Supernatural Religion Volume I Part 33

Epiphanius refers to this pa.s.sage no less than ten times,(3) but he only quotes it fully five times, and upon each of these occasions with variations. Of the five times to which we refer, he thrice follows the order of the Gospels,(4) as he does likewise in another place where he does not complete the sentence.(5) On the remaining two occasions he adopts the same order as Justin, with variations from his reading, however, to which we shall presently refer;(6) and where he only partially quotes he follows the same order on other three occasions,(7) and in one other place the quotation is too fragmentary to allow us to distinguish the order.(8) Now in all of these ten quotations, with one exception, Epiphanius subst.i.tutes [--Greek--] for [--Greek--] at the commencement of the

{409}

pa.s.sage in Matthew, and only thrice does he repeat the verb in the second clause as in that Gospel, and on these occasions he twice makes use of [--Greek--](1) and once of [--Greek--].(2) He once uses [--Greek--] with the same order as Justin, but does not complete the sentence.(3) Each time he completes the quotation, he uses [--Greek--] with the Gospel, and [--Greek--] with Justin,(4) but only once out of the five complete quotations does he insert [--Greek--] in the concluding phrase. It is evident from this examination, which we must not carry further, that Epiphanius never verbally agrees with the Gospel in his quotation of this pa.s.sage and never verbally with Justin, but mainly follows a version different from both. It must be remembered,

however, that he is writing against various heresies, and it does not seem to us improbable that he reproduces forms of the pa.s.sage current amongst those sects.

In his work against Marcion, Tertullian says: "With regard to the Father, however, that he was never seen, the Gospel which is common to us will testify, as it was said by Christ: Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius,"(5) but elsewhere he translates "Nemo scit,"(6) evidently not fully appreciating the difference of [--Greek--].(7) The pa.s.sage in Mar-cion's Gospel reads like Justin's: [--Greek--].(8) The use of [--Greek--]

as applied to the Father and [--Greek--] as regards the Son in this pa.s.sage is suggestive. Origen

{410}

almost invariably uses [--Greek--], sometimes adopting the order of the Gospels and sometimes that of Justin, and always employing [--Greek--].(1) The Clementine Homilies always read [--Greek--], and always follow the same order as Justin, presenting other and persistent variations from the form in the Gospels. [--Greek--] This reading occurs four times.

The Clementine Recognitions have the aorist with the order of the Gospels.(4)

There only remain a few more lines to add to those already quoted to complete the whole of Dr. Westcott's argument regarding this pa.s.sage. He continues and concludes thus: "If, indeed, Justin's quotations were made from memory, no transposition could be more natural; and if we suppose that he copied the pa.s.sage directly from a ma.n.u.script, there is no difficulty in believing that he found it so written in a ma.n.u.script of the Canonical St. Matthew, since the variation is excluded by no internal improbability, while it is found elsewhere, and its origin is easily explicable."(5) It will be observed that Canon Westcott does not attempt any argument, but simply confines himself to suppositions.

If such explanations were only valid, there could be no difficulty in believing anything, and every embarra.s.sing circ.u.mstance would indeed be easily explicable.

The facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows: Justin deliberately and expressly quotes from his Gospel, himself calling it "Gospel," be it observed, a

{411}

pa.s.sage whose nearest parallel in our Gospels is Matt. xi. 27. This quotation presents material variations from our Canonical Gospel both in form and language. The larger part of the pa.s.sage he quotes twice in a different work, written years before, in precisely the same words as the third quotation, with the sole exception that he uses the aorist instead of the present tense of the verb. No MS. of our Gospel extant approximates to the reading in Justin, and we are expressly told by Irenaeus that the present reading of our Matthew was that existing in his day. On the other hand, Irenaeus states with equal distinctness that Gospels used by Gnostic sects had the reading of Justin, and that the pa.s.sage was "the crown of their system," and one upon whose testimony they based their leading doctrines. Here, then, is the clear statement that Justin's quotation disagrees with the form in the Gospels, and agrees with that of other Gospels. The variations occurring in the numerous quotations of the same pa.s.sage by the Fathers, which we have a.n.a.lysed, show that they handled it very loosely, but also indicate that there must have been various readings of considerable authority then current. It has been conjectured with much probability that the form in which Justin quotes the pa.s.sage twice in his Apology may have been the reading of older Gospels, and that it was gradually altered by the Church to the form in which we now have it, for dogmatic reasons, when Gnostic sects began to base doctrines upon it inconsistent with the prevailing interpretation.(1) Be this as it may, Justin's Gospel clearly had a reading different from ours, but in unison with

{412}

that known to exist in other Gospels, and this express quotation only adds additional proof to the ma.s.s of evidence already adduced that the Memoirs of the Apostles were not our Canonical Gospels.(1)

We have already occupied so much s.p.a.ce even with this cursory examination of Justin's quotations, that we must pa.s.s over in silence pa.s.sages which he quotes from the Memoirs with variations from the parallels in our Gospels which are also found in the Clementine Homilies and other works emanating from circles in which other Gospels than ours were used. We shall now only briefly refer to a few sayings of Jesus expressly quoted by Justin, which are altogether unknown to our Gospels.

Justin says: "For the things which he foretold would take place in his name, these we see actually coming to pa.s.s in our sight. For he said: 'Many shall come,' &c., &c.,(2) and 'There shall be schisms and heresies,'(3) and 'Beware of false prophets,'(4) &c, and 'Many false Christs and false Apostles shall arise and shall deceive many of the faithful.'"(5) Neither of the two prophecies here quoted are to be found anywhere in our Gospels, and to the second of them Justin repeatedly refers. He says in one place that Jesus "foretold that in the interval of his coming, as I previously said,(6) heresies and false prophets would arise in his name."(7) It is admitted that these

{413}

prophecies are foreign to our Gospels.(1) It is very probable that the Apostle Paul refers to the prophecy, "There shall be schisms and heresies" in 1 Cor. xi. 18-19, where it is said, ".... I hear that schisms exist amongst you; and I partly believe it. For there must also be heresies amongst you," &c. [--Greek--].(2) We find also, elsewhere, traces both of this saying and that which accompanies it. In the Clementine Homilies, Peter is represented as stating, "For there shall be, as the Lord said, _false apostles_, false prophets, _heresies_, desires for supremacy," &c. [--Greek--].3 We are likewise reminded of the pa.s.sage in the Epistle attributed to the Roman Clement, xliv.: "Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention regarding the dignity of the episcopate."(4) In our Gospel there is no reference anywhere to schisms and heresies, nor are false Apostles once mentioned, the reference being solely to "false Christs"

and "false prophets." The recurrence here and elsewhere of the peculiar expression "false apostles" is very striking,(5) and the evidence for the pa.s.sage as a saying of Jesus is important. Hegesippus, after enumerating a vast number of heretical sects and teachers, continues: "From these sprang the false Christs, false prophets, _false apostles_, who divided the

{414}

union of the Church by corrupting doctrines concerning G.o.d and concerning his Christ."(1) It will be remembered that Hegesippus made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the Clementine literature points to the same source. In the Apostolic Const.i.tutions we read: "For these are false Christs and false prophets, _and false apostles_, deceivers, and corrupters," &c.,(2) and in the Clementine Recognitions the Apostle Peter is represented as saying that the Devil, after the temptation, terrified by the final answer of Jesus, "hastened immediately to send forth into this world false prophets, and _false apostles_, and false teachers, who should speak in the name of Christ indeed, but should perform the will of the demon."(3) Justin's whole system forbids our recognizing in these two pa.s.sages mere tradition, and we must hold that we have here quotations from a Gospel different from ours.

Elsewhere, Justin says: "Out of which (affliction and fiery trial of the Devil) again Jesus, the Son of G.o.d, promised to deliver us, and to put on us prepared garments, if we do his commandments, and he is proclaimed as having provided an eternal kingdom for us."(4) This promise is nowhere found in our Gospel.(5)

Immediately following the pa.s.sage (k 3 and 4) which we have discussed(6) as repeated in the Dialogue: "Many

{415}

shall say to me, &c, &c, and I will say to them, Depart from me," Justin continues: "And in other words by which he will condemn those who are unworthy to be saved, he said that he will say: Begone into the darkness without, which the Father hath prepared for Satan and his angels."(1) The nearest parallel to this is in Matt. xxv. 41: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels."

[--Greek--]

It is apparent that Justin's quotation differs very widely from the reading of our Gospel. The same reading, with the exception of a single word, is found in the Clementine Homilies (xix. 2), that is to say, that "Devil" is subst.i.tuted for "Satan," and this variation is not important.

The agreement of the rest, on the other hand, seems to establish the conclusion that the quotation is from a written Gospel different from ours,(2) and here we have further strong indications of Justin's use of the Ebionite Gospel.

Another of the sayings of Jesus which are foreign to our Gospels is one in reference to the man who falls away from righteousness into sin, of whom Justin says: "Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ said: In whatsoever things I may find you, in these I shall also judge you."(3) [--Greek--]

{416}

"[--Greek--]") A similar expression is used by some of the Fathers, and in some cases is ascribed to the prophets.(1) Clement of Alexandria has quoted a phrase closely resembling this without indicating the source.

[--Greek--].(2 ) Grabe was of opinion that Justin derived the pa.s.sage from the Gospel according to the Hebrews,(3) an opinion shared by the greater number of modern critics, and which we are prepared to accept from many previous instances of agreement. Even the warmest a.s.serters of the theory that the Memoirs are identical with our Gospels are obliged to admit that this saying of Jesus is not contained in them, and that it must have been derived from an extra-canonical source.(4)

Other pa.s.sages of a similar kind might have been pointed out, but we have already devoted too much s.p.a.ce to Justin's quotations, and must hasten to a conclusion. There is one point, however, to which we must refer. We have more than once alluded to the fact that, unless in one place, Justin never mentions an author's name in connection with the Memoirs of the Apostles. The exception to which we referred is the following. Justin says: "The statement also that he (Jesus) changed the name of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that this is also written in _his_ Memoirs as having been done,

{417}

together with the fact that he also changed the name of other two brothers, who were sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, that is, sons of Thunder," &c.(1) According to the usual language of Justin, and upon strictly critical grounds, the [--Greek--] in this pa.s.sage must be referred to Peter; and Justin, therefore, seems to ascribe the Memoirs to that Apostle, and to speak of a Gospel of Peter. Some critics maintain that the [--Greek--] does not refer to Peter, but to Jesus, or, more probably still, that it should be amended to [--Greek--], and apply to the Apostles.(3) The great majority, however, are forced to admit the reference of the Memoirs to Peter, although they explain it, as we shall see, in different ways. It is argued by some that this expression is used when Justin is alluding to the change of name not only of Peter but of the sons of Zebedee, the narrative of which is only found in the Gospel according to Mark. Now Mark was held by many of the Fathers to have been the mere mouthpiece of Peter, and to have written at his dictation;(3) so that, in fact, in calling the second Gospel by the name of the Apostle Peter, they argue, Justin merely adopted the tradition current in the early Church, and referred to the

{418}

Gospel now known as the Gospel according to Mark.(1) It must be evident, however, that after admitting that Justin speaks of the Memoirs of Peter," it is indeed hasty in the extreme to conclude from the fact that the mention of the sons of Zebedee being surnamed Boanerges is only recorded in Mark iii. 17, and not in the other canonical Gospels, that therefore the "Memoirs of Peter" and our Gospel according to Mark are one and the same. We shall, hereafter, in examining the testimony of Papias, see that the Gospel according to Mark, of which the Bishop of Hierapolis speaks, was not our canonical Mark at all. It would be very singular indeed on this hypothesis that Justin should not have quoted a single pa.s.sage from the only Gospel whose author he names, and the number of times he seems to quote from a Petrine Gospel, which was quite different from Mark, confirms the inference that he cannot possibly here refer to our second Gospel. It is maintained, therefore, by numerous other critics that Justin refers to a Gospel according to Peter, or according to the Hebrews, and not to Mark.(3)

We learn from Eusebius that Serapion, who became Bishop of Antioch about a.d. 190, composed a book on

{419}

the "Gospel according to Peter" [--Greek--], which he found in circulation in his diocese. At first Serapion had permitted the use of this Gospel, as it evidently was much prized, but he subsequently condemned it as a work favouring Docetic views, and containing many things superadded to the doctrine of the Saviour.(1) Origen likewise makes mention of the Gospel according to Peter [--Greek--] as agreeing with the tradition of the Hebrews.(3) But its relationship to the Gospel according to the Hebrews becomes more clear when Theodoret states that the Nazarenes made use of the Gospel according to Peter,(3) for we know by the testimony of the Fathers generally that the Nazarene Gospel was that commonly called the Gospel according to the Hebrews [--Greek--].

The same Gospel was in use amongst the Ebionites, and in fact, as almost all critics are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under various names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the Apostles, the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, &c, with modifications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely throughout the early Church.(4) A quotation occurs in the

{420}

so-called Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, to which we have already referred, which is said by Origen to be in the work called the doctrine of Peter(l) [--Greek--], but

Jerome states that it is taken from the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes.(2) Delitzsch finds traces of the Gospel according to the Hebrews before a.d. 130 in the Talmud.(3) Eusebius(4) informs us that Papias narrated a story regarding a woman accused before the Lord of many sins which was contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(5) The same writer likewise states that Hegesippus, who came to Rome and commenced his public career under Anicetus, quoted from the same Gospel.(6) The evidence of this "ancient and apostolic man is very important, for although he evidently attaches great value to tradition, does not seem to know of any canonical Scriptures of the New Testament

{421}

and, like Justin, apparently rejected the Apostle Paul,(1) he still regarded the Gospel according to the Hebrews with respect, and probably made exclusive use of it. The best critics consider that this Gospel was the evangelical work used by the author of the Clementine Homilies.(2) Cerinthus and Carpocrates made use of a form of it,(3) and there is good reason to suppose that Tatian, like his master Justin, used the same Gospel: indeed his "Diatessaron," we are told, was by some called the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(4) Clement of Alexandria quotes it as an authority, with quite the same respect as the other Gospels. He says: "So also in the Gospel according to the Hebrews: 'He who wonders shall reign,' it is written, 'and he who reigns shall rest.'"(5) A form of this Gospel, "according to the Egyptians," is quoted in the second Epistle of pseudo-Clement of Rome, as we are informed by the Alexandrian

{422}

Clement, who likewise quotes the same pa.s.sage.(1) Origen frequently made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews,(2) and that it long enjoyed great consideration in the Church is proved by the fact that Theodoret found it in circulation not only among heretics, but also amongst orthodox Christian communities;(3) and even in the fourth century Eusebius records doubts as to the rank of this Gospel amongst Christian books, speaking of it under the second cla.s.s in which some reckoned the Apocalypse of John.(4) Later still Jerome translated it;(5) whilst Nicephorus inserts it, in his Stichometry, not amongst the Apocrypha, but amongst the Antilegomena, or merely doubtful books of the New Testament, along with the Apocalypse of John.(6) Eusebius bears testimony to the value attached to it by the Jewish Christians,(7) and indeed he says of the Ebionites that, "making use only of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, they took little account of the rest."(8) In such repute was this Gospel amongst the earliest Christian communities, that it was generally believed to be the original of the Greek Gospel of Matthew. Irenaeus states that the Ebionites used solely the Gospel according to Matthew and reject the Apostle Paul, a.s.serting that he was an apostate from the law.(9) We know from statements

{423}

regarding the Ebionites(1) that this Gospel could not have been our Gospel according to Matthew, and besides, both Clement(2) of Alexandria and Origen(3) call it the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Eusebius, however, still more clearly identifies it, as we have seen above.

Repeating the statements of Irenaeus, he says: "These indeed (the Ebionites) thought that all the Epistles of the Apostle (Paul) should be rejected, calling him an apostate from the law; making use only of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, they took little account of the rest."(4) Epiphanius calls both the single Gospel of the Ebionites and of the Nazarenes the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," and also the Gospel according to Matthew,(5) as does also Theodoret(6) Jerome translated the Gospel according to the Hebrews both into Greek and Latin,(7) and it is clear that his belief was that this Gospel, a copy of which he found in the library collected at Caesarea by the Martyr Pamphilus (f 309), was the Hebrew original of Matthew; and in support of this view he points out that it did not follow the version of the LXX.

in its quotations from the Old Testament, but quoted directly from the Hebrew.(8 ) An attempt has been made to argue