, 59. simply ‘‘John” in the Gospel, 380. testimony of, 8. John the Presbyter distinct from the Apostle, 205. no evidence that he was ever in Asia, 223. not the Asiatic John, 206. John, First Epistle of, i. 1, 388. John, Gospel of, i. 14, 388; vii, 52, 439; ΧΙ. 49, 437; xi. 51, 437 ; xviil. 18, 437; xvili. 24, 436; xix. 35, 388 ; xxi. 23, 387 ; xxi. 24, 260, 386. Jonah, 439. Josephus on the temple, 370. on the Sadducees, 356. reference to John the Baptist, 59. uses καθίζει transitively, 150. Judas the Galilean, 434. Judgment in John and 1 John, 173. Julias, 432. Justin Martyr, acquaintance with the Gospel, 84. antecedent probabilities, 84. applied philosophy to Johannine thought, 419. confirms Johannine tradition, 212. doctrine of Christ’s person, 107. God and man, 126. identified with the λόγος, 110. building of the 521 Justin Martyr, μονογενής, 134. pre-existed, 116, 120. Son of God in a peculiar sense, 116. subject to suffering, 126. doctrine of the Logos: Logos active in history of Israel, 125. agent in creation, 123. distinct from the Father, 111. first-born of God, 110, 119. God, 109. incarnate through the Virgin, 128. incarnation of, 125. not a creature, 117. occupies second place in the universe, 119. shared by all men, 124. subordinate to the Father, 112. those who lived with him were Christians, 124. whether co-eternal with the Father, 120. work of, previous to incarnation, 123. doctrine of the Logos, based on an evangelical document, 132. expansion of that of the Gospel, 129. language in which it is ex- pressed, 140. followed by Tertullian, 74, 84, 269. God said to be without a name, 130. Gospel according to the Hebrews not one of his Memoirs, 100, Gospel, Fourth, probably among his Memoirs, 158; not improb- ably ascribed to John, 159; not treated with neglect, 34, 155. Gospel of Peter not the source of the passage about the judgment- seat, I51. harmonises the Gospel with the Synoptics, 129. indebtedness to Philo, 114, 144. λόγος, use of the word, 107. miraculous birth not related in his Logos-source, 139. on the time of the crucifixion, 499. passage about regeneration, 87 ; conclusion, 106 ; deviations from Johannine text, 88; deviations examined, 90; points of agree- ment with John, 96; resem- blance to John not accidental, 98 ; similar to passage in Clem- entine Homilies, 88; tradi- tional interpretation of passage in the Gospel, 97. “522 Justin Martyr, quotation from Old Testament, 363. quotation of passage about the Baptist, 149; about seating Christ on the tribunal, 150. teaching of Christ, description of, 16, 155. works, 85. Krim abandons argument founded on ignorance of Palestine, 430. adverse to Johannine authorship, 70; to John’s account of the Last Supper, 53. on the date of John xxi., 260. on the evidence of Barnabas, 256. on the Presbyter John, 206. on the tradition of one year’s ministry, 47. Kenyon on _ the Apology, 85. Kessler referred to, 326. Kidron, 368. Kingstown, 432. Kirchner referred to, 52. Klopper on the desire to exalt John, date of Justin’s 396, on John xix., 35, 389, 393; XXL, 261, 388. Kostlin adverse to Johannine author- ship, 69. Kriiger on the date of Justin’s Apology, 85. LACTANTIUS says God is without a name, 131. view of the duration of Christ’s ministry, 46. Lamb, blessing for, at Easter, 456. partaken of by Pope and Cardinals, 457. use of, at Easter, 455. Lambert, J. C., on the Last Supper, Ἐς Lambs, wax, at Easter, 457. Laodicea, 451. ‘* Last day ” in John and 1 John, 172, Lazarus, raising of, 10, 62, 379, 426. Leo, Brother, referred to, 260. Leucius Charinus, 343. Lewin on the date of the nativity and the crucifixion, 253. Liechtenhan on the Acts of John, 344. Lightfoot, conjectural emendation of Georgius Hamartolus, 229. defended Johannine authorship, 71. on the date of the Epistle of Clement, 216; of 1 John, 176; of Polycarp’s martyrdom, 188. INDEX Lightfoot on the deviations πἰ the — Gospel from the LXX., on the genuineness of the ‘Distle to Philomelium, 212. on the Ignatian Epistles, 182. on the Ignatian forger and the Apostolical Constitutions, 183. on the interpretation of John xiv. 2 by the Elders, 247 ; of Papias’ Preface, 199. on the meaning of ‘‘the Pres- byter ” applied to John, 206. on a mistake about the martyrdom of Papias, 195. on the palm-branches, 367. on the πέταλον, 210. on Philip of Hierapolis, 227. on Polycarp’s Epistle, 180. on ‘‘ the Prophet,” 354. on the sects in the Gospel, 356. on the silence of Eusebius, 238. on the statement that Papias wrote the Gospel from the dictation of John, 250. on the style of the Gospel, 360. on the time of building the temple, 371. referred to, 352. refutes conjecture of Overbeck’s, 229. suggests origin of the name Alogi, 336. Lipsius, editor of apocryphal Acts, 344. on the date of Xystus, 449. on Hippolytus, 275. on Irenzus, 276. on Valentinus, 265. Lisburn, 432. Lisnagarvey, 432. Lock on Wendt, 404. Logia, Matthew’ S, 403. Liicke on the last ORs of the Gospel, 388. on Siloam, 373. on Weisse, 404. referred to, 16, 68, 210, 342. Ludolphus de Saxonica on a misplace- ment in the Gospel, 407. Luthardt defends Johannine author- ship, 69. MABILLON on the Ordo Romanus, 457- Macaulay quoted, 29. Machiavelli, 29. Mansel on the transcendence of God in Gnosticism, 329. Marcion, argument that he was un- acquainted with the Gospel, 288. date of, 286. i ᾿ , 4 INDEX 523 ' Marcion, reasons for rejecting the | Montanists’ relation to the Alogi, 335. Gospel, 289. rejection of the Gospel, 241, 287. used only a mutilated Luke, 242, 267, 286. Marcionites said to have used the Gospel, 291 ; thestatement examined, 292. Martineau adverse to Johannine author- ship, 71. against ascribing I John to the Evangelist, 164. on the date of the Clementine Homilies, 263. on the evidence of Barnabas, 256. on. ‘‘the high priest that year,” 437. on the ignorance of Palestine shown by the Gospel, 430. on Irenzus’ account of the Valen- tinians, 282. on John vii. 52, 439; on xix, 35, 389 ; on xxi. 23, 24, 386. on ‘‘the Jews” in the Gospel, 416. on Luke xi. 49, 45. on the Paschal controversy, 444. seeming ignorance of the Gospel, 259. thinks Marcion was unacquainted with the Gospel, 288. Μάρτυς of doubtful meaning, 231. Martyrologies, nature and origin of, 232. Martyrology, Hieronymian, 232. Martyrology, Roman, on Aristion, 198, 205. on Papias, 198. Martyrology, Syrian, on the martyr- dom of James and John, 232. Matthias, alleged author of secret doctrines, 300, 303. M‘Clellan on the Last Supper, 52, 495. Melito, a Quartodeciman, 210, 448. referred to, 191. wrote a work on the Passover, 450, 509. Memory, nature of, 427. Meyer defends Johannine authorship, 6 9. on Johniii, 4, 103. Miltiades, 269. Ministry, duration Christ’s, 7. Miracles, 9, 426. Miraculous birth omitted, 11. Mishna on executions at feasts, 55. Mommert on Aenon, 369. Mommsen on the reading ‘‘ disciples of the Lord” in Papias, 198. and scene of treatment of the Passover, 469. Morin referred to, 442. Muratorian Fragment connects 1 John with the Gospel, 176. testimony about authorship of the Gospel, 75. NAASSENI, 332. Nablous, 369. Nahum, 439. Nerses, 459. Nicetas, 463. Nicodemus, 4, 35. Nonnus’ paraphrase of John iii. 3, 91. Norris on a displacement in the Gospel, 407. Matos on the Last Supper, 52. Novatians, some of, were Quartodeci- mans, 452. treatment of the Passover, 469. (EcUMENIUS AND ARETHAS, commen- tary of, quotes Papias, 236. Ophites, 332. Oratio ad Greecos, 82. Ordo Romanus for Easter, 456. Origen follows synoptic chronology of the Last Supper, 488. on heretical views of God, 292. on ‘‘the high priest that year,”438. on the martyrdom of John, 229. on the Ophites, 332. view of allegory in the Gospels, 33. view of duration of Christ’s minis- try, 46. Otto on Justin’s view of the origin of the Logos, 121. Overbeck refuted by Lightfoot, 229. thinks there was a spurious work of Papias, 228. PANIUM, 432. Papias, 194. account of the origin of Mark’s Gospel, 203. acquainted with the Apocalypse, 236. acquainted with 1 John and I Peter, 237. alleged statement that James and John were put to death by the Jews, 228, date, 195. hands down interpretation of John Rav. 2, 2a5i life, 194. meaning of the passage about Aristion and the Presbyter John, 199. 524 Papias, origin of tradition about the vines, 222. said to have attested the author- ship of the Gospel, 249. says nothing of John in Asia, 225. sources of his work, 197. work, character, title, and date of, 195. Papirius, a Quartodeciman, 210, 448. Paraclete in John and 1 John, 168, 179. Parusia in John and 1 John, 170. Paschal Chronicle adopts the Johannine chronology of the Last Supper, 502- date of, 461. error about Papias, 195. on the date of Christ’s death, 501. on the deaths of John and Clement, 216. on the law of the Passover, 461, 482. on the meaning of the Passover, 473: on the postponement of the cele- bration of the Passover, 485. treats the high priest’s office as annual, 437. Paschal controversy, 444. Alexandrian practice, 450, 480. alleged bearing on the authorship of the Gospel, 444, 486, 507. arguments in, 480; appeal to tradition, 480; appeal to the Jewish law, 481 ; reasons for not keeping the feast on the four- teenth, 483 ; summary of, 500. history of, 447. matters in dispute, 449, 451, 454, 463, 464, 480, 490. no sien to Gospel chronology, 486. observance of fourteenth day by those who were not Quarto- decimans, 483, 484, 486. Palestinian tradition, 450, 481. Passover, Christian; the command- ment respected by the Church, - 461. a festival, 465. imported from Judaism, 452. a lamb slain by Christians, 455. meaning of, 473. not a commemoration of the Last Supper, 454. not the same as the Eucharist, 449. not the same as the feast of the resurrection, 473. preceded by a fast, 449, 469. INDEX Passover, Christian ; preceded by a vigil, © 472. the principal festival, 453. the Roman practice, 456. Πάσχα, meaning of, 474. Paul, Dr Ludvig, on the relation be- tween the Gospel and Justin, 161. Pausanias on the Lake of Tiberias, 367. Perate, 332. Pesach, 52. Πέταλον said to have been worn by John, 209. Peter the Apostle, confession of, 8. position of, in the Gospel, 395. relation of, to the Gentiles, 414. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, appealed to © about the Passover, 502. quotes Trecentius, 477. Peter, Apocalypse of, 237. Peter, Gospel of, not one of Justin’s Memoirs, 151. Peter, Preaching of, 237. Petronius Honoratus, 85. . Philip the Apostle said to be con- founded with the Evangelist, 226. said to have been ἃ Quartodeciman, 480. Philip in Hierapolis, 209. said to have been a Quartodeciman, 508. Philip of Side, 196, 229. Philo, an allegorist, 428. appealed to about the Passover, 502. designates God as pure Being, 329. his doctrine in Justin Martyr, 114, 144. on the literal and symbolical sense, relation of, to the Gospel, 24. style contrasted with John’s, 360, 418. Photius, 501. Plato on the transcendence of ‘‘ the good,” 329. picture of Socrates, 397. Plotinus on the transcendence of ‘‘ the unit,” 329. Plumptre on the πέταλον, 209. Polycarp, alleged interpretation of Matthew xx. 22, 23, 234. apparent reference to I John, 189. called Marcion ‘‘ first-born of Satan,” 186. connection with John, 208. date of martyrdom of, 188. describes the character of Presby- ters, 187. INDEX Polycarp, Epistle of, 180 ; genuineness, 180 ; attacked by Cotterill, 183 ; defended, 185. importance of, 191. possible allusion to the Gospel, 191. a Quartodeciman, 448. quotes I Peter, 186, 238. visited Rome, 449, 480. Polycrates on Quartodeciman practice, 448, 464, 479. said to be mistaken about John, 219. ___ testimony about John in Asia, 209. Porphyry, 341. Portarlington, 432. Porter, J.S., 432. Pothinus, 348. Power, M., on the Last Supper, 51. Pretorium, 373. Pratt, J., on the Last Supper, 51. Predictions in the Gospels, 39. Proculus, 269. Protevangelium, 377. Pseudo-Athanasius, quotation of John li. 3, 94. Pseudo-Tertullian, 481, 504. Ptolemeus accepted the John’s, 270. letter of, to Flora, 271. quoted the Gospel, 270, 282. thought the ministry of Jesus lasted only one year, 487. a Valentinian, 266. Ptolemais, 432. Gospel as QUARTODECIMANS appealed to the Apostle John, 445. argument in support of their practice, 494. Catholics, 460. differed from the rest of the Church only about the day, 464, 486. divided as to the day of the cruci- fixion, 511 ; as to the month of observance, 484. extent of, 448. kept the Passover as a feast, 468 ; in memory of the passion and resurrection, 477. mode of celebration of the Passover, 63. nS ae of reliance on synoptic chronology, 486. some professed to keep the Pass- over on the day of the passion, 510; and appealed to Acts of Pilate for the day of crucifixion, 510. 525 Quartodecimans, statement that they relied on the synoptic chron- ology, 486. thought the Gospels infallible, ee REBAPTISMATE, DE, quotation of John ili. 8, 94. Repentance in the Gospel and 1 John, 166. Reuss on the date of 1 John, 178, on the limits of the Prologue of the Gospel, 3. Revelation said to represent the Apostles as dead, 219. Réville, J., adverse to authorship, 71. against Johannine account of the Last Supper, 53. on the dependence of John on the Synoptics, 16. on the meeting of the Sanhedrin at the Passover, 56. thinks the author of the Gospel imbued with Alexandrian phil- osophy, 24. thinks Marcion would have used the Gospel, 289. Roberts defends transitive meaning of ἐκάθισεν in John xix, 18, 150. Robinson, J. A., editor of Gospel of Peter, 152. Johannine SABBATIUS referred to, 482. Sagaris martyred, 451, 509. a Quartodeciman, 210, 448, 451. Salim, 369. Salmon, Dr, defends Johannine author- ship, 71. on the Apocalypse, 442. on the arguments that the Presbyter was the Asiatic John, 214. on astronomical calculations of date of crucifixion, 58. on the preface of Papias, 199. suggests that a forger imposed on Hippolytus, 316. thinks the Elder the same as the Apostle John, 205. Salome, 376. Samaria, 433. Samaritans, 354, 355, 368. Sanday, Dr, defends Johannine author- ship, 71. referred to, 352. Schick on the Pool of Bethesda, 372. Schleiermacher defends Johannine authorship, 68. Schmid, W., 188. 526 Schmidt, Carl, on the Acts of John, 44. Scholten adverse to Johannine author- ship, 69. on the Presbyter John, 206. Schiirer abandons argument founded on ignorance of Palestine, 430. on the Alogi, 334. on Apollinaris, 508. on the character of John and of the Gospel, 409. on the dependence of the Gospel on the Synoptics, 16. on the deviations from the LXX., 63. Ὡς the duration of uncleanness, 53- on the education of John, 350. on Eusebius’ reply to the Quarto- decimans, 493. on external evidence, 346. on Franke, 357. on John i. 11, 289, 358. on the philosophical training of the author of the Gospel, 418. on the use of a lamb at the Pass- over, 455- referred to, 52, 71. Schwartz on the reading in Eusebius, H. E., iii. 3, 239. on the reading in Papias’ preface, 198. on the title of Papias’ work, 195. Schwegler adverse to Johannine authorship, 69. Scythianus, 326, 328. Σημεῖα in the Gospel, 402. Semisch on Justin’s view of the origin of the Logos, 121. thinks Justin regarded the Logos as a creature, 117. Serapion, 509. Servilius Paulus, 451, 509. Sethians, relation of, to the account of Basilides, 317, 325. Severus of Antioch, 185. Severus on the day of the Supper, 497. Shammai, 55. Shepherd of Hermas, 76, 77. Sichra, 433. Siloam, Pool of, 353, 372. Simon of Cyrene, 56. Smiles referred to, 432. Smith, G. A., on Sychar, 433. Socher, 433. Socrates doubts the value of Paschal tradition, 481. on a division among the Quarto- decimans, 484. Last INDEX Socrates on the fast before Easter, 469. on the meaning of the Passover, 475- on Quartodeciman practice, 463. Solomon’s porch, 370. Soter, 449. Sozomen, a narrative quoted, 473. on the meaning of the Passover, 475. on Quartodeciman practice, 463. Speeches in the Gospel, 16, 34. Spitta, F., supports John’s account of the Last Supper, 53. Stahelin on the Gnostic sources of Hippolytus, 316. on the inconsistencies of Hip- polytus, 321. Steitz on the use of ἐκεῖνος, 391. Stewart on Wendt, 404. Stieren referred to, 266. Strabo, Walafrid, on the use of the lamb at the Passover, 456. Strayer on transposition of text in the Gospel, 353. Supernatural Religion adverse Johannine authorship, 71. referred to, 88. Supper, Last, date of, 9, 47 ; arguments for and against Johannine date, 53- omission in account of, 10, Swete on the Gospel of Peter, 153. Sychar, 369, 433. Symmachus, 365. TALMUD, tradition of date of Christ’s death in the, 56. Tatian, date and works, 82. quotes the Gospel, 82. re-arrangement of the O 405. . the structure of the Diatessaron, 406. Tayler, J. J., adverse to Johannine authorship, 69. on Andrew in the Muratorian Canon, 79. on the Armenian Christians, 459. on the Catholic view of Easter, 471. on Justin’s description of Christ’s speeches, 156. on the Paschal controversy, 446, 460, 467. Taylor, C., on the Shepherd of Hermas, 255. refutes Cotterill on Polycarp, 188. Gospel, — to” suggests reading in the Gospel of © Peter, 152. INDEX Teaching of Jesus, peculiarities of, in the Gospel, 12. Temple, building of, 370. cleansing of, 8, 61. Tertullian confirms the dition, 212. De Carne Christi, wrong inter- pretation corrected, 288. on the fast at Easter, 466. on the meaning of the Passover, 477 .ΌῸὺ6ὄὃΣ Ἥἁ LA on the time of the: crucifixion, Asiatic tra- 499. on Valentinus, 268. quotation of John iii. 3, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96. reading of John i. 13, 146. says there was a time when the Son did not exist, 120. testimony about authorship of the Gospel, 74. view of duration of Christ’s min- istry, 46. wished to follow Justin, 74, 84, 269. - Thackeray quoted, 392. Thayer referred to, 435. Theodoret on the Peratz, 332. on the Quartodecimans, 478. Theodorus of Mopsuestia, comment on John iii. 3, 97. Theodotion, 364. Theodotus, offshoot of the Alogi, 340. writings of, 272. Theophilus, accidental character of his reference to the Gospel, 131. the εἶδος of God unspeakable, 130, knew the Apocalypse, 240. silence of, 157. testimony about authorship of the Gospel, 75, 239. view of the Logos, 123. wrote a work against Hermogenes, 240. wrote a work against Marcion, 240. Theophylact, commentary on John iii. 3, 97, 102; on Matthew xx. 22, 23, 234. paraphrase of John iii. 3, 93. Third person used of themselves by authors, 390. Thoma on Justin’s doctrine of the divine Sonship of Christ, 136, 137, 138. thinks the Fourth Gospel was not one of Justin’s Memoirs, 158; and was believed by him to be of other than apostolic authorship, 160. Thraseas, a Quartodeciman, 210, 448. 527 Tiberias, Sea of, 366. Tischendorf, reading in John iii. 5, 94. Traditional view of authorship of the Gospel, 67 ; estimate of its weight, 79. Trecentius on the meaning of the Christian Passover, 477. Tregelles on the Muratorian Canon, 78. Tulloch quoted, 32. Turner, C. H., on those who rejected the Gospel (in Irenzus), 335. UNIVERSALISM of the Gospel, 35. Urban V., referred to, 458. VALENTINIANS, eastern school accepted the Gospel, 272. thought the Gospel allegorical, 284. two schools of, 266, 280. used arbitrary interpretations, 283. used most copiously the Gospel of John, 267. view of duration of Christ’s minis- try, 46, 487. western school accepted the Gospel, 270. Valentinus, argument against his know- ledge of the Gospel, 282. evidence of his use of the Gospel, 267, 273. life of, 265. treatment of, by Hippolytus, 277. Victor and the Quartodecimans, 209, 448, 479. Victorinus of Pettau, chiliasm of, 236. on the dates of the nativity, bap- tism, and crucifixion, 253. Vigil before Easter, 472. Volkmar adverse to Johannine author- ship, 69. on the date of Justin’s works, 85. on fleshly apologists, 105. on the passage about regeneration in the Clementine Homilies, 89. thinks the Gospel borrowed from Justin, 100. Von der Goltz on the evidence of Ignatius, 258. Voss, editor of Ignatius, 181. Vulgate rendering of John iii. 5, 92. Wand! Far‘Au, 369. Wadi Selim, 370. Watkins defends Johannine author- ship, 71. Weiss on the last chapter of John, 388, on a passage in Hegesippus, 217. Weisse on Johannine ‘‘ Studien,” 404. Weizsicker on John xxi. 23, 387. on mediate authorship, 70, 396. 528 Weizsicker on the pervading doctrine of the Gospel, 354. ./ on the speeches in the Gospel, 37. thinks the portrait of Jesus could not be by a personal friend, 420. Wendt defends Johannine account of the Last Supper, 53. defends the visits to Jerusalem, 42. referred to, 71. theory of composite origin of the Gospel, 399. Westcott, classification of quotations from the Old Testament in the Gospel, 365. defends Johannine authorship, 71. on identity of authorship of the Gospel and 1 John, 163. on John xiii. 23, 395; xxi. 23, 388. on the name Kidron, 368. on resemblances to the Synopties in the Gospel, 16. referred to, 352. INDEX Westcott thinks the crucifixion was on > Thursday, 58. tries to harmonise the Synoptics © and the Gospel in the account of the Last Supper, 48. Wiseman on Easter celebration, 458. Wordsworth and White, Novwm Testa- mentum, 249. Wright, W., edits Syrian Martyrology, 239. XENOPHON, Anabasis quoted, 392. Memorabilia, 390, 422, 425. Xystus referred to, 449, 479, 480. ZAHN on the date of Tatian’s Oratio, 83. referred to, 188. Zeller adverse to Johannine author- ship, 69. on the connection between John and Justin, 99. on the objection of Nicodemus, ΙΟΙ. δ PRINTED BY NEILL AND CO., LTD., EDINBURGH. EE EEE Ψ ΡῪ δα. ὙμΝΝ δι Α.. 2... %; hake ai ity ee Ae * AN ya Ait ἣ ἣν ve pra aaa Date Due pts ed ain - τ λα “yr, : a πῶ a ᾿ . 7) age “ Wg “ἊΨ BS2615.4 .D79 An inquiry into the character and Prince -1 1012 00069 6882 to Ww