Frauds And Follies Of The Fathers Part 3

These omissions have been attributed to Peter's excessive modesty. Apart from the absence of any evidence of this trait in the Apostle whom Paul withstood to his face because he was to be blamed, it must have been a peculiar kind of modesty indeed to omit important pa.s.sages and events lest the chief Apostle should seem too prominent, and to suppress the bitterness of his penitence!

But Irenaeus tells us the Gospel of Mark was written after Peter's death, while Clement of Alexandria makes out that he wrote it at the request of friends which, when Peter knew, he neither hindered nor encouraged.

So from these accounts, neither of which accord with Papias, it would appear that Mark had no motive for lessening the prominence of Peter.

Peter is alleged to have died about the year 60; so that, Papias dying about the year 165, and writing late in life, his evidence on behalf of Mark's Gospel would be about 100 years after it is alleged to have been written. This applies with equal force to Matthew. But so marvellous are the contents of these Gospels that even the most certain evidence of their existence 100 years later would be very unsatisfactory.

It will also be noticed that Papias no more mentions a _Gospel_ of Mark than he does of Matthew. What he speaks of is not an inspired narrative, but records written from memory. Now if Mark wrote from memory he did not write from inspiration. The argument for the genuineness of the Gospel is at the expense of its inspiration. But the evidence from the numerous pa.s.sages in which Mark agrees with Matthew and with Luke is overwhelming that it is not an original doc.u.ment written from memory at all, but with the writer having other doc.u.ments directly before him.

This is admitted by all the best critics.

Papias says Mark did not arrange in order the things which were said and done by Christ, and that he was careful to omit none of the things which he heard. How can this apply to our Gospel, which we have seen omits many most important things with which Peter was most especially concerned, and which moreover is the most orderly and consecutive of the Gospels. Canon Sanday says ("Gospels in the Second Century," p. 151): "The second Gospel _is_ written in order, it is _not_ an original doc.u.ment. These two characteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shape the doc.u.ment to which Papias alludes." And again (p. 155): "Neither of the two first Gospels, as we have them, complies with the conditions of Papias' description to such an extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them." Once more (p. 159), "I am bound in candor to say that, so far as I can see myself at present, I am inclined to agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' against his critics, that the works to which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their present form."

Dr. Davidson (Introduction to N. T., vol. i., p. 539, 1882,) declares: "A careful examination of Papias's testimony shows that it does not relate to our present Gospel, nor bring Mark into connection with it as its author. All we learn from it is, that Mark wrote notes of a Gospel which was not our canonical one."

The description of Papias would lead us to expect, not a regularly concocted Gospel, but fragmentary reminiscences of Peter's preaching. It seems altogether more likely that the allusion is to the work known as the "Preaching of Peter," which was undoubtedly popular in early Christian times, and which was used by Heracleon and Clement of Alexandria as authentic canonical Scripture. Since Papias gives no quotations whatever from these alleged writings of Matthew and Mark the whole matter remains a bare tradition resting on the authority of this weak-minded Father. We are unaware if he took the slightest pains to test the truth of the statements made. It is highly improbable that he did anything of the kind. Dupin says: "The judgment that ought to be given concerning him is that which hath been already given by Eusebius, that is to say, that he was a very good man, but very credulous, and of very mean parts, who delighted much in hearing and telling stories and miracles. And since he was exceedingly inquisitive, and inclined to believe everything that was told him, it is not to be admired that he hath divulged divers errors and extravagant notions as the judgments of the Apostles, and hath given us fabulous narratives for real histories, which shows that nothing is so dangerous in matters of religion, as lightly to believe, and too greedily to embrace, all that hath the appearance of piety without considering in the first place how true it is" ("A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers," vol. i., p. 50, 1692).

Traditions coming from such a source could be of very little value. It is, however, certain that Papias preferred tradition to any book with which he was acquainted He says: "For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living abiding voice "--a saying which doubtless included the books of Matthew and Mark he referred to, and possibly others of the "many" who had written "a declaration of those things which are surely believed among us," referred to by Luke. Jeremiah Jones thinks he refers to spurious productions, as "he never would have said this concerning any inspired book" ("New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament," vol. i., p. 24). The idea of a Christian bishop preferring uncertain tradition to the sure and certain testimony of an infallibly inspired revelation is well-nigh incredible to a Protestant apologist.

This extreme credulity is evinced throughout the slight fragments which has come down to us. He relates on the authority of Philip's daughters that a man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison and received no harm. After this we are not surprised at the information that the government of the world's affairs was left to angels, and that they made a mess of it. It is noticeable that while mentioning Matthew and Mark, and especially mentioning John, he never ascribes to the latter any such writing as our fourth Gospel The only saying which he does ascribe to him: "The days shall come when vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches," etc., is not only uncanonical but entirely dissimilar to the style of both Gospel and First Epistle, though not to that of the Apocalypse. Dr. Davidson considers his notices of St. John preclude Papias from having believed him to be the author of a Gospel Had he known of such a doc.u.ment he would surely have mentioned it as much as Matthew and Mark, and Eusebius would not have failed to reproduce the testimony.

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, seems to have been a fair average specimen of the early Christian. Probably he was very devout and pious, but most certainly he was not strong in intellect, and was ready to give credence to old wives' tales concerning the Christ or his Apostles. It is upon such authorities as these that the whole fabric of historical Christianity rests.

V.

JUSTIN MARTYR.

Justin, who is said to have derived his surname from having suffered martyrdom about a.d. 166-167, is the first of the Fathers who shows any detailed acquaintance with the statements found in the Gospels. A large number of spurious works have been attributed to him, but we take as genuine the Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew. In the first of these (chap, xlvi.) he indicates that he wrote about 150 years after the birth of Jesus. He was born at Neapolis in Palestine, being by descent a Greek, and in the early part of his life a heathen. He tells us he was converted to Christianity by an old man, whom his biographer, Father Halloix, thinks may have been an incarnate angel. Tillemont, the learned Catholic historian, considers this highly probable. Fabricius thought it was Bishop Polycarp, but Credner considers the narrative a fiction. It is difficult to believe that his Apologies were ever presented to the Roman Emperors or that his Dialogue with the Jew represents an actual controversy with an opponent.

Dr. Jortin speaks of Justin as "of a warm and credulous temper"

("Remarks on Ecclesiastical History," chap, xv., p. 243, vol. i., 1846), aind Mosheim declares "The learned well know that Justin Martyr is not to be considered in every respect as an oracle, but that much of what he relates is wholly undeserving of credit" ("Commentaries," vol i., p. 112; 1813). The Rev. John Jones includes him among those who did not scruple to use forged writings.

In chapters 20 and 44 of his first Apology, for instance, he appeals to the Sibylline book of prophecies respecting Christ and his kingdom, which it has been proved to a demonstration by David Blondell and others, were forged by some early Christians with a view to persuading the ignorant and unsuspecting heathen that their oracles had foretold Christ. Celsus, the heathen, detected and pointed out this falsification.* He quotes spurious productions of Hystaspes, of Orpheus and Sophocles, in which Christians had foisted their own ideas. For not content with counterfeiting the writings of celebrities among themselves, they were equally unscrupulous in regard to the writings of the Pagans.

* Origen, bk. vii;, 53; p. 475:--The Sibyl was appealed to by Theophilus and other early Christian apologists. The author of "Questiones et Responsiones ad Orthodoxos," a work falsely ascribed to Justin, says that Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians, appeals to the writings of the Sibyl. In the present version there is no such allusion.

Justin confidently affirms that Plato and Aristophanes mention the ancient Sibyl as a prophetess, and he gravely relates concerning her being the daughter of Berosus, who wrote the Chaldean history.

He says (1st Apol., chap. xxi., p. 25): "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first birth of G.o.d, was produced without s.e.xual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again and ascended into heaven, we propound _nothing different_ from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." He argues (chap, xxiii., p. 27) that devils inspired the heathen poets and priests to relate beforehand the Christian narratives as having already happened; and makes out (chap, liv.) that the devils, knowing the prophetic words of Moses, invented the stories of Bacchus and Bellorophon; "And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah that he should be born of a virgin, and by his own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of." And so with Hercules and aeculapius. All of which puts us in mind of the learned divine who argued that G.o.d put the fossils into the earth less than 6000 years ago, in order to deceive the geologists and exhibit the vanity of human knowledge.

Justin also informs us (Apol., lxvi.) that through the suggestions of wicked demons, bread and wine were placed before the persons to be initiated into the mysteries of Mithras in imitation of the Eucharist.

He could believe that Jesus, sitting at a table, actually offered his own body and blood to eat and drink, but the idea that the Christian Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was copied from the Mysteries never struck him. Having plenty of devils he put them to a deal of use. He tells us how they came into existence: "G.o.d committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom he appointed over them.

But the angels transgressed this appointment, and were captivated by love of women, and begat children who are those that are called demons"

(2nd Apol. v., p. 75). These subdued the human race partly by magical writings and partly by fears and punishments. Not content with inventing the heathen mythology they raised up the Samaritans, Simon and Menander, "who did many mighty works by magic." This is what he says the Jews said of Jesus (Dial, chap. Ixix). Justin twice has the audacity to a.s.sert that the Romans erected a statue to the Samaritan Simon, as a G.o.d. He gives the inscription Simoni Deo Sancto. To Simon the Holy G.o.d. This, if not a fraud, was a very gross error. Apart from the unlikelihood of the story and its absence of corroboration by any heathen writer, a fragment has been found with the inscription "Semoni Sanco Deo," being probably the base of a statue erected to the Sabine Deity, Semo Sancus. He further charges the Romans with human sacrifices in celebrating the mysteries of Saturn; a charge absolutely false and unsupported by any Pagan author, although repeated by the Christian Fathers, Tatian, Cyprian, Tertullian, Lactantius, Epiphanius, etc. Justin also says the devils put forward and aided Marcion the follower of Paul, who accused the other apostles of having perverted the Gospel doctrines. He frequently alleges that the Christians cast out devils in the name of Jesus Christ, and that women and men among them possessed prophetic gifts, but he gives no special instance of any miracle wrought in his own time. He makes maniacs and demoniacs to be possessed by the spirits of the dead, and appeals to "necromancy, divination by immaculate children, dream-senders and a.s.sistant spirits" in proof of life after death (immortality he seems to have considered the gift of G.o.d). All the early Fathers believed in necromancy. Lactantius ("Divine Inst.i.tutes,"

book iv., chap, xxvii.) calls it the most certain proof of Christianity, because those who are skilled in calling forth the spirits of the dead bring Jupiter and other G.o.ds from the lower regions, but not Christ, for he was not more than two days there. Justin says we ought to pray that the evil angel may not seize our soul when it departs from the body.

He makes the victory over Amalek a type of Christ's victory over demons, and declares that Isaiah said evil angels inhabit the land of Tanis in Egypt. He declares of the Jews in the wilderness: "The latchets of your shoes did not break, and your shoes waxed not old, and your garments wore not away, but _even those of the children grew along with them_"

("Dialogue with Trypho," 131, p. 266.) This is a very consistent addition to the fable found in Deut xxix., 5.

He charges (Dial., chap, lxxii.) the Jews with having removed pa.s.sages from Ezra and Jeremiah, and in the following chapter with having taken away the words "from the wood" in the pa.s.sage from the ninety-sixth Psalm, "Tell ye among the nations the Lord hath reigned '_from the wood._''" To which the note appended in the "Ante-Nicene Christian Library" edition (p. 189) is "These words were not taken away by the Jews, but added by some Christian."--Otto. Tertullian follows Justin in regard to this pa.s.sage.

He complains of their rejecting the Septuagint version, and gravely tells how Ptolemy, King of Egypt, had seventy different translators shut up in seventy separate cots or cells for the purpose of translating the Hebrew Scriptures. After the completion Ptolemy found the seventy men "had not only given the same meaning but had employed the same words,"

whereupon he believed "the translation had been written by divine power." Byway of proof that he narrates no fable, he says, "We ourselves, having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots still preserved" ("Address to Greeks" chap. xiii., p. 300). Ptolemy, however, he makes contemporary with Herod (Apol. x.x.xi., 33.) Christ, he says, suffered under Herod the Ascalonite. He calls Moses the first Prophet, yet declares "He was predicted before he appeared, first, 5000 years before, and again 3000, then 2000, then 1000, and yet again 800; in the succession of generations, prophets after prophets arose" (1st Apol., chap, x.x.xi., p. 38). David, he makes to have lived 1500 B.C.

Speaking of the Polygamy of the patriarchs (Dial., chap, cx.x.xiv., p. 269) he tells us "certain dispensations of weighty mysteries were accomplished in each act of this sort." "The marriages of Jacob were types of that which Christ was about to accomplish." The bloodthirsty General Joshua was a type of Christ, and the sun standing still by his order shows "how great the power was of the name of Jesus in the Old Testament" He tells us the two advents were prefigured by the two goats, and continually finds clear prophecies of Christianity in pa.s.sages which have not the remotest allusion to it. To give one instance, he says: 'And that it was foreknown that these infamous things should be uttered against those who confessed Christ, and that those who slandered him, and said it was well to preserve the ancient customs, should be miserable, hear what was briefly said by Isaiah, it is this: 'Woe unto them that call sweet bitter, and bitter sweet.' Such interpretations are innumerable in Justin.

In his 1st Apology, chap, lv., "On Symbols of the Cross," he says the seas cannot be sailed without cross-shaped masts, nor the earth tilled save with cross-shaped instruments. "And the human form differs from animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face, extending from the forehead, what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature, and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, 'The breath before our face is the Lord Christ,' which is a perversion of Lam. iv., 20: 'The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord.'"

He put into the mouth of his antagonist Trypho, the following words which possibly represent the usual position taken up by the Jews: "But Christ--if he has indeed been born and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint him, and make him manifest to all. And you having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing" (chap, viii., p. 97). In answer to this home thrust, Justin promises "I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables." Justin was acquainted with the works of Josephus, and if the pa.s.sage had been then in existence concerning Jesus being the Christ, who was punished on the Cross, and who appeared again the third day, the divine prophets having spoken these and many other wonders about him; here was the opportunity to bring it forward. Instead of doing so, or stating who testified to the existence of Christ and his wonderful works, he rambles off to his favorite argument from prophecy and piles up a heap of interminable nonsense, which if put forward as a serious defence of Christianity at the present time, would either excite suspicion of covert infidelity or be greeted with derision.

In his Apology he twice calls in evidence the Acts of Pilate, but as with the books of the Sibyl, it is again a Christian forgery and not a heathen doc.u.ment he refers to. This is clear from one of the pa.s.sages he refers to being found in the extant Acts of Pilate or Gospel of Nicodemus. If any official report had been sent by Pilate, it is not likely to have related the miracles of the person put to death. Nor is it probable that Justin would have known the contents of such a doc.u.ment.

Justin, in the beginning of the second half of the second century, being the very first Father who tells us of Jesus being G.o.d, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, dead and rising again and ascending into heaven (for the spurious epistles attributed to Ignatius must be dated after Justin's time) it is important to know where he got his startling information from. He never once mentions Gospels by either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He refers indeed at least thirteen times to "Memoirs" or "Memoirs of the Apostles," but without the least indication of their nature, number or extent. In one place (Dial., 106) he seems to identify them with the Gospel of Peter, referred to by Serapion, Tertullian and Origen. Canon Westcott, who argues that it refers to the Gospel of Mark, commonly placed under the authority of Peter, thus translates the pa.s.sage: "The mention of the fact that Christ changed the name of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that the event has been written in his (Peter's) Memoirs." The best authorities agree that upon strictly critical grounds the pa.s.sage refers to Peter. The "Ante-Nicene Christian Library" (p. 233) however reads: "And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the Apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened." Making the work referred to to be the memoirs of Jesus.

The only direct mention Justin makes of any writer in the New Testament is the following: "And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place" (Dial., chap, lx.x.xi., p. 201). The author of "Supernatural Religion" says: "The manner in which John is here mentioned after the memoirs had been so constantly referred to, clearly shows that Justin did not possess any Gospel also attributed to John"

(vol. i., p. 298; 1879).

This conclusion is corroborated by many circ.u.mstances also adduced by Dr. Davidson. For instance, his doctrine of the Logos is different from that in the Gospel ascribed to John. He does not mention any of the miracles found in that Gospel, and instead of knowing the long discourses given therein, declares "Brief and concise utterances fell from him, for he was no sophist" (Apol. i., chap, xiv., p. 18).

That he does name John, however, as the author of the Apocalypse, and refers by name to the Old Testament writers no less than 197 times, while in about as many pa.s.sages from the "Memoirs" he never identifies their writer, unless in that concerning Peter, is surely incompatible with the idea that they were the Canonical Gospels.

The whole question of the ident.i.ty of these "Memoirs" with our Gospels is ably and lengthily dealt with in English on the orthodox side, by Lardner, Bishop Kaye, Professor Norton, and Canons Westcott and Sanday.

These arguments the inquiring reader should compare with those of Bishop Marsh, Dr. Giles, Dr. Davidson, and the author of "Supernatural Religion."

It is evident that the account of the sayings and doings of Jesus in the "Memoirs" are, in the main, very similar to the Synoptics, especially Matthew, and it is likely they were the princ.i.p.al materials from which our canon was formed. But it is not certain if Justin had one doc.u.ment, two, three, four, or a dozen. In his first Apology (chap, lxvi.) there is certainly found this expression: "For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, _which are called Gospels_, have thus delivered unto us," etc. (p. 69). But Dr. Donaldson says of the words in italics "Schliermacher, Marsh, and others, regarded these words as an interpolation, and they certainly look like one" (Critical History of Christian Literature, vol. ii., p. 329; 1866).

Except in one or two instances, parallels with our Gospels are only made by patching together pa.s.sages from different Gospels. By this process the connexion is broken, while the quotations in Justin have for the most part a consecutive order, and, as is shown by the context, had such an order in the "Memoirs" from which they were taken. While quoting them nearly 200 times he makes hardly a single allusion to those circ.u.mstances of time and place which are found in our Gospels. He also gives particulars not to be found in the Canonical books. Thus he says (Dial., chap, lxxviii,) that Jesus was born in a cave, and cites Isaiah x.x.xiii., 16, as prophecying this. This contradicts Luke but is found in the Gospel of James, the Gospel of the Infancy, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Matthew and Luke give discrepant accounts of the genealogy of Jesus. Justin differs from both. He traces the Davidian descent of the Christ through Mary, which again agrees with James. He nine times mentions the Magi coming from Arabia, not from the East. His quotation of the angel's message to Mary (Apol. i., 33) agrees better with the Gospel of James than with Luke or Matthew. Speaking of the journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlelem, Justin says: "On the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judaea, under Cyrenius, he (Joseph) went up from Nazareth, where he lived, to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled." The differences between the account of Justin and that in Luke are manifest.

He states that Jesus made ploughs and yokes as a carpenter, which is found in the Gospel of the Infancy. Thrice he speaks of John as "sitting by Jordan" (Dial. 49, 51, and 88), and he even narrates that when Jesus stepped into the water a fire was kindled in the Jordan. This also was from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Epiphanius gives it from a version found among the Ebionites. It was also mentioned in another early Christian publication the "Preaching of Paul." Justin has the Holy Ghost say to Jesus at his baptism: "This is my beloved son; to-day have I begotten thee." The same form of expression was used in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and was so quoted by others of the Fathers.

He says (Dial., ciii.) that when the Jews went out to the Mount of Olives to take Jesus there was not a single man to help him. This is in contradiction to all our Gospels. He says that when Herod succeeded Archelaus, Pilate, by way of compliment, sent to him Jesus bound (chap, ciii). He tells how they sat Jesus on the judgment seat, and said "Judge us" (Apol., chap, x.x.xv.) He also relates that Jesus said: "In whatsoever things I apprehend you, in those also will I judge you." Grotius and others think this taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Upon two occasions Justin says that the Jews sent persons about the world to spread calumnies.

So manifestly has Justin gone to other sources than our four Gospels that Canon Sanday admits: "Either Justin has used a lost gospel or gospels, besides those that are still extant, or else he has used a recension of these gospels with some slight changes of language and some apocryphal additions" ("The Gospels in the Second Century," p. 129; 1876). We conjecture that the "Memoirs" of Justin were the materials from which our Gospels were compiled, and that they were similar to or used in conjunction with the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Credner argues that he used the Gospel of Peter. It is noticeable that the Diatessaron of Justin's pupil, Tatian, was called by Epiphanius the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Theodoret tells us that the Nazarenes made use of the Gospel of Peter, and we know by the testimony of the Fathers generally that the Nazarene Gospel was that commonly called the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That Justin used this once celebrated Gospel seems all the more probable since we have the express testimony of Eusebius ("Ec. History, iv.," 22) that it was used by Hegesipus, his contemporary and compatriot.

ELEUTHERIUS

Nearly all our information concerning this worthy is derived from Eusebius. He was born in Palestine of Jewish parents, and wrote five books of memoirs or commentaries no longer extant.

As he therein mentions Pope Eleutherius they must have been written after B.C. 177. The date 185 is a probable one. The work of Hegesippus appears to have been the earliest attempt to give a history of early Christianity, and as it is evident he represented the Jewish anti-Pauline school, which eventually was swamped by the Gentile element, the loss or destruction of his writings is much to be regretted. Such fragments as Eusebius has thought proper to preserve certainly makes one curious for more. The longest fragment concerns no less a person than the brother of the incarnate G.o.d. Eusebius gives it in the second book of his "Ecclesiastical History," chap, xxiii., from which we extract the following:--

"James the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of this name, was surnamed the Just by all, from the days of our Lord until now, received the Government of the Church with the Apostles. This Apostle was consecrated from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head" [i.e., He was a Nazarite, see Numbers vi., 2-5; Judges xiii, 4-7; and xvi., 17. Jesus, we are told in the Gospel, came eating and drinking, and ordered his disciples when fasting to anoint the head.] Hegesippus tells us of James, his brother: "He never anointed with oil" [see James v., 14--17]; "and never used a bath." [In this latter respect too many holy saints have followed his insanitary example], "He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore woollen, but linen garments. He was in the habit of entering the temple alone, and was often found upon his bended knees and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as a camel's in consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before G.o.d."