Supernatural Religion Volume I Part 32

modern editions, however, reject this as a mere recent addition to Luke.

A comparison of the first and third Gospels with Justin clearly shows that the Gospel which he used followed the former more closely than Luke. Matthew makes the climax of the temptation

{393}

the view of all the kingdoms of the world, and the offer to give them to Jesus if he will fall down and worship Satan. Luke, on the contrary, makes the final temptation the suggestion to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. Justin's Gospel, as the words, "so far as saying to him" [--Greek--], &c., clearly indicate, had the same climax as Matthew.

Now the following points must be observed. Justin makes the words of Satan, "Worship me" [--Greek--], a distinct quotation; the Gospel makes Satan offer all that he has shown "if thou wilt fall down and worship me" [--Greek--]. Then Justin's quotation proceeds: "And Christ answered him" [--Greek--]; whilst Matthew has, "Then Jesus saith to him" [---Greek---], which is a marked variation.(1) The[--Greek--] of Justin, as we have already said, is not found in any of the older Codices of Matthew. Then the words: "it is written," which form part of the reply of Jesus in our Gospels, are omitted in Justin's; but we must add that, in Dial 125, in again referring to the temptation, he adds, "it is written." Still, in that pa.s.sage he also omits the whole phrase, "Get thee behind me, Satan," and commences: "For he answered him: It is written, Thou shalt worship," &c.

We must, however, again point out the most important fact, that this account of the temptation is directly connected with another which is foreign to our Gospels. The Devil is said to come at the time Jesus went up out of the Jordan and the voice said to him: "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee"--words which do not occur at all in our Gospels, and which are again bound up with the incident of the fire in Jordan. It is altogether

{394}

unreasonable to a.s.sert that Justin could have referred the fact which he proceeds to quote from the Memoirs, to the time those words were uttered, if they were not to be found in the same Memoirs. The one incident was most certainly not derived from our Gospels, inasmuch as they do not contain it, and there are the very strongest reasons for a.s.serting that Justin derived the account of the temptation from a source which contained the other. Under these circ.u.mstances, every variation is an indication, and those which we have pointed out are not accidental, but clearly exclude the a.s.sertion that the quotation is from our Gospels.

The second of the seven pa.s.sages of Canon Westcott is one of those from the Sermon on the Mount, Dial. 105, compared with Matt v. 20, adduced by de Wette, which we have already considered.(1) With the exception of the opening words, [--Greek--], the two sentences agree, but this is no proof that Justin derived the pa.s.sage from Matthew; while on the contrary, the persistent variation of the rest of his quotations from the Sermon on the Mount, both in order and language, forces upon us the conviction that he derived the whole from a source different from our Gospels.

The third pa.s.sage of Dr. Westcott is that regarding the sign of Jonas the prophet, Matt, xii. 39, compared with Dial. 107, which was the second instance adduced by Tischendorf We have already examined it,(2) and found that it presents distinct variations from our first Synoptic, both linguistically and otherwise, and that many reasons lead to the conclusion that it was quoted from a Gospel different from ours.

The fourth of Canon Westcott's quotations is the

{395}

following, to part of which we have already had occasion to refer:(l) "For which reason our Christ declared on earth to those who a.s.serted that Elias must come before Christ: Elias indeed shall come [--Greek--] and shall restore all things: but I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him [--Greek--] whatsoever they listed.

And it is written that then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the Baptist."(2) The express quotation" in this pa.s.sage, which is compared with Matt. xvii. 11--13, is limited by Canon "Westcott to the last short sentence(3) corresponding with Matt xvii. 13, and he points out that Credner admits that it must have been taken from Matthew. It is quite true that Credner considers that if any pa.s.sage of Justin's quotations proves a necessary connection between Justin's Gospels and the Gospel according to Matthew, it is this sentence: "And it is written that then the disciples, &c." He explains his reason for this opinion as follows: "These words can only be derived from our Matthew, with which they literally agree; for it is thoroughly improbable that a remark of so special a description could have been made by two different and independent individuals so completely alike."(4) We totally differ from this argument,

{396}

which is singularly opposed to Credner's usual clear and thoughtful mode of reasoning.(1) No doubt if such Gospels could be considered to be absolutely distinct and independent works, deriving all their matter from individual and separate observation of the occurrences narrated by their authors and personal report of the discourses given, there might be greater force in the argument, although even in that case it would have been far from conclusive here, inasmuch as the observation we are considering is the mere simple statement of a fact necessary to complete the episode, and it might well have been made in the same terms by separate reporters. The fact is, however, that the numerous Gospels current in the early Church cannot have been, and our synoptic Gospels most certainly are not, independent works, but are based upon earlier evangelical writings no longer extant, and have borrowed from each other. The Gospels did not originate full fledged as we now have them, but are the result of many revisions of previously existing materials.

Critics may differ as to the relative ages and order of the Synoptics, but almost all are agreed that in one order or another they are dependent on each other, and on older forms of the Gospel. Now such an expression as Matt. xvii. 13 in some early record of the discourse might have been transferred to a dozen of other Christian writings. Ewald a.s.signs the pa.s.sage to the oldest Gospel, Matthew in its present form being fifth in descent.(2)

Our three canonical Gospels are filled with instances in which expressions still more individual are repeated, and these show that such phrases cannot be limited to

{397}

one Gospel, but, if confined in the first instance to one original source, may have been transferred to many subsequent evangelical works.

Take, for instance, a pa.s.sage in Matt. vii. 28, 29: ".... the mult.i.tudes were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as having authority, and not as their scribes."(1) Mark i. 22 has the very same pa.s.sage,(2) with the mere omission of "the mult.i.tudes" [--Greek--], which does not in the least affect the argument; and Luke iv. 32: "And they were astonished at his teaching: for his word was power."(3) Although the author of the third Gospel somewhat alters the language, it is clear that he follows the same original, and retains it in the same context as the second Gospel. Now the occurrence of such a pa.s.sage as this in one of the Fathers, if either the first or second Gospels were lost, would, on Credner's grounds, be attributed undoubtedly to the survivor, although in reality derived from the Gospel no longer extant, which likewise contained it. Another example may be pointed out in Matt. xiii.

34: "All these things spake Jesus unto the mult.i.tudes in parables; and _without a parable spake he not unto them_," compared with Mark iv. 33, 34, "And with many such parables spake he the word unto them....

and without a parable spake he not unto them." The part of this very individual remark which we have italicised is literally the same in both Gospels, as a personal comment at the end of the parable of the grain of mustard seed. Then, for instance, in the account

{398}

of the sleep of the three disciples during the agony in the Garden (Matt. xxvi. 43, Mark xiv. 40), the expression "and he found them asleep, _for their eyes were heavy_," which is equally individual, is literally the same in the first two Gospels. Another special remark of a similar kind regarding the rich young man: "he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions," is found both in Matt. xix. 22 and Mark x. 22. Such examples(1) might be multiplied, and they show that the occurrence of pa.s.sages of the most individual character cannot, in Justin's time, be limited to any single Gospel. Now the verse we are discussing, Matt xvii. 13, in all probability, as Ewald supposes, occurred in one or more of the older forms of the Gospel from which our Synoptics and many other similar works derived their matter, and nothing is more likely than that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which in many respects was nearly related to Matthew, may have contained it.

At any rate we have shown that such sayings cannot, however apparently individual, be considered evidence of the use of a particular Gospel simply because it happens to be the only one now extant which contains it. Credner, however, whilst expressing the opinion which we have quoted likewise adds his belief that by the expression [--Greek--], Justin seems expressly to indicate that this sentence is taken from a different work from what precedes it, and he has proved that the preceding part of the quotation was not derived from our Gospels.(2) We cannot, however, coincide with this opinion either. It seems to us that the expression "and

{399}

it is written" simply was made use of by Justin to show that the identification of Elias with John the Baptist is not his, but was the impression conveyed at the time by Jesus to his disciples. Now the whole narrative of the baptism of John in Justin bears characteristic marks of being from a Gospel different from ours,(1) and in the first part of this very quotation we find distinct variation. Justin first affirms that Jesus in his teaching had proclaimed that Elias should also come [--Greek--], and then further on he gives the actual words of Jesus: [--Greek--], which we have before us, whilst in Matthew the words are: [--Greek--] and there is no MS. which reads [--Greek--] for [--Greek--], and yet, as Credner remarks, the whole force of the quotation rests upon the word, and Justin is persistent in his variation from the text of our first Synoptic. It is unreasonable to say that Justin quotes loosely the important part of his pa.s.sage, and then about a few words at the close pretends to be so particularly careful. Considering all the facts of the case, we must conclude that this quotation also is from a source different from our Gospels.(2)

Another point, however, must be noted. Dr. Westcott claims this pa.s.sage as an express quotation from the Memoirs, apparently for no other reason than that the few words happen to agree with Matt. xvii. 13, and that he wishes to identify the Memoirs with our Gospels. Justin, however, does not once mention the Memoirs in this chapter; it follows, therefore, that Canon Westcott who is so exceedingly strict in his limitation of express quotations, a.s.sumes that all quotations of Christian history and words of Jesus in Justin are to be considered

{400}

as derived from the Memoirs whether they be mentioned by name or not.

We have already seen that amongst these there are not only quotations differing from the Gospels, and contradicting them, but others which have no parallels at all in them.

The fifth of Dr. Westcott's express quotations occurs in Dial. 105, where Justin says: "For when he (Jesus) was giving up his spirit on the cross he said: 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,' as I have also learned from the Memoirs." This short sentence agrees with Luke xxiii. 46, it is true, but as we have already shown,1 Justin's whole account of the Crucifixion differs so materially from that in our Gospels that it cannot have been derived from them.

We see this forcibly in examining the sixth of Canon Westcott's quotations, which is likewise connected with the Crucifixion. "For they who saw him crucified also wagged their heads each one of them, and distorted their lips, and sneeringly and in scornful irony repeated among themselves those words which are also written in the Memoirs of his Apostles: He declared himself the son of G.o.d: (let him) come down, let him walk about: let G.o.d save him."(2) We have ourselves already quoted and discussed this pa.s.sage,(3) and need not further examine it here. Canon Westcott has nothing better to say regarding this quotation, in an examination of the accuracy of parallel pa.s.sages, than this: "These exact words do not occur in our Gospels, but we do find there others so closely connected with them that few readers would feel the difference "!(4) When criticism descends to language like this, the case is indeed desperate. It is clear that, as Canon Westcott admits, the words are expressly declared to be a

{401}

quotation from the Memoirs of the Apostles, but they do not exist in our Gospels, and consequently our Gospels are not identical with the Memoirs. Canon Westcott refers to the taunts in Matthew, and then with commendable candour he concludes his examination of the quotation with the following words: "No ma.n.u.script or Father (so far as we know) has preserved any reading of the pa.s.sage more closely resembling Justin's quotation; and if it appear not to be deducible from our Gospels, due allowance being made for the object which he had in view, its source must remain concealed."(1) We need only add that it is futile to talk of making "due allowance" for the object which Justin had in view. His immediate object was accurate quotation, and no allowance can account for such variation in language and thought as is presented in this pa.s.sage. That this pa.s.sage, though a professed quotation from the Memoirs, is not taken from our Gospels is certain both from its own variations and the differences in other parts of Justin's account of the Crucifixion, an event whose solemnity and importance might well be expected to secure reverential accuracy. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles were not identical with our Gospels, and the systematic variation of his quotations thus receives its natural and reasonable explanation.

The seventh and last of Dr. Westcott's express quotations is, as he states, "more remarkable." We subjoin the pa.s.sage in contrast with the parallel texts of the first and third Gospels.

{402}

[--Greek--]

It is apparent that Justin's quotation differs very materially from our Gospels in language, in construction, and in meaning. These variations, however, acquire very remarkable confirmation and significance from the fact that Justin in two other places(3) quotes the latter and larger part of the pa.s.sage from [--Greek--] in precisely the same way, with the sole exception that, in both of these quotations, he uses the aorist [--Greek--] instead of [--Greek--]. This threefold repet.i.tion in the same peculiar form clearly stamps the pa.s.sage as being a literal

{403}

quotation from his Gospel, and the one exception to the verbal agreement of the three pa.s.sages, in the subst.i.tution of the present for the aorist in the Dialogue, does not in the least remove or lessen the fundamental variation of the pa.s.sage from our Gospel. As the [--Greek--] is twice repeated it was probably the reading of his text. Now it is well known that the peculiar form of the quotation in Justin occurred in what came to be considered heretical Gospels, and const.i.tuted the basis of important Gnostic doctrines.(1) Canon Westcott speaks of the use of this pa.s.sage by the Fathers in agreement with Justin in a manner which, unintentionally we have no doubt, absolutely misrepresents important facts. He says: "The transposition of the words still remains; and how little weight can be attached to that will appear upon an examination of the various forms in which the text is quoted by Fathers like Origen, Irenaeus and Epiphanius, who admitted our Gospels exclusively. It occurs in them as will be seen from the table of readings[--Greek--] with almost every possible variation. Irenaeus in the course of one chapter quotes the verse first as it stands in the canonical text; then in the same order, but with the last clause like Justin's; and once again altogether as he has given it. Epiphanius likewise quotes the text seven times in the same order as Justin, and four times as it stands in the Gospels."[--Greek--] Now in the chapter to which reference is made in this sentence Irenaeus commences by stating that the Lord had declared: "Nemo cognoscit Filium nisi Pater; neque

{404}

Patrem quis cognoscit nisi Films, et cui voluerit Filius revelare,"(1) as he says, "Thus Matthew has set it down and Luke similarly, and Mark the very same."(2) He goes on to state, however, that those who would be wiser than the Apostles write this verse as follows: "Nemo cognovit Patrem nisi Filius; nee Filium nisi Pater, et cui voluerit Filius revelare." And he explains: "They interpret it as though the true G.o.d was known to no man before the coming of our Lord; and that G.o.d who was announced by the Prophets they affirm not to be the Father of Christ."(3) Now in this pa.s.sage we have the [--Greek--] of Justin in the 'cognovit,' in contradistinction to the 'cognoscit' of the Gospel, and his transposition of order as not by any possibility an accidental thing, but as the distinct basis of doctrines. Irenaeus goes on to argue that no one can know the Father unless through the Word of G.o.d, that is through the Son, and this is why he said: "'Nemo cognoscit Patrem nisi Filius; neque Filium nisi Pater, et quibuscunque Filius reve-laverit.'

Thus teaching that he himself also is the Father, as indeed he is, in order that we may not receive any other Father except him who is revealed by the Son."(4) In this third quotation Irenseus alters the [--Greek--] into [--Greek--], but retains the form, for the rest, of the Gnostics and of Justin, and his aim apparently is to show that adopting his present tense instead of the aorist the transposition

{405}

of words is of no importance. A fourth time, however, in the same chapter, which in fact is wholly dedicated to this pa.s.sage and to the doctrines based upon it, Irenaeus quotes the saying: "Nemo cognoscit Filium nisi Pater; neque Patrem nisi Filius, et quibuscunque Filius reve-laverit."(1) Here the language and order of the Gospel are followed with the exception that 'cui voluerit revelare' is altered to the 'quibuscunque revelaverit' of Justin; and that this is intentional is made clear by the continuation: "For _revelaverit_ was said not with reference to the future alone,"(2( &c.

Now in this chapter we learn very clearly that, although the canonical Gospels by the express declaration of Irenaeus had their present reading of the pa.s.sage before us, other Gospels of considerable authority even in his time had the form of Justin, for again in a fifth pa.s.sage he quotes the opening words: "He who was known, therefore, was not different from him who declared: 'No one knoweth the Father,' but one and the same."(3) With the usual alteration of the verb to the present tense, Irenaeus in this and in one of the other quotations of this pa.s.sage just cited gives some authority to the transposition of the words "Father" and "Son," although the reading was opposed to the Gospels, but he invariably adheres to [--Greek--] and condemns [--Greek--], the reading maintained by those who in the estimation of Irenaeus "would be wiser than the Apostles." Elsewhere, descanting on

{406}

the pa.s.sages of Scripture by which heretics attempt to prove that the Father was unknown before the advent of Christ, Irenseus, after accusing them of garbling pa.s.sages of Scripture,(1) goes on to say of the Marcosians and others: "Besides these, they adduce a countless number of apocryphal and spurious works which they themselves have forged to the bewilderment of the foolish, and of those who are not versed in the Scriptures of truth."(2) He also points out pa.s.sages occurring in our Gospels to which they give a peculiar interpretation and, amongst these, that quoted by Justin. He says: "But they adduce as the highest testimony, and as it were the crown of their system, the following pa.s.sage.... 'All things were delivered to me by my Father, and no one knew [--Greek--] the Father but the Son, and the Son but the Father, and he to whomsoever [--Greek--] the Son shall reveal [--Greek--].'(3) In these words they a.s.sert that he clearly demonstrated that the Father of truth whom they have invented was known to no one before his coming; and they desire to interpret the words as though the Maker and Creator had been known to all, and the Lord spoke these words regarding the Father unknown to all, whom they proclaim."(4) Here we have the exact quotation twice made by Justin, with the [--Greek--] and the same order, set

{407}

forth as the reading of the Gospels of the Marcosians and other sects, and the highest testimony to their system. It is almost impossible that Justin could have altered the pa.s.sage by an error of memory to this precise form, and it must be regarded as the reading of his Memoirs.(1) The evidence of Irenaeus is clear: The Gospels had the reading which we now find in them, but apocryphal Gospels on the other hand had that which we find twice quoted by Justin, and the pa.s.sage was as it were the text upon which a large sect of the early Church based its most fundamental doctrine. The [--Greek--] is invariably repudiated, but the transposition of the words "Father" and "Son" was apparently admitted to a certain extent, although the authority for this was not derived from the Gospels recognized by the Church which contained the contrary order.

We must briefly refer to the use of this pa.s.sage by Clement of Alexandria. He quotes portions of the text eight times, and although with some variation of terms he invariably follows the order of the Gospels. Six times he makes use of the aorist [--Greek--],(2) once of [--Greek--],(3) and once of [--Greek--].(4) He only once quotes the whole pa.s.sage,(5) but on this occasion, as well as six others in which he only quotes the latter part of the sentence,(6) he omits [--Greek--], and reads "and he to whom the Son shall reveal," thus supporting the [--Greek--]

{408}

of Justin. Twice he has "G.o.d" instead of "Father,"(1) and once he subst.i.tutes [--Greek--] for [--Greek--].(2) It is evident from the loose and fragmentary way in which Clement interweaves the pa.s.sage with his text, that he is more concerned with the sense than the verbal accuracy of the quotation, but the result of his evidence is that he never departs from the Gospel order of "Father" and "Son," although he frequently makes use of [--Greek--] and also employs [--Greek--] in agreement with Justin and, therefore, he shows the prevalence of forms approximating to, though always presenting material difference from, the reading of Justin.