Supernatural Religion Volume II Part 19

{264}

taught by the Hierophant and Prophet Moses, who will say: 'This is the bread [------], the nourishment which G.o.d gave to the soul'--that he offered his own Word and his own Logos; for this is bread [------] which he has given us to eat, this is the Word [------]."(1) He also says: "Therefore he exhorts him that can run swiftly to strive with breathless eagerness towards the Divine Word who is above all things, the fountain of Wisdom, in order that by drinking of the stream, instead of death he may for his reward obtain eternal life"(2) It is the Logos who guides us to the Father, G.o.d "by the same Logos both creating all things and leading up [------] the perfect man from the things of earth to himself."(3) These are very imperfect examples, but it may be a.s.serted that there is not a representation of the Logos in the fourth Gospel which has not close parallels in the works of Philo.

We have given these pa.s.sages of the pseudo-Ignatian Epistles which are pointed out as indicating acquaintance with the fourth Gospel, in order that the whole case might be stated and appreciated. The a.n.a.logies are too distant to prove anything, but were they fifty times more close, they could do little or nothing to establish an early origin for the fourth Gospel, and nothing at all to elucidate the question as to its character and authorship.(4)

4 In general the Epistles follow the Synoptic narratives, and not the account of the fourth Gospel. See for instance the reference to the anointing of Jesus, Ad Eph. xvii., cf.

Matt. xxvi. 7 ff.; Mark ziy. 3 flf.; cf. John xii. 1 ff.

{265}

The Epistles in which the pa.s.sages occur are spurious and of no value as evidence for the fourth Gospel. Only-one of them is found in the three Syriac Epistles. We have already stated the facts connected with the so-called Epistles of Ignatius,(1) and no one who has attentively examined them can fail to see that the testimony of such doc.u.ments cannot be considered of any historic weight, except for a period when evidence of the use of the fourth Gospel ceases to be of any significance.

There are fifteen Epistles ascribed to Ignatius--of these eight are universally recognized to be spurious. Of the remaining seven, there are two Greek and Latin versions, the one much longer than the other. The longer version is almost unanimously rejected as interpolated. The discovery of a still shorter Syriac version of "the three Epistles of Ignatius," convinced the majority of critics that even the shorter Greek version of seven Epistles must be condemned, and that whatever matter could be ascribed to Ignatius himself, if any, must be looked for in these three Epistles alone. The three martyrologies of Ignatius are likewise universally repudiated as mere fictions. From such a ma.s.s of forgery, in which it is impossible to identify even a kernel of truth, no testimony could be produced which could in any degree establish the apostolic origin and authenticity of our Gospels.

It is not pretended that the so-called Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians contains any references to the fourth Gospel. Tischendorf, however, affirms that it is weighty testimony for that Gospel, inasmuch as he discovers in it a certain trace of the first "Epistle of

{266}

John," and as he maintains that the Epistle and the Gospel are the works of the same author, any evidence for the one is at the same time evidence for the other.(1) We shall hereafter consider the point of the common authorship of the Epistles and fourth Gospel, and here confine ourselves chiefly to the alleged fact of the reference.

The pa.s.sage to which Teschendorf alludes we subjoin, with the supposed parallel in the Epistle.[------]

{267}

This pa.s.sage does not occur as a quotation, and the utmost that can be said of the few words with which it opens is that a phrase somewhat resembling, but at the same time materially differing from, the Epistle of John is interwoven with the text of the Epistle to the Philippians.

If this were really a quotation from the canonical Epistle, it would indeed be singular that, considering the supposed relations of Polycarp and John, the name of the apostle should not have been mentioned, and a quotation have been distinctly and correctly made.(1) On the other hand, there is no earlier trace of the canonical Epistle, and, as Volkmar argues, it may well be doubted whether it may not rather be dependent on the Epistle to the Philippians, than the latter upon the Epistle of John.(2)

We believe with Scholten that neither is dependent on the other, but that both adopted a formula in use in the early Church against various heresies,3 the superficial coincidence of which is without any weight as evidence for the use of either Epistle by the writer of the other.

Moreover, it is clear that the writers refer to different cla.s.ses of heretics. Polycarp attacks the Docetae who deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, that is with a human body of flesh and blood; whilst the Epistle of John is directed against those who deny that Jesus who has come in the flesh is the

{268}

Christ the Son of G.o.d.(1) Volkmar points out that in Polycarp the word "Antichrist" is made a proper name, whilst in the Epistle the expression used is the abstract "Spirit of Antichrist." Polycarp in fact says that whoever denies the flesh of Christ is no Christian but Antichrist, and Volkmar finds this direct a.s.sertion more original than the a.s.sertion of the Epistle; "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of G.o.d,"(2) &c. In any case it seems to us clear that in both writings we have only the independent enunciation, with decided difference of language and sense, of a formula current in the Church, and that neither writer can be held to have originated the condemnation, in these words, of heresies which the Church had begun vehemently to oppose, and which were merely an application of ideas already well known, as we see from the expression of the Epistle in reference to the "Spirit of Antichrist, of which ye have heard that it cometh."

Whether this phrase be an allusion to the Apocalypse xiii., or to 2 Thessalonians ii., or to traditions current in the Church, we need not inquire; it is sufficient that the Epistle of John avowedly applies a prophecy regarding Antichrist already known amongst Christians, which was equally open to the other writer and probably familiar in the Church. This cannot under any circ.u.mstances be admitted as evidence of weight for the use of the 1st Epistle of John. There is no testimony whatever of the existence of the Epistles ascribed to John previous to this date, and that fact would have to

{269}

be established on sure grounds before the argument we are considering can have any value.

On the other hand, we have already seen(1) that there is strong reason to doubt the authenticity of the Epistle attributed to Polycarp, and a certainty that in any case it is, in its present form, considerably interpolated. Even if genuine in any part, the use of the 1st Epistle of John, if established, could not be of much value as evidence for the fourth Gospel, of which the writing does not show a trace. So far from there being any evidence that Polycarp knew the fourth Gospel, however, everything points to the opposite conclusion. About A.D. 154-155 we find him taking part in the Paschal controversy,(2) contradicting the statements of the fourth Gospel,(3) and supporting the Synoptic view, contending that the Christian festival should be celebrated on the 14th Nisan, the day on which he affirmed that the Apostle John himself had observed it.(4) Irenaeus, who represents Polycarp as the disciple of John, says of him: "For neither was Anicetus able to persuade Polycarp not to observe it (on the 14th) because he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and with the rest of the apostles with whom he consorted."(5) Not only, therefore, does Polycarp not refer to the fourth Gospel, but he is on the

2 The date has, hitherto, generally been fixed at A.D. 160, but the recent investigations referred to in vol. i. p. 274 f. have led to the adoption of this earlier date, and the visit to Rome must, therefore, probably have taken place just after the accession of Anicetus to the Roman bishopric.

Cf. Lipsius, Zeitschr. w. Theol. 1874, p. 205 f.

{270}

contrary an important witness against it as the work of John, for he represents that apostle as practically contradicting the Gospel of which he is said to be the author.

The fulness with which we have discussed the character of the evangelical quotations of Justin Martyr renders the task of ascertaining whether his works indicate any acquaintance with the fourth Gospel comparatively easy. The detailed statements already made enable us without preliminary explanation directly to attack the problem, and we are freed from the necessity of making extensive quotations to ill.u.s.trate the facts of the case.

Whilst apologists a.s.sert with some boldness that Justin made use of our Synoptics, they are evidently, and with good reason, less confident in maintaining his acquaintance with the fourth Gospel. Canon Westcott states: "His references to St John are uncertain; but this, as has been already remarked, follows from the character of the fourth Gospel. It was unlikely that he should quote its peculiar teaching in apologetic writings addressed to Jews and heathens; and at the same time he exhibits types of language and doctrine which, if not immediately drawn from St. John, yet mark the presence of his influence and the recognition of his authority."(1) This apology for the neglect of the fourth Gospel

{271}

ill.u.s.trates the obvious scantiness of the evidence furnished by Justin.

Tischendorf, however, with his usual temerity, claims Justin as a powerful witness for the fourth Gospel. He says: "According to our judgment there are convincing grounds of proof for the fact that John also was known and used by Justin, provided that an unprejudiced consideration be not made to give way to the antagonistic predilection against the Johannine Gospel." In order fully and fairly to state the case which he puts forward, we shall quote his own words, but to avoid repet.i.tion we shall permit ourselves to interrupt him by remarks and by parallel pa.s.sages from other writings for comparison with Justin.

Tischendorf says: "The representation of the person of Christ altogether peculiar to John as it is given particularly in his Prologue i. 1 (" In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with G.o.d, and the Word was G.o.d"), and verse 14 ("and the word became flesh"), in the designation of him as Logos, as the Word of G.o.d, unmistakably re-echoes in not a few pa.s.sages in Justin; for instance:(1) 'And Jesus Christ is alone the special Son begotten by G.o.d, being his Word and first-begotten and power.'"(2)

With this we may compare another pa.s.sage of Justin from the second Apology. "But his son, who alone is rightly called Son, the Word before the works of creation,

1 Tischendorf uses great liberty in translating some of these pa.s.sages, abbreviating and otherwise altering them as it suits him. We shall therefore give his German translation below, and we add the Greek which Tischendorf does not quote--indeed he does not, in most cases, even state where the pa.s.sages are to be found.

{272}

who was both with him and begotten when in the beginning he created and ordered all things by him,"(1) &c.

Now the same words and ideas are to be found throughout the Canonical Epistles and other writings, as well as in earlier works. In the Apocalypse,(2) the only book of the New Testament mentioned by Justin, and which is directly ascribed by him to John,(3) the term Logos is applied to Jesus "the Lamb," (xix. 13): "and his name is called the Word of G.o.d" [------]. Elsewhere (iii. 14) he is called "the Beginning of the Creation of G.o.d" [------]; and again in the same book (i. 5) he is "the first-begotten of the dead" [------]. In Heb. i 6 he is the "first-born"

[------], as in Coloss. i. 15 he is "the first-born of every creature"

[------]; and in 1 Cor. i. 24 we have: "Christ the Power of G.o.d and the Wisdom of G.o.d"[------], and it will be remembered that "Wisdom" was the earlier term which became an alternative with "Word" for the intermediate Being. In Heb. i. 2, G.o.d is represented as speaking to us "in the Son.... by whom he also made the worlds" [------]. In 2 Tim. i.

9, he is "before all worlds" [------], cf. Heb. L 10, ii. 10, Kom. xi.

36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, Ephes. iii. 9.

The works of Philo are filled with similar representations of the Logos, but we must restrict ourselves to a very

{273}

few. G.o.d as a Shepherd and King governs the universe "having appointed his true Logos, his first begotten Son, to have the care of this sacred flock, as the Vicegerent of-a great King."(1) In another place Philo exhorts men to strive to become like G.o.d's "first begotten Word"

[------],(2) and he adds, a few lines further on: "for the most ancient Word is the image of G.o.d" [------]. The high priest of G.o.d in the world is "the divine Word, his first-begotten son" [------].(3) Speaking of the creation of the world Philo says: "The instrument by which it was formed is the Word of G.o.d" [------].(4) Elsewhere: "For the Word is the image of G.o.d by which the whole world was created" [------].(5) These pa.s.sages might be indefinitely multiplied.

Tischendorf's next pa.s.sage is: "The first power [------] after the Father of all and G.o.d the Lord, and Son, is the Word [------]; in what manner having been made flesh [------] he became man, we shall in what follows relate."(6)

{274}

We find everywhere parallels for this pa.s.sage without seeking them in the fourth Gospel. In 1 Cor. i. 24, "Christ the Power [------] of G.o.d and the Wisdom of G.o.d;" cf. Heb. i. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8; ii. 8. In Heb. ii.

14--18, there is a distinct account of his becoming flesh; cf. verse 7.

In Phil. ii. 6--8: "Who (Jesus Christ) being in the form of G.o.d, deemed it not grasping to be equal with G.o.d, (7) But gave himself up, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men," &c. In Rom.

viii. 3 we have: "G.o.d sending his own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin," &c. [------] It must be borne in mind that the terminology of John i. 14, "and the word became flesh" [------] is different from that of Justin, who uses the word [------]. The sense and language here is, therefore, quite as close as that of the fourth Gospel We have also another parallel in 1 Tim. iii. 16, "Who (G.o.d) was manifested in the flesh" [------], cf. 1 Cor. xv. 4, 47.

In like manner we find many similar pa.s.sages in the Works of Philo. He says in one place that man was not made in the likeness of the most high G.o.d the Father of the universe, but in that of the "Second G.o.d who is his Word" [------].(1) In another place the Logos is said to be the interpreter of the highest G.o.d, and he continues: "that must be G.o.d of us imperfect beings" [------].(2)

Elsewhere he says: "But the

{275}

divine Word which is above these (the Winged Cherubim).... but being itself the image of G.o.d, at once the most ancient of all conceivable things, and the one placed nearest to the only true and absolute existence without any separation or distance between them ";(1) and a few lines further on he explains the cities of refuge to be: "The Word of the Governor (of all things) and his creative and kingly power, for of these are the heavens and the whole world."(2) "The Logos of G.o.d is above all things in the world, and is the most ancient and the most universal of all things which are."(3) The Word is also the "Amba.s.sador sent by the Governor (of the universe) to his subject (man)"

[------].(4) Such views of the Logos are everywhere met with in the pages of Philo.

Tischendorf continues: "The Word (Logos) of G.o.d is his Son."(5) We have already in the preceding paragraphs abundantly ill.u.s.trated this sentence, and may proceed to the next: "But since they did not know all things concerning the Logos, which is Christ, they have frequently contradicted each other."(6) These words are