Encyclopaedia Biblica/Gospels (B: External evidence)

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
Gospels (B: External evidence)
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

GOSPELS (B: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE)[edit]

The External Evidence as to the authorship and authority of the Gospels consists of I. Statements, II. Quotations.

CONTENTS

I. STATEMENTS (64-82).

  • (i.) The Third Gospel ( 64).
  • (ii.) Papias (65-74).
    • (a) His Exposition ( 65 a),
    • (b) His account of Mk. and Mt. ( 65b).
    • (c) The system of Eusebius ( 66).
    • (d) The silence of Papias on Lk. and Jn. (67).
    • (e) The date of his Exposition (68-73).
      • (1) Was Papias a hearer of Jn. ?
      • (2)and (3) Aristion and Jn. the Elder,
      • (4) Papias' Elders,
      • (5) His list of the Apostles,
      • (6) His relation to Polycarp.
    • (f) Summary of the evidence (74).
  • (iii.) Justin Martyr (75-77)
    • (a) His titles of the Gospels (75).
    • (b) Indications of Lk. as a recent Gospel ( 76).
    • (c) The origin of Justin s view of the Memoirs ( 77).
  • (iv.) The Muratorian Fragment (78).
  • (v.) Irenaeus (79).
  • (vi.) Clement of Alexandria (80).
  • (vii.) Summary of the Evidence as to Mk. and Mt. (81).
  • (viii.) Summary of the Evidence as to Lk. and Jn. (82).

II QUOTATIONS (83-107).

  • (i.) Paul ( 83).
  • (ii.) James (8 84).
  • (iii.) Passages apparently quoted from the Gospels (85).
  • (iv.) The Oxyrhynchus fragment (86).
  • (v.) Clement of Rome (87).
  • (vi.) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (88).
  • (vii.) The Epistle of Barnabas (89-90).
    • (1) Alleged Synoptic Quotations ( 89).
    • (2) Anticipations of Jn. (90).
  • (viii.) The Great Apophasis (91).
  • (ix.) Ignatius (92).
  • (x.) Polycarp (93).
  • (xi.) Papias (94).
  • (xii.) The Epistle to Diognetus (95).
  • (xiii.) The Shepherd of Hermas (96).
  • (xiv.) Basilides (97).
  • (xv.) Marcion (98).
  • (xvi.) Valentinus (99).
  • (xvii.) Summary of the Evidence before Justin (100).
  • (xviii.) Justin Martyr (101-104).
    • (1) Minor apparent Johannine quotations ( 101).
    • (2) Except ye be begotten again (ib.).
    • (3) Other alleged quotations (ib.)
    • (4) Abstentions from quotation (102).
    • (5) Inconsistencies with Jn. (103).
    • (6) Summary of the evidence about Justin (104).
  • (xix.) Tatian (105).
    • (a) Traces of Jn. as a recent interpretation (106).
    • (b) The Diatessaron (107).

I. STATEMENTS.[edit]

Written Gospels are neither mentioned nor implied in the NT Epistles, nor in that of Clemens Romanus, nor, probably, in that of Barnabas, nor in the Didache.

i. THE THIRD GOSPEL.[edit]

64. Statements of Luke.[edit]

Lk. li-4 implies (a) that many Gospels were current, and perhaps (b) that their diversity was calculated to obscure (ib.14) 'the certainty concerning the things wherein' the Christian catechu men was instructed ; (c) that whereas the apostles delivered (Traptdocrav) these i.e. , taught them orally many drew up a narrative i.e. , wrote. This points to a time when the apostles had passed away, leaving the ground open to the historians. Lk. s qualification was, not that he had consulted an apostle and obtained his imprimatur, but that he had (la) traced the course of all things accurately from the first. The particular defects implied in existing narratives are, that they were not accurate, and not in chronological order.

1 Eus. iii. 39 i, row fie Tlairia. <rvyypdfj.fj.aTO. TreVre -rbv apidfjibir <e peTcu, a Kai eiriyeypairTai. Aoyiiav Ki/piaxa>i/ e^r)yrj<rea)S (al. -eioi/, Schwegl. conj. -eis).

2 Lightfoot (.SVC 156-57) proves that Eusebius, but not that Papias (two centunes before), uses Itqyqu~s to mean 'interpre tation'. '?%@&rt?aL, in LXX and N1, means 'set forth' not 'interpret' ). In Judg. 7 15 B~qyqucs (AL 8~<yyu~s), 'setting forth ' is distinguished feom uu’yrpiurs, 'interpretation. Heretics are called by Irebaeus (Pref. I, and i. 3 6) ' bad setters forth (or expositors) of things well said', because they 'tamper with; aSroupysiv, sometimes= 'forge' 'make false entries ') the sriptures,, besides 'perverting' inferpretations (napaqhrew +upmas) For example, the Valentinians are said to(//>. i. 8 i) transgress the order and connection of the Scriptures, trans posing and recasting (/ieran-AaTTOi Tes), and making anything out of anything (aAAo ef dAAou TroioiWes). As an instance, they asserted that the anguish of Sophia was indicated by the words, And what I shall say I know not, which Irenaeus apparently regarded as a heretical Z&pps, or 'exposition', of Jn. 1227. Similarly peBo8au’e~v (Polyc. Phil. 7) does not refer merely to (Lightf. ad loc.) 'perverse interpretations', but to ' knavish tricks 'artful treatment', in 'setting forfh,' as well as interpteting.

The efjjyrjTai of oracles in Lucian (ii. 255) deal with both e^7Jy)cris ( setting forth ), and SioAvo-is ( solution ) : the panto mime makes his meaning so clear as to need (it. ii. 301) (irjSej/b? efr)yi)ToO, no one to set it forth in words. In Aristotle s Rhetor, ad Alex. (30, 31) efrjyrjo-t? is perhaps a short version of facts, as compared with fiirjyrjo-i?, a long narrative. Apollo is called by Plato Trarpios e fijyjTijs, the setter forth of the will of Zeus, not because he explained, but because he set forth the Oracles, or Logia, of Zeus. In course of time, however, both among Christians and among Greeks, no new oracles were forthcom ing. Then the exegetes had to confine himself to explaining the old oracles ; and so, by degrees, exegesis and exegctic assumed their modern meaning, which also prevailed in the days of Eusebius. This explains why the Alexandrine scribe altered efwyrjcn.? into 6trjyr)<ris in Judg. 7 15.

3 It cannot be denied that a collection of the Lord s Logia might contain nothing but his words, like the Oxyrhynchus papyrus. It is true that Philo applies the term Logion even to a historical statement in the Pentateuch (e.g., Phi. 1 538 quoting Deut. 10 9 ; Phi. 1 555 quoting Gen. 4 15). But in the passage where (2163 f.~) he speaks of all things written in the sacred books as oracles (xp>;07xoO, he proceeds to say that they were oracularly delivered through Moses, and then divides them into three classes according as they are uttered (i) in the person of God, (2) by question and answer, (3) in the person of Moses, under inspiration and control from God. This separates the.m, it would seem, from historical statements made by the historians themselves, in the books of Kings, Chronicles, Esther, etc. In theLXX the regular meaning of Adyia is the Words of the Lord, regarded either as commandments to be observed (e.g., Dt. 33g Ps. 11967 [s ng-J r s8) or as sure promises of deliverance (e.g., Ps. 127 1831 105 19 Prov. 30s). In NT the living oracles (Acts 7 38) are those delivered from Mount Sinai, apparently referred to in Rom. 3 2 ; and in the only two other instances (Heb. 6121 Pet. 4 n) it means the moral precepts, or Law, of Christ. In the only two instances given in Otto s index to Justin, it means ( i Apol. 32) OT prophecy , or ( Trypk. 17-18) prophetic denunciation of woe (where the Lord s Logia against the Pharisees are coupled with the prophetic Logia of OT). Eusebius perhaps expresses his view of the meaning of Logia (as signifying ;rt; /ydiscourses), whenhesaysthat(Eus. H Em. 24s) Matthew and John were the only apostles that left memorials of the Lord s 2iarpt/3ai, a word that in sing, sometimes meant life (Epict. ii. 1629), but in pi. discourses (Epict. iii. 24 5, etc.). Although the term Logia might include actions, in special circumstances, it is extremely doubtful whether Papias would have given the name, for example, to Mk. 614, And King Herod heard it, for his name had become known ; and he said, John the Baptist is risen from the dead, etc." We must there fore be content to be uncertain how far, if at all, Papias embodied history in his setting forth of the Logia, as distinct from the interpretations and traditions which he may have added to them.

Papias calls them Kvpiaxd, rather than Kupi ov, for obvious reasons. Kvptos is distinguished from 6 Kv ptos, in that the former often means God, whilst the latter means the Lord (Jesus). Aoyiwv Kvpiov (e|jjy^creios) might have meant Oracles of God i.e., the OT (as in Iren. 1 ref. i). Tiav A.oyiiav TOV Kvpiov e. would be clear, but lengthy. Kvpta/cos, being applied to the Lord s Day as distinct from the Sabbath, was exactly the fit word to distinguish the oracles of the Law of Christ from the oracles of the Law of Moses.

1 efj.vrffj.ovevo ev may mean remembered. But it may also mean mentioned. In deciding the meaning, the usage of Papias elsewhere will be our best guide here. In 68 below, Papias uses it twice ; and there Lightf. (Sfi 143) renders it first remember and then relate." That the same word should be used in two consecutive sentences to mean quite different things is, in itself, highly improbable ; still more when Papias might have used p.e^vri<T8a.i for remember. The meaning re peat, teach from memory, which is absolutely necessary in the second, is highly probable also in the first. When a convert had been taught the Logia, his business was (Heb. 5 12) to repeat them to others. Hence, in 68, Papias contrasts himself, as learning well and teaching (jii/Tj/j.ofevW) well the traditions of the Elders, with tha heretics who taught (^iiTj/mocev eii ) alien commandments and not those of the Lord. So Iren. i. 18 i of the Valentinians teaching their dogma of the decad (fivyfiovevfiv with gen.). Eusebius (iii. 24 12) describes the Synoptists as fj.vT]fj.ovevovTes (whh accus.), co-ordinately with Jn. as 7rapa6i6ov.

It may be urged that, in the LXX, fj.vr)fj.oveveiv means call to mind. There is close connection, however, between calling to mind (e.g. Exod. 13 3, the deliverance of the Passover) and commemorating." The two words are the active and causative forms of the same Hebrew verb (-131), and renders both ( remember and make mention ) by the Greek fii/ijo-Sjjo-ojxai and fiKrjo p #Tj in Ps. 77 n. i Mace. 12 n speaks of remember ing friends in prayers, sacrifices, etc. (cp 2 Mace. 106), and 2 Mace. 9 21 (Tisch.), I would have remembered your good will, means, I would have acknowledged or recorded it by some act. Similarly, in NT, Gal. 2 10, remember the poor means, remember them in act. So Heb. 187, remember them that had the rule over you, which spake unto you the word of God, would, by itself, imply what actually follows, imitate their faith. So the Ephesians are bidden to (Acts 20 31 35) call to mind Paul s life among them, and also the words of the Lord Jesus. Col. 4 18, remember my bonds (following Col. 4 3, praying for us that God may open unto us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds ), probably includes, or means, as in i Mace. 12 n, and as in later Christian writers, remember my bonds (in your prayers). (For the connection between praying and re membering, see i Thess. 1 3.) In Mt. 169, /xnj^.oi eveTe TOVS is probably a corruption of Mk. 8 16 fj.vrnj.oveveTe ore Toys. So far, in NT, with this exception, fj.v. takes the gen. or OTI : but in i Thess. 2 9 fj.vTqfj.oveveTf yap TOV KOTTOV rffj.iav (best taken im peratively), the meaning is, perhaps, remind one another of (implying mention ), and, in any case, 2 Tim. 2s /xnj/u.oi eve IqcroCi Xptoroi , following 2 2 ( the things which thou hast heard, commit to faithful men, who will be able to teach others), and preceding 2 14 ( of these things put them in remembrance ), almost certainly means make mention of, or teach, Jesus Christ." We see, therefore, in the Pauline Epistles, a com mencement of the later tendency to pass from the active to the causative meaning of the Hebrew 131 (jj.vao~6a<., fiveiav noielo-Oai, bvofj-dfriv, fj.vrifj.ovfveii ), from mere remembering to some practical way of remembering e.g. ,in prayer, doctrine, preaching.

The ambiguity of the word has probably caused Clem. Alex, (following, but misunderstanding and modifying, Papias) to describe Mark as (Eus. HE vi. 146) remembering (/u.ejii^ieVoi ) Peter s words. Iren. iii. 83 TOV AtVov llaGAos fj.ffivi\ra<. (tneminif) must mean Paul makes mention of Linus. Justin, Tryph. 117 fj.efi.vr)Tai seems to mean a commemoration is made.

- This (which is a very rare construction, if it occurs at all, in NT) appears to differ from TO. \ex6evra icai TO. Trpa\6evTa, and to mean whatever originated from Cnrist, V/wdiscourse traction. In the light of what follows about the contrast between (i) Peter, who adapted his discourses to the needs of the occasion, making no classified collection of the Lord s Logia, and (2) Matthew, who compiled the Logia he seems to mean that Peter neither confined himself to the Logia, nor attempted to group or classify them (as Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount), but taught all that related to Christ s life, whether spoken or done i.e., without distinguishing between his words and his deeds.

ii. Papias.[edit]

Papias, a bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis in the first half of the second century, wrote five books of Exposition(s) of the Lord s Logia. 1

65. The 'Exposition' of Papias.[edit]

(a) His Exposition was probably a setting forth" of the Logia, though it might include interpretation as well. 2 By 'Logia (oracles)', he meant the Words (possibly also including the Acts) of Christ as being oracularly applicable to the guidance of man. This title was already in use to denote, in their oracular aspect, the Scriptures of the OT, and Papias here transfers it to what he regards as the oracles of Christ. 3

(b) Papias account of Mk. and Mt. is as follows : (Eus. iii. 39:15-16!) " MdpKO? fj.ev cpnirjvevTrjs IleYpov yepojuei os, o<ra tfj.vr)fj.6vevo-ev 1 aicpt/3u>s iypaij/ev, oil fieVrot Toilet, ra VTTO TOV Xptorov >) 2 \e\0evTa TJ Trpa\8evTa. ovTe yap rjicovcrf TOV Kvpiov, OVT TrapijKoAov dijo-ei/ avT<j>, vo-Tepov Se, w? ((ftrfv, IleTpw, os ffpbs Tots xpeias e;roiiTo Tas 6ia<rxaAias, aAA oiiv liimrtp irvvrafiv Ttav Kvpiaxiav Troiov/uei/os Aoyuiv (v. r. Aoyitui/), iatrre ovbfv rjjiapre * MdpKOS, OVTIOS ei/ia ypdipat tos direfi.vi)fj.6vev<Tev, t tcbs yap eiroijja aTO irpovoiav, TOV fitjoev lav T/icovcre TrapaAureic, TJ //evVao-0ai Tt tvauTois." TavTa fiivovv ioropjjTai Ta>IIan-i<f Trepi TOU Mapicou. TTfpi 6e TOV Mar0<u ov TaiV flp)Tai. a " MaT0aios fj.et> ovv E/3pai6i JioAe icTa) ra Aoyia cruveypai/<aTO, qp^rjveva e 5 aura <os %v Svvarbs eWtTTOS."

(c) The system of Eusebius. In order to appreciate the negative as well as the positive value of the evidence of Papias, we must briefly consider the purpose of Eusebius, who has preserved it.

1 He committed no fault (not, he made no Mistake ). This must be the meaning, as the verb is invariably so used in N T and almost always (if not always) in OT. Cp especially Acts 258 i Cor. 7 28, thou didst not commit a fault (OVY ^il J - a P rf f )t also i Cor. 736. See also Lucian, 2 172, TO. fj.eyi.o-Ta afj.apTav<av, ib. 176, Tolspj.rioevYiiJ.apTriKoo-i, etc., Plut. Gracch. ed. Holden, 51, Xen. Cyr. hi. 1 40. Papias is defending Mark against the very natural objection that he did not do the apostle justice in writing down oral and casual (or at all events ejc tempore, trpbs TO? xpeias) teaching, unchanged, in a permanent book. The style that suits the former is often unsuitable to the latter. Lightfoot (SK 163) in calling this ( he did no wrong ) a mistranslation of the author of SR, must be thinking of the sense, not of the Greek. But, thus interpreted, it makes excellent sense.

a a.Tfffj.i riij.ovevo-ev appears to be used by Papias as an emphatic form of efivrifiovevo-ev (used above in the sense repeat, or teach from memory ) and to mean repeat exactly from memory. Cp another passage, generally admitted to be from Papias, in Iren. v. 883, As the Elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, repeated from memory (Lat. meminentnt), where there can be little doubt that the Latin points to a Greek original airefivr)- fj.6vevov or tfj.vrf/j.ot fvoi . And a precisely parallel use occurs in the description given by Irenaeus himself of the way in which Polycarp, the pupil of John and of the apostles (Eus. HE \. 20 6), used not only to relate (amjyyeAAe) his intercourse with them, but also to repeat exactly from memory (a.Trffj.vrjfj.6vevf) their words. Justin goes a step further and apparently takes a.-rtoy.vr\- fj.oveveiv to mean something distinct from teaching. Influenced by his belief that the airoii.vqiJ.oveviJ.aTa. were not about the apostles but from the apostles, he appeals to those who (i Apol. 33) having recorded (a.TfOiJ.vriij.ovevo-ai T<;) all that concerned our Saviour Jesus Christ, have taught (ioioafav) it." And subsequent passages show that he meant recorded in writing. There is no doubt that he was in error. But his error strengthens the evidence that aTro/airj/u.ofeveii in Papias means something more than remember. In Lucian, 28, evia a.Trofj.vrifj.oi>evo-ai. means to relate exactly, or in detail, some special instances ; (it. 3 621) it is contrasted with disorderly (aTaxTios) speech, and seems to mean repeating what one has thought out ; (ib. 3 419) it describes one who not only knew the exact facts but also repeated from memory (or? registered in memory) the exact words (axpt^cos eiSeVat ra. yeyenj/xeVa KCU TOVS Aoyovs aiiTOVS aTrofj.i rifj.oi evo ai). So Strabo 830, dirofj.vrjiJiOi eiJovo-i TOV teioVov, introducing one of the sculptor s sayings.

As, therefore, Irenaeus describes Polycarp, one of John s dis ciples, as repeating exactly from memory John s doctrine about (Eus. HE\. 206) the mighty works (fivvofxeis) and teaching (&L&a<TKa\iav) of the Lord, so Papias appears to be describing Mark, Peter s interpreter, first as repeating from memory (efj.vrjfj.oi fvo-ev), and then as repeating exactly from memory (a.TTffj.i riiJ.ovfvo-ev) the doctrine of Peter about Christ s discourses or actions, and as afterwards committing to writing what he (Mark) had thus repeated.

Lightfoot translates aiTefi.vr)ij.6vevo-ev here (SK 163) re membered. And the word has this meaning in a few phrases such as bear a grudge against, etc. But (i) there is no notion here of grudge ; (2) the general usage, and (3) the context, favour the meaning recount ; (4) besides the above-mentioned passage from Irenzeus, and (5) that from Justin (meaning apparently record, but at all events something more than remember ), there is also (6) Justin s frequent appeal to airo/a>T)- fj.ovevfj.aTa as written records." These considerations, together with th; kindred use of nvyfj.oi>eveiv above mentioned, are con clusive in favour of the decision that aTrofinjfioi eueii here means recount or repeat from memory. There is a considerable probability that the word was in regular use to denote the Memoirs or Anecdotes about the apostles, first repeated by their immediate interpreters or pupils ; then committed to writing by some of them in the form of Gospels ; and lastly accepted by Justin as Memoirs written by the apostles about Christ. Vet he seems to have retained the old title. As Xenophon s ATTO^UT)- lj.ovevfj.aTa. 2<D/cpdTov mean Memoirs o/i.e., about Socrates, so ATrofinj/u.oi evju.aTa ATroo ToAa)!/ would naturally mean Memoirs about the apostles, and about Christ s teaching through then;. Justin appears to retain an old title but to give it a wrong in terpretation.

Perhaps the use of a.irofj.vrtfj.ovevei.v was influenced by the use of the Hebrew siimi/t. This, meaning originally repeat from memory, came to mean teach the oral Law, whence came the word Mishna, the doctrine of the oral Law.

3 Is eipjjTou interchanged with the co-ordinate io-TOp>)Tat for mere variety? Or as indicating a shorter statement? or as im plying any doubt? In Eus. HE \\. 152, <j>a<rC and icrropia probably denote distinctions of historical certainty (see below, So).

66. Method of Eusebius.[edit]

Eusebius promises (HE iii. 83) to record (i) the quotations of ecclesiastical writers from disputed books , (2) what they have said about the canonical scriptures and the uncanonical as well (TlVa Tf TTfpL T(l)V (VOiaOriKUV Kal 6/j,o\oyov/jL^vui> ypa<puv Kal &ra Trepl TUV /J.T) roiotruv aurols etpr/Tcu). His promise to include the latter we have reason to believe that he faithfully keeps. But he gives no extracts from Papias about Lk. and Jn. It may be reasonably inferred that Papias was silent about them. The silence may have proceeded from either of two causes : ( i ) Jn. and Lk. may not have been recognised by Papias as on an equality with Mk, and Mt. ; (2) though recognising them as authoritative, Papias may have had nothing to say about them.

67. Silence of Papias.[edit]

(d) The silence of Papias on Lk. and Jn. - The latter of the alternatives just mentioned is highly improbable.

Papias dwells on the defect of order, or arrangement (ro^ei), in Mk., who, he says, never even contemplated an orderly treatise (o-vVraf iv) of the Logia. Now Lk. avowed it as one of his objects to write in (chronological) order (icaSef ijs), and Lk. s order differs not only from that of Mt., but also from that of Jn. It is hard to believe, then, that Papias would have nothing to say about Lk., if he recognised Lk. Again, as regards Jn., would not Papias have naturally added what the Muratorian Fragment says that this want of order was corrected by Jn. who wrote in order (per ordinem) ? The Muratorian Frag ment, Clement of Alexandria, and the anonymous tradition pre served by Eusebius (iii. 24 n) all have something of great im portance to tell us about the original authorship of the spiritual Gospel of John the disciple of the Lord ; and what they say testifies to the interest taken in its origin by those ecclesiastical writers who were among the first to recognise it as apostolical. Is it likely that Papias, if he acknowledged it to be the work of the last of the apostles, knew nothing about it that he deemed worth saying ? 1

These considerations point to the conclusion that Lk. and Jn. were not recognised by Papias as on a level with Mk. and Mt. 2

If Papias did not recognise Lk. and Jn. as authorita tive, it would seem likely that Jn. though probably (Eus. HEm. 24.7) it had been for some time taught orally, and though traditions from it may have been in use in Proconsular Asia was not yet circulated in writing, or, if circulated, not yet acknowledged as apos tolic, when Papias wrote his Exposition. Consequently the date of the Exposition becomes of great importance.

1 Lightfoot, who assumes that Papias must have said some thing about Jn., thinks it probable that (SR 207) the Mura torian writer borrowed from Papias his contrast between the secondary evidence of Mk. and the primary evidence of Jn. But, in that case, how is it that Eusebius who was bound to record _ -whatever was said by ecclesiastical writers about canonical books whilst inserting what was said by later writers, omits what was said by the earliest of all?

2 This might be regarded as almost certain but for one con sideration. Eusebius has a contempt for Papias. Forced by his antiquity to devote a great deal of space to him, he does it with terms of disparagement, and (iii. 39 14-17, bis) confining himself to what is indispensable (ayay/caioos). Want of space, and contempt for his author, may have induced him to break the promise he made just before, and to omit what Papias may have said about Lk. and Jn., reserving it till he came to later ecclesi astical writers who borrowed from Papias. This is highly improbable. Eusebius is a most careful and conscientious writer. Though, for example, on one occasion he gives in his own words a tradition about Mk. at an early period in his history, and adds (215) Clement has quoted this story, and . . . Papias attests it, this does not prevent him from giving the testimony of Papias in full, in its chronological order.

68. Date of Papias.[edit]

(e) The Date of Papias's Exposition. -There is no evidence of importance bearing on it beyond Eus. HE iii. 39:1-4.

ToO 6e Ilan-ia o-uyypd/AjiiaTa TreVrc TOV api9/j.ov <e peTai, a Kal eViye ypaTrrai, Aoyiiav Kvpuucuv efrjy>jo ea>. rovrtav Kal Etp7)i/aios cos fioviav avrw ypatftevTiav juyr/ju.oi euet, dSe TTCO? Ae ywi " TaOra c$e Kal IlaTrtas 6 luidvvov /j.ev a/coucmjs, IIoAvKapJrou <5e eraipo? A6ycoi> Kat avToirnji/ oua/Licof favTOv yei/eVflat T<av iepiav dirocTToAcop f^<f>aivei, TrapetAArj^ieVai <Se TO. TT? Tnoreios Trapa riav eiceiVois yv<ap(fj.<av l SiSao-xei Si lav <r;cri Ae e<oy " OVK oKt^o~ut fie crot KCU ocra Trore wapa TU>V 7rpeo~j3uTe pu>i (caAco? epadov Kal xaAtus e/uir)jLidi/cua a > 2 crui/Tajai rais epjoujyeiais, 3 fiia/Se/Saiov/u.ei os vrrep avT<av aAn9eiai>. ou yap TOIS TOL jroAAa Ae youcTiv e^aipov iixnrep oi jroAAoi, aAAd rocs TaA7j#7j fiiSacj/coveni , ovoe TOIS Tas iAAorpia? eWoAds /j.vri/j.ovevovcrii , aAAa TOI? ras Trapa TOU KvpCov rfj Trt cTTei cojucVa? KOI air avrijs napayivofj.fva i TT}S aAijSei as- ei Se TTOV Kal 7rapr)icoAov#r)Kio? Tis TOIS 7rpe<r(3uTe pocs e\9oi, Toi>s riav rrpecrftvrepiav avtKpivov Aoyous ri Ai/fipe as TJ TI XleVpos elirev, r) TI ^lAtTTTros ij TI a)/ias rj la/caj/So? r) TI Ia)ai/n)s T) MaTflaios rj TIS eVcpos -riav TOV Kvpiov /aaSijTioc, a Te Apurritav Kal 6 irpetr/SvTepos lu>dvvr)s [oi TOV Ki/pt ov ftaOijTai] * ^.eyovtriv. oil yap Ta e T<av |3t/3Ai a)i/ ToaovTov (xe ax^cAeic VTreAajx^acoi , otrov TO. wapa fiicnjs (JMavrjs (cat fj.ei>ov<rr)s.

69. Not a hearer of John.[edit]

1. Was Papias a hearer of John ? - Was Eusebius right in denying, or Irenaeus in asserting, that Papias was a hearer of John ?

Here, and in what follows, we must distinguish the statements of Eusebius from his inferences. The former are almost always accurate ; the latter are sometimes erroneous (though by giving us the grounds for them he enables us to avoid error 5 ). Even the inferences of Eusebius are probably more trustworthy here than the statements of Irenaeus. 6 Now Eusebius rejects the definite statement of the latter that Papias was a hearer of John, on the ground that Papias himself makes no such claim in his preface, where he naturally, and almost inevitably, would have made it, if he could. He gives us the preface to speak for itself. He adds facts and extracts from the work of Papias, the whole of which was apparently before him. These convey no indication that Papias heard John. That Irenaeus in fluenced by the natural tendency of early Christian contro versialists to exaggerate the continuity of Christian tradition, and by the fact that Papias lived in Polycarp s time and reported what John said hastily declared Papias to be a hearer of John, is more probable than that EusebiuSj subsequently reviewing all the evidence, was mistaken in denying it.

The probable conclusion is that Papias was not a hearer of John.

1 yvtapLfjiiav i.e., pupils, as in Origen, Cels. 2 13 ; Clem. Alex. 104 and 898 ; Epictet. passim ; and Eus. iii. 44, etc. It is equi valent to Papias s 7rapT)KoAou#>)Kaj.

2 Probably taught from memory, or repeated. See note above, 65, n.

3 See above, 65 n. Papias (i) set forth (efjjyeio-flai) the Logia, (2) interpreted epjurpeveii/ them, and (3) arranged along with them (trwi/rdf <u) illustrative traditions.

4 These bracketed words are perhaps to be omitted. See 70 (3) below.

6 E.g., he says that Luke had (Eus. iii. 4 6) diligently followed the rest of the apostles (besides Paul), but shows the source of his error by quoting Lk. 1 3, taking iratTiv as masc. He also (cp iii. 46 with iii. 36 i) takes Lk. s iimjpeYai. TOU Aoyov (the word) to mean v. TOV Kvpiov (the Word). These are such errors as the most honest and impartial historian might make.

6 This could be proved by a collection of Irenasus s mistakes. And a comparison of the eulogistic remarks made by Eusebius about other ecclesiastical "writers with his general silence -when quoting Jrenteus would indicate that, although he would by no means call the latter (as he calls Papias) a man of very little understanding, he nevertheless thinks less highly of his power of weighing evidence than of his (v. 20 3) orthodoxy and high standard of carefulness in copying MSS.

7 Eus. iii. 39 5 : 5iao~TetAas TOV \6yov.

70. Nor of Aristion and John the Elder.[edit]

2 and 3. Was Papias a hearer of Aristion and of John the elder ? And were they disciples of the Lord ?

2. Eusebius affirms that Papias did hear them, and he gives his reasons thus (iii. 39 7) : He (Papias) confesses that he has received the words of the apostles on the one hand from those who had followed (napriKO\ov6riK6Tu>v) them ; but of Aristion and of the Elder John he says he was himself a hearer. The context indicates that Eusebius is drawing this inference merely from the 'distinction' that Papias makes between the past and the present, What (TI) Andrew, etc., said (ein-ei ), and the things thai (a TC) Aristion and the Elder John say (Ae you<ri) as though the two last were still living, so that Papias had probably consulted them ; and the historian s habitual conscientiousness leads him (recognising perhaps the slightness of his grounds) to qualify his inference in the following sentence At all events (yoOv), making frequent mention of them by name in his treatise, he sets down their traditions. He does not add and Papias states that he received them from their own lips, and he appears to have no evidence beyond what he himself puts before us. But the change of tense from said to say is (Lightf. SR 150 n.) probably for the sake of variety, 1 so that nothing can be inferred from it ; and the mere fact that Papias sets down their traditions and mentions their names, by no means proves that he obtained his information from them, and not from those who had followed them."

We conclude that (a) Papias is not proved to have been, and that (b) (so far as we can judge from Eusebius's production of inadequate, and omission of adequate, evidence) he probably was not, a hearer of Aristion and John the Elder.

3. Again, the words disciples of the Lord can hardly have followed Aristion, etc.," in the text used by Eusebius. For he regards Aristion as living at the time when Papias wrote. But that disciples of the Lord should be living when Papias was making his investigations (Lightfoot, Sft 150 n. ) would involve a chronological difficulty.

This Eusebius would probably have felt, especially as he apparently regards Papias as born too late to have been a hearer of John."- Moreover, if Papias was a hearer of any disciple of the Lord, this would contradict the spirit of Euse bius s inference that Papias drew his information about the apostles merely from their pupils. Aristion and the Elder John, if disciples of the Lord, could not be called pupils of the apostles. This internal evidence that Eusebius did not find the words disciples, etc. after Aristion, etc. is confirmed by (i) their absence from the Armenian version, (2) the omission of oi in several Greek MSS, and of TOV icvpiov by Rufinus, (3) the extreme harshness of () Elders, (6) disciples of the Lord, (c) the repetition of disciples of the Lord, as though they were three classes^ and (4) the ease with which the words can be explained as an interpolation.

71. Papias's Elders.[edit]

4. Papias's Elders. It remains to consider who are the Elders from whom Papias obtained his information.

There is no evidence to show that apostles were called Elders. Yet Papias's words seeming to amount to this 'If pupils of the Elders came, I used to ask about the words of the Elders, viz. Andrew, Peter, etc.' appear, at first sight, to identify apostles with the Elders.

The truth appears to be that, in the days of Papias, the latter title was given to the generation of Elders ordained by the dis ciples of the Lord. The next generation of Elders was not yet called the Elders, but rather the pupils of (or those who had followed) the Elders. The object of Papias was to get back to the teaching of the disciples of the Lord, whether through (i) the Elders or (2) their pupils. If, for example, Papias met (i) an Elder appointed by John the apostle, or (2) a pupil of such an Elder, in either case his question would be, What said John ? "*

The most probable conclusions, then, are that (i) Papias was not a hearer of John ; (2 and 3) whether he was, or was not, a hearer of Aristion and the Elder John, the two latter were not disciples of the Lord ; (4) the Elders from whom he obtained his information were not apostles but Elders appointed by John or other apostles ; and he supplemented this by information obtained from their followers and successors.

1 Note that in the same sentence rC is varied with a. So Eusebius (quoted above, 66) varies riva. with 6Va, where there is but a shade of difference in meaning.

2 Eusebius might naturally assume that Papias who tells us that he regularly cross-examined any who could tell him what John said would have questioned John himself had he been alive and accessible to questioning. Denying that he was a hearer, he probably implies that he was too late to be one.

3 See Expositor, 4th ser. 3 245. Papias probably wrote the disciples of the Lord . . . and Aristion and John their disciples. Their, avriii (in oi /xafJijTai CUITW, i.e. avriov), was changed into his (CUITOV) and avTOv replaced by TOV (cvpi ov. (For the frequency of avrov, TOVTOV, etc., confused with avTwi , rovTtav, see Otto on Justin, Tryph. 106, p. 356.) Prof. W. P> Bacon has suggested that oi TOVTCO was corrupted into oi rov KV before the time of Eusebius. This is very likely ; cp Judg. 4 24 Tiav viiav B, but A KV (i.e., icvpiov) vi<oi>.

4 This interpretation of Elders is confirmed by the following consideration. Irenseus, in passages where he is probably (Lightf. SR 202) quoting the substance, if not the very words, of Papias, speaks of the doctrine as that of (v. 5 i 36 2) the Elders, the disciples of the apostles (i/>. 33 3), the Elders luho have seen John. If these are the words of Papias, the fact that he uses Elders there to mean the disciples of the apostles. makes it probable that he uses it in the same sense here, and that they represented the generation preceding his own.

72. His list of the apostles.[edit]

5. Papias's list of the apostles. - Why does Papias specially mention, as the disciples about whose sayings he made investigations, Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew? and why in this order? An answer is suggested by the context in the extract quoted above ( 71 ).

Most people, says Papias, took pleasure in voluminous (TCI TToXXd) falsehoods ; and he was driven to conclude that he would gain more profit from the living voice of tradition derived from the disciples of the Lord than from the books that attracted popular attention. In the books he may have included Gnostic treatises, such as that of Basilides ; but we must not exclude Christian apocrypha and disputed books, and various versions of authoritative books.

For example, though Matthew had made a compilation of the Logia, it was variously interpreted ; and this affords a very good reason for the desire of Papias to ascertain what Matthew said, in order to throw light on what Matthew wrote or was supposed to have written. Again, the Epistle of James mentioned by Eusebius (iii. 25) not as spurious but as disputed, was probably current in the days of Papias ; and we can understand that its existence may well have caused him to add his name to the apostolic list. Between Matthew and James comes John, in whose name a gospel (preached perhaps in his behalf at Ephesus during his last years) may have been recently circulated as a tradition in writing ; and this would account not only for the inclusion of John s name, but also for its position between that of James and Matthew. Apocryphal works were early current in the names of (Eus. iii. 25) Andrew, Peter (whom Papias himself mentions as the originator of Mk.), and Thomas (as well as John and Matthias). The inclusion of Philip (whose apocryphal Acts Eusebius does not mention) may be explained by his having resided in Hierapolis, where Papias was bishop. 1 As regards Aristion, Eusebius (iii. 39 14) informs us that Papias inserted some of Aristion's accounts (SuTyrjcrei?) of the words of the Lord (roif TOU icvpiov Adywc), and there is some slight evi dence (Exp., 1893^, p. 245) for regarding him as the author of Mk.-App. At all events, the fact that he wrote accounts (curjyjjcreis) of words of the Lord presumably not found in Mk. or Mt., or else why should Eusebius mention their insertion? would make it desirable to ascertain what Aristion was in the habit of saying. Lastly, the two disputed Epistles of John (the Second and Third) are written by the Elder, and may have been naturally attributed to the Elder John. And Papias, who (Eus. iii. 39 17) makes quotations 2 from the First Epistle of John, may on this as well as on other accounts have made the traditions of John the Elder a special subject of investigation.

Thus, though there may be, and probably are, other local causes, unknown to us, for Papias s selection and arrangement, 3 the drift of evidence, external and internal, indicates, as one important cause, the un certainty arising from spurious Christian literature, and the special importance of ascertaining what had been said by those disciples of the Lord who were reported, truly or falsely, to have left writings also.

1 Among other things that came to him (Eus. iii. 398) as from tradition (UMTO.V in wapao dcreoos), Papias is said by Eusebius to have received a wonderful narrative (composed) by the daughters of Philip (SiTJyiJcru irapeiAr)<eVcu Savjiacriaf VTTO TO>V TOV *. 6vya.rtp<av). From this passage it is commonly inferred that Papias knew the daughters of Philip. But (i) iirjyijcris (not TrapdSocriv, see ib. 14 and vi. 13g, both of which distinguish between TT., oral tradition, and &., written narrative ), and (2) VTTO (not irapd or aTro), and (3) uxrav (K TrapaSovtias and 7r<xpeiA)<|>eWi, all imply that, though the narrative had been related by them, Papias did not receive it from them, but from others who handed it down and warranted its genuineness. This has an important bearing on the date of Papias. The words (Eus. iii. 889) Kara TOVS avTovs yw^pMMCi following on Kara TT\V lepairoAii/ . . . o tarpit/ ai most naturally mean that, whereas Philip and his daughters li-ved at Hierapolis, Papias was born among the same (people). (They can hardly mean that Papias was born during the time (j/"the same people i.e., Philip and his daughters. )

2 ice xpijTai /xopTvpi ais. We are not to infer that Papias mentioned John, or any one, as the author. Had he done so, Eusebius would probably have said, as he does of Irenaeus (Eus. v. 87), He also makes mention of the First Epistle of John, introducing a good many quotations from it, and likewise from the First of Peter. From (i) this contrast, and (2) the early custom of quoting without names, we may reasonably infer that Papias did not mention John s Epistle. It is shown elsewhere (see JOHN, EPISTLES OF) that some so-called quotations from the First Epistle are probably mere quotations from floating Johan- nine traditions.

Why does Eusebius who was not bound to tell us of quotations from canonical books take up space by telling us that Papias quoted from (iii. 39 17) the First Epistle of John ? The answer is to be found partly (i) in the completion of Eusebius s sentence ( and from that of Peter likewise ), partly (2) in the similar statement about (v. 87) Irenseus. It is simply a quiet way of saying, You see Papias and Irenzeus do not quote from the Second and Third F.pistles of John, nor from theScconi/ Epistle of Peter. These were disputed works and Eusebius is tacitly bringing against them the argument from silence.

3 For example, he places Andrew first. Cp with this the leading part assigned to Andrew by the Muratorian Fragment (see below, 78) in originating the Fourth Gospel.

73. His relation to Polycarp.[edit]

6. Papias's relation to Polycarp. On this point, Eusebius affords the following indirect evidence.

He first (iii. 36 1-2) mentions Polycarp as the scholar (6/iuAijTrjs) of the apostles - appointed to the bishopric of Smyrna by the 'eye-witnesses and ministers of the Lord' - in whose time flourished Papias (he, too, bishop of Hierapolis) and the world-famed (6 napa. "^ Vrois eiareVi vvv 5ia(3dijros) Ignatius, second in succession to Peter in the bishopric of Antioch. 1 Then he (ib. 4-15) describes the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp. Next he mentions (jib. 37 i) Quadratus and the daughters of Philip as being among those who occupied the first rank in the succession to the apostles, adding that he has confined his mention of these to (ib. 374) such as have left extant records of apostolic teaching. Then, after (iii. 3Sf.) going back to Clement of Rome to protest against spurious works attributed to him, he continues, Now I have (already) mentioned the works of Ignatius and Polycarp : of Papias five books are extant ; and he deals with Papias and his works in detail, denying that he was a hearer of the apostles, which is equivalent to denying that he was one of those in the first rank in the succession to the apostles. Some time after this (iv. 14/1) comes Polycarp s visit to Rome and martyrdom. All this harmonises with the supposition that Papias was so much younger than Ignatius and Polycarp that he could not be reckoned in their rank of succession, but that Eusebius was obliged to insert his name with theirs on account of the import ance of his extant records, which he compiled before the death of the aged Polycarp. His habit of speaking (in his Exposition) in the name of the Elders that have seen John may have led Irenaeus to the erroneous inference that Papias was a hearer of John and companion of Polycarp.

74. Conclusions about Papias.[edit]

(f) Summary of the Evidence relating to Papias. Reviewing the evidence, we are led to the following negative and positive conclusions. Papias ( was not a 'hearer of John', nor a 'companion of Polycarp', nor did he 'hear' any 'disciple of the Lord'. He was not in the same rank of succession as Quadratus and Philip's daughters. The daughters dwelt in Papias s native city and died (Lightfoot, SR 150) about 100-110 A.D. Papias records a narrative handed down by them but not (apparently) as coming to him from them. These facts suggest for Papias s birth a date about 85 A. D. When he reached early manhood ( 105 A. D. ) the last of the apostles, if still living, was probably incapacitated by old age for teaching. The Johannine Gospel, though preached orally at Ephesus, was not yet published. Being probably (Lightf. SR 153) of Pagan origin, and (Eus. iii. 39 12) given to literalise Jewish metaphor, Papias may have been perplexed by a comparison of Hebrew with Greek 1 interpretations of Christian traditions. He found current the Commandments (Eus. iii. 39 3) given from the Lord to the Faith ; but he desired to add to these from the doctrine of the apostles, as repeated by the Elders whom they had appointed, and by the successors of those Elders. He also mentions ( i ) the teaching of the apostle Peter, first repeated, and then written, by his interpreter Mark, including the Acts as well as the Words of Jesus, and making no attempt at classifying the Lord s Oracles ; 2 (2) a compilation by the apostle Matthew, in Hebrew, of the Lord s Oracles certainly including Christ s discourses and probably giving some account of Christ s life. But this, instead of being circulated in Greek (as Peter s teaching had been) by one authoritative interpreter, had received many interpretations. 3 About Lk. or Jn. (or any other Gospel) Papias is silent, and we conclude that he knew neither, or ranked neither with Mk. or Mt. But the date at which he was investigating and writing (about 115-130 A.D.) and his quotations from i Jn. (which was certainly written by the same hand as the Gospel) combine to make it probable that Jn. must have been known to him, at least in parts, as a tradition. We are led to conclude that he was writing at the time when Jn. was attaining, but had not yet attained, recognition as an apostolic Gospel. *

1 I.e., Polycarp and Ignatius have phrases that suggest the authority of antiquity. Papias has none. Several MSS, very naturally, interpolate a compliment to Papias s learning.

2 If we may judge from the order of the extracts, Papias placed Mk. before Aft. This is slightly confirmed by the fact that in the former extract Papias uses the longer title KvpiaKa Adyia, in the latter, the shorter Aoyia a natural abbreviation when one repeats a title a second time.

3 The interpreter (/for. ffebr. on Mt. 1027, and Wetstein on i Cor. 1*27) was the recognised attendant of the reader and teacher in the Jewish schools. When a Jewish apostle (e.g., the author of the Apocalypse, which is composed in most barbarous Greek) preached, or wrote, to Greek congregations, an inter preter may often have been in request. We have seen that Mark was called the interpreter of Peter. It was an early belief (Eus. iii. 38) that Luke or Clement of Rome interpreted the Epistle to the Hebrews from Paul's Hebrew into Greek a supposition that illustrates the early and familiar recognition of an interpreter as a natural companion of an apostle. In the (Eus. iii. 393) interpretations that Papias inserted in his Ex position, he may have included his own or other Greek versions as well as explanations, of the Logia. From A cts 8 3 1 (oSrjyjjcrei) and from Ign. Fhil. 6 (eai> Se TIS iouSai o>ib> ep/nrji/eur;) we see how large a part of apostolic and presbyteric teaching would consist of interpretations of OT in a Christian sense, and these might sometimes be interpreted from the Hebrew. Soon, however, the word would be confined to interpreting i.e. , explaining, obscurities in the Greek Logia. For the word thus used, see Orig. Cels. iii. 58, and quotations from Irenaeus given above, 65 ii.

There were also current (as Lk. tells us), many narratives of Christ s life, and (as Papias says) many diffuse writings, possibly including Gnostic gospels, and so called Apostolic Acts, Revelations, and Epistles. These appear to have prejudiced Papias against books, and to have inclined him to go back as near as possible to the fountain-head. His attitude is so well described by the following words of Irenaeus that we can imagine Papias himself using them : (Iren. v. 20 if.) All these (heretics) are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the churches . . . Those who desert the teaching of the Church impugn the knowledge of the holy Elders. To these bishops, then, or holy Elders i.e. , to the Elders appointed by the apostles Papias made it his first object to go. But we learn from Clement of Rome (ch. 44) that, as early as 95 A. D. , some of tlie Elders appointed by the apostles and even some of those (appointed) in the next generation (//.erai>) by men of note, had died. It is improbable that John, during his last years of disability, appointed any Elders ; and it is reasonable to suppose that by A.D. 125-35 m st of the Johannine Elders would have passed away. Hence, though Papias did his best to obtain information from them, he was glad to glean what he could from the next generation ( those who had followed them ), his question to an Elder s pupil always being, What said John (or this or that Disciple of the Lord) by whom the Elder (whom you "followed") was appointed? In particular, having regard to the apocryphal literature circulated in the names of Andrew, Peter, Thomas, to the traditions current in Hierapolis about Philip, and to the better attested but disputed literature circulated in the names of James and John, to the great diversity of the inter pretations of the Logia compiled by Matthew, and to the objections brought against Peter s teaching as recorded by Mark he made these Disciples of the Lord the special object of his investigations. It is, of course, possible, that Jn. may have been acknowledged as canonical in other churches before it was acknowledged in Hierapolis ; l but, so far as Papias guides us, we are led to the conclusion that, in 115-130 A. D. , Lk. and Jn. were not yet acknowledged as on a level with Mk. and Mt. , by the first Christian historian who gives us any account of the Gospels.

1 The hesitation of Papias to accept Jn. may have been all the greater because (if we accept the theory that Irenaeus in his fifth book is quoting Papias in support of Millennianism) he appears to have accepted the Apocalypse as John s on the authority of (Iren. v. 30 1)- those who saw John face to face, and to have habitually appealed to John in support of (ib. 33 %f.) very materialistic views of the Millennium. A historian who believed (with Irenaeus) that the Apocalypse was written by the aged apostle about 96 A.D. might well hesitate to receive a work published, as coming from the same pen, a few years afterwards, yet differing from the former in language so completely as almost to be in another dialect, and also absolutely differing from Mk. and from the interpreters of Mt. in its representation of the Words of the Lord.

The teaching (Iren. v. 33 ^_f.) about the vines each with 10,000 branches, etc., ascribed to the Lord by the elders who saw John according to Papias, helps us to understand how even Papias (trfyo&pa. fjiiKpbs rov vovv, Eus.) might feel unable to believe that the expositor of this teaching was the author of the Fourth Gospel.

75. Justin.[edit]

Justin Martyr (Lightfoot, BE 87 145-149 AD ) whilst quoting the Gospels under various titles, makes some incidental but very important statements about their composition.

(a) Justin's titles of the Gospels are adapted to his readers. In the Apology, addressed to Gentiles, he generally uses the term, Memoirs of the Apostles ; 2 but in the Dialogue with the Jew, Trypho, he gradually subordinates Memoirs, and at last resorts to the Jewish authoritative form, it is written. 3

Like Lk. and Jn. (and perhaps Papias), though in a less degree, he avoids the term Gospels. In the Dialogue, it is Trypho, not Justin, who first introduces it (Tryph. 10, the so- called Gospel, Tia AeyojueVw .). Justin, replying, calls it (it>. 18) the teaching given (SiSa^SeVra) by our Saviour. In lApol. he does not use the word till toward the close, and then seem ingly as a concession to popular language (66), Memoirs . . . which are [commonly] c ailed (icoAeiTai) Gospels The Memoirs (apart from Gospels ) he generally quotes for the facts of Christ s life ; but sayings are also quoted from them, twice from Mt., and twice from Lk. (One of the latter [Tryph. 103] agrees with D.) Christ s words, when introduced by he said, almost always agree with Mt. ; they are called (Tryph. 100) Aoyot, 1 * when Jesus is predicting his sufferings, but (it. 18) Aoyia 6 when denunciatory and when coupled with prophetic utterances. Teachings (fiiSay^iara) from Christ himself (i Apol. 14) refer to chastity and Christian love, and are from Mt. and Lk. ; i Apol. 53 speaks of Gentiles, men of every race, persuaded by the Teaching (SiSa.^) that came from his apostles. This quotation (as well as Tryph. 18 and 10, cp also 35) indicates moral precepts, such as are in the Didacht and the Logia of Behnesa. But I Apol. 33, quoting Lk. with a clause from Mt., and describing the authors of the Memoirs as having taught the Annunciation, and i Apol. 66, stating that those who are to receive the Eucharist must first accept what is taught by us, indicate a catechetical teaching of facts, different from the Didacht. Moreover, in 2 Apol. 2810, what Christ taught or Christ s Teachings (SiSdynara) refer partly to his predictions, partly to the punishment of the wicked in fire. Crescens is charged with (ib. 3) not having read them, so that they must have been a book, or part of one.

1 The Shepherd of Hermas is quoted once as Scripture by Irenaeus, and frequently as a divine revelation by Clem. Alex. Yet the Muratorian Fragment decides that it is not to be read in the churches. Now the Shepherd and the Muratorian Fragment probably both originate from Rome, and the Mura torian writer shows familiarity with the authorship and recent date of the book. The more distant Fathers, Irenaeus and Clem. Alex., accept it ; the author, who writes on the spot, rejects it. Similarly we shall find Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century making Ephesus the scene of a Dialogue and speaking of John as (Tryph. 81) a man among us (trap rHjLLv) yet abstaining in a marked manner from quoting Jn., while freely quoting the Synoptists and occasionally using Johannine traditions.

2 These he regards, not as Memoirs about the apostles and their doctrine, but as Memoirs about Christ composed by the apostles (i Apol. 33, <i>s oi ajrofxnj/u.oi evcrai Tfs Travra TO. irtpl TOU Swnjpos injuov Iijaou Xpierrou fSiSafav). See note above, 8 65.

  • Cp Mt. 1127, quoted in i Apol. 63 ( Jesus . . . himself

said ) with Mt. 1127 in Tryph. 100 ( it iswrilten in the Gospel that he said ). H henever writing is mentioned, the passage quoted is in Mt. (which Justin may prefer to quote as being the Gospel best known to the Jew Trypho).

  • Try/>h. 35, niv TTJS 6i6a;(ij \6ytav, and i Apol. 66, the

prayer of the word that was from Christ over the Eucharist.

5 These l.ogia (Tryph.- 17) are from Mt., supplemented by Lk. (as in D) in such a way as to suggest that Justin used a rough harmony of Mt. and Lk., or a correction of the former by the latter.

6 tireToAflai, middle ; cp Tryph. 21 and 40, tireVoATai 6

7 The rhythm demands daioai. Ephraem (43) comments on the fire as part of the story. Both here and in Tryph. 103 Justin has, This day have I begotten thee* (as D in Lk.3z2), indicating that he had a text differing from ours, which may very well have included the fire as written by the apostles, equally with the dove. The reading, this day, etc., is now found only in some versions of Lk., but in Tryph. 103 Justin follows Mt. s (not Lk. s) order in the Temptation.

76. His Lk. recent.[edit]

(b) Indications of Lk. as a recent Gospel. In a few instances Justin appeals, as it were, beyond , the Memoirs, to those who composed them; or else he introduces a personal quasi-protest of authenticity, I assert, I have learned, etc.

(i.) i Apol. 33, As these who recorded (airo^vrjuovevo-avTe^) all things about our Saviour Jesus Christ have taught, introduces Lk.'s Annunciation to the Virgin (with a clause taken from Mt.) ;

(ii.) i Apol. 66, For the apostles, in the Memoirs made (yevoju-eVois) by them, which are called Gospels, delivered (ira.peStoKa.r) that Jesus had thus ordained 6 to them, introduces, in a condensed form, Lk.'s version of the Institution of the Eucharist, including the words, 'Do this in remembrance of me', not found in Mk. or Mt., and regarded by WH as an interpolation from i Cor. 11 25;

(iii.) Tryph. 88, 'Both (<cai) fire was kindled (anj^Or;) in the Jordan . . ., and . . . that the Holy Spirit as a dove hovered on him has been written by his^ apostles (the apostles 1 mean), of this our Christ (eypa^av oi OTrdo ToAoi aiirov TOVTOU rov XpicrroG ijfiiav)', if the text were correct, would exhibit Justin stating a non-canonical event (the fire ) as a fact on his own authority, and the canonical event as on the authority of the apostles ;l

(iv.) Tryph. 103, For in the Memoirs which / assert to have been composed (mvTCTdXBaL2) by his apostles and by those who followed (napaxohov~udvmw) them', introduces 'it is written that sweat as it were drons. streamed down from him while praying'- passage found in some MSS of Lk. 2244, but bracketed by WH as not genuine3 (and found in no other Gospel);

(v.)Tryph. 105, 'As we have learned through the Memoirs,' accompanies the words, becoming a man through the Virgin (from Lk., combined with Mt.), and is followed by

(vi.) Trvph. 105, as also from the Memoirs u<e hare learned this, too, introducing an utterance of Christ on the Cross peculiar to Lk. - 346.

All these passages reveal Justin as quoting with a special emphasis Lk. 4 or a later version of Lk. , in cluding interpolated passages as though protesting that Lk. is on a level with the Memoirs, and was composed by apostles.

77. His use of 'memoirs'.[edit]

(c) The origin of Justin's view of the Memoirs. We have seen (col. 1814, n. i ) that, in Papias, irapaKO\ov6ftv is the regular word for a pupil and successor. Now Eusebius (iii. 46) misunderstands (Lk. 1.3) jrapr]KO\ov6i]KOTi TTCHTIV as meaning that Luke had been a pupil of all (the apostles}, and Justin might do the same. This enables us to answer the question, How (in Justin s opinion) was Luke taught the Miraculous Conception ? Justin s view is that Christ (i Apol. 67 and cp Acts 13), after his resurrection, appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them everything relating to himself (Acts 13 to the Kingdom of God ). 5 This teaching would, therefore, apply (i Apol. 33) to the Nativity and other mysteries, as well as to moral precepts, and Luke, as being a pupil of all the apostles, would receive it. As regards the form of transmission, Justin begins with an ambigu ous expression (i Apol. 33), dtrffj.vr]fj.6v(i 0-av, which may mean (i) remembered, or (2) repeated from memory. Adopting the latter meaning, he uses it, not (as Papias did) of the successors of the apostles, but of the apostles themselves. Then he gradually inclines, and finally commits himself, to the theory that this repetition was not oral merely, but also in writing. Hence he allows himself to say the apostles wrote, though he uses but one strictly apostolic Gospel (that of Mt. }. Having these views about the apostolic consensus of the Memoirs, and having a preference for Lk. s record of the Nativity and the Passion, Justin may naturally have recoiled from Jn., as being a new work, breaking this consensus both in style and thought, and especially unfavourable to the authority of Lk. l

1 Some have inferred that, in (iii.), apostles must include John, because only by including Mt. and Jn. can the plural be justified. Such an argument ignores (ii.), a passage also attributed by Justin to apostles, yet neither in Mt. nor Jn.

In (ii.) yet/ojieva and irapeotaKav left a loop-hole for supposing that the apostles might not have written aironiv)/u.oi ev/xaTa, but simply taught them. But here Justin commits himself to the statement that they wrote.

2 <7viTTo^6ai (see that and kindred words used by Justin [i Apol. 26 63, 2 Apol. i 15] to mean the composition of a book ) represents the very act disclaimed by Papias for Peter and Mark (ov\ ws (rvvra^iv). Remembering that this assertion of Justin s is preceded (a few lines before) by the Memoirs written by the apostles (mentioning the words, This day have I begotten thee, found now only in a v.l. of Lk.), we are led to infer that he is protesting against the statement of Papias or against similar statements made by others. Justin says, in effect, The apostles did write regular books, and then half corrects himself: Or, at all events, they and their pupils wrote them.

3 The interpolated Lk. has drops of blood.

4 Lk. of course means the third Gospel as "we hare it. The author need not be, and probably is not, the beloved physician, the companion of Paul. The author of the Preface of the Gospel may have revised, re-edited, or re-written it, and may be a different person from the Pauline Luke.

5 i. iarfi? TOIS an-ooToAois ai/ToO KCLI fiaOrjTais i&i&afe Taura, aTrep ets i-rritritttyiv xa\ ii^iv oLvcStoKaticv. These words come at the conclusion of the Apology, just before Justin s first appeal to the Romans to accept the Faith ; and they show that TO.VTO. means the substance of the Christian Faith, which Christ, after his resurrection, was supposed to have taught to the apostles, and which Justin has set before the Romans in his treatise. Clem.Alex. has it somewhat differently (Eus. 11.1.4): To James the Just and John and Peter was the Gnosis delivered (irape&taKf) by the Lord after the Resurrec tion. These delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest to the Seventy.

78. Muratorian fragment.[edit]

iv. MURATORIAN FRAGMENT. The Muratorian Fragment (about 170 A.D. ) begins thus - '. . . quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit. Tertium Evangelii librum secundum Lucan , The six words apparently referring to Mk. (on which supposition there is nothing extant about Mt. ) appear to mean that Mark was present at only some of Peter's discourses. 2 Luke s disadvantages are dwelt on : it was not till after the Ascension that Paul took him as a companion ; he compiled in his own name, on [his own] judgment, ex opinione ; 3 he had not seen the Lord in the flesh ; he [set down facts] as far as he could ascertain them. On the other hand, the Fourth Gospel was written by John, (one) of the disciples/ 4 at the exhortation of his fellow-disciples and his bishops. After a three days fast it was revealed to Andrew, (one) of the apostles, that, whilst all revised, 1 John should write all things in his own name.

The writer admits that different catholic truths (varia. principia) are taught in the Four Gospels ; but he protests thai th^re is one Catholic Spirit 2 (unus ac principalis spiritus) dictating the facts of the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, intercourse of the Lord with the disciples, and the two Advents : What wonder then if John so persistently (fonstanter) sets forth each point in his Epistle, 3 saying with reference to himself, " What we have seen with our eyes and heard with (our) ears and our hands have handled, these things we have written?" For thus he professes himself to be not only a seer but also a hearer, 4 nay and a writer (too), of all the wonderful works of the Lord in order (per ordinem). In these words the writer meets objections probably urged against the Fourth Gospel. Though differing in facts and style from the Synoptists, it was pervaded, he says, by the same one Catholic Spirit. Though written in the name of John, it had been revised and attested by the Disciples and Elders at Ephesus, and this in consequence of a special revelation, so that it might be said to come direct from Christ, and to represent, even better than the earliest Gospels, his exact teaching.

This theory of special inspiration was well calculated to facilitate the diffusion of a Gospel that seemed to supply just those things that were wanting in the Synoptists : a certainty not to be found in the various interpretations of Mt. , a fulness of doctrine to which Mk. did not pretend, and in contrast with Lk. the authority of a disciple, an eye-witness, and ear-witness, who also wrote in order. 5


1 Does Justin recognise Mk. as a distinct Gospel ? see Tryph. 106, Kai TO fin-eiy fj.eriavofjiaKei ai. O.VTOV fietpov eVa riav a7ro<rr6A.wi> xal yeypd^dai fv TOIS airofi.vriiJ.ovev IJ.O.ITI, v avroO yeyeir)- fievov (cat TOUTO, /tiera rov KOU aAAous Svo a6eA<f>oi>s uious Xej3ei5aiou ovras, jaeTiofOfiOuce i/ai ofdjtiaTi TOU Boacepye s (Mk. 3 17 alone). Here ev TOIS a. avrov would mean (we set aside the in terpretation, Memoirs of Jesus ), Peter s Memoirs, indicating (i) either that Justin accepted Mk. as, in effect, written by Peter, or (2) that he here, inconsistently, would render the phrase, Memoirs about Peter. (But aurou ( 70(3] n.) is re peatedly confounded with aiiriav.)

The passage is either tediously lengthy, or it distinguishes between what Christ said and what he did. He said that he changed Peter s name ; this is in Mt. 1617-19 and nowhere else. It is -written in the Memoirs [that he changed the name] ; this is in the triple tradition (Mk. 3 16 Mt. 10 2 Lk. 6 14). This distinction would indicate that Justin was here quoting the Memoirs of Peter (our Mk.) in support of the Logia of Mt. (a view somewhat confirmed by the fact that, when Justin intro duces quotations with (Jesus) says, he quotes from Mt.).

2 This would indicate that Mark wrote after Peter s death. Otherwise Peter could have supplied him with the substance of the discourses at which the latter was not present. Papias also implies that Mark could not correct what he had written by reference to Peter. Irenasus says (iii. 1 i) that Mark wrote after the decease (If oSov) of Peter (but see 79).

3 Nomine suo ex opinione conscripsit. Dominum tamen nec^pse vidit in carne. Ex opinione may express an original f afcoijs from hearing, not from sight. (See Westc. Canon, 519-27, Lightf. SR 183/1). But, in that case, should we not expect enim instead of tamen, He wrote, not as an eye witness, for he had not seen the Lord ? Writing a Gospel in one s own name was an innovation. Luke did it on [Ais own] private judgment (ex opinione) Lk. 1 3 it seemed good to me. How objectionable this may have seemed to some, is shown by the addition (Lk. 1 3 codex b), placuit et mihi et spirituo (sic) sancto. The Muratorian writer contrasts this later with the origin of the Fourth Gospel, which the Evangelist 'wrote down' ( descripsit, not conscripsit i.e., wrote from knowledge, not from compilation) in his own name as tlie result of a divine revelation; revelatum ... ut ... Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret. If this explanation is correct, 'sua' may have dropped after 'suo' ('Nomine suo sua e; opinione'), or 'opinio may be used absolutely meaning 'private notion. 'Tamen' would imply a contrast between the boldness of Luke's innovation and the limitations of his knowledge.

4 Andrew is here called an apostle, John a disciple. Papias calls Andrew, Peter, etc., ^disciples. The Didache identifying (11 3-5) apostles with prophets, and specifying rules for them, which, if broken, stamp an apostle as a false prophet suggests a time and place in which an apostle was little more than a missionary. It became a tradition to call John t/te disciple (as Paul is peculiarly the apostle ). Poly- crates of Ephesus, at the close of the 2nd cent., after mentioning (Eus. 331) ' Philip (who was of the Twelve apostles)', goes on to speak of ' John, who lay on the bosom of the Lord ' without any mention of apostleship. This may be explained by (i) uncertainty whether John (like Nathanael) was one of the Twelve, (2) a feeling that disciple was a higher title than apostle, or (3) a desire to describe the author of the Gospel as he de scribed himself; (2) and (3) are the most probable.

79. Irenaeus.[edit]

v. IREN^EUS (about 185 A.D. ) emphasises the unity of the Gospel as coming (iii. 11) from inspired apostles (who first preached it and then handed it down [tradiderunt] to us in Scriptures ), but touches also on the subject of distinctive authorship. He omits the various interpretations of Mt. mentioned by Papias, and the disadvantages of Lk. mentioned by the Muratorian writer. Mark is the disciple and interpreter of Peter ; Luke the companion (d/c6\oi 0os) of Paul : thus he implies that their gospels were, in effect, apostolic.

He places Mt. before Mk. as the Muratorian Fragment appears to have done. Jn. is placed after Lk. , thus : Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also lay on his breast, he too published the Gospel (/cat ai^ros t8uKe TO e. ) while living in Ephesus of Asia. Else where (iii. Hi) he says that John directed his Gospel against Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans. Matthew, he says (iii. li), published his Gospel in Hebrew while Peter and Paul in Rome were preaching and founding the Church : after their decease (or departure, i-o8ov but Lat. excessum death ), Mark (is known to have) handed down (perf. TrapaStdwKe) in writing what Peter was in the habit of preaching (Krjpvffff6/j.eva) ; Luke set down (KartOero) in a book what Paul was in the habit of preaching (icr)pvff(r6fj.fvot>). 6

1 Recognoscentibus ; Lightf. Sfi 189, certify ; but the word probably represents avayivuxritfiv, read, revise. Had the original been fiefiaiovv or en-tftapTvpeii , we should expect con- fir mare or testari.

2 Our writer has in view Ezek. 15-12, the four living creatures (i.e. the Gospels) dominated by one world-wide or catholic r&@Zis) spirit'. Irenzns develops this but hardly improves !!; i s there are (hen. iii. 118) 'four zones' &d 'four worldwide winds (J>rincipales spiritus, KoOokiKa. nvev^a-Ta., capable of meaning "catholic spirits"), so there must be four Gospels corresponding to the lion (John), ox (Luke), man (Matthew), eagle (Mark), in Rev. 47. Irenaeus seems to have felt bound to keep the order of Rev. and yet to place John first ; but the result is so strained that Jerome carried posterity with him in assigning the eagle to John and the lion to Mark.

3 Epistulis suis used of a single letter (see Lightf. SR 100), a very free quotation from r Jn. 1 1-3.

4 I.e., not merely one of the exoteric spectators of the mighty works of Jesus, but one of those privileged to hear or hear from (cp the Talmudic receive from ) Jesus i.e., to be a disciple, and a transmitter of tradition. Seer, alone, might not imply admission to the inner circle which was taught by Christ, according to Mk., during his life, and, according to Justin and Clem.Alex. (see 77 n.), after his Resurrection.

8 Why does not the writer say that Luke, too, wrote in (chronological) order (<ca<?ef rjs) ? Does he imply that Luke had failed ?

6 There is no early testimony to any simultaneous presence of the two apostles in Rome except at the time of their martyrdom (see Eus. ii. 258, quoting Dionysius of Corinth, eis TT\V lra\iav OfjLO<rf Sifiafoures e/xapTvpr)<rai> Kara TOV aiirbv Kaipov). This favours the rendering decease for ffoSov, which has this meaning in Philo 2 388 Lk. 931 2 Pet. 1 15 Eus. v. 1 36 (Letter of the Gallic Churches).

Yet the inference from Acts 28 30 (referred to in Iren. iii. 14 1) would be that (Actsli) the former treatise i.e., Lk. was composed while Paul was living. Perhaps Irenaeus may be setting down an old tradition correctly which he and subsequent writers taking Zo&ov to mean departure (from Rome) inter preted incorrectly.

80. Clement.[edit]

vi. CLEMENT. Clement of Alexandria (circa 195 A. D. ) gives (Eus. vi. 145-7) a tradition of the earliest elders ( T ^ v &"^Kaffev irpfcrfivripuv) that 'those portions of the Gospels which contain the genealogies (TIV tvayyeXiuv TO. Trepif^ovra T&S yeveaXoyias) were written first'. l

Clement adds a tradition about Mk., apparently on the authority of the same Elders, viz., that after Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and uttered (efeiTrdvros) the Gospel in the spirit (jrveufxcm), his numerous hearers besought Mark to write out what the apostle had said ; and that Peter, coming to the kno^vledge (firiyvovra.) ... of this, neither hindered nor stimulated him.

Eusebius, however, earlier in his history, gives two other tradi tions about Mk. , and appears to connect one or both of them with Clement. First he states in his own person, as a fact (ii. 15 i), that (a) Mk. originated from the request (as above described) of Peter s hearers. Then he adds 0$) (il>. 2), But they say (<f>a<ri) that the apostle, learning the accomplishment (yyovra. TO trpa-xOev) from a revelation of the Spirit, was pleased with their zeal and sanctioned the work for reading in (lit. for) the churches : Clement in the sixth book of his Outlines has quoted the [t/ull\ history (rt\v tcrroptai ),and his account is confirmed also by the Bishop of Hierapolis called Papias and further, that Peter . . . Now (b) is not in Clement s or Papias s account and differs from the spirit of both. Perhaps Eusebius, while dis tinguishing fact from doubtful tradition ( they say ), has inserted a parenthesis, corrective of the latter, to the effect that Clement has given the {full and true] history, and that Clement s view (namely, that Peter was merely the origin, but not the suggester, supervisor, or authoriser of the work) was supported in substance by Papias. If so, Eusebius, instead of committing himself to the view that Peter ratified Mk., pre pares the reader for finding it contradicted later. 2

Concerning Jn. Clement says that (Eus. vi. 167) John, last of all, reflecting that the earthly aspect (rot ffupaTtKa) had been set forth in the Gospels, at the instigation of his pupils (yvwpl/juav), by a special im pulse of the spirit (iri>fijfjLari Oeo<popr)6evTa), composed a spiritual gospel. 3

81. Summary : Mk and Mt[edit]

vii. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO MK. AND MT. 4 Papias apologises for Mark ( he was not in fault). The Muratorian Fragment appears to be apologetic ( he was present only at some discourses ). Both imply that Peter was dead when Mark wrote, so that the latter could not have the apostle's supervision. Irenaeus, though stating that Mark wrote after Peter's departure (which probably meant death ), gives no indication that he did not adequately represent the apostle ; and it is doubtful whether he did not misinterpret the word departure. Clement says that Peter lived to know what had been done by Mark, yet so far retains the apologetic as to add that Peter neither hindered nor incited the composition. Another tradition (apparently later) says that Peter was informed by the Spirit of the accomplishment of the book, and authorised it for public use. Lastly Origen, unsurpassed by early Christian writers for honesty and intellect, says (Eus. vi. 25 4-5) from tradition that Mark wrote as Peter suggested ((is TT. v<pr)yr)ffaro avry). 1 The investigation may stop here. Later writers have no further evidence, and can but exemplify the tendency of tradition, even among honest and able men, to exaggerate or to minimise, in the supposed interests of a good cause.

1 n-ejjiie xeii/, in its literary sense, means (not include but) contain as their substance, have as their contents : Diod. Sic. 14 rail yap /3i /3Atoi/ r\p.lv ef at irpta-rai ireptf\ova i ras Trpb T<OC Tpianciav irpafeis KOI juufloAoyi as (i.e. , have as their contents) , cp Eus. iii. 24i3_ The common phrase Trepie ^eiv TOV Tpoirov TOVT^V, OVTOJS, etc. (i Mace. 152 2 Mace. 11 1622) means was in substance as follows. Cp Hippol. 1032 /3t /3A.a> 7repix l I? " Ilepi TTJS TOU Trcti/Tos o\i<Tia.^," (my) book having as its contents, or entitled, "On the essence of the All." 1 Hence, irepioxi} meant a section ; and the meaning here is, the sections that have the genealogies as their contents. To place Lk. before Mk. would be inconsistent with all early tradition. See 22.

2 The tradition that Peter knew of the composition of the Gospel through the Spirit (yvovra. Tri ev/oiaTt) probably arose from Clement s firiyvovra., confused with Trviyvoina. i.e., jrveti- /naTt ypdi Ta.

! The Muratorian fragment describes a revelation to those

who urged John to write ; Clement, a spiritual impulse given to John himself.

As regards Mt. there is practically no evidence (under the head of Statements ) beyond that which has been quoted above from Papias ( 65).

5 See above, 65.

82. Summary : Lk. and Jn.[edit]

viii. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO LK. AND JN.

(1) Papias (115-130 A.D.), recognising Mk. and Mt. as apostolic ( but defective), did not thus recognise Lk. or Jn. , though traditions bearing on Jn. were probably known to him.

(2) Justin Martyr (150 A.D.), regarding the Synoptic Gospels as Memoirs written by the apostles from the teaching of Christ, and showing a preference for Lk. (in an interpolated form), affords no trace of a recognition of a Gospel like Jn. outside the stream of the Memoirs. 2

(3) The Muratorian fragment (? 170 A.D. ), welcoming the Fourth Gospel as supplying the deficiencies of the Three, meets any objection that might be raised against its divergence from the Synoptists (a) by an account of a special revelation to Andrew, in accordance with which this Gospel was written in a kind of joint authorship, though in John s name, and (b) by a protest that the Four Gospels are animated by One Spirit.

(4) Irenaeus has no trace of the theory of revision or joint authorship of Jn. He compares the four Gospels with the four winds or the four living creatures of prophecy, as being divinely ordained in number.

(5) Clement makes no mention of a revelation to Andrew or to any other of John s friends, but says that John himself received a divine impulse to write the Gospel. 3 From the time of Irenaeus the Gospel met with almost universal acceptance. 4

1 This may have been a misunderstanding of some such ex pression as in accordance with Peter s teaching. But Origen s words cannot mean the latter.

2 For alleged quotations of Justin from Jn. see 101-104.

3 Traces of the tradition in this form are retained by Theo- philus (222 irvevij.aTo<j>6piav) and Tatian (see 105^). Eusebius, after recording (iii. 24 7-11) an anonymous tradition ( they say, he says ) that John supplemented the Synoptists by request of friends, says, expressly in his own person (cp iii. 24 14 and 16 us 1 with 26.16 TU>V ap\a.iu>v), that John began his theology from the beginning, since that had been reserved for him by the divine Spirit owing to his superiority [to the other evangelists]. This appears to be the Eusebian way of expressing 6eo<j>opov- (ievo<;, a word that might seem to him to savour of Montanism.

4 An important exception has been recently brought to light. See Rendel Harris, Hernias in Arcadia, Cambridge, 1896, pp. 43-57. Eusebius gives extracts from a Dialogue against Proclus (a Montanist) written by Gaius (ii. 25 6 an orthodox writer [ai/r)p- eKKAT)<riacmic6$], vi. 203 of very great learning [AoyitoTarov] ), who wrote during the bishopric of Zephyrinus (211-217 A.D.), and whom passages from his writings indicate as resident in or near Rome. In one of these extracts, Gaius attacks (iii. 28 1-2) the notion of an earthly reign of Christ after the Resurrection, as well as the notion of pleasures and wedding festivities in Jerusalem, all of which he attributes to Cerinthus. Such an attack, even if it assailed the Johannine Apocalypse, would probably commend him to Eusebius. Now Ebed-Jesu, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, recorded that Hippolytus wrote a treatise called Heads against Gaius, and Dionysius Bar SalTbi quotes from this treatise (along with replies from Hippolytus) objections raised by Gaius not only to the Apo calypse, but also to the Fourth Gospel. An inscription on the chair of Hippolytus (222 A.D.) shows that this bishop had before that date written a treatise In defence of the Gospel according to John ami the Apocalypse, and it is argued with great force that this treatise, or an epitome of it, was the Heads against Gains."

Eusebius, whenmentioning(///s vi. 22) the worksof Hippolytus (seven or eight in number) that had come into his hands, does not include the Defence of the Gospel of John, and the Apo calypse ; and it is possible that his Heads against Gaius attacked some other work of Gaius unknown to Eusebius, not the Dialogue against Proclus. But the fact seems proved a fact so strange that learned critics have described it as im possible that a writer of the Roman Church, described by Kusebius as learned and orthodox, attacked the Fourth Gospel at the beginning of the third century. The almost complete suppression of his book and of his literary existence so complete that Bishop Lightfoot, till recently, maintained that he was a fictitious character in the Dialogue against Proclus, which (he affirmed) was written by Hippolytus shows how difficult it is for modern critics to realise that at, and shortly

II. QUOTATIONS.[edit]

after, the first appearance of the Fourth Gospel, it may have been regarded with suspicion by orthodox, educated, and con servative Christians, such as Justin in the middle of the second century-, and Gaius at the beginning of the third.

83. Quotations in Paul.[edit]

i. PAUL. Paul quotes nothing that is found in our Gospels (Lk. 22, part of 19 and 20 being set aside as an interpolation) except the saying about (1 Tim . 5:l8) the labourer worthy of his hire (cp Mt. l0:10 food, Lk. 10:7 hire ). But this is also found in the Didache, 13 1 ( food ).

Other sayings of Paul are akin to sayings in the Didache : (a) Rom. 12g-i6 Abhor that which is evil (TO rroirjpoi/), cleave to (KoAAuj/Aeyoi) that which is good (TO> ayaflw) . . . Minding not lofty things (v>/a)A.a), suffering yourselves to be carried away with the humble (ja.nei.voif) ; >id.3i-g Flee from all evil (jronjpou) and from all likeness of it. 1 . . . Thy soul shall not c/(Ttf7v(icoAA7)0>j<7-eTat) to the lofty (v.) but thou shall be conversant with the just and humble (T.), where parts of the original might apparently refer either to things or to persons 2 : () 2 Thess. 3 10 If any will not work, neither let him eat, Did. 123 ... let him ivork and [on these terms] let him eat.

Paul and Did. probably used an antecedent tradition. Rom. 122i Be not overcome by evil, closely resembles Pseudo-Clement s (Horn. 1812) Let not evil overcome us ; but the latter could not have borrowed from Paul, whom he bitterly attacks.

84. In James.[edit]

ii. JAMES. The Epistle of James, which is of uncertain date, is permeated with doctrine similar to that of the Sermon on the Mount. It contains more and closer parallels, however, to the Didache and Barnabas. 3

The passage that is closest to Mt. is that which forbids swear ing by earth, heaven, or any other oath (Mt. 5 34-37 James 5 12); but Mt. says Let your speech be "Yea, yea," James (RV) says Let your "yea" be "yea." The meanings are quite different. The former means Say " yea " and nothing more than "yea," the latter, Let your "yea" of speech be also a "yea" of action. In the latter form it is (Wetst. and Hor. Hebr. ad loc.) a common Rabbinical precept (apparently alluded to in 2 Cor. liy). As it is also thus quoted by Justin and Clem. Alex., it was probably found in some versions of Mt., and therefore the Epistle may be quoting from Mt. But it cannot be regarded as proved. In its denunciations of the rich, the Epistle resembles Lk. 624, but not so as to indicate borrowing.

85. Apparent Quotations.[edit]

iii. APPARENT QUOTATIONS. Passages apparently quoted from the Gospels, in the Epistles of Paul and James ; have been shown above ( 8:3-4 } to be found in sources other, and probably earlier, than the Gospels.

There were probably many manuals of Christ s moral teaching (of which the Sermon on the Mount is one) as well as of his predictions concerning the last day ; probably, too, collections of OT prophecies bearing on the Messiah, and perhaps accounts of the Passion showing how these prophecies were fulfilled. These, together with the narratives of his life mentioned by Lk. 1 i, and the various interpretations of Mt. s Logia mentioned by Papias, necessarily left their impress on the earliest Christian writers even after the Four Gospels were recognised as canonical, and still more before that time. Hence, it is unsafe to infer (without further consideration of circumstances) that Barnabas quoted Mt., or Clem.Alex. quoted Clem.Rom., or Justin quoted Jn. because of similarity, or even identity, in the quota tions. For example, it has recently been inferred that the Vision of Hernias must be later than is usually supposed, because it ( Vis. iv. 2 4) quoted Dan. 622 from the version of Thepdot. (180 A.D.). But Heb. 11 33 appears to quote the same version. Moreover, Rev. 9 20 12 7 13 7, etc., resemble Theodot. s version. It appears, therefore, that Theodot. incorporated in his version an earlier one, used by the authors of Heb. and Rrs. (see Diet. o/\Cht ist. Biogr., s.v. Theodotion, and Rendel Harris s Hennas in Arcadia, 25).

1 an-6 irai/ros O/AOI OU avrou, a saying found in the Talmud (Taylor, Teaching of Twelve A post. 24). Cp i Thess. 5 22, OTTO Trairbs e!5ous irovripov aire^etrOf.

- CJem.Rom. 46, goes with the Didache: It is written, Cleave OcoAAaatfe) to them that are holy, followed by a quotation from f s -1325/:, which he misunderstands, as if it described the influence of companionship for good or evil. So Clem.Alex. 077, only reversing the order ; he also (ib.) quotes Barnabas One should cleave with (<coAA5o0<u fieri) them that fear the Lord.

  • E-S- tne use of (a) 6i<ln>xos, () WUTOS, (c) jrpoo-ojiroAijmJa a,

(<*) Isaac offered on the altar ; cp with (a) Did. 44701, Barn. 19 7 ii, (b~) Barn. 1 2 9 9, (c) Did. 4 3, (d) Barn. 7 3 (Heb. 11 17 ora. altar ).

86. Oxyrhyncus fragment.[edit]

iv. LOGIA OF OXYRHYNCHUS. The Logia of Behnesa (Oxyrhynchus fragment) are an example of such a 'manual' as has been described above . They are a fragment of what seems to have been a very ancient edition of a Sermon on the Mount. The extreme antiquity of the MS (probably not later than 200 A.D. ) and the frequent allusions to it (or to doctrine similar to it) in Clem.Alex. 1 combine to show the antiquity of the subject matter. But a still stronger proof is found in the nature of two of the sayings. Justin, when using such a phrase as Sabbatise the sabbath, avoids the danger of literalism by saying ( Tryph. 12) the true sabbath," the sabbath of God, etc.; and Clem. Alex, is even more cautious. Ignatius (Magn. 9) bids his readers not sabbatise but live in accordance with the Lord s Day. No one, therefore, but Jesus (who did not shrink from utterances seemingly inconsistent) appears likely to have originated such a saying. The same argument applies to the last words in the same Logion ( Unless . . . , ye shall not see the Father ). The phrase 'see God' is in Mt.'s Sermon ; but 'see the Father' occurs only in Jn. 149, 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father', a rebuke to Philip's expectation of a materialistic and future 'seeing the Father'. These and many other considerations indicate that the Logia are genuine sayings of Jesus, ignored or suppressed because of the dangerous tendency of some of them, and the obscurity of others.

The Logia testify to the antiquity of (a) passages in the Sermon on the Mount, () the proverb about a prophet in his own country (favouring Lk. s versions of these sayings). They also show traces of Johannine thought. 2 They use a Hebraism ( the sons of men ) found only in Mk. 828, and apparently corrupted in the later Gospels. Another Hebraism is probably latent in the phrase fast (accus.) the world (j ov KOO-/JL.OI ) i.e., fast during the [present] age (the Hebrew for world and age being the same). The meaning is, fast as to the six days of the flesh : sabbatise the sabbath of the spirit. 3

1 Dr. J. B. Mayor pointed out that Clem.Alex. (556) has TOW Koo-fj-ov nj<r-eu oiTes (not alleged as yet from any other Greek author). For similarities of thought, cp Clem.Alex. 092, 876, 878, 810-811, 770, 323, 789-790, 214, 374, 466, 64-65, 883, 466.

2 It is characteristic of Jesus to use sayings that are literally inconsistent. Hence (a) seeing the Father is Johannine, in spite of, or because of, Jn. 14 9. So also is (b) thirst, used abso lutely of spiritual thirst (see Jn. 4 13-15 6 35 7 37 19 28, and the beautiful saying imputed to Jesus [Resch, Agr. 129] by Origen, himself as (Jn. passim) 'coming to ' 'being in', etc. the world (Log. 'I stood in the midst of the world') ; (d) the impossibility that the true disciple can ever be alone (Jn. 1632); (e) the impediment presented by knowledge (ytvuMricovTas) to the art of spiritual healing (Jn. 7 27).

3 Log. //. 27-29, 'raise the stone . . . cleave the tree', appears to mean that any single disciple while doing his Master's work by raising up stones to be children of Abraham, and by cutting down and cleaving the barren tree of Pharisaean conventional Law that 'cumbered the ground' would have his Master with him (cp Jer. 1 8-10 'I am with thee ... I have set . . . thee to pluck up and to break down, . . . and to build and to plant' ). If so, it is parallel to the doctrine of the Baptist recorded by Mt. 3 10 Lk. 3 9 about the stones and the tree (see Amer. Journ. ofTheol. vol. ii. no. i [ 98]).

  • Cp Eph. 432, ytVecrOe 6e ei? oAAjjAou? \pi^<rroi. Rom. 11 22

(fir! ie <re ^TJOTOTT?? 6cov, eav firifj.fi ji^ TTJ x/njarorijTi) is equiva lent to xprjorevou ai xpTjo-TevOijcreTat <rot. Clem.Alex. quotes this passage twice : once (954), embodying in his own remarks (without indicating quotation) a free condensation of Mt. 7 I$ Lk. 633; once (476), with the preface 'saith (+qrlv) the Lord', quoting almost exactly as Clem.Rom. The variation may indicate that, in the latter instance, he is borrowing from some earlier tradition from which Clem. Rom. also borrowed (as above, in the saying about 'cleaving to them that are holy '). Similarly Clem.Alex. when he asserts (377) that the Scripture says, ' My son, be not a liar, for lying leadeth to theft', is probably not giving the name of 'Scripture' to Hermas (Mand. 3) 'They therefore who lie . . . have denied the commandment of the Lord and become defrauders of him," but is quoting (what Herrnas is trying to spiritualise) Did. 3 5, My child, be not a liar, since lying leadeth to theft, or some book on which Did. 3 5 is based.

87. Clement of Rome.[edit]

v. CLEMENT. Clement of Rome (about 95 A. D. ) has (a) (13) a passage (resembling Mk. 4241125 Mt. 67614 7 2 I2 Lk. 636-3831) which, when compared with Polycarp (Phil 2) and Clem. Alex. (476), shows pretty conclusively that these writers had in mind some other tradition than that of the Synoptists.

The subject is kindness and mercy. Clem.Rom., besides throwing the Synoptic tradition into a terse antithetical form, adds <os xp7/(rreve<r#e, OVTCOS xpi7aTev07J<TeT<u \j\iiv. The word XplcTTeveiv occurs nowhere in NT except in i Cor. 184. Here, and in the context (14), Clem.Rom. uses it thrice, and also (13 ; see Lightf.)misquotes under Pauline influence. This points lo his use of some Pauline tradition of Christ s teaching about kind ness and mercy. The Didache explains the reason. It has mis understood the word kindness in the narrow Jewish sense of almsgiving, so that, instead of Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy, it has (1 5) Blessed is he \hz.\. giveth according to the commandment, for he is exempt (from punish ment at the Day of Judgment). Against such a Judaising version the broad Pauline xp r t a " rf ^_ elv would express a useful protest. 4 The saying is introduced with a preface (' Remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spake' ) similar to that in Acts 20 35, which is prefixed to a saying not found in any Gospel. This confirms the view that Clement is referring to a Pauline manual of the Words of the Lord.

(b) Elsewhere Clem. Rom. (46) in the same chapter in which he quotes cleave to the holy, and is followed by Clem. Alex., both apparently quoting from some version of the Lord s Words combines Mk. 942 14 21 and parall. Mt. ; and again Clem. Alex. (561) agrees with him. Clem.Rom. has Remember the words of Jesus our Lord, how he said, Woe unto that man. It were well for him if he had not (oil) been born, rather than that he should cause to stumble one of my elect. It were better for him that a mill-stone were put round him and that he were sunk in the sea, than that he should pervert (fitaorpe i//ai) one of my elect. Clem. Alex. (561) has the same, substituting py for oil, and saith (^rjeriV) the Lord for remember . . . saith. The reduplication of statement has a Hebraic sound, and it is probable (both because of Clem. Rom. s preface, and because of the apparent borrowing from Logia in the same chapter) that the two authors are here, as above, quoting independently, from an ancient tradition of the Words of the Lord. 1

(c) Clem.Rom. 15 condenses Is. 29 13 similarly to Mk. 76 Mt. 158 omitting the bracketed words in the following quotation 158 omitting the bracketed words in the following quotation from the LXX : [dyyl<a COLI Q habr o&os [dv ri) mdparc ahoQ Ka; ;VI r?is X ~ ~ AW LV a&r&vrrpjuivpe (Clem. p; n p ~ , omitting a+r&v), 7 62 Kap6ia aCrGvr6 po 1x6 6‘ (Clem. dr~&) &r’ Zpo~. The bracketed words interfere wid the antithesis and Justin omits them (allusively) in Tryph. 27 and 80 (xedemv opohopoi yoas TOV 9eov, a>5 aurbs Keicpayfv 6 0eb? -n]v &e KapSiav nopp<a f\eiv [sic] an- aviToO). Yet in Tryph. 78 he quotes the passage quite differently, omitting ev TU ord/uaTt O.VTOV Kai iv with NAQ of (5, but taking eyyi^ei /not 6 A. ou. as a separate sentence, so that the latter part preserves the antithesis. These facts, and the re markable variations in the text of the LXX and in that of Mk.-Mt., indicate that Clem. Rom. may be here quoting from some Christian manual of prophecy used also by other authors. Clem. Alex. , who frequently quotes it, is said by Lightf. (Clem.Rom. 15) to follow Clem.Rom. But this is not likely. For, in the only passage where he resembles Clem.Rom., Clem. Alex. (461) has toriV, Clem.Rom. a-rreo-Ttv. Now ttrnv is the reading of D in Mt. 15 8 (adopted by Clem. Alex, also in 143). Probably, therefore, Clem. Alex, is following Mt. 158 (or some ancient version of it). Clem. Alex, has elsewhere (206) ^lAoCo-i for TL/J.HICTI, and similarly D has ayaira for ri^ia in Mk. 76. Also Clem. Alex, has else where (577) 6 crepes Aaos. The facts are conclusive negatively. The passage does not prove that Clem.Rom. is quoting from Mk.-Mt.

No further quotations of importance are alleged. The conclusion is, that (i) Clem.Rom. is certainly not proved to have quoted from our Gospels ; (2) in (a) and (b) he is probably quoting from Logia not now ex tant ; (3) in (c) he may be quoting from our Gospels, but quite as probably from a Manual (or some Oral Tradition) of prophecy in Christian use.

1 The words better . . . born occur only in our Lord s utterance about Judas at the Last Supper. It seems very unlikely that Clem.Rom., even though he combines OT passages in a very arbitrary way, would apply such words to quite a different matter, and that Clem. Alex, would follow him. The authority of some collection of the Logia seems needed to explain it, and to justify the two authors.

The Lord's Day occurs in the Apocalypse (1 10), which at all events so far as concerns the passage including the term was probably written (as Irenaeus asserted) in, or a little before, 96 A.D.

88. Didache.[edit]

vi. DIDACHE. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (? 80-110 A.D. ) is a composite document. The earlier part (1-6), consisting of the Doctrine of the Two Ways, inculcates precepts of the Lord, without appeal to his words, or Gospel ; the latter part appeals to both. The Gospel meant is probably Mt. The addition of a doxology to the Lord s prayer, and the mention of (14 1) the Lord s Day, 2 indicate for the latter portion a date toward, or after, the close of the first century. There is no indication that Lk. was known to the writer, apart from supplements or correc- tions of Mt. in the Two Ways. 1 So far as this little book is concerned, the Gospel to which it refers might consist of a version of the Sermon on the Mount and the Precepts to the Twelve. On the Second Advent, the writer mentions (166-8) the Signs of the Truth" with such apparent independence of Mt. as to make it doubtful whether, in the context, the resemblances to Mt. indicate quotations from Mt.

Of all the promises or blessings in Mt. 63-11, the earlier part of the Didachi inserts only two. Did.Sj, Be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth, is based (as Mt. 5 5 is) on Ps. 37:21. Did. 1:5, 'Blessed is he that giveth in accordance with the commandment', refers to 'the commandment' which the writer has just quoted (Mt. 5 42 Lk. 6 30), 'Give to every one that asketh thee, and ask not again'. But the Hebrew for 'give alms' is often represented by Bhseiv, and 'alms' by Bhqpom'vq (cp ALMS), so that 'blessed is he that giveth' might be, in NT Greek, juoucapioi 01 tAeoOi Tes (or eAeTJ/uoves as in Mt. 67). It should be noted that Lk. omits both these passages. 2

The Epistle of Barnabas.[edit]

vii. BARNABAS. The Epistle of Barnabas ; assigned by Lightfoot (BE 91) to 70-79 A. D. , but by others placed later.

89. Barnabas and Synoptists.[edit]

(i) Alleged Synoptic Quotations in Barnabas.

(a) This Epistle is alleged to quote Mt. 22 14 as Scripture ( Barn - 4l:4): 'Let us give heed lest, as it is written, we be found "many called but few chosen"'

The application of the title Scripture to NT before the end of the first century, if here intended, would be unique. But there are several reasons for doubting the intention, (i) In other allusions to Synoptic tradition, the author does not quote as from Scripture. (2) He twice quotes Enoch, either as (IK 5) Scrip ture, or with it is written "(4s): The last stumbling-block hath drawn nigh, concerning which it is written, as Enoch* saith, "For to this end hath the Lord cut short the times . . ." Now (3) these two passages agree with the one under discussion in treating of the last days, on which subject Enoch was an authority. Also, (4) in the last-mentioned passage, whereas he might have quoted Mk. 13 20 Mt. 2422 (if known to him as canonical) about the cutting short of the times, he not only quotes Enoch instead and treats it as Scripture, but also (5) appears to add words not now extant in Enoch ( For to this end," etc.). (6) The book of Enoch, as we have it, is a com posite work, and is likely to have existed in many forms. (7) If it originated for NT (or, at all events, anticipated) the phrases Mammon of unrighteousness," Gehenna, the New Jeru salem, the Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory, it had been good for him if he had not been born, 4 it is a very natural supposition that it may have contained the saying in question.

These considerations make it fairly probable that the author is either quoting the words from a version of Enoch, or confusing some tradition of the Words of Christ with a version of Enoch, and make either of these suppositions very much more probable than that he is quoting from Mt. as Scripture.

(b) and (c) In Barn. 5 9 Christ is said to have chosen as his apostles men exceeding in lawlessness (avontuTepovs) beyond all sin, that he might show that he came not to call (the) righteous tut sinners. There is nothing to show quotation, but the words may come from Mk. 217 (or Mt. 9 13, Lk. inserts to repentance ) or from some document, or tradition, used by Mk. (c) Among several quotations from unknown (7 4 11 9 12 i) prophets Barn, refers to the New Creation of man thus (613): The Lord saith, Behold I make the last as the first. This may possibly be akin to the Synoptic (Mk. 1031 and Mt.-Lk.) The last shall be first ; cp Mt. 2014, I will give unto this last even as unto thee.

(d) In 7 ii and 11 n the author probably, but not certainly, assigns to Jesus words not in our Gospels. He (log) regards the Ascension as taking place on the day of the Resurrection. x


1 Did.lGi, though at first sight suggesting Lk. 12 35, is probably an allusion to Mt. 25 i amplified by an allusion (to 'loins girt' in [Ex. 12 n] the first Passover) which became current in the Church (i Pet. 1 13 Eph. 6 14). The latter part is more like a blending of Mk. 13 35 and Mt. 244244, than like Lk. 12 40.

2 Lk.'s omission of all the blessings pronounced on positive virtue ( meekness, peacemaking, purity, and mercy [or almsgiving ]) is perhaps dictated by some doctrinal considera tion. The same cause may explain why, in his parallel to Mt. 5 48, re Aeioi ( ye shall be perfect ), he preferred a tradition that gave (Lk. 636) oiKTippowc, pitiful (possibly a synonym for a poetic eAeivot or eAeZoi MS form of eAeetroi a corruption of re Aeioi)- eAeeij/os (for which the Hatch-Redpath Concordance wrongly gives eAejji/os) occurs thrice in Dan. (iP).

3 The Latin substitutes Daniel for Enoch and takes the words, for to this, etc., as coming from Barnabas.

4 See Charles (Enoch, pp. 47-49), who traces its influence in almost every book of NT, and conspicuously in Heb. 4 13 (Enoch 9 5, 'All things are naked and open in thy sight, and thou seest all things and nothing can hide itself from thee'), which some suppose to have been written by Barnabas. It has also influenced Irenaeus, Justin and other early writers. The tradition of Papias about the vine with 10,000 branches comes, directly or indirectly, from Enoch 10 19.

90. Barnabas and John.[edit]

(2) Anticipations of Jn. in Barnabas. The special points of interest in this epistle are that ( i ) it was written before the Fourth Gospel (2) the latter resembles it in many points:

  • (a) (Barn. 11 n-12 5 ) the juxtaposition of baptism and the brazen serpent, and the parallel between the serpent and Christ ;
  • (b) (6:6) the application of Ps. 22 18 to the casting lots over Christ's vesture;
  • (c) (7:9) the piercing ( KO.Ta.KevT fira> Tes 2 ) of Christ;
  • (d) (11:1) the connection between the Cross and Water, followed by a connection between the Cross and Blood ;
  • (e) (11:11) " Whosoever shall eat of these shall live for ever. " This means, Whosoever, " saith he, shall hear these things when they are spoken and shall believe, shall live for ever." 3

It will be seen below ( 101) that many of the so-called imitations of Jn. by Justin might be called, less inaccurately, imitations of Barnabas.

91. Simon Magus.[edit]

viii. SIMON MAGUS. The Great 'Apophasis' of Simon Magus (Lightf. BE 105, 'probably composed somewhere about the close of the first century, perhaps before the Gospel of John was written, or at least circulated' ) twice uses the phrase (Hippol. 6 12 14) remain alone in potentiality (ptimv rfj SvvAfiei fj.6vov), and once (ib. 16) 'but if a tree abide alone' (ea 5e fitiVrj &ev&pov fj.6vov) to denote, as in Jn. 1224, that which remains barren and which will perish with the world because it is not made fruitful by being likened to the (divine) image of the Spirit. 4 Simon's doctrine of three divine beings (il>. 17) 'there are three that stand', his allegorising of the Pentateuch in connection with the regeneration of man, the general tone of his materialism, and the wide scope of his influence, make it probable that Jn. had Simon in view when he composed his Gospel.

1 Herein he appears to anticipate Jn. 20 17. See 25 n., and 31.

2 Jn. 1937 Rev. 17 cfeKe i/TTjtrap.

3 Cp Jn. 624^651 63, He that heareth my word (Koyov) and believeth in him that sent me hath eternal life, If any man shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, the words (prj^ara) that I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life.

The similarity is striking ; still it would be a mistake to say "In. borrowed from Barnabas. Barnabas, borrowing from Ezekiel, has previously been alluding (11 9) to the prophet who calls the land of Jacob (Ezek. 206) praised (<5 Kijpiov, var. Swarri, Hebr. glory ), continuing as follows (11 10), Next (etTa) what saith he? "and there was a river winding from the right, and there went up from it fair trees, and whoso shall eat thereof shall live for ever." The italicised words are not in Ezekiel ; but they were (doubtless) in the writer s version of Ezekiel, or in some Christian Manual of prophecy containing Christianized extracts from Ezek. 47 1-12, from which also comes probably Rev. 22 if. ( a river of water of life, etc.).

The tradition, then, was common to the Church at the close of the first century, and Jn. may be quite independent of Barnabas. The latter generally regards the Cross as a tree, and the crucified Jesus as the fruit of the tree (cp Lightf. on Ignat. Smyrn. i) planted by the side of the baptismal stream. The former regards the fountain for sin and uncleanness as flowing out of Jesus himself, but out of Jesus on the Cross, his throne to which he is lifted up.

4 Jn. applies the phrase to a grain of wheat, Simon to a tree. It looks as though Simon had misunderstood Christ s doctrine in such a way as to induce Jn. to emphasise it. The union of the grain with the earth is intelligible ; the union of a tree with fertilising influences affords a far less natural and forcible metaphor. The Logion of Behnesa indicates that Jesus may have taught a systematic doctrine about abiding alone. Tatian (13) ( If it [the soul] live alone (IUOIT) /uei/ SiaiTto^eVij) it inclines downward to matter, dying with the flesh ; but if it has obtained union (crufuyiav) with the divine Spirit, it is no longer without an ally ) is closer to Simon than to Jn.

6 Lightf. s index contains several Ignatian resemblances to Lk. One of these is Rom. 7 ( pleasures of this life ) resembling Lk. 8 14 ( pleasures of life ). But the phrase had been made popular by Euripides (ffz&5ol. 383) slob ljdauai rrohha‘r @Lou. Of the two marked as 'quotations', one (E@. 14 'the tree is manifest from its fruit ') is more like Mt. 12 33 (' From the fruit the tree is known') than like Lk. 644 ('Each tree is known from its own fruit ') ; the other (Smyrn. 3 ' Take handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon ') has been shown to be not from Lk. (see 2 9 /).

92. Ignatius.[edit]

ix. IGNATIUS. Ignatius (before no A.D. ) mentions a Gospel which he compares with the Law and the Prophets in such a way as to indicate that it was written - Philad . 5 8 9, Smyrn. 5, 7. He quotes short sentences found in Mt. (once [Eph. 16] a phrase peculiar to Mk. 843). He never quotes Lk. 5

The Gospel (Philad. 9, Smyrn. 7) is said to contain the Passion or Resurrection and also (Philad. 5, 9) the flesh and (personal) presence (rrapouori a) * of Jesus i.e., it brings Christ before us as in the flesh. But when he speaks of the Incarnation, Ignatiusdoes not appeal to the Gospel, but speaks in his own name ; describ ing, for example, {Eph. 19) the star in the east in language incompatible with any sober acceptance of Mt. s account, and actually saying, almost in the language of Simon Magus, that the Logos (JMagn. 8) came forth from. Silence a dangerous expression, hardly possible for any one who devoutly accepted the Fourth Gpspel.2

The Ignatian passages commonly alleged to prove that Ignatius recognised Jn. as a Gospel simply prove that he knew the substance of some traditions incorporated in Jn.

  • (a) Philad. 7, The Spirit . . . knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, and convicteth the things that are secret, is closer in thought (though not in word) to In. 814 than to Jn. 38. It is a tradition from Gen. 16s, quoted by Philo 1576 (and Qua-st. Gen.), Conviction therefore, speaking to the soul, saith unto her, " Whence contest thou and where goest t/iou? " Ignatius is closer to Philo than to Jn.

(b) Philad. 9, the door of the Father, may be traced to Clem. Rom. 48 and back to Ps. 118 if., it being a natural tradition that the gate of righteousness is the gate in Christ, and that this leads to life and to the Father. ^

Lastly, such variations as (c) Rom. 7 bread of God (only once in Jn.), (d) Eph. 17 iq, etc. prince of this age, and (e) Magn. 5 His living (TO (ftv) is not in us instead of the familiar bread of life, prince of this war Id, His life is not in us

would be almost impossible, if the Fourth Gospel were familiar to the author as a gospel, but quite natural if he had a recent acquaintance with the substance of it as a recent doctrine.

The conclusions are that Ignatius (i) recognised Mt. and probably Mk. as a written gospel, but (2) did not recognise Lk. or Jn. The latter is confirmed by the fact that ( 29, 30) in order to demonstrate the reality of the Resurrection, he appeals, not to Lk. or Jn. , but to an apocryphal tradition. The gospel of Ignatius does not appear to have contained Mt.'s account of the Incarnation as we have it. The deficiency in Mt.'s account of the Resurrection he supplies from apocryphal sources. 4 Though he does not acknowledge Jn. as a gospel, he accepts a rudimentary Logos-doctrine, and has an acquaintance (but not a familiarity) with Johannine thought.

93. Polycarp.[edit]

x. POLYCARP. Polycarp (no A.D. ; see 87) has sayings similar to those in the Sermon on the Mount (Phil. 2), and to the words of the Lord in Mk. 14 3 8 Mt. 26 4 i (Phil. 7).

The former may be from a version of the Didacht, but the latter indicates that, like Ignatius, he knew the gospel of Mk. and Mt.

  • (a) His omission (Phil. 2) of the words in the spirit, in quoting Mt. 53, poor in the spirit, resembles Lk. 620, but may only indicate that Polycarp and Lk. herein agreed in adopting the same version or interpretation of the Logia.
  • (b)(Phil. 7) 'Every one that confesseth not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is Antichrist', resembles i Jn. 43, 'every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God ; and this is the [spirit] of the Antichrist' ; but it much more resembles 2 Jn. 7 '. . . they that confess not that

Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist'. Now 2 Jn. is a disputed Epistle, so that if Eusebius believed it to be a quotation, he would be bound to call attention to it. 1 But he makes no mention of it, though he tells us that Polycarp (iv. 149) quoted i Pet. It is probable, therefore, that he regarded the words, not as a quotation, but as a mere use of Johannine traditions in vogue during the conflict against Docetism. 2

The conclusion, so far as any can be drawn from so short a letter, is, that Polycarp knew Mk. and Mt. but not Lk. or Jn. , though he used a Johannine tradition embodied in a disputed epistle.


1 Cp 2 Cor. 10 10, 17 Trapoutrc a TOV <ra))naTOS, bis bodily presence.

2 The statement that (Rom. 2), as a martyr, he will be J God s 'Logos', but otherwise a mere 'sound', is based on a distinction common from Aristotle downwards ; Simon's Apophasis similarly distinguishes between (Hippel. 64) 'sound' and 'name'. Such a play on 'Logos' would be possible while the Logos doctrine was plastic ; scarcely possible (because scarcely reverent) for one who had received as apostolic the Logos-doctrine of Jn.

3 See Hegesippus (Eus. ii. 238), What is the door of Jesus ? to which James replies apparently that the Saviour is the door (TOVTOV elcai TOV 2<oTrjpa), cp Eph. 2 18 Rev. 38 Hebr. 10 20.

4 Smyrn. 2 (saying that Christ raised himself up ) seems incongruous with Mt. s account of the descent of an angel to roll away the stone, but agrees better with Pseudo-Peter, who says (9) that the stone rolled away of itself, implying, perhaps, that Christ caused it to roll away and arose by his own power (so that the angels descended merely to carry hint up to heaven). The more orthodox account is that of Paul, and i Pet. l2i quoted by Polycarp, Phil. 2, believing on him who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.

94. Papias.[edit]

xi. PAPIAS. Papias (120-30 A.D. ) is probably (Lightf. BE 67) recorded by Irenaeus (v. 36 1 2) to have preserved a tradition of a saying of the Lord, 'In the region (tv rots) of my Father there are many abiding-places (/j.ovds). Cp J n. 14:2

'In my Father s house (oi/a p) are many abiding-places'.

The context indicates that Papias had one meaning and Jn. another. Papias (taking the word as used by Pausanias x. 31 7 encampment, halting-place ) means there are many stages on the journey upwards viz. the New Jerusalem, Paradise, and Heaven. This explains why Papias has in the region, while Jn. has in the house. * fiovai means stages in the Petrine Apocalypse and in Clem. Alex. (pp. 1000, 1003, 579^, 645, 794), who also (p. 797) speaks of the three fj.ova.i hinted at (o.ifurcroi Tai) by the three numbers in the Gospel." The three numbers are explained by Papias as the thirty, sixty, and hundred of the Parable. of the Sower.

The conclusion is that Papias is not quoting and misinterpreting Jn. ,but quoting, and interpreting in accordance with tradition, a Logion (illustrating the Synoptic Parable of the Sower) of which Jn. gives a different version.* And this leads to the inference that, if Papias had Jn. in his mind, he did not recognise it as an apostolic gospel.

95. Epistle to Diognetus.[edit]

xii. DIOGNETUS. The Epistle to Diognetus, in its former portion (Lightf. 117-47 A.D.), while accepting a Logos-doctrine, accepts it(ch. 7) in a non-Johannine form (see Lightf. on Col. 1 16): but phrases in ch. 6-7 10 indicate a familiarity, if not with Jn. as a gospel, at all events with Johannine doctrine and method of expression.

The latter portion (Lightf. 180-210 A.D.), short though it is, yet contains (ch. ll)an apparent allusion to Jn. 1(5 29( Nowspeakest thou clearly [Trapprjo-i ix] ), which makes it highly probable that the author had read Jn. The late date, however, makes this testimony of little importance.

96. Hermas.[edit]

xiii. HERMAS. The Shepherd of Hermas (114-156 A.D.) contains no traces of recognised authoritative Johannine thought. The alleged similarities of language may generally be traced to common tradition based on OT e.g . , (Sim. 9 1 2) the Rock and the Gate, (16.) the Son a Fellow-counsellor with the Father in creation (cp Ecclus. 249 with Is. 96) ; (Sii. 5e) showed them the paths of life (cp Ps 16 n ). Mand. 3 has no connection with i Jn. 827. The Logos-doctrine (cp Sim. 9 i That Spirit is the Son of God, and see.SY;. 56) is so strikingly unlike that of Jn. that the writer would seem either not to know Jn. , or to reject it as non-authoritative. 5

1 See g 66 above. Eusebius s omission here is the more noteworthy because (though not bound to do it) he tells us that Papias and Irentfus quoted I Jn. Much more would he feel bound to tell us that Polycarp, earlier than either of them, quoted both i Jn. and 2 Jn. Nor could it have escaped him in so short an epistle, Polycarp's only extant work.

2 Besides the instances above-mentioned, Lightf. s Index mentions, as a resemblance to Jn., Phil. 12 that your fruit may be manifest among all. . Jn. 15 16 has that your fruit may remain, but i Tim. 415 has that thy progress may be manifest to all, and the notions of fruit and progress are both Pauline (cp Rom. 6 22 your fruit ).

3 Clem. Alex, has (69) ei> rots to describe a saint s citizenship in the region of the Father. The primary meaning of ev TOIS is at a man s place, property, or estate ; at his home is only a secondary meaning.

4 Cp the Slavonic Enoch (Charles 61 2) For in the world to come . . . there are many mansions prepared for men, good for the good, evil for the evil, many without number. This may be one of several instances where the language of Enoch appears in the doctrine of Jesus.

1 No doubt many early authors (such as Tatian and Theo- philus), though accepting Jn., may have retained for a long time traces of an older Logos-doctrine sometimes more like that of Philo. But Hermas goes beyond any bounds consistent with acceptance of Jn. \r\Sitn. v. 6 The Holy Spirit which pre existed, which created all the creation, was caused by God to dwell in flesh [in] which he desired [it to dwell]. That [flesh] therefore . . . along with the Holy Spirit, he chose as a partner."

97. Basilides.[edit]

xiv. BASILIDES. Basilides (117-138 A.D.) is frequently alleged to have quoted from Jn. ; but (owing to the difficulty of distinguishing between quotations from Basilides and quotations from his followers, and the fact that Hippolytus and Clem.Alex. differ from Irenaeus in their expositions of his doctrine) the only ground for the allegations is in an extract (Clem.Alex. 599 /., expressly quoting the 23rd book of his Exegetica) which teaches that all suffering proves the sufferer to have sinned. Against this doctrine not by any means peculiar to Basilides Jn. protests when it states that (9 3) the man who was born blind was not born so because he had sinned. With that protest before him, Basilides could hardly have accepted Jn., in its entirety, as authoritative.

So far as it goes, then, the evidence indicates that Basilides did not accept Jn. as an authoritative gospel.

98. Marcion.[edit]

XV.MARCION. Marcion is mentioned by Justin Martyr (150 AD) after the two very early heretics Simon Magus and Menander, as even now teaching and as having gained followers in every race.

This implies that Marcionism had been flourishing for several years, and points to 125-135 A.D. as the date for Marcion's gospel. Rejecting the OT and the God therein assumed, he was forced, if he adopted any of the four gospels, to make many changes and omissions e.g., in 1 'have not come to destroy the law but to fulfil' he transposes 'fulfil' and 'destroy'. His gospel is shown by extracts to agree largely with Lk., but to omit many passages peculiar to Lk. He did not call it by Lk.'s name, and may have regarded it as but one of many interpreta tions of the Logia of Mt., more authoritative than most, and better adapted than our Mt. to express his anti-Jewish views. The omissions and alterations that he would have had to make in Jn. are trifling as compared with those which he was forced to introduce into Lk., and Marcion's alleged Pauline predilections hardly afford a satisfactory reason for his not selecting Jn.

The conclusion is that, in 125-135 A. D. , Lk. had come into prominence as a recognised gospel in Marcion's region, but that Jn. was not yet equally prominent.

99. Valentinus.[edit]

xvi. VALENTINUS. Valentinus (141-156 A.D.) is assumed by Tertullian (De praece 38) to use our gospels. Irenaeus says that his followers freely used the Fourth. Hippolytus (635) gives, as from Valentinus himself, a quotation from Jn. 10s 'All that are come before me are thieves and robbers'. But Tatian has thrice a somewhat similar allusion (calling it on one occasion a saying of the most excellent Justin )(chaps. 12 14 IS), referring to demons who have been robbers of deity and have taken men captive. As has been shown above ( 57 n.), it is probably the Synoptic tradition about the contrast between the ideal ruler and the ruler of this world, thrown into a Johannine form, which found its way into Christian tradition before Jn. was generally recognised as authoritative.

100. Summary.[edit]

xvii. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE JUSTIN. Thus, up to the middle of the second century, though there are traces of Johannine thought and tradition, and immature approximations to the Johannine Logos-doctrine, yet in some writers (e.g., Barnabas and Simon) we find rather what Jn. develops, or what Jn. attacks, than anything that imitates Jn. , and in others (e.g. , Polycarp, Ignatius, and Papias) mere war-cries of the time, or phrases of a Logos- doctrine still in flux, or apocalyptic traditions of which Jn. gives a more spiritual and perhaps a truer version. There is nothing to prove, or even suggest, that Jn. was recognised as a gospel. Many of these writers, how ever, are known to us by extracts so short and slight that inference from them is very unsafe ; it is otherwise with the writer next to be considered.

101. Justin.[edit]

xviii. JUSTIN. Justin Martyr (145-9 A.D.) has been found above ( 75^ ) ( i ) quoting freely from Mt. and Lk. ; (2) sometimes appearing to use a harmony of the two; (3) adopting Lk. by preference as to the Miraculous Conception and the Passion ; (4) quoting (apparent) interpolations in Lk. ; and (5) showing a disposition to maintain the claims of Lk. as a new but authoritative version of the Memoirs of the apostles. The instances given ( 75-77) to prove these conclusions will suffice to show Justin s attitude toward the Synoptists. It remains to consider his attitude toward Jn. as deducible from alleged quotations, or types, borrowed from it ; abstentions from quotation ; agree ments, or disagreements, with Jn. s doctrine or statement.

(1) Minor apparent Johannine quotations.

(a) Try ph. 123, We are called and are the true children of God, is alleged (Lightf. BE 88) to be from Jn. 1 12, and i Jn. 3 if. that we should be called the children of God, and (so) we are. Both Justin and Jn. are alluding, partly (i) to Jewish tradition about God s calling Isaac to birth and thereby causing him to &. (Gen. 21 12 In Isaac shall thy seed be called, Rom. 4 17 calleth the things that are not [TO. ^ ovra] as though they were [u>s oi Ta] ) ; partly (2) to the tradition that Isaac was called from the dead (Heb. 11 19 that God was able to raise [him] from the dead, to be compared with Josephus s comment on the sacrifice of Isaac [Ant. i. 182] that God was able to bring men into abundance of the things that are not [TU>C OVK ovriav], and to take away the things that are ) , partly (3) to Philonian traditions about God s creative call (Philo 2 367 He calleth the things that are not [TO. ;ur) 6Vra] so that they are [ei TO ctvai] : cp Philo 2:176) ; and partly (4) to a Stoic phrase I am and I am called (Philo 1 337), Epict. Ench. 15 they both -were (3\<ro.v) and were culled (eAe yoi/To) divine (cp ib. ii. 1*144 Heracles was believed to be the son of Zeus and he was [so] ). So, here, Justin first shows that God was to (Jer. 31 27 and Is. 19 24/1) raise up a seed to Israel; then asserts that he called this people Israel and declared it his inheritance ; lastly, in answer to Trypho s Are you (i /u.eis) Israel ? he replies, We both are called and are the children of God. 1 (/ ) Apol. 6 reason and truth is an allusion not to Jn. 424, spirit and truth, but to what Justin has just said about the temper of Socrates in true reason, i.e., reasonableness, and is a play on the word Logos, (c) Tryph. 17, the only spotless and righteous [one], sent [as] light from God to man, implies a recognition of Christ as (Is. 426 496 Lk. 232; Enoch 4&4)a light to lighten, not only the Gentiles, but the world ; and an allusion to Jewish traditions (Schottg. 2 113 226) based on Ps. 483 Send out thy light and thy truth. 2 (d) i Apol. 60 ( If ye ... believe, ye shall be saved ), treating of the brazen serpent, differs so much from Num. 217-9 ( that every one that is bitten, when he seet/t it, shall live ) that it is urged (Lightf. BE 87) that the writer had in his mind Jn. 3:14-15 ( that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life ). But Barn. (12 7 let him hope and believe . . . and immediately he shall be saved ) differs even more from Num. Justin is closer to Barnabas than to Jn., and appears to be condensing the former or some kindred tradition.* (i?) Justin accuses the Jews of cancelling (Tryph. 73) He shall reign from the tree in Ps. 96 10 ; and some might infer that he borrowed this thought from Jn., who regards the Cross as a throne on which Jesus is lifted up or exalted. But see Barn. 85: the reign of Jesus on the tree.

The close and numerous resemblances between Barnabas and Justin in respect of prophecies and types prove that Justin followed either Barnabas or some tradition used by Barnabas, and go some way towards proving that, if he knew Jn. , he preferred Barnabas.

1 The antithesis was naturally common after the persecutions of Nero. It may be illustrated by Mt. 22 14 Many are called but few chosen, but also by Epict. ii. 9 20 When we see a man trimming, we are wont to say, " He is not a Jew, but pretends." But when he takes on himself the condition of the imbued and chosen(& 709 /3s/3app&ou Kai Ijpvpdvov-i.e., the ' Elect '), then he is indeed, besides being called (Kai ;UTC TQ ~ Y T L K a i KaheiraL) a Jew : where 'is . . . and is called' seems parallel to Justin’; ( 2 ) 'is called and is.'

2 Justin (Tryph. 17) calls Christ 'the only spotless and righteous man (duOpwrrov),' and then repeating the phrase without 'man' says that he was 'sent [is] [as] light into the world'. Cp Wisd. 9 IO 'Send her forth from the holy heavens, qnd send her from the throne of thy glory ' where 'her' refers to Wisdom (ib. 7 25) the pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty, the shining (atra.vya<r/j.a.) of the eternal Light. Both Jn. and Justin adapt Jewish tradition to the Incarnation ; but Jn. (1246 I come a I ght into the world, 819 [?] 1 9) speaks of the Lighi coming into the World : Justin speaks of it as sent. ( rendering 'spotless light' is an error ; nor is there a play on the double meaning of rs(uri)s 'man' and 'light'.) For the construction ('sent [as] ') cp 1 Jn. 4 10 an-eo"TetAei> TOV vioi/ O.VTOV tAao>ioi .

3 For other passages in Justin and Barnabas resembling one another, and found also in Jn., see the connection of the Cross or tree ( Tryph. 86) with water (mentioned above, 90) and the application of Ps. 22 1 8 to the Messiah (though here Justin [ Tryph. 97] and Jn. [1924] go a step farther than Barn. 66).

  • A.va.yevvr)8-IJTe : this verb does not occur in NT except in I

Pet. 1323 (RV) begat again.

5 TevirriOfi avioOev. The evidence from Jn. s use of the word (3:31 19 n) and from Philo 1 482 263 443 498 (and cp Menander in Eus. 826 and Simon Magus in Hippol. 6 18), and from Epict. i. 183 (r>)s aurtjs avioOev KarajSoArjs [o-jrep/xaro;]), is ir resistibly in favour of the rendering from above. "h.v(aSfv may mean again, but only where the context clearly points to that meaning, as it does in Artemidorus (see Grimm s Lexicon), who says that a man who dreams of being born over again (aviaOev) will have a son, because having a son is, as it were, a second birth.

Justin himself never uses the word to mean again, but (i) fromabove, of the Incarnation, (Tryph. 6^)av<aOev irpoeASdi/ra Kai avdptarcov ei> ai/SpcuTrois yevofjifvov, and also probably (against Maranus) Tryph. 63 aviaOev <cal Sia yao-rpbs ayflpajTm as 6 Oeb? . . . ytwOKTem (?) avtov e^ieAAei/ : (2) with <cr;pv<ro-e(.i> or TrpoetTreri/, Tryph. 24, 99 from of old. If Justin were here quoting Jn., he would be altering a phrase that he himself uses.

(2) Except ye be begotten again. 4 i Apol. 61, For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the Universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, they then receive the washing with water. P or indeed Christ said, Except ye be begotten again ye shall not (01) /X.T?) enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Now that it is absolutely impossible for those once born to re-enter the wombs of those that bare them is evident to all. Cp Jn. 837^ Except a man be begotten from above , 5 he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be begotten when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother s womb and be begotten ? Jesus answered . . . Except a man be begotten of water and (the) Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Justin is here meeting heathen misrepresentations of the two sacraments, by showing that they are based on Christ s com mand and on reason, and that the heathen themselves have imitated them. As to the Eucharist, he gives (i) Christ s Words of Institution ; (2) the Pagan imitation. As to baptism, since he gives the Pagan imitation later (62 64), he is (presum ably) giving here what he regards as the words of Institution (for he gives no others).! That they are derived from Jn. is improbable for many reasons, (i) Justin s tradition is thrown into the form of an indirect precept ( thou shall be baptized or thou shall not enter ); Jn. s is a stalement of a law. (2) Justin omits the Iwo elements mentioned in the full form of the Johan nine utterance viz., water and spirit. (3) Justin, though familiar with the use of a.tna6fv to mean from above, and though he once aclually uses iivioOev yevva<T8o.i, here has arayei/i/ao-Scu. 2 (4) That Justin agrees with Jn. in connecting the doctrine of regeneration with words about the impossibility of re-entering ihe womb, is nol indeed an accidenlal coincidence, any more than the somewhat similar connection in an utterance of Simon Magus (Hippol. 6 14), How, then, and in what manner, doth God shape men (in the new birth) *. to which Simon replies, Admit that Paradise is the womb, and that this is true the Scripture will teach thee, afterwards entering into minute materialislic delails about the womb. It is a connection so nalural in conlroversy that it is easy to understand that it became a commonplace in Christian doctrine. 3

1 Justin s words, In the name of the Father, etc., show that he recognised the formulary of Mt. 28 19 as binding in practice. So the Didache (7 1) recognises (but does not quote) it. Justin nowhere quotes Mt. for the facts of Christ s Kesurrec- tion, but only Lk. And Lk. omits the command to baptize.

" If it be urged that Jn. states the doctrine in two forms, and that Justin may have preferred the first ( begotten from above ), then, besides altering from above into again, he has altered see into enter, which occurs only in Jn. s second form.

3 It may be worth noting that Barnabas (168), as well as Simon Magus, introduces his explanation of regeneration (which he bases on the metaphor of a temple) with a How? (Cp Jn. 89 How can these things be? ) In these two authors how is rhetorical, in Jn. it is not ; but the usage perhaps indicates traditional way of stating and answering a perplexing question. Barnabas (like I Pet. 13 23) regards the ' be- getting' as 'again' (not 'from above'), KTL&WOL rr~ihrv :.$ zpx$s. S ace does not permit of showing the important difference ence of the Johannine doctrine, which tacitly protests that second birth is not the question. The question is, Is it from above or (like some of the second births of heathen mysteries) from below 1

  • reyei TjjU.eVos : cp I Apol. 22, io tuis . . . yeyfirrjcrGai O.VTOV

ex 0eou Ae yo/itej Aoyoi/ deov. Jn. would not apply the verb yLvfirda.1 to the Logos except in connection with (1 14) flesh ; he frequently draws a marked distinction between the e rou of the Logos and the yiveo-Oiu of man or matter (1 1 3_/I 6 8 58).

5 The words, 'But the only-begotten', etc., may be those of Irenaeus, commenting on what he has quoted from Justin,

  • (1) Eusebius (4 18), quoting, from Justin, this extract, stops short before but the only-begotten ;
  • (2) the part omitted by Eusebius contains words common in Irenseus, but not in Justin, and
  • (3) has two allusions to Paul s Epistles (to which Justin never alludes) ;
  • (4) elsewhere Justin never uses only-begotten apart from prophecy that justifies it.

On the other hand, Justin might quote, to a Christian, authorities that he would not quote to a Jew, to whom everything needed to be proved. (In the words omitted by Eusebius [ . . . nos plasmavit . . . venit ad nos . . . firma est meet ad eum fides . . . utraque Deo nobis pnebente ] the intrusion of the sing, [ mea ] would be strange, whether Justin or Irenseus were the writer ; but r)jn<I> Tritons may have been misread as >) /aou TTKTTIS). On the whole, the words are probably not Justin s.


(3) Other alleged quotations.

  • (a) Tryph. 105, 'That this [man] was [the} only-begotten of the Father of the Universe (jiOVOyevrfS yap on f/v TO> jrarpi TWV oAiof OUTOS), having become from him in a special way Word and Power (ifii ws c avrov Aoyos icol Svvafj.ii; yeyei ijfieVos 4 ), and afterwards becoming man through the Virgin (icai varepov avdpiaitos Sia TTJS irapGivov ), as we have learned from the Memoirs, I have shown above'. Lightfoot (BE 88), , omitting the italicised words infers that Justin refers to Jn. as a part of the Memoirs for the proof of the special antemundane birth. But the words he omits indicate that Justin refers to Tryph. 100, where he shows this from the Memoirs, as an inference from Peter's confession. This resort to the Memoirs to prove what they cannot prove, but Jn. could prove, indicates that Justin did not regard Jn. as authoritative ;
  • (b) Justin, against Marcion, is said 8 to have written (Iren. iv. 62), I should not have believed . . . but the only-begotten Son came to us. . . . This Lightfoot (BE 89) asserts to be based on Jn. 1 18. Butj besides the objection that many authorities, as W H, read in Jn. 1 18 God for Son, this assertion assumes that Jn. must have invented this application of only-begotten, whereas in fact it followed naturally from the Logos-passage in Wisii. 7 22 describing the Wisdom of God as containing a Spirit only-begotten, and might be suggested by Ps. 22 20, Deliver my soul from the sword, mine only-begotten from the power of the dog. Now in the Apologies and Dialogue Justin (so far as Otto s Index shows) never uses the word only-begotten except in Tryph. 105, referred to above (a), where he supported it by Ps. 22, and professed to have previously shown it, the showing being really a futile inference from the Memoirs. All this, so far from indicating a borrowing from Jn., proves that, if Justin knew /., he refused to base any statement on it ;
  • (c) Tryph. 88 has simply the Synoptic tradition of the Baptist, developed as in Acts 13 25 ! (with a tradition of Justin s own, icaScfd^ei/o?, twice repeated in connection with the Baptist elsewhere, and with tfti m adapted from Is.) ; and Tryph. 57, as to the Manna, instead of alluding to Jn. 631, is a quotation from Ps. 7825 with an allusion to Ps. 78 19 (cp i Cor. 10 3 and also Wisd. 16 20), representing a stage of tradition earlier than Jn. ;
  • (d) Tryph. 60, those who were from birth and according to the flesh defective [in vision] (Tnjpov?), is alleged by some 2 to refer to the healing of the man blind from birth, mentioned only by Jn. (91-34). But Justin speaks of these people in the plural, Jn. 9 32 states that the healing was unique, unheard of from the beginning of the world. Justin was probably quoting from some tradition earlier than Jn. ; but in any case this instance tends to show that, if he knew Jn., he did not regard it as authoritative. 3

Other alleged quotations, if examined, might be shown, even more conspicuously than those treated above, to fail to prove that Justin recognised Jn. as an authoritative gospel.


1 Acts vTrovoeire, Justin vireAd^gai oi : Acts OVK ei/ui eyia, Justin oiiic ei/ii 6 XpioTos.

2 Not, however, by Lightfoot BE.

3 After quoting Is. 35 $f., the blind (rv(/>AoO, deaf, lame, dumb, Justin asserts the healing of TOVS ix. yei/frrj? icai KO.TO. TT\V trdpica 7TT)pov>5 KCU KWC^OUS cai ^coAovs . . . rov&i Kal opav TTOHJ- <ras. Clearly m)p6s includes, if it is not restricted to, those who are made to see i.e., the blind. In his earlier work Justin (or a scribe ?) appears to have corrected mjpovs into Trorjpou? (i Apol. 22 x<i>Aovt Kal irapaAvrtKOut /tai ex yeverfii Trofrjpovs). It looks as though Justin interpreted spiritually in the Apology, but literally in the Dialogue, some old tradition about Christ s acts of healing. Hence the strange addition in the flesh." He seems to mean not, as some say, spiritually, but physically defective.-

4 On this point i Apol. 46 is a key-passage, We were taught that Christ is the First-born of God, and we indicated abmie that he is the Word wherein every race of men participated. The doctrine of the First-born is authoritative teaching, the Logos doctrine is the indication of the writer. On the rare occasions when Justin asserts (Tryph. 105) that he has shown that Johannine doctrine is in the Memoirs, his showing, when analysed, amounts to (Tryph. 100) we have inferred (wvor;- jca^uc), supported by references to OT

102. Justin's ignoring Jn.[edit]

(4) Abstentions from Quotation. It is generally recognised that the Synoptists do not teach, whereas Jn. and Justin do teach, Christ's pre-existence, the feeding on Christ's flesh and blood (as expressed in those precise words), the application of the term only-begotten to Christ, and the Logos-doctrine. When, therefore, we find Justin either not appealing to any authority in behalf of these doctrines, or appealing to pointless passages in the Synoptists instead of pointed passages in Jn. , it is a legitimate inference that Justin did not recognise Jn. as on a level with the Synoptists. 4

(a) i Apol. 66, We have been taught that the food ... is both the flesh and the blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. In support of this, instead of quoting Jn. 654, along with the Synoptic words of Institution, Justin quotes the interpolated Lk. 2-2 19 ;

(b) Tryph. 105, _ only-begotten (see 101 3 [a]) ;

(c) Tryph. 48, the belief in Christ s pre-existence is based on what is proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by him (Christ). On this Westcott (Jn. Introd. Ixxxiv) says that the Synoptists do not anywhere declare his pre-existence, apparently inferring that Justin must have Jn. in mind, though he never quotes Jn. But the italicised words (cp 2 Apol. 8 10) simply indicate the general continuity betiveen what Christ taught as the Logos, through the prophets, and what he taught as Jesus in the flesh. When Justin shows the pre-existence of Christ from a par ticular passage, it is from the Memoirs, but in a most unsatis factory manner (see last footnote),

(d) Tryph. 86 says that the rod in OT is a type of the Cross, and that Moses, by means of this, saw water that gushed front the rock i.e., from Christ and (ib. 103) applies to Christ Ps. 22 14, poured out like water. These words seem absolutely to demand some reference to that stream (if he knew of it) which the author of the Fourth Gospel alone records himself to have seen flowing from Christ on the Cross. Yet Justin (ib. 103), instead of quoting Jn., quotes the interpolated Lk. 2244, omitting Lk. s mention of blood, 1 so that the quotation accords with the Psalmist s poured out like water.

(e) Tryph. 97 follows Barnabas (66) in applying part of Ps. 22 18 to the casting of lots for Christ s garments, put Justin goes farther, by quoting the whole verse, which mentions dividing as well. Jn. also quotes the whole verse, but goes farther still, seeing in it two distinct and symbolical acts. It is highly improbable that, if Justin had known, as apostolic, this warrant for a twofold fulfilment of prophecy, he would have omitted to refer to it. But he neither refers to it, nor even recognises two acts. 2

(f) Tryph. no says that the Vine is God s people, planted and pruned for its good by Christ, without reference to Jn. 15 if., where Christ describes himself as pruning the Church that the fruitful branches may bring forth more fruit.

(g) i Apol. 63, The Jews are justly charged ... by Christ himself, with knowing neither the Father nor tlie Son. This ought to refer to such charges as Jn. 8 19, Ye neither knoiv me nor my Father. Yet Justin quotes for it nothing but an ancient version of Mt. 11 27 Lk. 10 22( No one knoweth [eyvto, but yiv(a<rK.fL or iinyiv. in Mt. and Lk.]the Father, save the Son ; 3 nor the Son, save the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal [him] ), which is merely a general statement of the con ditions of revelation,

(h) Tryph. 40, The well-known lamb (irpoparov) that was commanded to be roasted whole (6Ao-) was a type of the Cross. Jn. alone describes the providential inter position by which not a bone was broken of Christ, the Paschal lamb. Yet Justin, instead of referring to this, refers to the roasting of the two lambs on two spits, one across the other, which typified the Cross !

1 Justin's may be the earlier form, to which Lk.'s 'of blood' may be a later addition. But in any case the argument remains that whereas Jn. fulfils Justin's requirements exactly, and the interpolated Lk. does not, Justin quotes the latter and not the former.

2 It may be replied that Justin understanding the nature of Hebrew poetry, perceived that ohly one action was intended ; but Tryph. 53 accepts the 'colt' and 'ass' of Mt.212 though rejeted by the other Evangelists. The real explanation is that Jn. represents a later and more developed tradition than that adopted by Justin.

3 RV 'No one knoweth the Son save the Father,' but quoted as above by Justin again (Tryph. IOO), and by Clem.Alex., Origen, and Tertullian.

4 Thus according to Justin the Church (Ecclesia) and Man (Anthropas) are both begotted by Logos. So the Valentinians taught that Anthropos and Ecclesia were the children of Logos and Zoe.

5 If AOYLK$ means 'containing Logos', Sv'vaps AOYLK~ means 'a Power containing Logos'. What is this 'Power'? Surely 'Thought ('Evvo~a)'. Hence Justin implies that the Father begot 'Thought ('Evvoca)' as the Arche, or Beginning and that in this Arche or Beginning. there was Logos. But this is formal Valentinianism. If Justin had rcrngniid Jn.'a Logus-doctrine as inspired, would it not have protected him from thus laying himself open to the charge of adopting what he himself considered heretical-doctrine 1

6 Cp Jn. 113 ‘were begotten of God ’ where Irenaens and other authoritie‘s insert ‘ex voluntate d i ’ and apply it not to delime+s 6ut to Chnist. Tertullian (De Cam. Chr. 19) accuses the Valentinians of substituting 'were begotten' for 'was be gotten'.

The fact appears to be that, whereas .preceding writers had laid stress on being born again, Jn. laid stress on the nature of this second birth, describing it as (1 13) from God, (3 3) from above. Many took offence at this, as suggesting that man s second birth is of the same nature as Christ s incarnation (which indeed may have been Jn. s meaning). Therefore, in the first passage where Jn. states the doctrine (re-stated in the Epistle too often to be changed), some ventured to change it. Cp Ja. 1 18, By an act of will (/3ovAr)0ei s) he brought us forth. This explains the general mistranslation of (3 3) from above, as though it must mean again.

103. Justin at variance with Jn.[edit]

(5) Inconsistencies with Jn. mostly concern Justin's views of the origin of Christ, and the Logos-doctrine ; but they also affect his views of God and of theology generally.

Justin's view is that (2 Apol. 6) God has no name ; Jn.'s is that the Son came to declare the Father's name and to keep them in that name. The notion of a Trinity in a Unity of will, sr love, is absent from Justin. Generally Justin shrinks from the phrase 'begotten of God'. According to him it is the Logos, or the Son, who 'begets' ( Tryph. 138) 'the new race' o', (26. 61) the Church, his 'daughter' 6p Tryph. 138, also 135, ?~p&s EK 6 s ro&as 7017 Xp~uroi) Aarop~Oivrss).4 Elsewhere he allows himself to say that God has begotten from himself (TryPh. 61) a kind of Logos-power (AO~LK<V r ~ v a 6dvapiv).6 Yet when he s[eaks of the Father as begetting the Son, he always inserts (i6.) by his will, ^ or (ib. 100) coming forth by the 'power and counsel' of God, or, speaking of the birth of Jesus (ib. 63), he uses the middle yfvi 3.<T0a.i, cause to be begotten. In his anxiety to emphasise the supremacy and ineffability of the Father, he speaks of one (meaning the Logos) who is (Tryph. 56) a different (erepos, not aAAos) God and Lord, under the Maker of the universe ; (i Apol. 32, and similarly 2 Apol. 13) The first Power, next to the Father of all. This conveys the notion that the Logps is but one of many subordinate Powers. Also, the multiplicity of names given to the Logos (Try ph. 56 61 100, etc.) Son, Wisdom, Angel, Day, East, Sword, etc. suggests Philo s (1 427) many-named Logos rather than that of Jn. ; and when Justin quotes Dan. 7 13, to lay stress on the as in as Son of Man, and tells us that Christ was on\y (Tryph. 76) <f>a.ivofitvov KOJ. yevo/j.evov avOpunrov, the word fya.ivoiJ.fvov seems anti-Johannine, and bordering on Docetism.

104. Justin : summary.[edit]

(6) Summary of the evidence about Justin. It appears, then, that

  • (1) when Justin seems to be alluding to Jn. , he is really alluding to OT or Barnabas, or some Christian tradition different from Jn. and often earlier than Jn. ;
  • (2) when Justin teaches what is practically the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, he supports it, not by what can easily be found in the Fourth, but by what can hardly, with any show of reason, be found in the Three ;
  • (3) as regards Logos-doctrine, his views are alien from Jn.

These three distinct lines of evidence converge to the conclusion that Justin either did not know Jn. , or, as is more probable, knew it but regarded it with suspicion, partly because it contradicted Lk. , his favourite Gospel, partly because it was beginning to be freely used by his enemies the Valentinians. (4) It may also be fairly added that literary evidence may have weighed with him. He seldom or never quotes (as many early Christian writers do] from apocryphal works. 1 The title he gives to the Gospels ( Memoirs of the Apostles ) shows the value he set on what seemed to him the very words of Christ noted down by the apostles. Accepting the Apocalypse as the work of ( Tryph. 81) the apostle John, he may naturally have rejected the claim of the Gospel to proceed from the same author. This may account for a good many otherwise strange phenomena in Justin s writings. He could not help accepting much of the Johannine doctrine, but he expressed it, as far as possible, in non-Johannine language ; and, where he could, he went back to earlier tradition for it, such as he found, for example, in the Epistle of Barnabas.

1 He uses, it is true, a corrupt text of the LXX, and refers to the Acts of Pilate; but he never quotes Enoch (as Barnabas does), the Gospels of the Hebrews, Egyptians, etc. Eusebius, who never bestows such praise on Irenaeus, praises Justin s (iv. 18 i) cultivated intellect.

105. Tatian.[edit]

xix. TATIAN. Tatian gives evidence (150-80 A.D. ) of special value because, being a pupil of the recently deceased Justin who does not quote Jn. , he wrote an Apology which apparently does quote Jn. , or Johannine tradition ; and, later, after he had become an Encratite heretic, he composed a Harmony of the Four Gospels, thereby accepting the Fourth as on a level with the Three. His Apology may throw light on the date, and perhaps on the reasons, of acceptance.

106. His Apology.[edit]

The alleged (Lightf. BE 90) quotations in the Apology are the following :

  • (a) (Apol. 4) God is a spirit, not one that interpenetrates matter (ou SL^KOV &ia TTJ? vAr)s). This is simply a negation of the Stoical dictum (Clem. Alex. 699) that God is a spirit, but one that interpenetrates all being (Snqiceiv Sid mxcrrjs TTJS outruns) (and cp Orig. Cels. 617);
  • (b) (Apol. 13) And this, you see, is the meaning of the saying (TO ilpruiirov) " The darkness comprehendeth (KaraAayxj3di/et) not the light " ; for the soul did not itself preserve (eoxocrei/) the spirit, but was preserved (etriaOri) by it, and the light comprehended (K<n(\a.^ev) the darkness. It is doubtful whether Jn. who says that (i Jn. 1 5) God is light and in him is no darkness would accept the latter half of this antithesis. Paul s saying that Christ (Phil. 3 12) comprehends, or catches (for its good), the human soul is very different from saying that the light comprehends the darkness. 1 Also the use of eipij/ieVov 2 which applies to any saying, and not specially to Scripture combines with the naturalness of such a saying in Christian controversy to make it probable that Tatian is quoting a common tradition, and not Jn. ;
  • (c) (Apol. 19) Renounce demons and follow the only God. All things [are] by him (wan-a UTT aurov, i.e. the Father), and without him hath not been made (yeyovtv) anything ; cp Jn. (1 3), All things were made (eye i/ero) through him (i.e. the Logos), and without him was not made (eyeVero) anything. The two sayings are quite distinct in meaning ; but the verbal likeness makes it certain that Tatian must have known Jn., though he has either misinterpreted it or altered it (possibly to avoid polytheistic inferences).

(a) Traces of Jn. as a recent interpretation. Though the Apology teems with subtleties (alien from Jn.) about matter and the Logos, and shows no recognition of the Johannine view of the spiritual unity of the Father and the Son, yet the above- mentioned allusions or quotations occurring as they do in a very short treatise that contains hardly a single allusion to the Synoptists indicate that Tatian attached considerable import ance to a nevj method of stating the Christian case, such as he found in Johannine tradition or writing. Such passages as (Apol. 5) God was in the beginning : but the beginning, we have re ceived by tradition (jrapeiAijc^ajuci ), is a Logos -power (Aoyou Svva.fj.iv), indicate what may almost be called an attempt to improve on Jn. s the Word was in the beginning, so that we can hardly call them recognitions of Jn. as an authoritative gospel. And the following passage points perhaps in the same direction. Supporting his theory that evil springs from the inferior of two kinds of spirits, Tatian says (Apol. 12), These things it is possible to understand in detail for one who does not in empty conceit reject (ajroa-KopaKi^ovn) those most divine interpretations which, in course of time, having been published in writing (read Sia ypcu^rjs jfmpwypfrM for S. y. ef eArjAey/tieVai), have made those who give heed to them acceptable to God (Oeo^tAeis). Now the only passage in NT that definitely and fully recognises Tatian s two kinds of spirits bidding the reader not believe every spirit, giving him a test by which he may know the spirit of God and discern the spirit of truth and the spirit of error is i Jn. 4 1-6. It seems probable, then, that Tatian is here referring to the Johannine Epistle and Gospel, which are obviously connected and are generally supposed to have been published together.

This would fit in with a good many facts. The word interpretations was applied by Papias to the various versions of Matthew s Logia. Mark was called Peter s interpreter, so that Mk. itself might be called an in terpretation of apostolic tradition. There is evidence to show that the Johannine Gospel was long preached orally before being published ; and Tatian s words seem to hint at a deferred publication ( in course of time hav ing been published in writing ). If it was interpreted by an Elder of Ephesus, such as John the Elder, it might be known to Tatian as an interpretation. Also, the clause about rejecting implies that some had rejected, or were disposed to reject, the work in question and this with contempt. Justin may not have gone so far as this. Tatian s respect for (18) the admirable Justin is quite consistent with the hypothesis that he already dissented from his former master s cautious avoidance of Jn. , especially if Tatian himself did not as yet rank it with the Synoptists.

1 Cp perhaps Philo 1 4r5, If some were unable to comprehend (Ko.Ta.\af}elv) God, yet Israel received a revelation, having been comprehended (read KaT<xAT)(0ei s for KarajSArjSei s) i.e., grasped and drawn towards God, because God wished to reveal his own essential being.

2 In NT cipmufroi is not used to introduce Scripture, except when (Lk. 2 24 Acts 2 16 13 40) accompanied by some qualifying- phrase e.g., in the Law, in the Prophets, etc. When not thus qualified, it must be rendered said, spoken, etc. (cp Rom. 4 18 [RV], according to that which had been spoken i.e., to Abraham not according to that which hath been said in Scripture).

3 A complete collation of Aphraates, Ephraem, and the Latin version of the Arabic shows that there are not more than three or four passages and these of little importance where these three alleged representatives of Tatian s work agree against the modern text (as represented by WH) : Mk. 823 Mt. 621 1625.

107. Diatessaron.[edit]

(b) The Diatessaron gives us little help beyond the assurance that, when it was composed, Tatian ranked Jn. with the Synoptists. As handed down in Arabic it differs, both in text and in arrangement, from the text commented on by Ephraem ; and both of these differ from the text commented on by Aphraates. 3

This indicates what of itself is highly probable that at a very early period the Diatessaron was revised in the interests of orthodoxy, so as to leave few traces of the author s Encratite and other heretical tendencies. 1 What may be the correct inferences from Theodoret s account of Tatian s excisions and of the mis chief of the composition, and what ought to be inferred from Eusebius s {HE iv. 29 6)(probably)contempttious statement about the work, are questions that do not affect Tatian s recognition of Jn. All agree that before the end of his life i.e., about 170-180 A.D. he recognised the Four Gospels as being of special authority, although his notions of authority may not have prevented him from handling them with considerable freedom.

As regards the date of recognition, Tatian's Diatessaron adds little to our knowledge, for by the time of its composition (about 180 A.U.), Irenaeus regarded four gospels as no less essentially four than the four zones of the earth, so that in Gaul the Fourth Ciospel must have been recognised much earlier. But the im portance of Tatian s testimony, following on Justin s, is that the two appear to fix the turning-point in sceptical criticism the teacher favouring Lk. but rejecting Jn., whil t his pupil at first apparently took up Jn. as a divine interpretation specially adapted for a philosophic appeal to the Greeks, and before long placed it in a Harmony of the Four Gospels.

From this date investigation is rendered needless by the practically unanimous acceptance of the canonical Gospels. E. A. A.