Supernatural Religion Volume II Part 4

considered to be the epitome of an earlier work of Hippolytus. The fact probably is that Hippolytus derived his views of the doctrines of Basilides from the writings of his later followers, and from them made the quotations which are attributed to the founder of the school.(1) In any case there is no ground for referring these quotations with an indefinite [------] to Basilides himself.

Of all this there is not a word from Canon Westcott,(2) but he ventures to speak of "the testimony of Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books," as "comprehensive and clear."(3) We have seen, however, that the pa.s.sages referred to have no weight whatever as evidence for the use of our Synoptics. The formulae (as [------] to that compared with Luke i. 35, and [------] with references compared with some of the Epistles) which accompany these quotations, and to which Canon Westcott points as an indication that the New Testament writings were already recognized as Holy Scripture,(4) need no special attention, because, as it cannot be shown that the expressions were used by Basilides himself at all, they do not come into question. If anything, however, were required to complete the evidence that these quotations are not from the works of Basilides himself, but from later writings by his followers, it would be the use of such formulae, for as the writings of pseudo-Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Papias, Hegesippus,

{55}

and others of the Fathers in several ways positively demonstrate, the New Testament writings were not admitted, even amongst orthodox Fathers, to the rank of Holy Scripture, until a very much later period.(1)

2.

Much of what has been said with regard to the claim which is laid to Basilides, by some apologists, as a witness for the Gospels and the existence of a New Testament Canon, and the manner in which that claim is advanced, likewise applies to Valentinus, another Gnostic leader, who, about the year 140, came from Alexandria to Rome and flourished till about a.d. 160.(2) Very little remains of the writings of this Gnostic, and we gain our only knowledge of them from a few short quotations in the works of Clement of Alexandria, and some doubtful fragments preserved by others. We shall presently have occasion to refer more directly to these, and need not here more particularly mention them.

Tischendorf, the self-const.i.tuted modern Defensor fidei,(3) a.s.serts, with an a.s.surance which can scarcely be characterized otherwise than as an unpardonable calculation upon the ignorance of his readers, that Valentinus used

{56}

the whole of our four Canonical Gospels. To do him full justice, we shall as much as possible give his own words; and, although we set aside systematically all discussion regarding the fourth Gospel for separate treatment hereafter, we must, in order to convey the full sense of Dr. Tischendorf s proceeding, commence with a sentence regarding that Gospel. Referring to a statement of Irenaeus, that the followers of Valentinus made use of the fourth Gospel, Tischendorf continues: "Hippolytus confirms and completes the statement of Irenaeus, for he quotes several expressions of John, which Valentinus employed. This most clearly occurs in the case of John x. 8; for Hippolytus writes: 'Because the prophets and the law, according to the doctrine of Valentinus, were only filled with a subordinate and foolish spirit, Valentinus says: On account of this, the Saviour says: All who came before me were thieves and robbers.'"(l) Now this, to begin with, is a practical falsification of the text of the Philosophumena, which reads: "Therefore all the Prophets and the Law spoke under the influence of the Demiurge, a foolish G.o.d, he says, (they themselves being) foolish, knowing nothing.

On this account, he says, the Saviour saith: All who came before me,"

&c. &c.(2) There is no mention whatever of the name of Valentinus in the pa.s.sage, and, as we shall presently

{57}

show, there is no direct reference in the whole chapter to Valentinus himself. The introduction of his name in this manner into the text, without a word of explanation, is highly reprehensible. It is true that in a note Tischendorf gives a closer translation of the pa.s.sage, without, however, any explanation; and here again he adds, in parenthesis to the "says he," "namely, Valentinus." Such a note, however, which would probably be unread by a majority of readers, does not rectify the impression conveyed by so positive and emphatic an a.s.sertion as is conveyed by the alteration in the text.

Tischendorf continues: "And as the Gospel of John, so also were the other Gospels used by Valentinus. According to the statement of Irenaeus (I. 7, -- 4), he found the said subordinate spirit, which he calls Demiurge, Masterworker, emblematically represented by the Centurion of Capernaum (Matt. viii. 9, Luke vii. 8); in the dead and resuscitated daughter of Jairus, when twelve years old, (Luke viii. 41), he recognized a symbol of his 'Wisdom' (Achamoth), the mother of the Masterworker (I. 8, -- 2); in like manner, he saw represented in the history of the woman who had suffered twelve years from the b.l.o.o.d.y issue, and was cured by the Lord (Matt. ix. 20), the sufferings and salvation of his twelfth primitive spirit (Aeon) (I. 3, -- 3); the expression of the Lord (Matt. v. 18) on the numerical value of the iota ('the smallest letter') he applied to his ten aeons in repose."l Now, in every instance where Tischendorf here speaks of Valentinus by the singular "he," Irenaeus uses the plural "they," referring not to the original founder of the sect, but to his followers in his own day, and the

{58}

text is thus again in every instance falsified by the pious zeal of the apologist. In the case of the Centurions "they say" [------] that he is the Demiurge;(1) "they declare" [------] that the daughter of Jairus is the type of Achamoth;(2) "they say" [------] that the apostasy of Judas points to the pa.s.sion in connection with the twelfth aeon, and also the fact that Jesus suffered in the twelfth month after his baptism; for they will have it [------] that he only preached for one year. The case of the woman with the b.l.o.o.d.y issue for twelve years, and the power which went forth from the Son to heal her, "they will have to be Horos"

[------]{3} In like manner they a.s.sert that the ten aeons are indicated [------] by the letter "Iota," mentioned in the Saviour's expression, Matt v. 18.(4) At the end of these and numerous other similar references in this chapter to New Testament expressions and pa.s.sages, Irenaeus says: "Thus they interpret," &c. [------].(5) The plural "they" is employed throughout.

Tischendorf proceeds to give the answer to his statement which is supposed to be made by objectors.: "They say: all that has reference to the Gospel of John was not advanced by Valentinus himself, but by his disciples. And in fact, in Irenaeus, 'they--the Valen-tinians--say,'

occurs much oftener than 'he--Valentinus--says.' But who is there so sapient as to draw the line between what the master alone says, and that which the disciples state without in the least repeating the

{59}

master?"(1) Tischendorf solves the difficulty by referring everything indiscriminately to the master. Now, in reply to these observations, we must remark in the first place that the admission here made by Tischendorf, that Irenaeus much more often uses "they say" than "he says" is still quite disingenuous, inasmuch as invariably, and without exception, Irenaeus uses the plural in connection with the texts in question. Secondly, it is quite obvious that a Gnostic, writing about a.d. 185-195, was likely to use arguments which were never thought of by a Gnostic, writing at the middle of the second century At the end of the century, the writings of the New Testament had acquired consideration and authority, and Gnostic writers had therefore a reason to refer to them, and to endeavour to show that they supported their peculiar views, which did not exist at all at the time when Valentinus propounded his system. Tischendorf, however, cannot be allowed the benefit even of such a doubt as he insinuates, as to what belongs to the master, and what to the followers. Such doubtful testimony could not establish anything, but it is in point of fact also totally excluded by the statement of Irenaeus himself.

In the preface to the first book of his great work, Irenaeus clearly states the motives and objects for which he writes. He says: "I considered it necessary, having read the commentaries [------] _of the disciples of Valentinus_, as they call themselves, and having had personal intercourse with some of them and acquired full knowledge of their opinions, to unfold to thee," &c., and he goes on to say that he intends to set forth "the opinions of those who are _now_ teaching heresy; I speak

{60}

particularly of the followers of Ptolemaeus, whose system is an offshoot of the school of Valentinus."(1) Nothing could be more explicit than this statement that Irenaeus neither intended nor pretended to write upon the works of Valentinus himself, but upon the commentaries of his followers of his own time, with some of whom he had had personal intercourse, and that the system which he intended to attack was that actually being taught in his day by Ptolemaeus and his school, the offshoot from Valentinus. All the quotations to which Tischendorf refers are made within a few pages of this explicit declaration. Immediately after the pa.s.sage about the Centurion, he says: "such is their system"

[------, and three lines below he states that they derive their views from unwritten sources [------].(2) The first direct reference to Valentinus does not occur until after these quotations, and is for the purpose of showing the variation of opinion of his followers. He says: "Let us now see the uncertain opinions of these heretics, for there are two or three of them, how they do not speak alike of the same things, but contradicted one another in facts and names." Then he continues: "For the first of them, Valentinus, having derived his principles from the so-called Gnostic heresy, and adapted them to the peculiar character of his school declared this:" &c., &c.3 And

{61}

after a brief description of his system, in which no Scriptural allusion occurs, he goes on to compare the views of the rest, and in chap. xii.

he returns to Ptolemaeus and his followers [------].

In the preface to Book ii, he again says that he has been exposing the falsity of the followers of Valentinus (qui sunt a Valentino) and will proceed to establish what he has advanced; and everywhere he uses the plural "they," with occasional direct references to the followers of Valentinus (qui sunt a Valentino).(1) The same course is adopted in Book iii., the plural being systematically used, and the same distinct definition introduced at intervals.(2) And again, in the preface to Book iv. he recapitulates that the preceding books had been written against these, "qui sunt a Valentino" (-- 2). In fact, it would almost be impossible for any writer more frequently and emphatically to show that he is not, as he began by declaring, dealing with the founder of the school himself, but with his followers living and teaching at the time at which he wrote.

Canon Westcott, with whose system of positively enunciating unsupported and controverted statements we are already acquainted, is only slightly outstripped by the German apologist in his misrepresentation of the evidence of Valentinus. It must be stated, however, that, acknowledging, as no doubt he does, that Irenaeus never refers to Valentinus himself, Canon Westcott pa.s.ses over in complete silence the supposed references upon

{62}

which Teschendorf relies as his only evidence for the use of the Synoptics by that Gnostic. He, however, makes the following extraordinary statement regarding Valentinus:

"The fragments of his writings which remain show the same natural and trustful use of Scripture as other Christian works of the same period; and there is no diversity of character in this respect between the quotations given in Hippolytus and those found in Clement of Alexandria.

He cites the Epistle to the Ephesians as 'Scripture,' and refers clearly to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, to the Epistles to the Romans,"(1) &c.

We shall now give the pa.s.sages which he points out in support of these a.s.sertions.(2) The first two are said to occur in the Stromata of the Alexandrian Clement, who professes to quote the very words of a letter of Valentinus to certain people regarding the pa.s.sions, which are called by the followers of Basilides "the appendages of the soul." The pa.s.sage is as follows: "But one only is good, whose presence is the manifestation through the Son, and

1 On the Canon, p. 259 f. [In the 4th ed. of his work, published since the above remarks were made, Dr. Westcott has modified or withdrawn his a.s.sertions regarding Valentinus. As we cannot well omit the above pa.s.sage, it is right to state that the lines quoted now read: "The few unquestionable fragments of Valentinus contain but little which points to pa.s.sages of Scripture. If it were clear that the anonymous quotations in Hippolytus were derived from Valentinus himself, the list would be much enlarged, and include a citation of the Epistle to the Ephesians as 'Scripture,' and clear references to the Gospels of St. Luke and St.

John, to 1 Corinthians, perhaps also to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the first Epistle of St. John," (p. 295 f.). In a note he adds: "But a fresh and careful examination of the whole section of Hippolytus makes me feel that the evidence is so uncertain, that I cannot be sure in this case, as in the case of Basilides, that Hippolytus is quoting the words of the Founder" (p. 295, n. 5). Under these circ.u.mstances the statements even in the amended edition present many curious features.]

{63}

through Him alone will the heart be enabled to become pure, by the expulsion of every evil spirit from the heart. For many spirits dwelling in it do not allow it to be pure, but each of them, while in divers parts they riot there in unseemly l.u.s.ts, performs its own works. And, it seems to me, the heart is somewhat like an inn. For that, also, is both bored and dug into, and often filled with the ordure of men, who abide there in revelry, and bestow not one single thought upon the place, seeing it is the property of another. And in such wise is it with the heart, so long as no thought is given to it, being impure, and the dwelling-place of many demons, but as soon as the alone good Father has visited it, it is sanctified and shines through with light, and the possessor of such a heart becomes so blessed, that he shall see G.o.d."(1) According to Canon Westcott this pa.s.sage contains two of the "clear references" to our Gospels upon which he bases his statement, namely to Matt. v. 8, and to Matt. xix. 17.

Now it is clear that there is no actual quotation from any evangelical work in this pa.s.sage from the Epistle of Valentinus, and the utmost for which the most zealous apologist could contend is, that there is a slight similarity with some words in the Gospel, and Canon

{64}

Westcott himself does not venture to call them more than "references."

That such distant coincidences should be quoted as evidence for the use of the first Gospel shows how weak is his case. At best such vague allusions could not prove anything, but when the pa.s.sages to which reference is supposed to be made are examined, it will be apparent that nothing could be more unfounded or arbitrary than the claim of reference specially to our Gospel, to the exclusion of the other Gospels then existing, which to our knowledge contained both pa.s.sages. We may, indeed, go still further, and affirm that if these coincidences are references to any Gospel at all, that Gospel is not the canonical, but one different from it.

The first reference alluded to consists of the following two phrases: "But one only is good [------]..... the alone good Father" [------].

This is compared with Matt. xix. 17:{1} "Why askest thou me concerning good? there is one that is good" [------].(2) Now the pa.s.sage in the epistle, if a reference to any parallel episode, such as Matt. xix. 17, indicates with certainty the reading: "One is good the Father" [------].

There is no such reading in any of our Gospels. But although this reading does not exist in any of the Canonical Gospels, it is well known that it did exist in uncanonical Gospels no longer extant, and that the pa.s.sage was one upon which various sects of so-called heretics laid great stress. Irenseus quotes it as one of

{65}

the texts to which the Marcosians, who made use of apocryphal Gospels,(1) and notably of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, gave a different colouring: [------](2) Epiphanius also quotes this reading as one of the variations of the Marcionites: [------].(3) Origen, likewise, remarks that this pa.s.sage is misused by some Heretics: "Velut proprie sibi datum scutum putant (haeretici) quod dixit Dominus in Evangelio: Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus pater."(4) Justin Martyr quotes the same reading from a source different from our Gospels,(5) [------](6) and in agreement with the repeated similar readings of the Clementine Homilies, which likewise derived it from an extra canonical source,(7) [------.8 The use of a similar expression by Clement of Alexandria,9 as well as by Origen, only serves to prove the existence of the reading in extinct Gospels, although it is not found in any MS. of any of our Gospels.

The second of the supposed references is more diffuse: "One is good and through him alone will the heart be enabled to become pure [------]...

but when the alone good Father has visited it, it is sanctified and shines through with light, and the possessor of such a heart becomes so blessed, that he shall see G.o.d" [------]

{66}

[------]. This is compared(1) with Matthew v. 8: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see G.o.d" [------]. It might be argued that this is quite as much a reference to Psalm xxiv. 3-6 as to Matt. v. 8, but even if treated as a reference to the Sermon on the Mount, nothing is more certain than the fact that this discourse had its place in much older forms of the Gospel than our present Canonical Gospels,(2) and that it formed part of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other evangelical writings in circulation in the early Church. Such a reference as this is absolutely worthless as evidence of special acquaintance with our first Synoptic.(3)

Tischendorf does not appeal at all to these supposed references contained in the pa.s.sages preserved by Clement, but both the German and the English apologist join in relying upon the testimony of Hippolytus,(4) with regard to the use of the Gospels by Valentinus, although it must be admitted that the former does so with greater fairness of treatment than Canon Westcott. Tischendorf does refer to, and admit, some of the difficulties of the case, as we shall presently see, whilst Canon Westcott, as in the case of Basilides, boldly makes his a.s.sertion, and totally ignores all adverse facts. The only Gospel

{67}

reference which can be adduced even in the Philosophumena, exclusive of one a.s.serted to be to the fourth Gospel, which will be separately considered hereafter, is advanced by Canon Westcott, for Teschendorf does not refer to it, but confines himself solely to the supposed reference to the fourth Gospel. The pa.s.sage is the same as one also imputed to Basilides: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee;" which happens to agree with the words in Luke i. 35; but, as we have seen in connection with Justin, there is good reason for concluding that the narrative to which it belongs was contained in other Gospels.(1) In this instance, however, the quotation is carried further and presents an important variation from the text of Luke. "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore the thing begotten of thee shall be called holy"(2) [------]. The reading of Luke is: "Therefore also the holy thing begotten shall be called the Son of G.o.d"

[------]. It is probable that the pa.s.sage referred to in connection with the followers of Basilides may have ended in the same way as this, and been derived from the same source. Nothing, however, can be clearer than the fact that this quotation, by whoever made, is not taken from our third Synoptic, inasmuch as there does not exist a single MS. which contains such a pa.s.sage.