Supernatural Religion Volume II Part 14

In Mark x. 11, the reading is nearer that of Athenagoras and confirms this conclusion; and the addition there of [------] "against her" after

{195}

[------], further tends to prove that his source was not that Gospel.

We may at once give the last pa.s.sage which is supposed to be a quotation from our Synoptics, and it is that which is affirmed to be a reference to Mark. Athenagoras states in almost immediate context with the above: "for in the beginning G.o.d formed one man and one woman."(1) This is compared with Mark x. 6: "But from the beginning of the creation G.o.d made them male and female":

Now this pa.s.sage differs materially in every way from the second Synoptic. The reference to "one man" and "one woman" is used in a totally different sense, and enforces the previous a.s.sertion that a man may only marry one wife. Such an argument directly derived from the Old Testament is perfectly natural to one who, like Athenagoras, derived all his authority from it alone. It is not permissible to claim it as evidence of the use of Mark.

Now we must repeat that Athenagoras does not name any source from which he derives his knowledge of the sayings of Jesus. These sayings are all from the Sermon on the Mount, and are introduced by the indefinite phrase [------], and it is remarkable that all differ distinctly from the parallels in our Gospels. The whole must be taken together as coming from one source, and while the decided variation excludes the inference that they must have been taken from our Gospels, there is reasonable ground for a.s.signing them to a different

{196}

source. Dr. Donaldson states the case with great fairness: "Athenagoras makes no allusion to the inspiration of any of the New Testament writers. He does not mention one of them by name, and one cannot be sure that he quotes from any except Paul. All the pa.s.sages taken from the Gospels are parts of our Lord's discourses, and may have come down to Athenagoras by tradition."(1) He might have added that they might also have been derived from the gospel according to the Hebrews or many another collection now unhappily lost. One circ.u.mstance strongly confirming this conclusion is the fact already mentioned, that Athenagoras, in the same chapter in which one of these quotations occurs, introduces an apocryphal saying of the Logos, and connects it with previous sayings by the expression "The Logos again [------] saying to us." This can only refer to the sayings previously introduced by the indefinite [------]. The sentence, which is in reference to the Christian salutation of peace, is as follows: "The Logos again saying to us: 'If any one for this reason kiss a second time because it pleased him (he sins);' and adding: 'Thus the kiss or rather the salutation must be used with caution, as, if it be defiled even a little by thought, it excludes us from the life eternal.'"(2) This saying, which is directly attributed to the Logos, is not found in our Gospels. The only natural deduction is that it comes from the same source as the other sayings, and that source was not our synoptic Gospels.

{197}

The total absence of any allusion to New Testament Scriptures in Athenagoras, however, is rendered more striking and significant by the marked expression of his belief in the inspiration of the Old Testament.(1) He appeals to the prophets for testimony as to the truth of the opinions of Christians: men, he says, who spoke by the inspiration of G.o.d, whose Spirit moved their mouths to express G.o.d's will as musical instruments are played upon:(2) "But since the voices of the prophets support our arguments, I think that you, being most learned and wise, cannot be ignorant of the writings of Moses, or of those of Isaiah and Jeremiah and of the other prophets, who being raised in ecstasy above the reasoning that was in themselves, uttered the things which were wrought in them, when the Divine Spirit moved them, the Spirit using them as a flute player would blow into the flute."(3) He thus enunciates the theory of the mechanical inspiration of the writers of the Old Testament, in the clearest manner,(4) and it would indeed have been strange, on the supposition that he extended his views of inspiration to any of the Scriptures of the New Testament, that he never names a single one of them, nor indicates to the Emperors in the same way, as worthy of their attention, any of these Scriptures along with the Law and the Prophets. There can be no doubt that he nowhere gives reason for supposing that he regarded any other writings than the Old Testament as inspired or "Holy Scripture."(5)

5 In the treatise on the Resurrection there are no arguments derived from Scripture.

{198}

4.

In the 17th year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, between the 7th March, 177-178, a fierce persecution was, it is said,(1) commenced against the Christians in Gaul, and more especially at Vienne and Lyons, during the course of which the aged Bishop Pothinus, the predecessor of Irenaeus, suffered martyrdom for the faith. The two communities some time after addressed an Epistle to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome,(2) relating the events which had occurred, and the n.o.ble testimony which had been borne to Christ by the numerous martyrs who had been cruelly put to death. The Epistle has in great part been preserved by Eusebius,(3) and critics generally agree in dating it about a.d. 177,(4) although it was most probably not written until the following year.(5)

No writing of the New Testament is mentioned in this Epistle,(6) but it is a.s.serted that there are "unequivocal coincidences of language"(7) with the Gospel of Luke, and others of its books. The pa.s.sage which is referred to as

{199}

showing knowledge of our Synoptic, is as follows. The letter speaks of one of the sufferers, a certain Vettius Epagathus, whose life was so austere that, although a young man, "he was thought worthy of the testimony [------] borne by the elder [------] Zacharias. He had walked, of a truth, in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless, and was untiring in every kind office towards his neighbour; having much zeal for G.o.d and being fervent in spirit."(1) This is compared with the description of Zacharias and Elizabeth in Luke i.

6: "And they were both righteous before G.o.d, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."(2) A little further on in the Epistle it is said of the same person: "Having in himself the advocate [------], the spirit [------], more abundantly than Zacharias,"

&c.(3) which again is referred to Luke i. 67, "And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying," &c.(4)

A few words must be said regarding the phrase [------], "the testimony of the presbyter Zacharias." This, of course, may either be rendered: "the testimony borne to Zacharias," that is to say, borne by others to his holy life; or, "the

{200}

testimony borne by Zacharias," his own testimony to the Faith: his martyrdom. We adopt the latter rendering for various reasons. The Epistle is an account of the persecution of the Christian community of Vienne and Lyons, and Vettius Epagathus is the first of the martyrs who is named in it: [------] was at that time the term used to express the supreme testimony of Christians--martyrdom, and the Epistle seems here simply to refer to the martyrdom, the honour of which he shared with Zacharias. It is, we think, very improbable that, under such circ.u.mstances, the word [------] would have been used to express a mere description of the character of Zacharias given by some other writer.

The interpretation which we prefer is that adopted by Tischendorf.1 We must add that the Zacharias here spoken of is generally understood to be the father of John the Baptist, and no critic, so far as we can remember, has suggested that the reference in Luke xi. 51, applies to him.(2) Since the Epistle, therefore, refers to the martyrdom of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, when using the expressions which are supposed to be taken from our third Synoptic, is it not reasonable to suppose that those expressions were derived from some work which likewise contained an account of his death, which is not found in the Synoptic? When we examine the matter more closely, we find that, although none of the Canonical Gospels, except the third, gives any narrative of the birth of John the Baptist, that portion of the Gospel, in which are the words we are discussing, cannot be considered an original

2 The great majority of critics consider it a reference to 2 Chron. xxiv., 21, though some apply it to a later Zacharias.

{201}

production by the third Synoptist, but like the rest of his work is merely a composition based upon earlier written narratives.(1) Ewald, for instance, a.s.signs the whole of the first chapters of Luke (i. 5--ii.

40) to what he terms "the eighth recognizable book."(2)

However this may be, the fact that other works existed at an earlier period in which the history of Zacharias the father of the Baptist was given, and in which not only the words used in the Epistle were found but also the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far as the history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the Protevangclium Jacobi which contains it. Tischendorf, who does not make use of this Epistle at all as evidence for the Scriptures of the New Testament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in it to the martyrdom of Zacharias, as testimony to the existence and use of the Protevangelium Jacobi, a work whose origin he dates so far back as the first three decades of the second century,(3) and which he considers was also used by Justin, as Hilgenfeld had already observed.(4) Tischendorf and Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming that the reference to Zacharias which we have quoted, indicates acquaintance with a different Gospel from our third Synoptic. Hilgenfeld rightly maintains that the Protevangelium Jacobi in its present shape is merely an

{202}

altered form of an older work,(1) which he conjectures to have been the Gospel according to Peter, or the Gnostic work [------],(2) and both he and Tischendorf show that many of the Fathers(3) were either acquainted with the Protevangelium itself or the works on which it was based.

The state of the case, then, is as follows: We find a coincidence in a few words in connection with Zacharias between the Epistle and our third Gospel, but so far from the Gospel being in any way indicated as their source, the words in question are connected with a reference to events unknown to our Gospel, but which were indubitably chronicled elsewhere.

As part of the pa.s.sage in the epistle, therefore, could not have been derived from our third Synoptic, the natural inference is that the whole emanates from a Gospel, different from ours, which likewise contained that part In any case, the agreement of these few words, without the slightest mention of the third Synoptic in the epistle, cannot be admitted as proof that they must necessarily have been derived from it and from no other source.

{203}

CHAPTER X. PTOLEMaeUS AND HERACLEON--CELSUS--THE CANON OF MURATORI--RESULTS.

We have now reached the extreme limit of time within which we think it in any degree worth while to seek for evidence as to the date and authorship of the synoptic Gospels, and we might now proceed to the fourth Gospel; but before doing so it may be well to examine one or two other witnesses whose support has been claimed by apologists, although our attention may be chiefly confined to an inquiry into the date of such testimony, upon which its value, even if real, mainly depends so far as we are concerned. The first of these whom we must notice are the two Gnostic leaders, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon.

Epiphanius has preserved a certain "Epistle to Flora" ascribed to Ptolemseus, in which, it is contended, there are "several quotations from Matthew, and one from the first chapter of John."(1) What date must be a.s.signed to this Epistle? In reply to those who date it about the end of the second century, Tischendorf produces the evidence for an earlier period to which he a.s.signs it. He says: "He (Ptolemaeus) appears in all the oldest sources

1 Tischendorf Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 46. Canon Westcott with greater caution says: "He quoted words of our Lord recorded by St. Matthew, the prologue of St. John's Gospel, &c." On the Canon, p. 267.

{204}

as one of the most important, most influential of the disciples of Valentinus. As the period at which the latter himself flourished falls about 140, do we say too much when we represent Ptolemaeus as working at the latest about 160? Irenaeus (in the 2nd Book) and Hippolytus name him together with Heracleon; likewise pseudo-Tertullian (in the appendix to De Praescriptionibus Haereticorum) and Philastrius make him appear immediately after Valentinus. Irenaeus wrote the first and second books of his great work most probably (hochst warscheinlich) before 180, and in both he occupies himself much with Ptolemaeus."(1) Canon Westcott, beyond calling Ptolemaeus and Heracleon disciples of Valentinus, does not a.s.sign any date to either, and does not of course offer any further evidence on the point, although, in regard to Heracleon, he admits the ignorance in which we are as to all points of his history,(2) and states generally, in treating of him, that "the exact chronology of the early heretics is very uncertain."(3)

Let us, however, examine the evidence upon which Tischendorf relies for the date he a.s.signs to Ptolemaeus. He states in vague terms that Ptolemaeus appears "in all the oldest sources" (in alien den altesten Quellen) as one of the most important disciples of Valentinus. We shall presently see what these sources are, but must now follow the argument: "As the date of Valentinus falls about 140, do we say too much when we represent Ptolemaeus as working at the latest about 160?" It is obvious that there is no evidence here, but merely a.s.sumption, and the manner in which the period "about 160" is begged, is a clear admission that there are no certain data. The year

{205}

might with equal propriety upon those grounds have been put ten years earlier or ten years later. The deceptive and arbitrary character of the conclusion, however, will be more apparent when we examine the grounds upon which the relative dates 140 and 160 rest. Tischendorf here states that the time at which Valentinus flourished falls about a.d. 140, but the fact is that, as all critics are agreed,(1) and as even Tischendorf himself elsewhere states,(2) Valentinus came out of Egypt to Rome in that year, when his public career practically commenced, and he continued to flourish for at least twenty years after.(3) Tischendorf s pretended moderation, therefore, consists in dating the period when Valentinus flourished from the very year of his first appearance, and in a.s.signing the active career of Ptolemseus to 160 when Valentinus was still alive and teaching. He might on the same principle be dated 180, and even in that case there could be no reason for ascribing the Epistle to Flora to so early a period of his career. Tischendorf never even pretends to state any ground upon which Ptolemaeus must be connected with any precise part of the public life of Valentinus, and still less for discriminating the period of the career of Ptolemaeus at which the Epistle may have been composed. It is obvious that a wide limit for date thus exists.

After these general statements Tischendorf details the only evidence which is available. (1) "Irenaeus (in the 2nd Book) and Hippolytus name him together with Heracleon; likewise (2) pseudo-Tertullian (in the

{206}

appendix to _De Praescriptionibus Haereticorum_) and Philastrius make him appear immediately after Valentinus," &c. We must first examine these two points a little more closely in order to ascertain the value of such statements. With regard to the first (1st) of these points, we shall presently see that the mention of the name of Ptolemseus along with that of Heracleon throws no light upon the matter from any point of view, inasmuch as Tischendorf has as little authority for the date he a.s.signs to the latter, and is in as complete ignorance concerning him, as in the case of Ptolemseus. It is amusing, moreover, that Tischendorf employs the very same argument, which sounds well although it means nothing, inversely to establish the date of Heracleon. Here, he argues: "Irenaeus and Hippolytus name him (Ptolemaeus) together with Heracleon;"(l) there, he reasons: "Irenaeus names Heracleon together with Ptolemaeus,"(2) &c. As neither the date a.s.signed to the one nor to the other can stand alone, he tries to get them into something like an upright position by propping the one against the other, an expedient which, naturally, meets with little success. We shall in dealing with the case of Heracleon show how untenable is the argument from the mere order in which such names are mentioned by these writers; meantime we may simply say that Irenaeus only once mentions the name of Heracleon in his works, and that the occasion on which he does so, and to which reference is here made, is merely an allusion to the aeons "of Ptolemseus himself, and of Heracleon, and all the rest who hold these views."(3) This phrase might have been used, exactly as it stands, with

{207}

perfect propriety even if Ptolemaeus and Heracleon had been separated by a century. The only point which can be deduced from this mere coupling of names is that, in using the present tense, Irenaeus is speaking of his own contemporaries. We may make the same remark regarding Hippolytus, for, if his mention of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon has any weight at all, it is to prove that they were flourishing in his time: "Those who are of Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say..."(1) &c. We shall have to go further into this point presently. As to (2) pseudo-Tertullian and Philastrius we need only say that even if the fact of the names of the two Gnostics being coupled together could prove anything in regard to the date, the repet.i.tion by these writers could have no importance for us, their works being altogether based on those of Irenaeus and Hippolytus,(2) and scarcely, if at all, conveying independent information.(3) We have merely indicated the weakness of these arguments in pa.s.sing, but shall again take them up further on. The next and final consideration advanced by Tischendorf is the only one which merits serious attention. "Irenaeus wrote the first and second book of his great work most probably before 180, and in both he occupies himself much with Ptolemaeus." Before proceeding to examine the accuracy of this statement regarding the time at which Irenaeus wrote, we may ask what conclusion would be involved if Irenaeus really did compose the two books in a.d.

180 in which he mentions

3 Indeed the direct and avowed dependence of Hippolytus himself upon the work of Irenaeus deprives the Philosophumena, in many parts, of all separate authority.

{208}

our Gnostics in the present tense? Nothing more than the simple fact that Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were promulgating their doctrines at that time. There is not a single word to show that they did not continue to flourish long after; and as to the "Epistle to Flora" Irenaeus apparently knows nothing of it, nor has any attempt been made to a.s.sign it to an early part of the Gnostic's career. Tischendorf, in fact, does not produce a single pa.s.sage nor the slightest argument to show that Irenaeus treats our two Gnostics as men of the past, or otherwise than as heretics then actively disseminating their heterodox opinions, and, even taken literally, the argument of Tischendorf would simply go to prove that about a.d. 180 Irenseus wrote part of a work in which he attacks Ptolemaeus and mentions Heracleon.