SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
AN INQUIRY
INTO THE
REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION
POPULAR EDITION
CAREFULL Y RE VISED
[ISSUED FOR THE RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION, LIMITED]
LONDON :
WATTS & CO.
1902
[ The right of translation is reserved}
" Credulity is as real, if not so great, a sin as unbelief." ARCHBISHOP
TRENCH, Notes on the Miracles of our Lord, 8th ed., p. 27.
"The abnegation of reason is not the evidence of faith, but the confession of
despair." DR. LIGHTFOOT, St. Paul' 's Epistle to the Galatians, 4th ed., p. ix.
2095024
PREFACE
IN preparing this edition it has been thought desirable to make
some changes, both with the view of rendering the book more
convenient to the reader, and bringing the argument as much as
possible up to date. On the one hand, an entirely new chapter
has been introduced dealing with the evidence of " The Teaching
of the Twelve Apostles," an ancient treatise which had not been
published when the last edition was issued. Much pertinent
matter regarding the martyrdom of Ignatius, which has hitherto
only formed part of the preface to the sixth and complete editions,
has now been suitably incorporated in the text. In a similar
way, considerable additions have been made to the chapter on
Tatian, dealing with more recent information on the nature of
his Diatessaron. A still more important insertion in this edition
is a critical examination of the use of the works of Josephus by
the author of the third Synoptic and the Acts of the Apostles,
by which fresh light has been thrown upon the date at which
those writings must have been produced.
On the other hand, the long lists of writers on different subjects
treated in the text have been omitted, where direct quotations
have not been made from their works, or where such references
were not considered specially interesting. The long linguistic
analyses of speeches in the Acts of the Apostles, and unneces-
sary Greek quotations in the notes throughout, have also been
omitted as of little interest to general readers. Any student
desirous of examining these is referred to the complete or earlier
viii PREFACE
editions. Nothing has been removed, however, which is of any
importance to the main argument, and much that is of interest
has been added.
For the rest, whatever improvement could be effected in the
style of the book has been carefully carried out, and it is hoped
that this edition has considerably gained in clearness and pre-
cision. Except in this respect, the Conclusions have not been
materially altered, but, on the contrary, after bearing the test of
many years of thought and study, they are repeated with
unhesitating confidence.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION - - - .... . - - xiii
PART I. MIRACLES
CHAPTER I.
MIRACLES IN RELATION TO CHRISTIANITY J - I
CHAPTER II.
MIRACLES IN RELATION TO THE ORDER OF NATURE - - l8
CHAPTER III.
REASON IN RELATION TO THE ORDER OF NATURE - - 33
CHAPTER IV.
THE AGE OF MIRACLES - - 55
CHAPTER V.
THE PERMANENT STREAM OF MIRACULOUS PRETENSION - 83
CHAPTER VI.
MIRACLES IN RELATION TO IGNORANCE AND SUPERSTITION - - IO9
PART II. THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
INTRODUCTION
NATURE OF THE EXAMINATION TO BE UNDERTAKEN, AND CANONS
OF CRITICISM - - - *<"''*<* S A. '-''> '1'* tj
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I.
CLEMENT OK ROME - 128
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS - 137
THE PASTOR OF HERMAS 148
THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES 149
CHAPTER II.
THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 158
THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP . - 175
CHAPTER III.
JUSTIN MARTYR - - 181
CHAPTER IV.
HEGESIPPUS . 268
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS - - . 276
CHAPTER V.
THE CLEMENTINES
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS
299
320
CHAPTER VI.
BASILIDES .... . , 22
VALENTINUS ----... ^, o
CHAPTER VII.
MARCION - ---.... 544
CHAPTER VIII.
TATIAN - . . . . . . - 766
DIONYSIf S OK CORINTH - .... - 381
CHAPTER IX.
MELITO OK SARDIS - . . . . ,g_
CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS , > J; ; - ,, . . . 3 gr
ATHENAGORAS - ,,.-..- ,.. . . - 398
EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS
CONTENTS
CHAPTER X.
PTOLEMyEUS AND HERACLEON - - 408
CELSUS - - 422
THE CANON OF MURATORI - 427
RESULTS - - 433
PART III. THE FOURTH GOSPEL
CHAPTER I.
THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE - 435
CHAPTER II.
THE AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL - $10
PART IV. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
CHAPTER I.
THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE - 567
CHAPTER II.
EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AUTHORSHIP - 585
CHAPTER III.
HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE WORK. DESIGN AND COMPOSITION - 613
CHAPTER IV.
HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE WORK, CONTINUED. PRIMITIVE CHRIS-
TIANITY - - 638
CHAPTER V.
HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE WORK, CONTINUED. STEPHEN THE
MARTYR .;,<;.' ,-,-. ;-. >:?,.: :T - 659
CONTENTS
CHAPTER VI.
HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE WORK, CONTINUED. PHILIP IN SAMARIA.
PETER AND CORNELIUS - 673
CHAPTER VII.
HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE WORK, CONTINUED. PAUL THE APOSTLE
OF THE GENTILES ------- 686
PART V. THE DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
CHAPTER I.
THE EPISTLES AND THE APOCALYPSE - - - 753
CHAPTER II.
THE EVIDENCE OF PAUL - 756
PART VI. THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION
CHAPTER I.
THE RELATION OF EVIDENCE TO ITS SUBJECT - - 8oi
CHAPTER II.
THE EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPELS ----- 8o8
CHAPTER III.
THE EVIDENCE OF PAUL - - . - 851
CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
THEORETICALLY, the duty of adequate inquiry into the truth of
any statement of serious importance before believing it is univer-
sally admitted. Practically, no duty is more universally neglected.
This is more especially the case in regard to Religion, in which
our concern is so great, yet whose credentials so few personally
examine. The difficulty of such an investigation and the inability
of most men to pursue it, whether from want of opportunity or
want of knowledge, are, no doubt, the chief reasons for this
neglect ; but another, and scarcely less potent, obstacle has prob-
ably been the odium which has been attached to any doubt
regarding the dominant religion, as well as the serious, though
covert, discouragement of the Church to all critical examination
of the title-deeds of Christianity. The spirit of doubt, if not of
intelligent inquiry, however, has, of late years, become too strong for
repression, and, at the present day, the pertinency of the question
of a German writer, " Are we still Christians ?" receives uncon-
scious illustration from many a popular pulpit and many a social
discussion.
The prevalent characteristic of popular theology in England at
this time may be said to be a tendency to eliminate from Chris-
tianity, with thoughtless dexterity, every supernatural element which
does not quite accord with current opinion, and yet to ignore the
fact that in so doing it has practically been altogether abandoned.
This tendency is fostered with illogical zeal by many distin-
guished men within the Church itself, who endeavour to arrest
the pursuing wolves of doubt and unbelief which press upon
it by practically throwing to them, scrap by scrap, the very
doctrines which constitute the claims of Christianity to be regarded
as a Divine Revelation at all. They try to spiritualise or dilute
that which remains into a form which does not shock their
reason; and yet they cling to the delusion that they still
retain the consolation and the hope of truths which, if not divinely
INTRODUCTION
revealed, are mere human speculation regarding matters beyond
reason.
Christianity itself distinctly claims to be a direct Divine
Revelation of truths beyond the natural attainment of the human
intellect. To submit the doctrines thus revealed, therefore, to
criticism, and to clip and prune them down to the standard of
human reason, whilst, at the same time, their supernatural
character is maintained, is an obvious absurdity. Christianity
must either be recognised to be a Divine Revelation beyond man's
criticism, and, in that case, its doctrines must be received even
though Reason cannot be satisfied, or the claims of Christianity
to be such a Divine Revelation must be disallowed, in which case
it becomes the legitimate subject of criticism like every other
human system. One or other of these alternatives must be
adopted ; but to assert that Christianity is Divine, and yet to deal
with it as human, is illogical and wrong.
When we consider the vast importance of the interests involved,
therefore, it must be apparent that there can be no more urgent
problem for humanity to solve than the question : Is Christianity
a supernatural Divine Revelation or not ? To this we may
demand a clear and decisive answer. The evidence must be of
no uncertain character which can warrant our abandoning the
guidance of Reason, and blindly accepting doctrines which, if not
supernatural truths, must be rejected by the human intellect as
monstrous delusions. We propose in this work to seek a con-
clusive answer to this momentous question.
We must, by careful and impartial investigation, acquire the
right to our belief, whatever -it may be, and not float like a mere
waif into the nearest haven. Even true conclusions which are
arrived at either accidentally or by wrong methods are dangerous.
The current which by good fortune led to-day to truth may
to-morrow waft us to falsehood.
If we look at the singular diversity of views entertained, not
only with regard to the doctrines, but also to the evidences, of
Christianity, we cannot but be struck by the deplorable position
in which Divine Revelation is now placed.
Orthodox Christians may be divided into two broad classes,
one of which professes to base the Church upon the Bible, and
the other the Bible upon the Church. The one party assert that
the Bible is fully and absolutely inspired, that it contains God's
INTRODUCTION
revelation to man, and that it is the only and sufficient ground
for all religious belief ; and they maintain that its authenticity is
proved by the most ample and irrefragable external as well as
internal evidence. On the other hand, men of undoubted piety
and learning, as well as unquestioned orthodoxy, admit that the
Bible is totally without literary or historical evidence, and cannot
for a moment be upheld upon any such grounds as the revealed
word of God ; that none of the great doctrines of ecclesiastical
Christianity can be deduced from the Bible, but that, notwith-
standing this absence of external and internal evidence, this
Revelation stands upon the sure basis of the inspiration of the
Church. Can the unsupported testimony of a Church which in
every age has vehemently maintained errors and denounced truths
which are now universally recognised, be considered sufficient
guarantee of Divine Revelation ? Obviously, there is no ground
for accepting from a fallible Church and fallacious tradition
doctrines which, avowedly, are beyond the criterion of reason, and
therefore require miraculous evidence.
With belief based upon such uncertain grounds, and with such
vital difference of views regarding evidence, it is not surprising that
ecclesiastical Christianity has felt its own weakness, and entrenched
itself against the assaults of investigation. Such inquiry, however,
cannot be suppressed. Mere scientific questions may be regarded
with apathy by those who do not feel their personal bearing. It
may possibly seem to some a matter of little practical importance
to them to determine whether the earth revolves round the sun, or
the sun round the earth ; but no earnest mind can fail to perceive
the immense personal importance of Truth in regard to Religion
the necessity of investigating, before accepting, dogmas, the right
interpretation of which is represented as necessary to salvation
and the clear duty, before abandoning reason for faith, to exercise
reason, in order that faith may not be mere credulity.
It was in this conviction that the following inquiry into the
reality of Divine Revelation was originally undertaken, and in this
spirit others should enter upon it. An able writer, who will not be
suspected of exaggeration on this subject, has said: "The majority
of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief, rather to the outward
influence of custom and education, than to any strong principle of
faith within ; and it is to be feared that many, if they came to
perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would not find
INTRODUCTION
their belief so easy, and so matter-of-course a thing as they appear
to find it." 1 If it is to be more than a mere question of priority of
presentation whether we are to accept Buddhism, Mohammedanism,
or Christianity, we must strictly and fearlessly examine the evidence
upon which they profess to stand. The neglect of examination
can never advance truth, as the severest scrutiny can never retard
it ; but belief without discrimination can only foster ignorance and
superstition.
To no earnest mind can such inquiry be otherwise than a serious
and often a painful task ; but, dismissing preconceived ideas and
preferences derived from habit and education, and seeking only
the Truth, holding it, whatever it may be, to be the only object
worthy of desire or capable of satisfying a rational mind, the quest
cannot but end in peace and satisfaction. In such an investigation,
however, to quote words of Archbishop Whateley, " It makes all
the difference in the world whether we place Truth in the first place
or in the second place "; for if Truth acquired do not compensate
for every pet illusion dispelled, the path is thorny indeed, although
it must still be faithfully trodden.
1 J. B. Mozley, B.D., on Miracles; Bampton Lectures, 1865, 2nd ed.
p. 4.
AN INQUIRY
INTO THE
REALITY OF DIVINE REVELATION
PART I.
CHAPTER I.
MIRACLES IN RELATION TO CHRISTIANITY
AT the very outset of inquiry into the origin and true character
of Christianity we are brought face to face with the Supernatural.
Christianity professes to be a Divine revelation of truths which
the human intellect could not otherwise have discovered. It is
not a form of religion developed by the wisdom of man and
appealing to his reason, but a system miraculously communicated
to the human race, the central doctrines of which are either
superhuman or untenable. If the truths said to be revealed were
either of an ordinary character or naturally attainable, they would
at once discredit the claim to a Divine origin. No one could
maintain that a system discoverable by reason would be super-
naturally communicated. The whole argument for Christianity
turns upon the necessity of such a revelation, and the consequent
probability that it would be made.
There is nothing singular, it may be remarked, in the claim of
Christianity to be a direct revelation from God. With the
exception of the religions of Greece and Rome, which, however,
also had their subsidiary supposition of Divine inspiration, there
has scarcely been any system of religion which has not been
proclaimed to the world as a direct Divine communication. Long
before Christianity claimed this character, the religions of India
had anticipated the idea. To quote the words of an accomplished
scholar: "According to the orthodox views of Indian theologians,
B
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
not a single line of the Veda was the work of human authors.
The whole Veda is in some way or other the work of the Deity;
and even those who received it were not supposed to be ordinary
mortals, but beings raised above the level of common humanity,
and less liable, therefore, to error in the reception of revealed
truth." 1 The same origin is claimed for the religion of Zoroaster,
whose doctrines, beyond doubt, exercised great influence at least
upon later Jewish theology, and whose Magian followers are
appropriately introduced beside the cradle of Jesus, as the first
to do honour to the birth of Christianity. In the same way
Mohammed announced his religion as directly communicated from
heaven.
Christianity, however, as a religion professing to be divinely
revealed, is not only supernatural in origin and doctrine, but its
claim to acceptance is necessarily based upon supernatural
evidence ; for it is obvious that truths which require to be
miraculously communicated do not come within the range of our
intellect, and cannot, therefore, be intelligently received upon
internal testimony. "And, certainly," says an able Bampton
Lecturer, " if it was the will of God to give a revelation, there are
plain and obvious reasons for asserting that miracles are necessary
as the guarantee and voucher for that revelation. A revelation is,
properly speaking, such only by virtue of telling us something
which we could not know without it. But how do we know that
that communication of what is undiscoverable by human reason
is true ? Our reason cannot prove the truth of it, for it is by the
very supposition beyond our reason. There must be, then, some
note or sign to certify to it and distinguish it as a true communi-
cation from God, which note can be nothing else than a miracle." 2
In another place the same Lecturer stigmatises the belief of the
Mohammedan " as in its very principle irrational," because he
accepts the account which Mohammed gave of himself, without
supernatural evidenced The belief of the Christian is contrasted
with it as rational, "because the Christian believes in a super-
natural dispensation upon the proper evidence of such a dispensa-
tion viz., the miraculous."-* Mohammed is reproached with having
" an utterly barbarous idea of evidence, and a total miscalculation
of the claims of reason," because he did not consider miraculous
evidence necessary to attest a supernatural dispensation; "whereas
1 M. Miiller, Chips from a German Workshop, 1867, vol. i., p. 18.
"J. B. Mozley, B.D., Bampton Lecturer in 1865, on Miracles, 2nd ed.,
1867, p. 6f.
3 Ib., p. 30, cf. Butler, Analogy of Religion, pt. ii., chap, vii., 3; Paley,
A View of the Evidences of Christianity, ed. Whately, 1859, p. 324 ff.
4 //>.,p. 3'- ,
THE NECESSITY OF MIRACULOUS EVIDENCE
the Gospel is adapted to perpetuity for this cause especially, with
others, that it was founded upon a true calculation, and a foresight
of the permanent need of evidence; our Lord admitting the
inadequacy of His own mere word, and the necessity of a rational
guarantee to His revelation of His own nature and commission." 1
The spontaneous offer of miraculous evidence, indeed, has
always been advanced as a special characteristic of Christianity,
logically entitling it to acceptance in contradistinction to all other
religions. " It is an acknowledged historical fact," says Bishop
Butler, " that Christianity offered itself to the world, and demanded
to be received, upon the allegation i.e., as unbelievers would
speak, upon the pretence of miracles, publicly wrought to attest
the truth of it in such an age ; and Christianity, including the
dispensation of the Old Testament, seems distinguished by this
from all other religions." 2
Most of the great English divines have clearly recognised and
asserted the necessity of supernatural evidence to establish the
reality of a supernatural revelation. Bishop Butler affirms
miracles and the completion of prophecy to be the " direct
and fundamental proofs " of Christianity.3 Elsewhere he says :
" The notion of a miracle, considered as a proof of a divine
mission, has been stated with great exactness by divines, and is,
I think, sufficiently understood by everyone. There are also
invisible miracles the Incarnation of Christ, for instance which,
being secret, cannot be alleged as a proof of such a mission, but
require themselves to be proved by visible miracles. Revelation
itself, too, is miraculous ; and miracles are the proof of it." 4
Paley states the case with equal clearness : " In what way can a
revelation be made but by miracles ? In none which we are able
to conceive." 5 His argument, in fact, is founded upon the prin-
ciple that "nothing but miracles could decide the authority" of
Christianity. 6 In another work he asserts that no man can
prove a future retribution but the teacher " who testifies by
miracles that his doctrine comes from God. "7 Bishop Atterbury,
again, referring to the principal doctrines of ecclesiastical Chris-
tianity, says : " It is this kind of Truth that God is properly said
to reveal ; Truths, of which, unless revealed, we should have
1 /*., P. 32-
- The Analogy of Religion, pt. ii. , ch. vii. , 3.
3 Ib., pt. ii. , ch. vii. * Ib., pt. ii., ch. ii., I.
5 A View of the Evidences of Christianity. " Preparatory Considerations, "
p. 12.
6 Ib., p. 14.
7 Moral Philosophy, book v. Speaking of Christianity, in another place,
he calls miracles and prophecy "that splendid apparatus with which its
mission was introduced and attested " (book iv. ).
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
always continued ignorant ; and 'tis in order only to prove these
Truths to have been really revealed that we affirm Miracles to be
Necessary." 1
Dr. Heurtley, Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University
of Oxford, after pointing out that the doctrines taught as the
Christian Revelation are such as could not by any possibility have
been attained by the unassisted human reason, and that, conse-
quently, it is reasonable that they should be attested by miracles,
continues : " Indeed, it seems inconceivable how without miracles
including prophecy in the notion of a miracle it could suffi-
ciently have commended itself to men's belief? Who would
believe, or would be justified in believing, the great facts which
constitute its substance on the ipse dixit of an unaccredited
teacher? and how, except by miracles, could the first teacher be
accredited ? Paley, then, was fully warranted in the assertion
that ' we cannot conceive a revelation ' such a revelation of
course as Christianity professes to be, a revelation of truths which
transcend man's ability to discover ' to be substantiated without
miracles.' Other credentials, it is true, might be exhibited in
addition to miracles and such it would be natural to look for
but it seems impossible that miracles could be dispensed with." 2
Dr. Mansel bears similar testimony : " A teacher who proclaims
himself to be specially sent by God, and whose teaching is to be
received on the authority of that mission, must, from the nature
of the case, establish his claim by proofs of another kind than
those which merely evince his human wisdom or goodness. A
superhuman authority needs to be substantiated by superhuman
evidence ; and what is superhuman is miraculous." 3
Newman, in discussing the idea and scope of miracles, says :
"A revelation that is, a direct message from God to man
itself bears in some degree a miraculous character And as a
revelation itself, so again the evidences of a revelation may all
more or less be considered miraculous It might even be
said that, strictly speaking, no evidence of a revelation is con-
ceivable which does not partake of the character of a miracle ;
since nothing but a display of power over the existing system of
things can attest the immediate presence of Him by whom it was
originally established." 4
Dr. Mozley has stated in still stronger terms the necessity that
1 Sermons, etc. Sermon viii., " Miracles the Most Proper Way of Proving
any Religion" (vol. iii., 1766, p. 199).
2 Replies to Essays and Jteviews, 1862, p. 151.
' Aids to Faith, 4th ed., 1863, p. 35.
Two Essays on Scripture Miracles and on Ecclesiastical, by John H.
Newman, 2nd ed., 1870, p. 6 f.
5
Christianity should be authenticated by the evidence of miracles.
He supposes the case that a person of evident integrity and lofti-
ness of character had appeared, eighteen centuries ago, announcing
himself as pre-existent from all eternity, the Son of God, Maker
of the world, who had come down from heaven and assumed the
form and nature of man in order to be the Lamb of God that
taketh away the sins of the world, and so on, enumerating other
doctrines of Christianity. Dr. Mo/ley then asks : " What would
be the inevitable conclusion of sober reason respecting that person ?
The necessary conclusion of sober reason respecting that person
would be that he was disordered in his understanding By no
rational being could a just and benevolent life be accepted as
proof of such astonishing announcements. Miracles are the
necessary complement, then, of the truth of such announcements,
which, without them, are purposeless and abortive, the unfinished
fragments of a design which is nothing unless it is the whole.
They are necessary to the justification of such announcements,
which indeed, unless they are supernatural truths, are the wildest
delusions." 1 He, therefore, concludes that " Christianity cannot
be maintained as a revelation undiscoverable by human reason, a
revelation of a supernatural scheme for man's salvation, without
the evidence of miracles." 2
In all points Christianity is emphatically a Supernatural
Religion, claiming to be divine in its origin, superhuman in its
essence, and miraculous in its evidence. It cannot be accepted
without an absolute belief in miracles, and those who profess to
hold the religion whilst they discredit its supernatural elements
and they are many at the present day have widely seceded from
ecclesiastical Christianity. Miracles, it is true, are external to
Christianity in so far as they are evidential, but inasmuch as it is
admitted that miracles alone can attest the reality of Divine
revelation they are still inseparable from it ; and as the contents
of the revelation are, so to say, more miraculous than its attesting
miracles, the supernatural enters into the very substance of Chris-
tianity, and cannot be eliminated. It is obvious, therefore, that
the reality of miracles is the vital point in the investigation which
we have undertaken. If the reality of miracles cannot be estab-
lished, Christianity loses the only evidence by which its truth can
be sufficiently attested. If miracles be incredible, the super-
natural revelation and its miraculous evidence must together be
rejected.
This fact is thoroughly recognised by the ablest Christian
divines. Dean Mansel, speaking of the position of miracles in
1 Bainpton Lectures > 1865, p. 14. 2 Ib. t p. 23.
!/
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
regard to Christianity, says : " The question, however, assumes a
very different character when it relates, not to the comparative
importance of miracles as evidences, but to their reality as facts,
and as facts of a supernatural kind. For, if this is denied, the
denial does not merely remove one of the supports of a faith
which may yet rest securely on other grounds. On the contrary,
the whole system of Christian belief with its evidences all
Christianity, in short, so far as it has any title to that name, so far
as it has any special relation to the person or the teaching of
Christ, is overthrown at the same time." 1 A little further on he
says : " If there be one fact recorded in Scripture which is
entitled, in the fullest sense of the word, to the name of a
miracle, the RESURRECTION OF CHRIST is that fact. Here, at
least, is an instance in which the entire Christian faith must stand
or fall with our belief in the supernatural." 2 He, therefore,
properly repudiates the view, " which represents the question of
the possibility of miracles as one which merely affects the
external accessories of Christianity, leaving the essential doctrines
untouched" 3 Dr. Mozley, in a similar manner, argues the insepar-
able union of miracles with the Christian faith. " Indeed, not
only are miracles conjoined with doctrine in Christianity, but
miracles are inserted in the doctrine and are part of its contents.
A man cannot state his belief as a Christian in the terms of the
Apostles' Creed without asserting them. Can the doctrine of
our Lord's Incarnation be disjoined from one physical miracle ?
Can the doctrine of His justification of us and intercession for us
be disjoined from another? If a miracle is incorporated as
an article in a creed, that article of the creed, the miracle, and the
proof of it by a miracle, are all one thing. The great miracles,
therefore, upon the evidence of which the Christian scheme
rested, being thus inserted in the Christian Creed, the belief in
the Creed was of itself the belief in the miraculous evidence of
it Thus miracles and the supernatural contents of Christianity
must stand or fall together."* Dr. Heurtley, referring to the dis-
cussion of the reality of miracles, exclaims : " It is not too much
to say, therefore, that the question is vital as regards Christianity."s
Dr. Westcott not less emphatically makes the same statement.
" It is evident," he says, " that if the claim to be a miraculous
religion is essentially incredible, apostolic Christianity is simply
false The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and, if it
can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all
further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous in a
1 Aids to Faith, 1863, p. 3. /., p . 4 .
3 /<*, p. 5- 4 Bamplon Lectures, 1865, p. 21 f.
5 Replies to Essays and Reviews, 1862, p. 143.
VITAL IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION OF MIRACLES 7
religious point of view." 1 Similarly, Dr. Farrar has said : " How-
ever skilfully the modern ingenuity of semi-belief may have
tampered with supernatural interpositions, it is clear to every
honest and unsophisticated mind that, if miracles be incredible,
Christianity is false. If Christ wrought no miracles, then the
Gospels are untrustworthy If the Resurrection be merely a
spiritual idea, or a mythicised hallucination, then our religion has
been founded on an error " 2
It has been necessary clearly to point our this indissoluble
connection between ecclesiastical Christianity and the supernatural,
in order that the paramount importance of the question as to the
credibility of miracles should be duly appreciated. Our inquiry
into the reality of Divine Revelation, then, whether we consider
its contents or its evidence, practically reduces itself to the very
simple issue : Are miracles antecedently credible ? Did they
ever really take place ? We do not intend to confine ourselves
merely to a discussion of the abstract question, but shall also
endeavour to form a correct estimate of the value of the specific
allegations which are advanced.
Having, then, ascertained that miracles are absolutely necessary
to attest the reality of Divine revelation, we may proceed to
examine them more closely, and for the present we shall confine
ourselves to the representations of these phenomena which are
given in the Bible. Throughout the Old Testament the doctrine
is inculcated that supernatural communications must have super-
natural attestation. God is described as arming his servants with
power to perform wonders, in order that they may thus be
accredited as his special messengers. The Patriarchs and the
people of Israel generally are represented as demanding " a sign ''
of the reality of communications said to come from God, without
which, we are led to suppose, they not only would not have
believed, but would have been justified in disbelieving, that the
message actually came from him. Thus Gideons asks for a sign
that the Lord talked with him, and Hezekiah* demands proof of
the truth of Isaiah's prophecy that he should be restored to health.
It is, however, unnecessary to refer to instances, for it may be
affirmed that, upon all occasions, miraculous evidence of an
alleged divine mission is stated to have been required and
accorded.
The startling information is at the same time given, however,
1 The Gospel of the Resurrection, 3rd ed., 1874, p. 34.
- The Witness of History to Christ, Hulsean Lectures for 1870, 2nd ed.,
1872, p. 25.
3 Judges vi. 17. 4 2 Kings xx. 8 f.
8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
that miracles may be wrought to attest what is false, as well as to
accredit what is true. In one place 1 it is declared that, if a
prophet actually gives a sign or wonder, and it comes to pass, but
teaches the people, on the strength of it, to follow other gods, they
are not to hearken to him, and the prophet is to be put to death.
The false miracle is, here, 2 attributed to God himself : " For the
Ix>rd your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all your soul." In the book
of the Prophet Ezekiel the case is stated in a still stronger way,
and God is represented as directly deceiving the prophet : " And
if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the
Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand
upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people
Israel. "3 God, in fact, is represented as exerting his almighty
power to deceive a man, and then as destroying him for being
deceived. In the same spirit is the passage 4 in which Micaiah
describes the Lord as putting a lying spirit into the mouths of the
prophets who incited Ahab to go to Ramoth-Gilead. Elsewhere, 5
and notably in the New Testament, we find an ascription of real
signs and wonders to another power than God. Jesus himself is
represented as warning his disciples against false prophets, who
work signs and wonders : " Many will say to me in that day, Lord,
Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy name
cast out devils ? and in thy name done many wonderful works ?"
of whom he should say : " I never knew you ; depart from me, ye
that work iniquity." 6 And again in another place : " For false
prophets shall arise, and shall work signs and wonders (o-^/xeta
KOI ripo.ro) to seduce, if it were possible, the elect. "1 Also,
when the Pharisees accuse him of casting out devils by Beelzebub,
the prince of the devils, Jesus asks : " By whom do your children
cast them out ?" 8 a reply which would lose all its point if they were
not admitted to be able to cast out devils. In another passage
John is described as saying : " Master, we saw one casting out
devils in thy name, who folio weth not us, and we forbad him. "9
Without multiplying instances, however, there can be no doubt of
the fact that the reality of false miracles and lying wonders is
admitted in the Bible.
The obvious deduction from this representation of miracles is
' lit*!'. - ; .r -., ' . <i> .
' Deut, xiii. I ff. * Deut. xiii. 3.
Ezek. xiv. 9. The narrative of God's hardening the heart of Pharaoh in
order to bring other plagues upon the land of Egypt is in this vein.
4 I Kings xxii. 14-23.
5 The counter miracles of the Egyptian sorcerers need not be referred to as
Instances. Ex. vii. 11, 12, 22.
6 Matt. vii. 22, 23. 7 Mark xiii. 22,
8 Matt. xii. 27. 9 Mark ix, 38.
THE ORIGIN OF MIRACLES AVOWEDLY DOUBTFUL 9
that the source and purpose of such supernatural phenomena
must always be exceedingly uncertain. 1 Their evidential value is,
therefore, profoundly affected, " it being," as Newman has said of
ambiguous miracles, " antecedently improbable that the Almighty
should rest the credit of His revelation upon events which but
obscurely implied His immediate presence." 2 As it is affirmed
that other supernatural beings exist, as well as an assumed Personal
God, by whose agency miracles are performed, it is impossible to
argue with reason that such phenomena are at any time specially
due to the intervention of the Deity. Newman recognises this,
but passes over the difficulty with masterly lightness of touch.
After advancing the singular argument that our knowledge of
spirits is only derived from Scripture, and that their existence
cannot be deduced from nature, whilst he asserts that the being of
a God a Personal God be it remembered can be so discovered,
and that, therefore, miracles can only properly be attributed to
him, he proceeds : " Still, it may be necessary to show that on our
own principles we are not open to inconsistency. That is, it has
been questioned whether, in admitting the existence and power of
Spirits on the authority of Revelation, we are not in danger of
invalidating the evidence upon which that authority rests. For
the cogency of the argument for miracles depends on the assump-
tion that interruptions in the course of nature must ultimately
proceed from God, which is not true if they may be effected by other
beings without His sanction. And it must be conceded that,
explicit as Scripture is in considering miracles as signs of Divine
agency, it still does seem to give created spirits some power of
working them ; and even in its most literal sense intimates the
possibility of working them in opposition to the true doctrine
(Deut. xiii. 1-3; Matt. xxiv. 24; 2 Thess. ii. 9-11). " 3 Newman
repudiates the attempts of various writers to overcome this
difficulty by making a distinction between great miracles and
small, many miracles and few, or by referring to the nature of the
doctrine attested in order to determine the author of the miracle,
or by denying the power of spirits altogether, and explaining away
Scripture statements of demoniacal possession and the narrative
of the Lord's Temptation. " Without having recourse to any of
these dangerous modes of answering the objection," he says, " it
1 Tertullian saw this difficulty, and in his work against Marcion he argues
that miracles alone, without prophecy, could not sufficiently prove Christ to be
the Son of God ; for he points out that Jesus himself forewarned his disciples
that false Christs would come with signs and wonders, like the miracles which
he himself had worked, whom he enjoined them beforehand not to believe.
Adv. Mare., iii. 3. So also the Author of the Clementines, xvii. 14,
'-' Two Essays on Miracles, p. 31.
3 Ib., p. SO f.
io SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
may be sufficient to reply that since, agreeably to the antecedent
sentiment of reason, God has adopted miracles as the seal of a
divine message, we believe he will never suffer them to be so
counterfeited as to deceive the humble inquirer." 1 This is the
only reply which even so powerful a reasoner as Newman can give
to an objection based on distinct statements of Scripture itself.
He cannot deny the validity of the objection; he can only hope or
believe in spite of it. Personal belief, independent of evidence,
is the most common and the weakest of arguments ; at the best,
it is prejudice masked in the garb of reason. It is perfectly clear
that miracles being thus acknowledged to be common both to God
and to other spirits, they cannot be considered a distinctive
attestation of divine intervention ; and, as Spinoza finely argued,
not even the mere existence of God can be inferred from them ;
for, as a miracle is a limited act, and never expresses more than a
certain and limited power, it is certain that we cannot from such
an effect conclude even the existence of a cause whose power is
infinite. 2
This dual character obviously leads to many difficulties in
defining the evidential function and force of miracles, and we
may best appreciate the dilemma which is involved by continuing
to follow the statements and arguments of divines themselves.
To the question whether miracles are absolutely to command the
obedience of those in whose sight they are performed, and
whether, upon their attestation, the doer and his doctrine are to
be accepted as of God, Archbishop Trench unhesitatingly replies :
" It cannot be so, for side by side with the miracles which serve
for the furthering of the kingdom of God runs another line of
wonders, the counter-workings of him who is ever the ape of the
Most High."3 The deduction is absolutely logical and cannot
be denied. " This fact," he says, " that the kingdom of lies has
its wonders no less than the kingdom of truth, is itself sufficient
evidence that miracles cannot be appealed to absolutely and
finally, in proof of the doctrine which the worker of them
proclaims." This being the case, it is important to discover how
miracles perform their function as the indispensable evidence for
a Divine revelation, for with this disability they do not seem to
possess much potentiality. Archbishop Trench, then, offers the
following definition of the function of miracles : " A miracle
does not prove the truth of a doctrine, or the divine mission of
him that brings it to pass. That which alone it claims for him at
the first is a right to be listened to ; it puts him in the alternative
1 Two Essays on Scripture Miracles, p. 51 f.
2 Opera, ed Tauthnitz, vol in., cap. vi., 24.
3 Notes on the Miracles of our Lord, 8th ed., 1866, p. 22.
DILEMMA FROM THEIR DUAL CHARACTER u
of being from heaven or from hell. The doctrine must first
commend itself to the conscience as being good, and only then
can the miracle seal it as divine. But the first appeal is from the
doctrine to the conscience, to the moral nature of man." 1 Under
certain circumstances, he maintains, their evidence is utterly to be
rejected. " But the purpose of the miracle," he says, " being, as
we have seen, to confirm that which is good, so, upon the other
hand, where the mind and conscience witness against the doctrine,
not all the miracles in the world have a right to demand sub-
mission to the word which they seal. On the contrary, the great
act of faith is to believe, against, and in despite of them all, in
what God has revealed to, and implanted in the soul of the holy
and the true; not to believe another Gospel, though an angel
from heaven, or one transformed into such, should bring it
(Deut. xiii. 3 ; Gal. i. 8) ; and instead of compelling assent,
miracles are then rather warnings to us that we keep aloof, for
they tell us that not merely lies are here, for to that the conscience
bore witness already, but that he who utters them is more than a
common deceiver, is eminently ' a liar and an Anti-christ,' a false
prophet standing in more immediate connection than other
deceived and evil men to the kingdom of darkness, so that Satan
has given him his power (Rev. xiii. 2), is using him to be an
especial organ of his, and to do a special work for him." 2 And
he lays down the distinct principle that "The miracle must
witness for itself, and the doctrine must witness for itself, and
then, and then only, the first is capable of witnessing for the
second." 3
These opinions are not peculiar to the Archbishop of Dublin,
but are generally held by divines, although Dr. Trench expresses
them with unusual absence of reserve. Dr. Mozley emphatically
affirms the same doctrine when he says : "A miracle cannot oblige
us to accept any doctrine which is contrary to our moral nature,
or to a fundamental principle of religion."'* Dr. Mansel speaks
1 Notes, etc., p. 25. Dr. Trench's views are of considerable eccentricity,
and he seems to reproduce in some degree the Platonic theory of Remi-
niscence. He continues: "For all revelation presupposes in man a power
of recognising the truth when it is shown him that it will find an answer in
him that he will trace in it the lineaments of a friend, though of a friend
from whom he has been long estranged, and whom he has well-nigh forgotten.
It is the finding of a treasure, but of a treasure which he himself and no other
had lost. The denial of this, that there is in man any organ by which truth
may be recognised, opens the door to the most boundless scepticism is,
indeed, the denial of all that is god-like in man" (/<., p. 25). The Arch-
bishop would probably be shocked if we suggested that the god-like organ of
which he speaks is Reason.
3 /5., p. 2;f. 3 ib. t p . 33.
4 Bainpton Lectures, 1865, p. 25.
12
to the same effect : " If a teacher claiming to work miracles
proclaims doctrines contradictory to previously established truths,
whether to the conclusions of natural religion or to the teaching
of a former revelation, such a contradiction is allowed, even by
the most zealous defenders of the evidential value of miracles, to
invalidate the authority of the teacher. But the right conclusion
from this admission is not that true miracles are invalid as
evidences, but that the supposed miracles in this case are not
true miracles at all i.e., are not the effects of Divine power, but
of human deception or of some other agency." 1 A passage from
a letter written by Dr. Arnold which is quoted by Dr. Trench in
support of his views both illustrates the doctrine and the necessity
which has led to its adoption : " You complain," says Dr. Arnold,
writing to Dr. Hawkins, " of those persons who judge of a revela-
tion not by its evidence, but by its substance. It has always
seemed to me that its substance is a most essential part of its
evidence ; and that miracles wrought in favour of what was foolish
or wicked would only prove Manicheism. We are so perfectly
ignorant of the unseen world that the character of any'supernatural
power can only be judged by the moral character of the state-
ments which it sanctions. Thus only can we tell whether it be
a revelation from God or from the Devil." 2 In another place
Dr. Arnold declares : " Miracles must not be allowed to overrule
the Gospel ; for it is only through our belief in the Gospel that
we accord our belief to them. "3
1 Aids to Faith, p. 32.
- Life of Arnold, ii. , p. 226.
3 Lectures on Modern History, p. 137. Those who hold such views forget
that the greatest miracles of ecclesiastical Christianity are not external to it,
but are the essence of its principal dogmas. If the "signs" and "wonders"
which form what may be called the collateral miracles of Christianity are only
believed in consequence of belief "in the Gospel, upon what basis does belief in
the miraculous birth, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Ascension, and other
leading dogmas, rest? These are themselves the Gospel. Newman, the
character of whose mind leads him to believe every miracle the evidence
against which does not absolutely prohibit his doing so, rather than only those
the evidence for which constrains him to belief, supports ecclesiastical miracles
somewhat at the expense of those" of the Gospels. He points out that only a
few of the latter now fulfil the purpose of evidence for a Divine revelation, and
the rest are sustained and authenticated by those few ; that ' ' The many
never have been evidence except to those who saw them, and have but held
the place of doctrine ever since ; like the truths revealed to us about the unseen
world, which are matters of faith, not means of conviction. They have no
existence, as it were, out of the record in which they are found." He then
proceeds to refer to the criterion of a miracle suggested by Bishop Douglas :
" We may suspect miracles to be false the account of which was not published
at the time or place of their alleged occurrence, or, if so published, yet without
careful attention being called to them." Newman then adds : " Yet St. Mark
is said to have written at Rome, St. Luke in Rome or Greece, and St. John
MUTUAL DEPENDENCE OF MIRACLES AND DOCTRINES 13
It is obvious that the mutual dependence which is thus estab-
lished between miracles and the doctrines in connection with
which they are wrought destroys the evidential force of miracles,
and that the first and the final appeal is made to reason. The
doctrine, in fact, proves the miracle instead of the miracle attesting
the doctrine. Divines of course attempt to deny this, but no
other deduction from their own statements is logically possible.
Miracles, according to Scripture itself, are producible by various
supernatural beings, and may be Satanic as well as Divine ; man,
on the other hand, is so ignorant of the unseen world that
avowedly he cannot, from the miracle itself, determine the agent
by whom it was performed; 1 the miracle, therefore, has no
intrinsic evidential value. How, then, according to divines, does
it attain any potentiality ? Only through a favourable decision on
the part of Reason or the " moral nature in man " regarding the
character of the doctrine. The result of the appeal to Reason
respecting the morality and credibility of the doctrine determines
the evidential status of the miracle. The doctrine, therefore, is
the real criterion of the miracle which, without it, is necessarily an
object of doubt and suspicion.
We have already casually referred to Newman's view of such a
relation between miracle and doctrine, but may here more fully
quote his suggestive remarks. " Others, by referring to the nature
of the doctrine attested," he says, "in order to determine the
author of the miracle, have exposed themselves to the plausible
charge of adducing, first the miracle to attest the divinity of the
doctrine, and then the doctrine to prove the divinity of the
miracle." 2 This argument he characterises as one of the "dangerous
modes " of removing a difficulty, although he does not himself
point out a safer, and, in a note, he adds : "There is an appear-
ance of doing honour to the Christian doctrines in representing
them as intrinsically credible, which leads many into supporting
opinions which, carried to their full extent, supersede the need of
miracles altogether. It must be recollected, too, that they who
are allowed to praise have the privilege of finding fault, and may
reject, according to their a priori notions, as well as receive.
at Ephesus ; and the earliest of the Evangelists wrote some years after the
events recorded, while the latest did not write for sixty years ; and moreover,
true though it be that attention was called to Christianity from the first, yet it
is true also that it did not succeed at the spot where it arose, but principally
at a distance from it" (Two Essays on Miracles, etc., and ed., 1870, p. 232 f. ).
How much these remarks might have been extended and strengthened by one
more critical and less ecclesiastical than Newman need not here be stated.
1 Newman says of a miracle : " Considered by itself, it is at most but the
token of a superhuman being " ( Two Essays, p. 10).
2 Two Essays, etc., p. 51.
I 4 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Doubtless the divinity of a clearly immoral doctrine could not be
evidenced by miracles ; for our belief in the moral attributes of
God is much stronger than our conviction of the negative proposi-
tion that none but He can interfere with the system of nature. 1
But there is always the danger of extending this admission beyond
its proper limits, of supposing ourselves adequate judges of the
tendency of doctrines ; and, because unassisted reason informs us
what is moral and immoral in our own case, of attempting to
decide on the abstract morality of actions These remarks are
in nowise inconsistent with using (as was done in a former section)
our actual knowledge of God's attributes, obtained from a survey
of nature and human affairs, in determining the probability of
certain professed miracles having proceeded from Him. It is one
thing to infer from the experience of life, another to imagine the
character of God from the gratuitous conceptions of our own
minds." 2 Although Newman apparently fails to perceive that he
himself thus makes reason the criterion of miracles, and therefore
incurs the condemnation with which our quotation opens, the
very indecision of his argument illustrates the dilemma in which
divines are placed. Dr. Mozley, however, still more directly
condemns the principle which we are discussing that the doctrine
must be the criterion of the miracle although he also, as we have
seen, elsewhere substantially affirms it. He says : " The position
that the revelation proves the miracles, and not the miracles the
revelation, admits of a good qualified meaning ; but, taken
literally, it is a double offence against the rule that things are properly
proved by the proper proof of them ; for a supernatural fact is
the proper proof of a supernatural doctrine ; while a supernatural
doctrine, on the other hand, is certainly not the proper proof of a
supernatural fact."3
1 In another place, however, Newman, contrasting the " Rationalistic" and
"Catholic" tempers, and condemning the former, says : "Rationalism is a
certain abuse of reason that is, a use of it for purposes for which it never was
intended, and is unfitted. To rationalise in matters of revelation is to make
our reason the standard and measure of the doctrines revealed ; to stipulate
that those doctrines should be such as to carry with them their own justifica-
tion ; to reject them if they come in collision with our existing opinions
or habits of thought, or are with difficulty harmonised with our existing stock
of knowledge" (Essays, Crit. and Hist., 1872, vol. i.; p. 31); and a little
further on: "A like desire of judging for one's self is discernible in the
original fall of man. Eve did not believe the Tempter any more than God's
word, till she perceived ' the fruit was good for food ' " (Ib., p. 33). Newman,
of course, wishes to limit his principle precisely to suit his own convenience ;
but in permitting the rejection of a supposed revelation in spite of miracles, on
the ground of our disapproval of its morality, it is obvious that the doctrine is
substantially made the final criterion of the miracle.
2 Two Essays, etc. , p. 5 1 f. , note (k).
3 Bampton Lectures, 1865, p. 19.
DOCTRINE AS THE CRITERION OF MIRACLES 15
This statement is obviously true, but it is equally undeniable
that, their origin being uncertain, miracles have no distinctive
evidential force. How far, then, we may inquire in order
thoroughly to understand the position, can doctrines prove the
reality of miracles or determine the agency by which they are
performed? In the case of moral truths within the limits of
reason, it is evident that doctrines which are in accordance with
our ideas of what is good and right do not require miraculous
evidence at all. They can secure acceptance by their own merits
alone. At the same time, it is universally admitted that the truth
or goodness of a doctrine is, in itself, no proof that it emanates
directly from God, and consequently the most obvious wisdom
and beauty in the doctrine could not attest the Divine origin of a
miracle. Such truths, however, have no proper connection with
revelation at all. " These truths," to quote the words of Bishop
Atterbury, " were of themselves sufficiently obvious and plain, and
needed not a Divine testimony to make them plainer. But the
truths which are necessary in this manner to be attested are
those which are of positive institution ; those which, if God had
not pleased to reveal them, human reason could not have
discovered ; and those which, even now they are revealed, human
reason cannot fully account for and perfectly comprehend." 1
How is it possible, then, that reason or " the moral nature in man "
can approve as good, or appreciate the fitness of, doctrines which
in their very nature are beyond the criterion of reason ? 2 What
reply, for instance, can reason give to any appeal to it regarding
the doctrine of the Trinity or of the Incarnation ? If doctrines
the truth and goodness of which are apparent do not afford any
evidence of Divine revelation, how can doctrines which reason
can neither discover nor comprehend attest the Divine origin of
miracles ? Dr. Mozley clearly recognises that they cannot do so.
" The proof of a revelation," he says and, we may add, the proof
of a miracle, itself a species of revelation " which is contained in
the substance of a revelation, has this inherent check or limit in it :
viz., that it cannot reach to what is undiscoverable by reason.
Internal evidence is itself an appeal to reason, because at every
step the test is our own appreciation of such and such an idea or
doctrine, our own perception of its fitness; but human reason
cannot in the nature of the case prove that which, by the
very hypothesis, lies beyond human reason."3 It naturally follows
that no doctrine which lies beyond reason, and therefore requires
1 Sermons, 8th ed. , 1766, vol. Hi., p. 198.
2 Bishop Butler says : " Christianity is a scheme quite beyond our compre-
hension " (Analogy of Religion, part ii. , ch. iv., i).
3 Bainpton Lectures, 1865, p. 15.
16 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the attestation of miracles, can possibly afford that indication of
the source and reality of miracles which is necessary to endow
them with evidential value ; and the supernatural doctrine must,
therefore, be rejected in the absence of miraculous evidence of a
decisive character.
Dr. Mozley labours earnestly, but unsuccessfully, to restore to
miracles as evidence some part of that potentiality of which these
unfortunate limitations have deprived them. Whilst, on the one
hand, he says, " We must admit, indeed, an inherent modification
in the function of a miracle as an instrument of proof," 1 he argues
that this is only a limitation, and no disproof of it, and he contends
that " The evidence of miracles is not negative, because it has
conditions." 2 His reasoning, however, is purely apologetic, and
attempts, by the unreal analogy of supposed limitations of natural
principles and evidence, to excuse the disqualifying limitation of the
supernatural. He is quite conscious of the serious difficulty of the
position. " The question," he says, " may at first sight create a
dilemma If a miracle is nugatory on the side of one doctrine,
what cogency has it on the side of another ? Is it legitimate to
accept its evidence when we please, and reject it when we please ?"
The only reply he seems able to give to these very pertinent
questions is the remark which immediately follows them : " But in
truth a miracle is never without an argumentative force, although
that force may be counterbalanced.'^ In other words, a miracle is
always an argument, although it is often a bad one. It is scarcely
necessary to go to the supernatural for bad arguments.
It might naturally be expected that the miraculous evidence
selected to accredit a Divine revelation should possess certain
unique and marked characteristics. It must, at least, be clearly
distinctive of Divine power, and exclusively associated with Divine
truth. It is inconceivable that the Deity, deigning thus to attest
the reality of a communication from himself of truths beyond the
criterion of reason, should not make the evidence simple and
complete, because, the doctrines proper to such a revelation not
being appreciable from internal evidence, it is obvious that the
external testimony for them if it is to be of any use must be
unmistakable and decisive. The evidence which is actually
produced, however, so far from satisfying these legitimate
anticipations, lacks every one of the qualifications which reason
antecedently declares to be necessary. Miracles are not distinctive
of Divine power, but are common to Satan, and they are admitted
to be performed in support of falsehood as well as in the service of
truth. They bear, indeed, so little upon them the impress of their
origin and true character that they are dependent for their
1 Bampton Lectures, p. 25. 2 76., fy 25. 3 76., p. 25.
MIRACLES INCOMPETENT TO PERFORM FUNCTION 17
recognition upon our judgment of the very doctrines to attest
which they are said to have been designed.
Even taking the representation of miracles, therefore, which
divines themselves give, they are utterly incompetent to perform
their contemplated functions. If they are superhuman they are
not super-Satanic, and there is no sense in which they can be
considered miraculously evidential of anything. To argue, as
theologians do, that the ambiguity of their testimony is deliberately
intended as a trial of our faith is absurd, for, reason being unable
to judge of the nature either of supernatural fact or supernatural
doctrine, it would be mere folly and injustice to subject to such a
test beings avowedly incapable of sustaining it. Whilst it is
absolutely necessary, then, that a Divine revelation should be
attested by miraculous evidence to justify our believing it, the
testimony so-called seems, in all respects, unworthy of the name,
and presents anomalies much more suggestive of human invention
than Divine originality. We are, in fact, prepared, even by the
Scriptural account of miracles, to expect that further examination
will supply an explanation of such phenomena which will wholly
remove them from the region of the supernatural.
CHAPTER II. MI.
MIRACLES IN RELATION TO THE ORDER OF NATURE
WITHOUT at present touching the question as to their reality, it
may be well to ascertain what miracles are considered to be, and
how far, and in what sense, it is asserted that they are supernatural.
We have, hitherto, almost entirely confined our attention to the
arguments of English divines, and we must for the present
continue chiefly to deal with them, for it may broadly be said that
they alone, at the present day, maintain the reality and supernatural
character of such phenomena. No thoughtful mind can fail to
see that, considering the function of miracles, this is the only
logical and consistent course. 1 The insuperable difficulties in the
way of admitting the reality of miracles, however, have driven the
great majority of continental, as well as very many English,
theologians who still pretend to a certain orthodoxy, either to
explain the miracles of the Gospel naturally, or to suppress them
altogether. Since Schleiermacher denounced the idea of Divine
interuptions of the order of nature, and explained away the super-
natural character of miracles, by denning them as merely relative
miracles to us, but in reality mere anticipations of human
knowledge and power his example has been more or less followed
throughout Germany, and almost every expedient has been
adopted by would-be orthodox writers to reduce, or altogether
eliminate, the miraculous elements. The attempts which have
been made to do this, and yet to maintain the semblance of
unshaken belief in the main points of ecclesiastical Christianity,
have lamentably failed, from the hopeless nature of the task and
the fundamental error of the conception. The endeavour of
Paulus and his school to get rid of the supernatural by a bold
naturalistic interpretation of the language of the Gospel naratives,
whilst the credibility of the record was represented as intact, was
too glaring an outrage upon common sense to be successful; but it
was scarcely more illogical than subsequent efforts to suppress the
1 Newman writes : " Nay, if we only go so far as to realise what Christianity
is, when considered merely as a creed, and what stupendous overpowering
facts are involved in the doctrine of a Divine Incarnation, we shall feel that no
miracle can be great after it, nothing strange or marvellous, nothing beyond
expectation " ( 7 wo Essays on Scripture Miracles, etc., 1870, p. 185).
18
ANALYSIS OF MIRACLES 19
miraculous, yet retain the creed. The great majority of modern
German critics, however, reject the miraculous altogether, and
consider the question as no longer worthy of discussion ; and most
of those who have not distinctly expressed this view either resort
to every linguistic device to evade the difficulty, or betray by their
hesitation the feebleness of their belief. 1 In dealing with the
question of miracles, therefore, it is not to Germany we must turn,
but to England, where their reality is still maintained.
Archbishop Trench rejects with disdain the attempts of Schleier-
macher and others to get rid of the miraculous elements of
miracles, by making them relative, which he rightly considers to
be merely " a decently veiled denial of the miracle altogether "; 2
and he will not accept any reconciliation which sacrifices the
miracle, " which," he logically affirms, " is, in fact, no miracle, if
it lay in nature already, if it was only the evoking of forces latent
therein, not a new thing, not the bringing in of the novel powers
of a higher world ; if the mysterious processes and powers by
which those works were brought about had been only undiscovered
hitherto, and not undiscoverable, by the efforts of human
inquiry. "3 When Dr. Trench tries to define what he considers
1 It may be well to refer more particularly to the views of Ewald, one of the
most profound scholars, but, at the same time, arbitrary critics, of this time.
In his great work, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, he rejects the supernatural
from all the "miracles" of the Old Testament (cf. III. Ausg. 1864, Band i.,
p. 385 ff., ii., p. 88 f., 101 ft"., 353 ff.), and in the fifth volume Christus u.s.
Zeit, he does not belie his previous opinions. lie deliberately repudiates the
miraculous birth of Jesus (v. p. 236), rejects the supernatural from the birth of
John the Baptist, and denies the relationship (Luke i. 36) between him and
Jesus (p. 230 ff.). The miraculous events at the Crucifixion are mere poetical
imaginations (p. 581). The Resurrection is the creation of the pious longing
and excited^ feeling of the disciples (Band vi. Gesch. des Apost. Zeitalters,
1858, p. 71 f. ), and the Ascension, its natural sequel (vi. p. 95 f. ). In regard
to the miracles of Jesus, his treatment of disease was principally mental and
by the exercise of moral influence on the mind of the sick ; but he also
employed external means, inquired into the symptoms of disease, and his
action was subject to the laws of Divine order (v. pp. 291-299). Ewald
spiritualises the greater miracles until the physical basis is almost completely
lost. In the miracle at the marriage of Cana, "water itself, under the
influence of his spirit, becomes the best wine," as it still does wherever his
spirit is working in full power (v. p. 329). The miraculous feeding of 5,000
is a narrative based on some tradition of an occasion in which Jesus, " with the
smallest external means, but infinitely more through his spirit and word and
prayer, satisfied all who came to hint" -an allegory, in fact, of the higher
satisfying power of the bread of life which in course of time grew to the
consistency of a physical miracle (v. p. 442). The raising of the son of the
widow of Nain is represented as a case of suspended animation (v. p. 424).
In his latest work, Die Lehre der Bibel von Goit, Ewald eliminates all the
miraculous elements from Revelation, which he extends to all historical
religions (with the exception of Mohammedanism), as well as to the religion of
the Bible (i., p. 18, 8).
- Notes on Miracles, p. 74. 3 /j, ( p 75.
20 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the real character of miracles, however, he becomes, as might be
expected, voluminous and obscure. He says : " An extra-
ordinary Divine casualty, and not that ordinary which we acknow-
ledge everywhere, and in everything, belongs, then, to the
essence of the miracle ; powers of God other than those which
have always been working ; such, indeed, as most seldom or
never have been working before. The unresting activity of God,
which at other times hides and conceals itself behind the veil of
what we term natural laws, does in the miracle unveil itself; it
steps out from its concealment, and the hand which works is
laid bare. Beside and beyond the ordinary operation of nature,
higher powers (higher, not as coming from a higher source, but as
bearing upon higher ends) intrude and make themselves felt even
at the very springs and sources of her power." 1 " Not, as we
shall see the greatest theologians have always earnestly contended,
contra naturam, but prceter naturam, and supra naturam." 2
Further on he adds : " Beyond nature, beyond and above the
nature which we know, they are, but not contrary to it." 3
Newman, in a similar strain, though with greater directness, says :
" The miracles of Scripture are undeniably beyond nature "; and
he explains them as " wrought by persons consciously exercising,
under Divine guidance, a power committed to them for definite
ends, professing to be immediate messengers from heaven, and to
evidencing their mission by their miracles." 4
Miracles are here described as " beside," and " beyond," and
" above " nature ; but a moment's consideration must show that,
in so far as these terms have any meaning at all, they are simply
evasions, not solutions, of a difficulty. Dr. Trench is quite
sensible of the danger in which the definition of miracles places
them, and how fatal to his argument it would be to admit that
they are contrary to the order of nature. "The miracle/' he
protests, "is not thus unnatural ; nor could it be such, since the
unnatural, the contrary to order, is of itself the ungodly, and can
in no way, therefore, be affirmed of a Divine work, such as that
with which we have to do." 5 The Archbishop, in this, however, is
clearly arguing from nature to miracles, and not from miracles to
nature. He does not, of course, know what miracles really are ;
but, as he recognises that the order of nature must be maintained,
he is forced to assert that miracles are not contrary to nature. He
repudiates the idea of their being natural phenomena, and yet
attempts to deny that they are unnatural. They must either be
the one or the other. Indeed, that his distinction is purely
1 Notes on Miracles, p. 12. 3 Ib>, p. 12, note 2. 3 Ib., p. 14.
4 Two Essays on Scripture Miracles ', etc., p. 116.
5 Notes on Miracles, p. 15.
ANALYSIS OF MIRACLES
imaginary, and inconsistent with the alleged facts of Scriptural
miracles, is apparent from Dr, Trench's own illustrations. The
whole argument is a mere quibble of words to evade a palpable
dilemma. Newman does not fall into this error, and more boldly
faces the difficulty. He admits that the Scripture miracles
" innovate upon the impressions which are made upon us by the
order and the laws of the natural world "; r and that " walking on
the sea, or the resurrection of the dead, is a plain reversal of its
laws." 2
Take, for instance, the multiplication of loaves and fishes,
Five thousand people are fed upon five barley loaves and two
small fishes ; " and they took up of the fragments which remained
twelve baskets full, "2 Dr. Trench is forced to renounce all help
in explaining this miracle from natural analogies, and he admits ;
" We must simply behold in the multiplying of the bread " (and
fishes ?) " an act of Divine omnipotence on His part who was the
Word of God not, indeed, now as at the first, of absolute
creation out of nothing, since there was a substratum to work
on in the original loaves and fishes, but an act of creative accre-
tion. "* It will scarcely be argued by anyone that such an "act of
Divine omnipotence " and " creative accretion " as this multiplica-
tion of five baked loaves and two small fishes is not contrary to
the order of nature. 5 For Dr. Trench has himself pointed out
that there must be interposition of man's art here, and that "a
grain of wheat could never by itself, and according to the laws of
natural development, issue in a loaf of bread." 6
Undaunted by, or rather unconscious of, such contradictions,
the Archbishop proceeds with his argument, and with new defini-
tions of the miraculous. So far from being disorder of nature, he
continues, with audacious precision : " The true miracle is a
higher and a purer nature, coming down out of the world of
untroubled harmonies into this world of ours, which so many
discords have jarred and disturbed, and bringing this back again,
though it be but for one mysterious prophetic moment, into
harmony with that higher."? In that " higher and purer nature "
can a grain of wheat issue in a loaf of bread ? We have only to
apply this theory to the miraculous multiplication of loaves and
1 Two Essays on Scripture Miracles, etc., p. 154. 2 /#., p. 158.
3 Matt. xiv. 20. < Notes on Miracles, p. 274 f.
5 Newman, referring to this amongst other miracles as "a far greater
innovation upon the economy of nature than the miracles of the Church
upon the economy of Scripture," says: "There is nothing, for instance,
in nature at all to parallel and mitigate the wonderful history of the
multiplication of an artificially prepared substance such as bread" (Two
Essays, p. 157 f.).
6 Notes on Miracles, p. 274. 7 ib. t p. 15.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
fishes to perceive how completely it is the creation of Dr. Trench's
poetical fancy.
These passages fairly illustrate the purely imaginary and arbitrary
nature of the definitions which those who maintain the reality and
supernatural character of miracles give of them. The favourite
hypothesis is that which ascribes miracles to the action of unknown
law. Archbishop Trench naturally adopts it. " We should see in
the miracle," he says, "not the infraction of a law, but the
neutralising of a lower law, the suspension of it for a time by a
higher "; and he asks with indignation whence we dare conclude
that, because we know of no powers sufficient to produce miracles,
none exist. " They exceed the laws of our nature ; but it does
not therefore follow that they exceed the laws of all nature." 1 It
is not easy to follow the distinction here between " our nature "
and " all nature," since the order of nature, by which miracles are
judged, is, so far as knowledge goes, universal, and we have no
grounds for assuming that there is any other.
The same hypothesis is elaborated by Dr. Mozley. Assuming
the facts of miracles, he proceeds to discuss the question of their
" referribleness to unknown law," in which expression he includes
both " unknown law, or unknown connection with known law." 2
Taking first the supposition of unknoivn connection with known
law, he argues that, as a law of nature, in the scientific sense,
cannot possibly produce single or isolated facts, it follows that no
isolated or exceptional event can come under a law of nature by
direct observation ; but, if it comes under it at all, it can only do
so by some explanation, which takes it out of its isolation and joins
it to a class of facts, whose recurrence indeed constitutes the law.
Now Dr. Mozley admits that no explanation can be given by which
miracles can have an unknown connection with known law.
1 Notes on Miracles, p. 16. Dr. Liddon writes on the evidential purpose of
miracles and their nature, as follows : " But how is man enabled to identify the
Author of this law within him " (which the highest instincts of the human con-
science derive from the Christian Revelation and the life of Christ), " perfectly
reflected as it is in the Christ, with the Author of the law of the Universe
without him ? The answer is, by miracle. Miracle is an innovation upon
physical law or at least a suspension of some lower physical law by the inter-
vention of a higher one in the interests of moral law. The historical fact that
Jesus Christ rose from the dead identifies the Lord of physical life and death with
the Legislator of the Sermon on the Mount. Miracle is the certificate of
identity between the Ix>rd of Nature and the Lord of Conscience the proof
that He is really a moral being who subordinates physical to moral interests.
Miracle is the meeting-point between intellect and the moral sense, because it
announces the answer to the efforts and yearnings alike of the moral sense and
the intellect ; because it announces revelation (Some Elements of Religion,
Lent Lectures, 1870 ; H. P. Liddon, D.D., Canon of St. Paul's, 1872, p. 74 f.).
3 Bampton Lectures } 1865, p. 145. * %
UNKNOWN LAW 23
Taking the largest class of miracles, bodily cures, the corre-
spondence between a simple command or prophetic notification
and the cure is the chief characteristic of miracles, and dis-
tinguishes them from mere marvels. No violation of any law of
nature takes place in either the cure or the prophetic announce-
ment taken separately, but the two taken together are the proof of
superhuman agency. He concludes that no physical hypothesis
can be framed accounting for the superhuman knowledge and
power involved in this class of miracles, supposing the miracles to
stand as they are recorded in Scripture. 1
The inquiry is then shifted to the other and different question :
whether miracles may not be instances of laws which are as yet
wholly unknown. 2 This is generally called a question of " higher
law " that is to say, a law which comprehends under itself two or
more lower or less wide laws. And the principle would be
applicable to miracles by supposing the existence of an unknown
law, hereafter to be discovered, under which miracles would come,
and then considering whether this new law of miracles and the
old law of common facts might not both be reducible to a still
more general law, which comprehended them both; but Dr. Mozley,
of course, recognises that the discovery of such a law of miracles
would necessarily involve the discovery of fresh miracles, for to
talk of a law of miracles without miracles would be an absurdity, 3
The supposition of the discovery of such a law of miracles, how-
ever, would be tantamount to the supposition of a future new
order of nature, from which it immediately follows that the whole
supposition is irrelevant and futile as regards the present question.*
For no new order of things could make the present order different,
and a miracle, could we suppose it becoming the ordinary fact of
another different order of nature, would not be less a violation of
the laws of nature in the present one. 5 This explanation is also
rejected.
We pause here to remark that throughout the whole inquiry
into the question of miracles we meet with nothing from
theologians but mere assumptions. The facts of the narrative of
the miracle are first assumed, and so are the theories by which it
is explained. Now, with regard to every theory which seeks to
explain miracles by assumption, we may quote words applied by
one of the ablest defenders of miracles to some conclusion of
straw, which he placed in the mouth of an imaginary antagonist in
order that he might refute it. " But the question is," said
Dr. Mansel, "not whether such a conclusion has been asserted, as
many other absurdities have been asserted, by the advocates of a
' Bampton Lectures, 1865, pp. 145-153. - //>., pp. 153-159.
3 Ib., p. 154 f. * /., p. 156. s /., p . 157.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
theory, but whether it has been established on such scientific
grounds as to be entitled to the assent of all duly-cultivated minds,
whatever their own consciences may say to the contrary." 1
Immediately after his indignant demand for scientific accuracy
of demonstration, Dr. Mansel proceeds to argue as follows : In the
will of man we have the solitary instance of an efficient cause, in
the highest sense of the term, acting among the physical causes
of the material world, and producing results which could not
have been brought about by any mere sequence of physical
causes. If a man of his own will throw a stone into the air, its
motion, as soon as it has left his hand, is determined by a
combination of purely material laws ; but by what law came it
to be thrown at all ? The law of gravitation, no doubt, remains
constant and unbroken, whether the stone is lying on the ground
or moving through the air ; but all the laws of matter could not
have brought about the particular result, without the interposition
of the free will of the man who throws the stone. Substitute the
will of God for the will of man, and the argument becomes
applicable to the whole extent of creation and to all the phenomena
which it embraces, 2
It is evident that this argument merely tends to prove that every
effect must have a cause a proposition too obvious to require any
argument at all. If a man had not thrown the stone, the stone
would have remained lying on the ground. No one doubts this.
We have here, however, this "solitary instance of an efficient
cause acting among the physical causes of the material world,"
producing results which are wholly determined by natural laws, 3
and incapable of producing any opposed to them. If, therefore,
we substitute, as Dr. Mansel desires, " the will of God " for " the
will of man," we arrive at no results which are not in harmony
with the order of nature. We have no ground whatever for
assuming any efficient cause acting in any other way than in
accordance with the laws of nature. It is, however, one of the
gross fallacies of this argument, as applied to miracles, to pass
from the efficient cause producing results which are strictly in
accordance with natural laws, and determined by them, to an
assumed efficient cause producing effects which are opposed to
natural law. The restoration to life of a decomposed human
body, and the miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes, are
1 Mansel, Aids to Faith, p. 19. 2 //>., p. 20.
3 Throughout this argument we use the term "law" in its popular sense as
representing the series of phenomena to which reference is made. We do not
think it necessary to discuss the assumption that the will of man is an "efficient
cause"; it is sufficient to show that even admitting the premiss, for the sake of
argument, the supposed consequences do not follow.
SUSPENSION OF LAW
opposed to natural laws, and no assumed efficient cause conceiv-
able, to which they may be referred, can harmonise them.
Dr. Mozley continues his argument in a similar way. He
inquires : " Is the suspension of physical and material laws by a
spiritual being inconceivable? We reply that, however incon-
ceivable this kind of suspension of physical law is, it is a fact.
Physical laws are suspended any time an animate being moves
any part of its body ; the laws of matter are suspended by the
laws of life." 1 He goes on to maintain that, although it is true
that his spirit is united with the matter in which it moves in a
way in which the Great Spirit who acts on matter in the miracle
is not, yet the action of God's Spirit in the miracle of walking on
the water is no more inconceivable than the action of his own
spirit in holding up his own hand. "Antecedently, one step on
the ground and an ascent to heaven are alike incredible. But
this appearance of incredibility is answered in one case literally
ambulando. How can I place any reliance upon it in the other ?" 2
From this illustration, with a haste very unlike his previous careful
procedure, he jumps to the following conclusions : " The consti-
tution of nature, then, disproves the incredibility of the Divine
suspension of physical law ; but, more than this, it creates a
presumption for it. "3 The laws of life of which we have experience,
he argues, are themselves in an ascending scale. First come the
laws which regulate unorganised matter ; next the laws of vegeta-
tion ; then the laws of animal life, with its voluntary motion ; and,
above these, again, the laws of moral being. A supposed intelligent
being whose experience was limited to one or more classes in this
ascending scale of laws would be totally incapable of conceiving
the action of the higher classes. The progressive succession of
laws is perfectly conceivable backward, but an absolute mystery
forward. " Analogy," therefore, he contends, when in this ascend-
ing series we arrive at man, leads us to expect that there is a
higher sphere of law as much above him as he is above the lower
natures in the scale, and " supplies a presumption in favour of
such a belief." 4 And so we arrive at the question whether there
is or is not a God, a Personal Head in Nature, whose free will
penetrates the universal frame invisibly to us, and is an omnipresent
agent. If there be, Dr. Mozley concludes, then every miracle
in Scripture is as natural an event in the universe as any chemical
experiment in the physical world. 5
This is precisely the argument of Dr. Mansel regarding the
" Efficient Cause," somewhat elaborated ; but, however ingeniously
devised, it is equally based upon assumption and defective in
1 fiainpton Lectures, 1865, p. 164. 2 Ik., p. 164.
3 //'., p. 164. 4 Ib., p. 165. 5 Ib., p. 165.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
analogy. The " classes of law " to which the Bampton lecturer
refers are really in no ascending scale. Unorganised matter,
vegetation, and animal life may each have special conditions
modifying phenomena, but they are all equally subject to natural
laws. Man is as much under the influence of gravitation as a
stone is. The special operation of physical laws is not a modifi-
cation of law, but law acting under different conditions. The
law of gravitation suffers no alteration, whether it cause the fall of
an apple or shape the orbit of a planet. The reproduction of the
plant and of the animal is regulated by the same fundamental
principle, acting through different organisms. The mere superiority
of man over lower forms of organic and inorganic matter does not
lift him above physical laws, and the analogy of every grade in
nature forbids the presumption that higher forms may exist which
are exempt from their control.
If in animated beings, as is affirmed, we have the solitary
instance of an " efficient cause " acting among the forces of nature,
and possessing the power of initiation, this " efficient cause "
produces no disturbance of physical law. Its action is a recog-
nised part of the infinite variety of form within the order of nature ;
and although the character of the force exercised by it may not be
clearly understood, its effects are regulated by the same laws as
govern all other forces in nature. If " the laws of matter are
suspended by the laws of life" each time an animated being
moves any part of its body, one physical law is counteracted in
precisely the same manner, and to an equivalent degree, each
time another physical law is called into action. The law of gravi-
tation, for instance, is equally neutralised by the law of magnetism
each time a magnet suspends a weight in the air. In each case
a law is successfully resisted precisely to the extent of the force
employed. The arm that is raised by the animated being falls
again, in obedience to law, as soon as the force which raised it is
exhausted, quite as certainly as the weight descends when the mag-
netic current fails. This, however, is not the suspension of law
in the sense of a miracle, but, on the contrary, is simply the
natural operation upon each other of co-existent laws. It is a
recognised part of the order of nature, 1 and instead of rendering
1 Dr. Mozley says, in the preface to the second edition of his Bampton
Lectures : " It is quite true that we see laws of nature any day and any hour
neutralised and counteracted in particular cases and do not look upon such
counteractions as other than the most natural events ; but it must be remem-
leered that, when this is the case, the counteracting agency is as ordinary and
constant an antecedent in nature as the agency which it counteracts. The
agency of the muscles and the agency of the magnet are as ordinary as the
agency of gravitation which they both neutralise The elevation of a body in
the air by the force of an arm 'is a counteraction indeed of the law of gravita-
tion, but it is a counteraction of it by another law as natural as that of gravity.
THE EFFICIENT CAUSE SUBJECT TO LAW 27
credible any supernatural suspension of laws, the analogy of
animated beings distinctly excludes it. The introduction of life in
no way changes the relation between cause and effect, which con-
stitutes the order of nature. Life favours no presumption for the
suspension of law, but, on the contrary, whilst acting in nature,
universally exhibits the prevalence and invariability of law.
The supposed " Efficient Cause " is wholly circumscribed by
law. It is brought into existence by the operation of physical
laws, and from the cradle to the grave it is subject to those laws.
The whole process of life is dependent on obedience to natural
laws, and so powerless is this efficient cause to resist their jurisdic-
tion that, in spite of its highest efforts, it pines or ceases to exist
in consequence of the mere natural operation of law upon the
matter with which it is united, and without which it is impotent,
It cannot receive an impression from without that is not conveyed
in accordance with law, and perceived by an exquisitely ordered
organism, in every part of which law reigns supreme ; nor can it
communicate from within except through channels equally ordered
by law. The " laws of life " act amongst the laws of matter, but
are not independent of them, and the action of both classes of law
is regulated by precisely the same principles.
Dr. Mozley's affirmation, that antecedently one step on the
ground and an ascent to heaven are alike incredible, does not help
him. In that sense it follows thaU there is nothing that is not
antecedently incredible, nothing credible until it has happened.
This argument, however, while it limits us to actual experience,
prohibits presumptions with regard to that which is beyond expe-
rience. To argue that, because a step on the ground and an
ascent to heaven are antecedently alike incredible, yet, as we
subsequently make that step, therefore the ascent to heaven, which
The fact, therefore, is in conformity with the laws of nature. But if the same
body is raised in the air without any application of a known force, it is not a
fact in conformity with natural law. In all these cases the question is not
whether a law of nature has been counteracted, for that does not constitute a
fact contradictory to the laws of nature ; but whether it has been counteracted
by another natural law. If it has been, the conditions of science are fulfilled.
But if a law of nature has been counteracted by a law out of nature, it is of no
purpose, with a view to naturalise scientifically that counteraction of a law of
nature, to say that the law of nature has been going on all the time, and only
been neutralised, not suspended or violated. These are mere refinements of
language, which do not affect the fact itself, that a new conjunction of ante-
cedent and consequent, wholly unlike the conjunctions in nature, has taken
place. The laws of nature have in that instance not worked, and an effect
contrary to what would have issued from those laws has been produced. This
is ordinarily called a violation or suspension of the laws of nature ; and it seems
an unnecessary refinement not to call it such. But whatever name we give to
it, the fact is the same ; and the fact is not according to the laws of nature in
the scientific sense" (p. xii. f.).
28 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
we cannot make, from incredible becomes credible, is a contradic-
tion in terms. If the ascent be antecedently incredible, it cannot
at the same time be antecedently credible. That which is
incredible cannot become credible because something else quite
different becomes credible. Experience comes with its sober
wisdom to check such reasoning. We believe in our power to
walk because we habitually exercise it ; we disbelieve in bodily
ascensions because all experience excludes them, and if we leap
into the air on the brink of a precipice, belief in an ascent to
heaven is shattered to pieces at the bottom, to which the law of
gravitation infallibly drags us.
There is absolutely nothing in the constitution of nature, we
may say, reversing Dr. Mozley's assertion, which does not prove
the incredibility of a Divine suspension of physical laws, and does
not create a presumption against it. A distinction between the
laws of nature and the " laws of the universe," 1 by which he
endeavours to make a miracle credible, is one which is purely
imaginary. We know of no laws of the universe differing from the
laws of nature. So far as human observation can range, these laws
alone prevail. The occasional intervention of an unknown
"efficient cause," producing the effects called "miracles " effects
which are not referrible to any known law is totally opposed to
experience, and such a hypothesis to explain alleged occurrences
of a miraculous character cannot find a legitimate place within
the order of nature.
The proposition with which Dr. Mozley commences these
Bampton Lectures, and for which he contends to their close, is
this : " That miracles, or visible suspensions of the order of
nature for a providential purpose, are not in contradiction to
reason." 2 He shows that the purpose of miracles is to attest a
supernatural revelation, which, without them, we could not
be justified in believing. " Christianity," he distinctly states,
" cannot be maintained as a revelation undiscoverable by human
reason a revelation of a supernatural scheme for man's salvation
without the evidence of miracles. "3 Out of this very admission
he attempts to construct an argument in support of miracles.
" Hence it follows," he continues, " that, upon the supposition of
the Divine design of a revelation, a miracle is not an anomaly or
irregularity, but part of the system of the universe; because,
though an irregularity and an anomaly in relation to either part,
it has a complete adaptation to the whole. There being two
worlds, a visible and invisible, and a communication between the
1 Bampton Lectures, 1865, p. 163.
* Ib.> p. 6. 3/j. } p. 23.
THE DIVINE DESIGN OF REVELATION 29
two being wanted, a miracle is the instrument of that communi-
cation." 1
This argument is based upon mere assumption. The sup-
position of the Divine design of a revelation, by which a miracle
is said to become " part of the system of the universe " and,
therefore, neither an "anomaly" nor "irregularity," is the result
of a foregone conclusion in its favour, and is not suggested by
antecedent probability. It is, in fact, derived solely from the
contents of the revelation itself. Divines assume that a com-
munication of this nature is in accordance with reason, and was
necessary for the salvation of the human race, simply because
they believe that it took place. No attempt is seriously made,
independently, to prove the reality of the supposed " Divine
design of a revelation." A revelation having, it is supposed, been
made, that revelation is consequently supposed to have been con-
templated, and to have necessitated and justified suspensions of
the order of nature to effect it. The proposition for which the
evidence of miracles is demanded is viciously employed as
evidence for miracles.
The circumstances upon which the assumption of the necessity
and reasonableness of a revelation is based, however, are in-
credible, and contrary to reason. We are asked to believe that
God made man in his own image, pure and sinless, and intended
him to continue so, but that scarcely had this, his noblest work,
left the hands of the Creator than man was tempted into sin by
Satan, an all-powerful and persistent enemy of God, whose
existence and antagonism to a Being in whose eyes sin is abomina-
tion are not accounted for, and are incredible. 2 Adam's fall
brought a curse upon the earth, and incurred the penalty
of death for himself and for the whole of his posterity. The
human race, although created perfect and without sin, thus
disappointed the expectations of the Creator, and became daily
more wicked, the Evil Spirit having succeeded in frustrating
the designs of the Almighty, so that God repented that he had
made man, and at length destroyed by a deluge all the inhabitants
of the earth, with the exception of eight persons who feared him.
This sweeping purification, however, was as futile as the original
design, and the race of men soon became more wicked than ever.
The final and only adequate remedy devised by God for the salvation
of his creatures, become so desperately and hopelessly evil, was
the incarnation of himself in the person of " the Son," the second
* Bampton Lectures, p. 23.
2 The history of the gradual development of the idea of the existence and
personality of the Devil is full of instruction, and throws no small light
upon the question of revelation.
30 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
person in a mysterious Trinity, of which the Godhead is said to
be composed (who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of
the Virgin Mary), and his death upon the cross as a vicarious
expiation of the sins of the world, without which supposed satis-
faction of the justice of God his mercy could not possibly have
been extended to the frail and sinful work of his own hands.
The crucifixion of the incarnate God was the crowning guilt of a
nation whom God himself had selected as his own peculiar people,
and whom he had condescended to guide by constant direct revela-
tions of his will, but who, from the first, had displayed the most
persistent and remarkable proclivity to sin against him, and, in
spite of the wonderful miracles wrought on their behalf, to forsake
his service for the worship of other gods. We are asked to believe,
therefore, in the frustration of the Divine design of creation, and
in the fall of man into a state of wickedness hateful to God,
requiring and justifying the Divine design of a revelation, and
such a revelation as this, as a preliminary to the further proposi-
tion that, on the supposition of such a design, miracles would not
be contrary to reason.
The whole theory of this abortive design of creation, with such
impotent efforts to amend it, is emphatically contradicted by all
that experience has taught us of the order of nature. It is
difficult to say whether the details of the scheme or the circum-
stances which are supposed to have led to its adoption are more
shocking to reason or to moral sense. The imperfection ascribed
to the Divine work is scarcely more derogatory to the power and
wisdom of a Creator than the supposed satisfaction of his justice
in the death of himself incarnate, the innocent for the guilty, is
degrading to the idea of his moral perfection. The supposed
necessity for repeated interference to correct the imperfection of
the original creation, the nature of the means employed, and the
triumphant opposition of Satan are anthropomorphic conceptions
totally incompatible with the idea of an infinitely wise and
Almighty Being. The constitution of nature, so far from favouring
any hypothesis of original perfection and subsequent deterioration,
bears everywhere the record of systematic upward progression.
Not only is the assumption that any revelation of the nature of
ecclesiastical Christianity was necessary excluded upon philo-
sophical grounds, but it is contradicted by the whole operation
of natural laws, which contain in themselves inexorable penalties
against retrogression, or even unprogressiveness, and furnish the
only requisite stimulus to improvement. The survival only of
the fittest is the stern decree of nature. The invariable action
of law of itself eliminates the unfit. Progress is necessary to
existence ; extinction is the doom of retrogression. The highest
effect contemplated by the supposed revelation is to bring man
AN INCREDIBLE ASSUMPTION 31
into perfect harmony with law ; but this is ensured by law itself
acting upon intelligence. Civilisation is nothing but the know-
ledge and observance of natural laws. The savage must learn
these laws or be extinguished ; the cultivated must observe them
or die. The balance of moral and physical development cannot
be deranged with impunity. In the spiritual as well as the
physical sense, only the fittest eventually can survive in the
struggle for existence. There is, in fact, an absolute upward
impulse to the whole human race supplied by the invariable
operation of the laws of nature, acting upon the common instinct
of self-preservation. As, on the one hand, the highest human
conception of infinite wisdom and power is derived from the
universality and invariability of law ; so that universality and
invariability, on the other hand, exclude the idea of interruption
or occasional suspension of law for any purpose whatever, and
more especially for the correction of supposed original errors of
design which cannot have existed, or for the attainment of objects
already provided for in the order of nature.
Upon the first groundless assumption of a Divine design of
such a revelation follows the hypothetical inference that, for the
purpose of making the communication from the unseen world, a
miracle or visible suspension of the order of nature is no irregu-
larity, but part of the system of the universe. This, however, is
a mere assertion, and no argument. An avowed assumption
which is contrary to reason is followed by another which is
contrary to experience. It is not permissible to speak of a visible
suspension of the order of nature being part of the system of the
universe. Such a statement has no meaning whatever within the
range of human conception. Moreover, it must be remembered
that miracles or " visible suspensions of the order of nature "
are ascribed indifferently to Divine and to Satanic agency. If
miracles are not an anomaly or irregularity on the supposition of
the Divine design of a revelation, upon what supposition do
Satanic miracles cease to be irregularities ? Is the order of nature,
which it is asserted is under the personal control of God, at the
same time at the mercy of the Devil ?
Archbishop Trench has, as usual, a singular way of overcoming
the difficulty. He says : "So long as we abide in the region of
nature, miraculous and improbable, miraculous and incredible, may
be admitted as convertible terms. But once lift up the whole dis-
cussion into a higher region, once acknowledge something higher
than nature, a kingdom of God, and men the intended denizens of
it, and the whole argument loses its strength and the force of its
conclusions He who already counts it likely that God will
interfere for the higher welfare of men, who believes that there is
a nobler world-order than that in which we live and move, and
32 SUPERNATURAL RKLIGION
that it would be the blessing of blessings for that nobler to intrude
into and to make itself felt in the region of this lower, who has
found that here in this world we are bound by heavy laws of
nature, of sin, of death, which no powers that we now possess can
break, yet which must be broken if we are truly to live he will
not find it hard to believe the great miracle, the coming of the
Son of God in the flesh, &c And as he believes that greatest
miracle, so will he believe all other miracles, etc." 1 In other
words, if we already believe the premisses we shall not find it
difficult to adopt the conclusions if we already believe the
greatest miracle we shall not hesitate to believe the less if we
already believe the dogmas we shall not find it hard to believe
the evidence by which they are supposed to be authenticated.
As we necessarily do abide in the region of nature, in which
Dr. Trench admits that miraculous and incredible are convertible
terms, it would seem rather difficult to lift the discussion into the
higher region here described without having already abandoned
it altogether.
1 Notes on Miracles, p. 71 f. Archbishop Trench believes that exemption
from the control of the law of gravitation, etc., is a "lost prerogative" of our
race, which we may one day recover. It would be difficult to produce a
parallel to his reasoning in modern times. He says : " It has been already
observed that the miracle, according to its true idea, is not a violation nor yet
suspension of law, but the incoming of a higher law, as of a spiritual in the
midst of natural laws, and the momentary assertion, for that higher law, of the
predominance which it was intended to have, and but for man's fall it would
always have had, over the lower ; and with this a prophetic anticipation of the
abiding prevalence which it shall one day recover. Exactly thus was there
here" (in the miracle of the Walking on the Sea) " a sign of the lordship of
man's will, when that will is in absolute harmony with God's will, over
external nature. In regard to this very law of gravitation, a feeble, and for
the most part unconsciously possessed, remnant of his power survives to man
in the well-attested fact that his body is lighter when he is awake than sleeping;
a fact which every nurse who has carried a child can attest. From this we
conclude that the human consciousness, as an inner centre, works as an
opposing force to the attraction of the earth and the centripetal force of gravity,
however unable now to overbear it" (!) Ib. , p. 292.
CHAPTER III.
REASON IN RELATION TO THE ORDER OF NATURE
THE argument of those who assert the possibility and reality of
miracles generally takes the shape of an attack, more or less direct,
upon our knowledge of the order of nature. To establish an
exception they contest the rule. " Whatever difficulty there is in
believing in miracles in general," he says, " arises from the circum-
stance that they are in contradiction to or unlike the order of
nature. To estimate the force of this difficulty, then, we must
first understand what kind of belief it is which we have in the
order of nature ; for the weight of the objection to the miraculous
must depend on the nature of the belief to which the miraculous
is opposed." 1 Dr. Mozley defines the meaning of the phrase,
" order of nature," as the connection of that part of the order of
nature of which we are ignorant with that part of which we know,
the former being expected to be such and such, because the latter
is. But how do we justify this expectation of likeness?* We
cannot do so, he affirms, and all our arguments are mere state-
ments of the belief itself, and not reasons to account for it. It
may be said, e.g., that when a fact of nature has gone on repeating
itself a certain time, such repetition shows that there is a per-
manent cause at work, and that a permanent cause produces
permanently recurring effects. But what is there, he inquires, to
show the existence of a permanent cause ? Nothing. The effects
which have taken place show a cause at work to the extent of
these effects, but not further. That this cause is of a more
permanent nature we have no evidence. Why, then, do we expect
the further continuance of these effects ?3 We can only say :
because we believe the future will be like the past. After a
physical phenomenon has even occurred every day for years we
have nothing but the past repetition to justify our certain ex-
pectation of its future repetition. 4 Do we think it giving a reason
for our confidence in the future to say that, though no man has
had experience of what is future, every man has had experience of
what was future ? It is true, he admits, that what is future
becomes at every step of our advance what was future, but that
1 Bampton Lectures, 1865, p. 33. 2 Ib., p. 34.
. 3 Ib., p. 36. Ib., p. 37.
33
34 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
which is now still future is not the least altered by that circum-
stance ; it is as invisible, as unknown, and as unexplored as if it
were the very beginning and the very starting-point of nature. At
this starting-point of nature what would a man know of its future
course ? Nothing. At this moment he knows no more. 1 What
ground of reason, then, can we assign for our expectation that any
part of the course of nature will the next moment be like what it
has been up to this moment i.e., for our belief in the uniformity
of nature? None. It is without a reason. It rests upon no
rational ground, and can be traced to no rational principle. 2 The
belief in the order of nature being thus an " unintelligent im-
pulse " of which we cannot give any rational account, Dr. Mozley
concludes, the ground is gone upon which it could be maintained
that miracles, as opposed to the order of nature, were opposed to
reason. A miracle, then, in being opposed to our experience is
not only not opposed to necessary reasoning, but to any reasoning. 3
We need not further follow the Bampton Lecturer, as, with clear-
ness and ability, he applies this reasoning to the argument of
" Experience," until he pauses triumphantly to exclaim : " Thus,
step by step, has philosophy loosened the connection of the order
of nature with the ground of reason, befriending in exact pro-
portion, as it has done this, the principle of miracles."*
We need not here enter upon any abstract argument regarding
the permanence of cause : it will be sufficient to deal with these
objections in a simpler and more direct way. Dr. Mozley, of
course, acknowledges that the principle of the argument from
experience is that " which makes human life practicable ; which
utilises all our knowledge ; which makes the past anything
more than an irrelevant picture to us ; for of what use is the
experience of the past to us unless we believe the future will be
like it ? "s Our knowledge in all things is relative, and there are
sharp and narrow limits to human thought. It is, therefore, evident
that, in the absence of absolute knowledge, our belief must be
accorded to that of which we have more full cognizance, rather
than to that which is contradicted by all that we do know. It
may be "irrational" to feel entire confidence that the sun will
" rise " to-morrow, or that the moon will continue to wax and wane
as in the past, but we shall without doubt retain this belief, and
reject 'any assertion, however positive, that the earth will stand still
to-morrow, or that it did so some thousands of years ago. Evidence
must take its relative place in the finite scale of knowledge and
thought, and if we do not absolutely know anything, so long as one
thing is more fully established than another, we must hold to that
1 Bampton Lectures, p. 38. - Ib., p. 39. 3 Ib., p. 48.
4 Ib., p. 49. s /<j. f p. 58.
v* ff
THE ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE 35
_j__
which rests upon the more certain basis. Our belief in the in-
variability of the order of nature, therefore, being based upon
more certain grounds than any other human opinion, we must of
necessity refuse credence to a statement supported by infinitely
less complete testimony, and contradicted by universal experience,
that phenomena subversive of that order occurred many years
ago, or we must cease to believe anything at all. If belief based
upon unvarying experience be irrational, how much more irrational
must belief be which is opposed to that experience. According to-
Dr. Mozley, it is quite irrational to believe that a stone dropped
from the hand, for instance, will fall to the ground. It is true that
all the stones we ourselves have ever dropped, or seen dropped^
have so fallen, and equally true that all stones so dropped as far
back as historic records, and those still more authentic and ancient
records of earth's crust itself, go, have done the same ; but that,
he contends, does not justify our belief, upon any grounds of
reason, that the next stone we drop will do so. If we be told,,
however, that upon one occasion a stone so dropped, instead of
falling to the ground, rose up into the air and continued there,,
we have only two courses open to us : either to disbelieve the
fact, and attribute the statement to error of observation, or to
reduce the past to a mere irrelevant picture, and the mind to a
blank page equally devoid of all belief and of all intelligent
reasoning.
Dr. Mozley's argument, however, is fatal to his own cause. It
is admitted that miracles, " or visible suspensions of the order of
nature," 1 cannot have any evidential force unless they be super-
natural, and out of the natural sequence of ordinary phenomena.
Now, unless there be an actual order of nature, how can there be
any exception to it ? If our belief in it be not based upon any
ground of reason as he maintains, in order to assert that
miracles or visible suspensions of that order are not contrary to
reason how can it be asserted that miracles are supernatural ?
If we have no rational ground for believing that the future will be
like the past, what rational ground can we have for thinking that
anything which happens is exceptional, and out of the common
course of nature ? Because it has not happened before ? That
is no reason whatever ; because, according to his contention, the
fact that a thing has happened ten millions of times is no rational
justification of our expectation that it will happen again. If the
reverse of that which had happened previously took place on the
ten million and first time, we should, therefore, have no rational
ground for surprise, and no reason for affirming that it did not
occur in the most natural manner. Because we cannot explain its
1 Bam-bton Lectures, 1865, p. 6.
36 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
% .
cause? We cannot explain the cause of anything. Our belief
that there is any permanent cause is, according to him, a mere
unintelligent impulse ; we can only say that there is a cause suffi-
cient to produce an isolated effect, but we do not know the nature
of that cause, and it is a mere irrational instinct to suppose that
any cause produces continuous effects, or is more than momentary.
A miracle, consequently, becomes a mere isolated effect from an
unknown cause, in the midst of other merely isolated phenomena
from unknown causes, and it is as irrational to wonder at the
occurrence of what is new as to expect the recurrence of what is
old. In fact, an order of nature is at once necessary, and fatal,
to miracles. If there be no order of nature, miracles cannot be
considered supernatural occurrences, and have no evidential
value ; if there be an order of nature, the evidence for its immu-
tability must consequently exceed the evidence for these isolated
deviations from it. If we are unable rationally to form expecta-
tions of the future from unvarying experience in the past, it is
still more irrational to call that supernatural which is merely
different from our past experience. Take, for instance, the case
of supposed exemption from the action of the law of gravitation,
which Archbishop Trench calls " a lost prerogative of our race ": J
we cannot, according to Dr. Mozley, rationally affirm that next
week we may not be able to walk on the sea, or ascend bodily
into the air. To deny this because we have not hitherto been
able to do so is unreasonable; for, he maintains, it is a mere
irrational impulse whfch expects that which has hitherto happened,
when we have made such attempts, to happen again next week.
If we cannot rationally deny the possibility, however, that we may
be able at some future time to walk on the sea or ascend into the
air, the statement that these phenomena have already occurred
loses all its force, and such occurrences cease to be in any way
supernatural. If, on the other hand, it would be irrational to
affirm that we may next week become exempt from the operation
of the law of gravitation, it can only be so by the admission that
unvarying experience forbids the entertainment of such a
hypothesis, and in that case it equally forbids belief in the state-
ment that such acts ever actually took place. If we deny the
future possibility on any ground of reason, we admit that we have
grounds of reason for expecting the future to be like the past,
and therefore contradict Dr. Mozley's conclusion ; and if we
cannot deny it upon any ground of reason, we extinguish the
claim of such occurrences in the past to any supernatural
character. Any argument which could destroy faith in the order
of nature would be equally destructive to miracles. If we have
1 Notes on Miracles, p. 32 f v p. 291 f.
ANTHROPOMORPHIC DIVINITY 37
no right to believe in a rule, there can be no right to speak of
exceptions. The result in any case is this, that whether the
principle of the order of nature be established or refuted, the
supernatural pretensions of miracles are disallowed.
Throughout the whole of his argument against the rationality
of belief in the order of nature, the rigorous precision which Dr.
Mozley unrelentingly demands from his antagonists is remarkable.
They are not permitted to deviate by a hair's breadth from the
line of strict logic, and the most absolute exactness of demonstra-
tion is required. Anything like an assumption or argument from
analogy is excluded ; induction is allowed to add no reason to
bare and isolated facts ; and the belief that the sun will rise
to-morrow morning is, with pitiless severity, written down as
mere unintelligent impulse. Belief in the return of day, based
upon the unvarying experience of all past time, is declared to be
without any ground of reason. We find anything but fault with
strictness of argument ; but it is fair that equal precision should
be observed by those who assert miracles, and that assumption
and inaccuracy should be excluded. Hitherto, as we have
frequently pointed out, we have met with very little, or nothing,
but assumption in support of miracles ; but, encouraged by the
inflexible spirit of Dr. Mozley's attack upon the argument from
experience, we may look for similar precision from himself.
Proceeding, however, from his argument against the rationality
of belief in the order of nature to his more direct argument for
miracles, we are astonished to find a total abandonment of the
rigorous exactness imposed upon his antagonists, and a complete
relapse into assumptions. Dr. Mozley does not conceal the fact.
"The peculiarity of the argument of miracles," he frankly Admits,
" is that it begins and ends with an assumption ; I mean relatively
to that argument." 1 Such an argument is no argument at all ; it
is a mere petitio prindpii, incapable of proving anything. The
nature of the assumptions obviously does not in the slightest
degree affect this conclusion. It is true that the statement of the
particular assumptions may constitute an appeal to belief other-
wise derived, and evolve feelings which may render the calm
exercise of judgment more difficult ; but the fact remains absolute,
that an argument which " begins and ends with an assumption "
is totally impotent. It remains an assumption, and is not an
argument at all.
Notwithstanding this unfortunate and disqualifying " peculiarity,"
we may examine the argument. It is as follows : " We assume
the existence of a Personal Deity prior to the proof of miracles
1 Bainpton Lectures, 1865, p. 94.
38 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
in the religious sense ; but with this assumption the question of
miracles is at an end, because such a Being has necessarily the
power to suspend those laws of nature which He has Himself
enacted." 1 The " question of miracles," which Dr. Mozley here
asserts to be at an end on the assumption of a " Personal Deity,"
is, of course, merely that of the possibility of miracles ; but it is
obvious that, even with the precise definition of Deity which is
assumed, instead of the real " question " being at an end, it only
commences. The power to suspend the laws of nature being
assumed, the will to suspend them has to be demonstrated as
also the actual occurrence of any such assumed suspension,
which is contrary to reason. The subject is, moreover, com-
plicated by the occurrence of Satanic as well as Divine sus-
pensions of the order of nature, and by the necessity of assuming
a Personal Devil as well as a Personal Deity, and his power to
usurp that control over the laws of nature which is assumed as
the prerogative of the Deity, and to suspend them in direct
opposition to God. Even Newman has recognised this, and, in
a passage already quoted, he says : " For the cogency of the
argument from miracles depends on the assumption that inter-
ruptions in the course of nature must ultimately proceed from
God ; which is not true if they may be effected by other beings
without His sanction." 2 The first assumption, in fact, leads to
nothing but assumptions connected with the unseen, unknown,
and supernatural, which are beyond the limits of reason.
Dr. Mozley is well aware that his assumption of a " Personal "
Deity is not susceptible of proof ;3 indeed, this is admitted in the
statement that the definition is an "assumption." He quotes the
obvious reply which may be made regarding this assumption :
" Everybody must collect from the harmony of the physical
universe the existence of a God, but in acknowledging a God we
do not thereby acknowledge this peculiar doctrinal conception of a
God. We see in the structure of nature a mind a universal
mind but still a mind which only operates and expresses itself by
law. Nature only does and only can inform us of mind in nature,
the partner and correlative of organised matter. Nature, therefore,
can speak to the existence of a God in this sense, and can speak
to the omnipotence of God in a sense coinciding with the actual
1 Bampton Lectures, 1865, p. 94. 2 Two Essays, etc., p. 50.
3 Dr. Westcott frankly admits this. " Christianity, therefore," he says, "as
the absolute religion of man, assumes as its foundation the existence of an
Infinite Personal GOD and a finite human will. This antithesis is assumed, and
not proved. No arguments can establish it. It is a primary intuition, and not
a deduction. It is capable of illustration from what we observe around us ; but
if either term is denied no reasoning can establish its truth " (The Gospel of the
Resurrection, 3rd ed., 1874, p. 19 f.).
ANTHROPOMORPHIC DIVINITY 39
facts of nature ; but in no other sense does nature witness to the
existence of an Omnipotent Supreme Being. Of a universal mind
out of nature, nature says nothing, and of an Omnipotence which
does not possess an inherent limit in nature, she says nothing
either. And, therefore, that conception of a Supreme Being which
represents him as a Spirit independent of the physical universe,
and able from a standing-place external to nature to interrupt its
order, is a conception of God for which we must go elsewhere.
That conception is obtained from revelation, which is asserted to
be proved by miracles. But that being the case, this doctrine of
Theism rests itself upon miracles, and, therefore, miracles cannot
rest upon this doctrine of Theism." 1 With his usual fairness, Dr.
Mozley, while questioning the correctness of the premiss of this
argument, admits that, if established, the consequence stated would
follow, " and more, for miracles, being thrown back upon the same
ground on which Theism is, the whole evidence of revelation
becomes a vicious circle, and the fabric is left suspended in
space, revelation resting on miracles, and miracles resting on
revelation." 2 He not only recognises, however, that the concep-
tion of a " Personal " Deity cannot be proved, but he distinctly
confesses that it was obtained from revelation, 3 and from nowhere
else, and these necessary admissions obviously establish the
correctness of the premiss, and involve the consequence pointed out,
that the evidence of revelation is a mere vicious circle. Dr. Mozley
attempts to argue that, although the idea was first obtained through
this channel, " the truth once possessed is seen to rest upon grounds
of natural reason. "4 The argument by which he seeks to show that
the conception is seen to rest upon grounds of natural reason is :
" We naturally attribute to the design of a Personal Being a contri-
vance which is directed to the existence of a Personal Being
From personality at one end I infer personality at the other." Dr.
Mozley 's own sense of the weakness of his argument, however, and
his natural honesty of mind oblige him continually to confess the
absence of evidence. A few paragraphs further on he admits :
" Not, however, that the existence of a God is so clearly seen by
reason as to dispense with faith " ;s but he endeavours to convince
us that faith is reason, only reason acting under peculiar
circumstances : when reason draws conclusions which are not
backed by experience, reason is then called faith. 6 The issue of
the argument, he contends, is so amazing that if we do not
tremble for its safety it must be on account of a practical
principle, which makes us confide and trust in reasons,
1 Bampton Lectures, 1865, p. 95 f.
2 Ib., p. 96. 3 Ib., p. 97 f. 4 Ib., p. 99.
5 Ib., p. IOO. 6 Ib., p. IOI.
40 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
and that principle is faith. We are not aware that conviction can
be arrived at regarding any matter otherwise than by confidence in
the correctness of the reasons, and what Dr. Mozley really means
by faith here is confidence and trust in a conclusion for which
there are no reasons.
It is almost incredible that the same person who had just been
denying grounds of reason to conclusions from unvarying ex-
perience, and excluding from them the results of inductive
reasoning who had denounced as unintelligent impulse and
irrational instinct the faith that the sun, which has risen without
fail every morning since time began, will rise again to-morrow,
could thus argue. In fact, from the very commencement of the
direct plea for miracles calm logical reasoning is abandoned, and
the argument becomes entirely ad hominem. Mere feeling is sub-
stituted for thought and, in the inability to be precise and logical,
the lecturer appeals to the generally prevailing inaccuracy of
thought. 1 "Faith, then," he concludes, "is unverified reason;
reason which has not yet received the verification of the final test,
but is still expectant." In science this, at the best, would be
called mere " hypothesis," but accuracy can scarcely be expected
where the argument continues : " Indeed, does not our heart bear
witness to the fact that to believe in a God " i.e., a Personal God
" is an exercise of faith ?" etc. 2
The deduction which is drawn from the assumption of a
" Personal " Deity is, as we have seen, merely the possibility of
miracles. " Paley's criticism," said the late Dean of St. Paul's, " is,
after all, the true one ' once believe that there is a God, and
miracles are not incredible.' "3 The assumption, therefore, although
of vital importance in the event of its rejection, does not very
materially advance the cause of miracles if established. We have
already seen that the assumption is avowedly incapable of proof,
but it may be well to examine it a little more closely in connection
with the inferences supposed to be derivable from it.
In his Bampton Lectures on "The Limit of Religious Thought,"
delivered in 1858, Dr. Mansel, the very able editor and disciple of
Sir William Hamilton, discussed this subject with great minuteness,
and although we cannot pretend here to follow him through the
whole of his singular argument a theological application of Sir
William Hamilton's philosophy we must sufficiently represent it.
Dr. Mansel argues : We are absolutely incapable of conceiving or
proving the existence of God as he is ; and so far is human
reason from being able to construct a theology independent of
1 Cf. Bampton Lectures, 1865, p. 101 ft".
2 Ib., p, 104.
3 Mansel, Aids to f-'ait/i, p. 30.
ANTHROPOMORPHIC DIVINITY 41
revelation that it cannot even read the alphabet out of which that
theology must be formed. 1 We are compelled by the constitution
of our minds to believe in the existence of an Absolute and
Infinite Being ; but the instant \ve attempt to analyse we are in-
volved in inextricable confusion. Our moral consciousness
demands that we should conceive him as a Personality, but person-
ality, as we conceive it, is essentially a limitation ; to speak of an
Absolute and Infinite Person is simply to use language to which
no mode of human thought can possibly attach itself. 2 This
amounts simply to an admission that our knowledge of God does
not satisfy the conditions of speculative philosophy, and is in-
capable of reduction to an ultimate and absolute truth. 3 It is,
therefore, reasonable that we should expect to find that the
revealed manifestation of the Divine nature and attributes should
likewise carry the marks of subordination to some higher truth, of
which it indicates the existence, but does not make known the
substance ; and that our apprehension of the revealed Deity should
involve mysteries inscrutable, and doubts insoluble by our present
faculties, while at the same time it inculcates the true spirit in
which doubt should be dealt with, by warning us that our
knowledge of God, though revealed by himself, is revealed in
relation to human faculties, and subject to the limitations and im-
perfections inseparable from the constitution of the human mind. 4
We need not, of course, point out that the reality of revelation is
here assumed. Elsewhere, Dr. Mansel maintains that philosophy,
by its own incongruities, has no claim to be accepted as a com-
petent witness ; and, on the other hand, human personality cannot
be assumed as an exact copy of the Divine, but only as that which
is most nearly analogous to it among finite things. 5 As we are,
therefore, incapable on the one hand of a clear conception of the
Divine Being, and have only analogy- to guide us in conceiving his
attributes, we have no criterion of religious truth or falsehood,
1 Mansel, Bainpton Lectures, 1858 (Murray, 4th ed., 1859), p. 40.
- Ib., p. 56. Dr. Westcott says upon this point : " But though we appeal to
the individual consciousness for the recognition of the truth of the assumptions
which have been made, the language in which one term of the antithesis is ex-
pressed requires explanation. We speak of God as Infinite and Personal. The
epithets involve a contradiction, and yet they are both necessary. In fact, the
only approximately adequate conception which we can form of a Divine Being
is under the form of a contradiction. For us, personality is only the name for
special limitation exerting itself through will ; and will itself implies the idea of
resistance. But as applied to GOD, the notions of limitation and resistance
are excluded by the antithetic term infinite" (The Gospel of (he Resurrection,
1874, p. 21).
3 /., p. 94 f.
4 /&., p- 95-
5 Mansel, The Philosophy of the Conditioned (Sti&ari, 1866), p. 143 f.
42 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
enabling us to judge of the ways of God, represented by revelation, 1
and have no right to judge of his justice, or mercy, or goodness,
by the standard of human morality.
It is impossible to conceive an argument more vicious, or more
obviously warped to favour already accepted conclusions of
revelation : As finite beings, we are not only incapable of proving
the existence of God, but even of conceiving him as he is ; there-
fore we may conceive him as he is not. To attribute personality
to him is a limitation totally incompatible with the idea of an
Absolute and Infinite Being, in which " we are compelled by the
constitution of our minds to believe "; and to speak of him as a
personality is "to use language to which no mode of human
thought can possibly attach itself"; but, nevertheless, to satisfy
supposed demands of our moral consciousness, we are to conceive
him as a personality. Although we must define the Supreme Being
as a personality, to satisfy our moral consciousness, we must not,
we are told, make the same moral consciousness the criterion of the
attributes of that personality. We must not suppose him to be
endowed, for instance, with the perfection of morality according
to our ideas of it ; but, on the contrary, we must hold that his
moral perfections are at best only analogous, and often contra-
dictory, to our standard of morality. 2 As soon as we conceive a
Personal Deity to satisfy our moral consciousness, we have to
abandon the personality which satisfies that consciousness, in
order to accept the characteristics of a supposed revelation, to
reconcile certain statements of which we must admit that we
have no criterion of truth or falsehood enabling us to judge of the
ways of God.
Now, in reference to the assumption of a Personal Deity as a
preliminary to the proof of miracles, it must be clearly remembered
that the contents of the revelation which miracles are to authenticate
cannot have any weight. Antecedently, then, it is admitted that
personality is a limitation which is absolutely excluded by the
1 Mansel, The Philosophy of the Conditioned, (Strahan, 1866), p. 144 f.
In another place Dean Mansel says: "Ideas and images which do
not represent God as He is may nevertheless represent Him as it is our
duty to regard Him. They are not in themselves true ; but we must
nevertheless believe and act as if they were true. A finite mind can form no
conception of an Infinite Being which shall be specttlatively true, for it must
represent the Infinite under finite forms ; nevertheless, a conception which is
$peculatively untrue may be regulatively true. A regulative truth is thus de-
signed not to satisfy our reason, but to guide our practice ; not to tell us what
God is, but how He wills that we should think of Him " (Man's Conception of
Eternity : An examination of Mr. Maurice's Theory of a Fixed State out of
Time, in a letter to the Rev. L. T. Bernays, by Rev. II. L. Mansel, B.D.,
p. 9f.).
2 Ib., p. 143 f. ; Bampton Lectures, 1858, pp. 131-175, pp. 94-130.
ANTHROPOMORPHIC DIVINITY 43
ideas of the Deity which, it is asserted, the constitution of our
minds compels us to form. It cannot, therefore, be rationally
assumed. To admit that such a conception is false, and then to
base conclusions upon it as though it were true, is inadmissible.
It is child's play to satisfy our feeling and imagination by the
conscious sacrifice of our reason. Moreover, Dr. Mansel admits
that the conception of a Personal Deity is really derived from
the revelation, which has to be rendered credible by miracles ;
therefore the consequence already pointed out ensues, that the
assumption cannot be used to prove miracles. " It must be
allowed that it is not through reasoning that men obtain the
first intimation of their relation to the Deity; and that, had they
been left to the guidance of their intellectual faculties alone, it
is possible that no such intimation might have taken place ; or,
at best, that it would have been but as one guess, out of many
equally plausible and equally natural." 1 The vicious circle of the
argument is here again apparent, and the singular reasoning by
which Dr. Mansel seeks to drive us into acceptance of revelation
is really the strongest argument against it. The impossibility of
conceiving God as he is, 2 which is insisted upon, instead of being
a reason for assuming his personality, or for accepting Jewish
conceptions of him, totally excludes such an assumption.
This " great religious assumption " is not suggested by any
antecedent considerations, but is required to account for miracles,
and is derived from the very revelation which miracles are to
attest. " In nature and from nature," to quote words of Pro-
fessor Baden Powell, " by science and by reason, we neither have,
nor can possibly have, any evidence of a Deity working miracles ;
for that we must go out of nature and beyond science. If we
could have any such evidence from nature, it could only prove
extraordinary natural effects, which would not be miracles in the
old theological sense, as isolated, unrelated, and uncaused;
whereas no physical fact can be conceived as unique, or without
analogy and relation to others, and to the whole system of natural
causes." 3
. Dr. Mansel " does not hesitate " to affirm with Sir William
Hamilton, " that the class of phenomena which requires that kind
1 Bainpton Lectures, 1858, p. 68.
3 Sir William Hamilton says: "True therefore are the declarations of a
pious philosophy. ' A God understood would be no God at all.' ' To think
that God is as we can think Him to be is blasphemy.' The Divinity, in a
certain sense, is revealed ; in a certain sense is concealed : He is at once
known and unknown. But the last and highest consecration of all true religion
must be an altar 'Ayi/ttwrrcfj Qeip 'To the unknown and unknowable God''"
(Discussions on Philosophy, 3rd ed., Blackwood & Sons, 1866, p. 15, note).
3 "Study of the Evidences of Christianity," Essays and Revie-ws, gth ed.,
p. 141 f.
44 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
of cause we denominate a Deity is exclusively given in the pheno-
mena of mind ; that the phenomena of matter, taken by them-
selves, do not warrant any inference to the existence of a God." 1
After declaring a Supreme Being, from every point of view, incon-
ceivable by our finite minds, it is singular to find him thrusting
upon us, in consequence, a conception of that Being which almost
makes us exclaim with Bacon : " It were better to have no opinion
of God at all than such an opinion as is unworthy of him ; for the
one is unbelief, the other is contumely." 2 Dr. Mansel asks : " Is
matter or mind the truer image of God ?" 3 But both matter and
mind unite in repudiating so unworthy a conception of a God,
and in rejecting the idea of suspensions of law. In the words of
Spinoza : " From miracles we can neither infer the nature, the
existence, nor the providence of God, but, on the contrary, these
may be much better comprehended from the fixed and immutable
order of nature." 4 Indeed, as he adds, miracles, as contrary to
the order of nature, would rather lead us to doubt the existence
of God.s
Six centuries before our era a noble thinker, Xenophanes of
Colophon, whose pure mind soared far above the base anthropo-
morphic mythologies of Homer and Hesiod, and anticipated some
of the highest results of the Platonic philosophy, finely said :
" There is one God supreme over all gods, diviner than mortals,
Whose form is not like unto man's, and as unlike his nature ;
But vain mortals imagine that gods, like themselves, are begotten
With human sensations, and voice, and corporeal members ;
So if oxen or lions had hands, and could work in man's fashion,
And trace out with chisel or brush their conception of Godhead,
Then would horses depict gods like horses, and oxen like oxen,
Each kind the Divine with its own form and nature endowing/'
He illustrates this profound observation by pointing out that
the Ethiopians represent their deities as black, with flat noses,
while the Thracians make them blue-eyed, with ruddy com-
plexions ; and, similarly, the Medes and the Persians and
Egyptians portray their gods like themselves. The Jewish idea
of God was equally anthropomorphic ; but their highest concep-
tion was certainly that which the least resembled themselves, and
1 Ib., p. 25. Cf. Hamilton, Lectures on Metaphysics, vol. i., p. 26.
'-' Bacon's Essays, xvii. ed. Whately, p. 183. 3 Aids to Faith, p. 25.
4 Tract, Theolog. Polit., c. vi., 16, ed. Tauchniu. s Ib., vi., 19.
6 Clement of Alexandria, who quotes the whole of this passage from
Xenophanes, makes a separation here from the succeeding lines, by Kal irdXiv ;
but the sense is evidently continuous, and the fragments are generally united.
Cf. Clem. Al., Strom., v. 14, no.
HUME'S ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE 45
which described the Almighty as "without variableness or shadow
of turning," and as giving a law to the universe which shall not be
broken.
None of the arguments with which we have yet met have
succeeded in making miracles in the least degree antecedently
credible. On the contrary, they have been based upon mere
assumptions incapable of proof and devoid of probability. On
the other hand, there are the strongest reasons for affirming that
such phenomena are antecedently incredible. Dr. Mozley's attack,
which we discussed in the first part of this chapter, and which, of
course, was chiefly based upon Hume's celebrated argument, never
seriously grappled with the doctrine at all. The principle which
opposes itself to belief in miracles is very simple. Our belief in the
invariability of that sequence of phenomena which we call the
order of nature is based upon universal experience, and it would,
therefore, require an extraordinary amount of evidence to prove
the truth of any allegation of miracles, or violations of that order.
Where a preponderance of evidence in support of such allega-
tions cannot be produced, reason and experience concur in attri-
buting the ascription of miraculous character to any occurrences
said to have been witnessed, to imperfect observation, mistaken
inference, or some other of the numerous sources of error. Any
allegation of the interference of a new and supernatural agent, upon
such an occasion, to account for results in contradiction of the known
sequence of cause and effect is excluded by the very same prin-
ciple, for, invariable experience being as opposed to the assertion
that such interference ever takes place as it is to the occurrence
of miraculous phenomena, the allegation is necessarily dis-
believed.
Apologists find it much more convenient to evade the simple
but effective arguments of Hume than to answer them, and where
it is possible they dismiss them with a sneer, and hasten on to
less dangerous ground. For instance, Dr. Farrar, arguing the
antecedent credibility of the miraculous, makes the following
remarks : " Now, as regards the inadequacy of testimony to
establish a miracle, modern scepticism has not advanced one
single step beyond the blank assertion. And it is astonishing that
this assertion should still be considered cogent, when its logical
consistency has been shattered to pieces by a host of writers, as
well sceptical as Christian (Mill's Logic, ii., 157-160). For, as the
greatest of our living logicians has remarked, the supposed recondite
and dangerous formula of Hume that it is more probable that
testimony should be mistaken than that miracles should be true
reduces itself to the very harmless proposition that anything is
incredible which is contrary to a complete induction. It is, in
46 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
fact, a flagrant petitio principii, used to support a wholly unphilo-
sophical assertion." 1 It is much more astonishing that so able a
man as Dr. Farrar could so misunderstand Hume's argument, and
so misinterpret and misstate Mill's remarks upon it. So far from
shattering to pieces the logical consistency of Hume's reasoning,
Mill substantially confirms it, and pertinently remarks that "it
speaks ill for the state of philosophical speculation on such
subjects " that so simple and evident a doctrine should have been
accounted a dangerous heresy. It is, in fact, a statement of a
truth which should have been universally recognised, and would
have been so but for its unwelcome and destructive bearing upon
popular theology.
Mill states the evident principle : " If an alleged fact be in
contradiction, not to any number of approximate generalisations,
but to a completed generalisation grounded on a rigorous
induction, it is said to be impossible, and is to be disbelieved
totally." Mill continues : " This last principle, simple and
evident as it appears, is the doctrine which, on the occasion of an
attempt to apply it to the question of the credibility of miracles,
excited so violent a controversy. Hume's celebrated doctrine,
that nothing is credible which is contradictory to experience or at
variance with laws of nature, is merely this very plain and
harmless proposition, that whatever is contradictory to a complete
induction is incredible." 2 He then proceeds to meet possible
objections : " But does not (it may be asked) the very statement
of the proposition imply a contradiction? An alleged fact,
according to this theory, is not to be believed if it contradict a
complete induction. But it is essential to the completeness of an
induction that it should not contradict any known fact. Is it not,
then, a petitio principii to say that the fact ought to be dis-
believed because the induction to it is complete ? How can we
have a right to declare the induction complete, while facts,
supported by credible evidence, present themselves in opposition
to it ? I answer, we have that right whenever the scientific canons
of induction give it to us ; that is, whenever the induction can be
complete. We have it, for example, in a case of causation in
which there has been an experimentum crucis." It will be
remarked that Dr. Farrar adopts Mill's phraseology in one of the
above questions to affirm the reverse of his opinion. Mill
decides that the proposition is not a petitio principii ; Dr Farrar
says, in continuation of his reference to Mill, that it is a flagrant
1 The Witness of History to Christ, Hulsean Lectures, 1870, by the Rev.
F. W. Farrar, M.A., F.R.S., etc., etc., 2nd ed., 1872, p. 26 f.
2 A System of Logic, by John Stuart Mill, 8th ed., 1872, ii., p. 165.
MILL'S REMARKS UPON HUME 47
petitio principii. Mill proceeds to prove his statement, and he
naturally argues that, if observations or experiments have been
repeated so often, and by so many persons, as to exclude all supposi-
tion of error in the observer, a law of nature is established ; and so long
as this law is received as such, the assertion that on any particular
occasion the cause A took place, and yet the effect B did not
follow, without any counteracting cause, must be disbelieved. In
fact, as he winds up this part of the argument by saying : " We
cannot admit a proposition as a law of nature, and yet believe a
fact in real contradiction to it. We must disbelieve the alleged
fact, or believe that we were mistaken in admitting the supposed
law." 1 Mill points out, however, that, in order that any alleged
fact should be contradictory to a law of causation, the allegation
must be not simply that the cause existed without being followed
by the effect, but that this happened in the absence of any
adequate counteracting cause. " Now, in the case of an alleged
miracle, the assertion is the exact opposite of this. It is, that the
effect was defeated, not in the absence, but in consequence of a
counteracting cause namely, a direct interposition of an act of
the will of some being who has power over nature ; and in par-
ticular of a Being whose will, being assumed to have endowed all
the causes with the powers by which they produce their effects,
may well be supposed able to counteract them." 2 A miracle,
then, is no contradiction to the law of cause and effect; it is
merely a new effect supposed to be introduced by the introduction
of a new cause ; " of the adequacy of that cause, if present^
there can be no doubt; and the only antecedent improbability
which can be ascribed to the miracle is the improbability that
any such cause existed." Mill then continues, resuming his
criticism on Hume's argument : " All, therefore, which Hume has
made out, and this he must be considered to have made out, is
that (at least in the imperfect state of our knowledge of natural
agencies, which leaves it always possible that some of the physical
antecedents may have been hidden from us) no evidence can
prove a miracle to any one who did not previously believe the
existence of a being or beings with supernatural power ; or who
believes himself to have full proof that the character of the Being
whom he recognises is inconsistent with his having seen fit to
interfere on the occasion in question." Mill proceeds to enlarge
on this conclusion. "If we do not already believe in super-
natural agencies, no miracle can prove to us their existence. The
miracle itself, considered merely as an extraordinary fact, may be
satisfactorily certified by our senses or by testimony ; but nothing
1 Mill, Logic t ii., p. 166 f. a /<$., ii., p. 167.
3 The italics are ours.
4 8' SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
can ever prove that it is a miracle. There is still another possible
hypothesis, that of its being the result of some unknown natural
cause ; and this possibility cannot be so completely shut out as to
leave no alternative but that of admitting the existence and inter-
vention of a being superior to nature. Those, however, who
already believe in such a being have two hypotheses to choose
from, a supernatural and an unknown natural agency ; and they
have to judge which of the two is the most probable in the
particular case. In forming this judgment, an important element
of the question will be the conformity of the result to the laws of
the supposed agent ; that is, to the character of the Deity as they
conceive it. But, with the knowledge which we now possess of
the general uniformity of the course of nature, religion, following
in the wake of science, has been compelled to acknowledge the
government of the universe as being on the whole carried on by
general laws, and not by special interpositions. To whoever holds
this belief, there is a general presumption against any supposition
of divine agency not operating through general laws, or, in other
words, there is an antecedent improbability in every miracle
which, in order to outweigh it, requires an extraordinary strength
of antecedent probability derived from the special circumstances
of the case." 1 Mill rightly considers that it is not more difficult
to estimate this than in the case of other probabilities. " We
are seldom, therefore, without the means (when the circumstances
of the case are at all known to us) of judging how far it is likely
that such a cause should have existed at that time and place
without manifesting its presence by some other marks, and (in the
case of an unknown cause) without having hitherto manifested its
existence in any other instance. According as this circumstance,
or the falsity of the testimony, appears more improbable, that is
conflicts with an approximate generalisation of a higher order,
we believe the testimony, or disbelieve it : with a stronger or
weaker degree of conviction, according to the preponderance : at
least until we have sifted the matter further." 2 This is precisely
Hume's argument weakened by the introduction of reservations
which have no cogency.
We have wished to avoid interrupting Mill's train of reasoning
by any remarks of our own, and have, therefore, deferred till now
the following observations regarding his criticism on Hume's
argument.
In reducing Hume's celebrated doctrine to the very plain pro-
position, that whatever is contradictory to a complete induction is
incredible, Mill in no way diminishes its potency against miracles ;
and he does not call that proposition " harmless " in reference to
1 Mill, Logic t ii., p. 168 f. , 2 Ib., ii., p. 169.
HUME'S ARGUMENT REGARDING MIRACLES 49
its bearing on miracles, as Dr. Farrar evidently supposes, but
merely in opposition to the character of a recondite and
" dangerous heresy " assigned by dismayed theologians to so
obvious and simple a principle. The proposition, however, whilst
it reduces Hume's doctrine in the abstract to more technical terms,
does not altogether represent his argument. Without asserting
that experience is an absolutely infallible guide, Hume maintains
that " A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. In
such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience, he
expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and regards
his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that
event. In other cases he proceeds with more caution ; he weighs
the opposite experiments ; he considers which side is supported by
the greater number of experiments ; to that side he inclines with
doubt and hesitation ; and when at last he fixes his judgment, the
evidence exceeds not what we properly call probability. All pro-
bability, then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observa-
tions, where the one side is found to overbalance the other, and to
produce a degree of evidence proportioned to the superiority." 1
After elaborating this proposition, Hume continues: "A miracle
is a violation of the laws of nature ; and as a firm and unalterable
experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle,
from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from
experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than pro-
bable that all men must die ; that lead cannot, of itself, remain
suspended in the air ; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished
by water ; unless it be that these events are found agreeable to the
laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or,
in other words, a miracle, to prevent them ? Nothing is esteemed
a miracle if it ever happened in the common course of nature. It
is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on a
sudden ; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than
any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is
a miracle that a dead man should come to life, because that has
never been observed in any age or country. There must, there-
fore, be an uniform experience against every miraculous event,
otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as an
uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and
full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any
miracle ; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle
rendered credible, but by an opposite proof which is superior.
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our
attention) : ' That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle
1 David Hume, Philosophical Works ; Boston and Edinburgh, 1854, iv., p.
126.
5 o SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be
more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish ;
and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments,
and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree
of force which remains after deducting the inferior.' When any
one tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately
consider with myself whether it be more probable that this person
should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact which he
relates should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle
against the other; and, according to the superiority which I
discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater
miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more
miraculous than the event which he relates, then, and not till then,
can he pretend to command my belief or opinion." 1
The ground upon which Mill admits that a miracle may not be
contradictory to complete induction is that it is not an assertion
that a certain cause was not followed by a certain effect, but an
allegation of the interference of an adequate counteracting cause.
This does not, however, by his own showing, remove a miracle
from the action of Hume's principle, but simply modifies the
nature of the antecedent improbability. Mill qualifies his
admission regarding the effect of the alleged counteracting cause
by the all-important words, " if present " ; for, in order to be valid,
the reality of the alleged counteracting cause must be established,
which is impossible, therefore the allegations fall to the ground.
In admitting that Hume has made out that no evidence can
prove a miracle to any one who does not previously believe in a
being of supernatural power willing to work miracles, Mill
concedes everything to Hume, for his only limitation is based
upon a supposition of mere personal belief in something which is
not capable of proof, and which belief, therefore, is not more valid
than any other purely imaginary hypothesis. The belief may
seem substantial to the individual entertaining it, but, not being
capable of proof, it cannot have weight with others, or in any way
affect the value of evidence in the abstract.
The assumption of a Personal Deity working miracles is excluded
by Hume's argument, and, although Mill apparently overlooks the
fact, Hume has not only anticipated but refuted the reasoning
which is based upon it. In the succeeding chapter on a Particular
Providence and a Future State he directly disposes of such an
assumption, but he does so with equal effect also in the essay
which we are discussing. Taking an imaginary miracle as an
illustration, he argues : " Though the Being to whom the miracle
is ascribed be in this case Almighty, it does not upon that account
1 Hume, rhilos. Works, iv., p. 130 ft".
PALEY'S ARGUMENT AGAINST HUME 51
become a whit more probable ; since it is impossible for us to
know the attributes or actions of such a Being otherwise than
from the experience which we have of his productions in the
usual course of nature. This still reduces us to past observation,
and obliges us to compare the instances of the violation of truth
in the testimony of men with those of the violation of the laws
of nature by miracles, in order to judge which of them is most
likely and probable. As the violations of truth are more common in
the testimony concerning religious miracles than in that concerning
any other matter of fact, this must diminish very much the authority
of the former testimony, and make us form a general resolution never
to lend any attention to it, with whatever specious pretence it may be
covered." 1 A person who believes anything contradictor}' to a
complete induction merely on the strength of an assumption which
is incapable of proof is simply credulous ; but such an assumption
cannot affect the real evidence for that thing.
The argument of Paley against Hume is an illustration of the
reasoning suggested by Mill. Paley alleges the interposition of a
Personal Deity in explanation of miracles, but he protests that he
does not assume the attributes of the Deity or the existence of a
future state in order to prove their reality. " That reality," he
admits, " always must be proved by evidence. We assert only
that in miracles adduced in support of revelation there is not such
antecedent improbability as no testimony can surmount." His
argument culminates in the short statement : " In a word, once
believe that there is a God [i.e., a Personal God, working miracles],
and miracles are not incredible." 2 We have already quoted
Hume's refutation of this reasoning, and we may at once proceed
to the final argument by which Paley endeavours to overthrow
Hume's doctrine, and upon which he mainly rests his case.
" But the short consideration," he says, " which, independently
of every other, convinces me that there is no solid foundation in
Mr. Hume's conclusion is the following : When a theorem is
proposed to a mathematician, the first thing he does with it is to
try it upon a simple case, and if it produces a false result he is
sure that there must be some mistake in the demonstration.
Now, to proceed in this way with what may be called Mr. Hume's
theorem. If twelve men, whose probity and good sense I had
long known, should seriously and circumstantially relate to me an
account of a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in which it
was impossible that they should be deceived ; if the governor of
the country, hearing a rumour of this account, should call these
1 Hume, Philos. Works, iv., p. 148.
- Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, "Preparatory Con-
siderations."
52 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
men into his presence, and offer them a short proposal, either to
confess the imposture or submit to be tied up to a gibbet ; if they
should refuse with one voice to acknowledge that there existed
any falsehood or imposture in the case ; if this threat was com-
municated to them separately, yet with no different effect ; if it
was at last executed ; if I myself saw them, one after another,
consenting to be racked, burned, or strangled, rather than give up
the truth of their account still, if Mr. Hume's rule be my guide,
I am not to believe them. Now, I undertake to say that there
exists not a sceptic in the world who would not believe them, or
who would defend such incredulity." 1
It is obvious that this reasoning, besides being purely hypo-
thetical, is utterly without cogency against Hume's doctrine. The
evidence of the twelve men simply amounts to a statement that
they saw, or fancied that they saw, a certain occurrence in contra-
diction to the law ; but that which they actually saw was an
external phenomenon, the real nature of which is a mere inference,
and an inference which, from the necessarily isolated position of
the miraculous phenomenon, is neither supported by other
instances capable of forming a complete counter induction, nor
by analogies within the order of nature. 2 The bare inference
from an occurrence supposed to have been witnessed by twelve
men is all that is opposed to the law of nature, which is based
upon a complete induction, and it is, therefore, incredible.
If we examine Paley's " simple case " a little more closely,
however, we find that not only is it utterly inadmissible as a
hypothesis, but that as an illustration of the case of Gospel
miracles it is completely devoid of relevancy and argumentative
force. The only point which gives a momentary value to the
supposed instance is the condition attached to the account of the
miracle related by the twelve men, that not only was it wrought
before their eyes, but that it was one " in which it was impossible
that they should be deceived." Now, this qualification of infalli-
bility on the part of the twelve witnesses is as incredible as the
miracle which they are supposed to attest. The existence of
twelve men incapable of error or mistake is as opposed to experi-
ence as the hypothesis of a miracle in which it is impossible for
the twelve men to be deceived is contradictory to reason. The
exclusion of all error in the observation of the actual occurrence
and its antecedents and consequences, whose united sum con-
stitutes the miracle, is an assumption which deprives the argu-
ment of all potency. On the other hand, the moment the
possibility of error is admitted the reasoning breaks down,
for the probability of error on the part of the observers, either as
1 Paley, \. c. a Cf. Mill, System of Logic, ii., p. 166 f.
PALEY'S SIMPLE CASE 53
regards the external phenomena or the inferences drawn from
them, being so infinitely greater than the probability of mistake in
the complete induction, we must unquestionably reject the testi-
mony of the twelve men.
It need scarcely be said that the assertion of liability to error
on the part of the observers by no means involves any insinuation
of wilful " falsehood or imposture in the case." It is quite intel-
ligible that twelve men might witness an occurrence which might
seem to them and others miraculous but which was susceptible
of a perfectly natural explanation and truthfully relate what they
believed to have seen, and that they might, therefore, refuse
" with one voice to acknowledge that there existed any falsehood
or imposture in the case," even although the alternative might be
death on a gibbet. This, however, would in no way affect the
character of the actual occurrence. It would not convert a
natural, though by them inexplicable, phenomenon into a miracle.
Their constancy in adhering to the account they had given would
merely bear upon the truth of their own statements, and the fact,
of seeing them "one after another consenting to be racked,
burned, or strangled, rather than give up the truth of their
account," would not in the least justify our believing in a miracle.
Even martyrdom cannot transform imaginatipns into facts. The
truth of a narrative is no guarantee for the correctness of an infer-
ence.
As regards the applicability of Paley's illustration to the GospeJ
miracles, the failure of his analogy is complete. We shall
presently see the condition of the people amongst whom these
miracles are supposed to have occurred, and that, so far from the
nature of the phenomena and the character of the witnesses
supporting the inference that it was impossible that the observers
could have been deceived, there is every reason for concluding
with certainty that their ignorance of natural laws, their proneness
to superstition, their love of the marvellous, and their extreme
religious excitement, rendered them peculiarly liable to incorrect-
ness in the observation of the phenomena, and to error in the
inferences drawn from them. We shall likewise see that we have
no serious and circumstantial accounts of those miracles from
eye-witnesses of whose probity and 'good sense we have any know-
ledge, but that, on the contrary, the narratives of them which we
possess were composed by unknown persons, who were not eye-
witnesses at all, but wrote very long after the events related, and
in that mythic period "in which reality melted into fable, and
invention unconsciously trespassed on the province of history." 1
The proposition, " That there is satisfactory evidence that many
professing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles passed
their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily under-
54 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
gone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and
solely in consequence of their belief of these accounts ; and that
they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of
conduct," is made by Paley the argument of the first nine
chapters of his work, as the converse of the proposition, that
similar attestation of other miracles cannot be produced, is of the
following two. This shows the importance which he attaches to
the point ; but, notwithstanding, even if he could substantiate this
statement, the cause of miracles would not be one whit advanced.
We have freely quoted these arguments in order to illustrate
the real position of miracles ; and no one who has seriously
considered the matter can doubt the necessity for very extra-
ordinary evidence, even to render the report of such phenomena
worthy of a moment's attention. The argument for miracles,
however, has hitherto proceeded upon the merest assumption, and,
as we shall further see, the utmost that they can do who support
miracles, under the fatal disadvantage of being contradictory to
uniform experience, is to refer to the alleged contemporaneous
nature of the evidence for their occurrence, and to the character
of the supposed witnesses. Mill has ably shown the serious
misapprehension of so many writers against Hume's Essay on
Miracles which has led them to what he calls " the extraordinary
conclusion that nothing supported by credible testimony ought
ever to be disbelieved." 1 In regard to historical facts, not contra-
dictory to all experience, simple and impartial testimony may be
sufficient to warrant belief; but even such qualities as these can
go but a very small way towards establishing the reality of an
occurrence which is opposed to complete induction. 2 It is
admitted that the evidence requisite to establish the reality of a
supernatural Divine revelation of doctrines beyond human reason,
and comprising in its very essence such stupendous miracles as
the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension, must be miraculous.
The evidence for the miraculous evidence, which is scarcely less
astounding than the contents of the revelation itself, must,
logically, be miraculous also, for it is not a whit more easy to
prove the reality of an evidential miracle than of a dogmatic
miracle. It is evident that the resurrection of Lazarus, for instance,
is as contradictory to complete induction as the resurrection of
Jesus. Both the supernatural religion, therefore, and its super-
natural evidence labour under the fatal disability of being
antecedently incredible.
1 Mill, Logic, ii., pp. 173, 175. 3 Cf. Mill, Logic, ii., p. 168.
CHAPTER IV.
THE AGE OF MIRACLES
LET us now, however, proceed to examine the evidence for the
reality of miracles, and to inquire whether they are supported by
such an amount of testimony as can in any degree outweigh the
reasons which, antecedently, seem to render them incredible. It
is undeniable that belief in the miraculous has gradually been dis-
pelled, and that, as a general rule, the only miracles which are
now maintained are limited to brief and distant periods of time.
Faith in their reality, once so comprehensive, does not, except
amongst a certain class, extend beyond the miracles of the New
Testament and a few of those of the Old, and the countless
myriads of ecclesiastical and other miracles, for centuries devoutly
and implicitly believed, are now commonly repudiated, and have
sunk into discredit and contempt. The question is inevitably
suggested how so much can be abandoned and the remnant still
be upheld.
As an essential part of our inquiry into the value of the evidence
for miracles, we must endeavour to ascertain whether those who
are said to have witnessed the supposed miraculous occurrences
were either competent to appreciate them aright, or likely to report
them without exaggeration. For this purpose, we must consider
what was known of the order of nature in the age in which
miracles are said to have taken place, and what was the intellectual
character of the people amongst whom they are reported to have
been performed. Nothing is more rare, even amongst intelligent
and cultivated men, than accuracy of observation and correctness
of report, even in matters of sufficient importance to attract vivid
attention, and in which there is no special interest unconsciously
to bias the observer. It will scarcely be denied, however, that in
persons of fervid imagination, and with a strong natural love of the
marvellous, whose minds are not only unrestrained by specific
knowledge, but predisposed by superstition towards false con-
clusions, the probability of inaccuracy and exaggeration is
enormously increased. If we add to this such a disturbing
element as religious excitement, inaccuracy, exaggeration, and
extravagance are certain to occur. The effect of even one of
these influences, religious feeling, in warping the judgment is
admitted by one of the most uncompromising supporters of
55
56 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
miracles. " It is doubtless the tendency of religious minds," says
Newman, " to imagine mysteries and wonders where there are
none ; and much more, where causes of awe really exist, will they
unintentionally misstate, exaggerate, and embellish, when they
set themselves to relate what they have witnessed or have heard ";
and he adds : " And further, the imagination, as is well known, is
a fruitful cause of apparent miracles." 1 We need not offer any
evidence that the miracles which we have to examine were
witnessed and reported by persons exposed to the effects of the
strongest possible religious feeling and excitement, and our atten-
tion may, therefore, be more freely directed to the inquiry how far
this influence was modified by other circumstances. Did the
Jews at the time of Jesus possess such calmness of judgment and
sobriety of imagination as to inspire us with any confidence" in
accounts of marvellous occurrences, unwitnessed except by them,
and limited to their time, which contradict all knowledge and all
experience ? Were their minds sufficiently enlightened and free
from superstition to warrant our attaching weight to their report of
events of such an astounding nature ? and were they themselves
sufficiently impressed with the exceptional character of any
apparent supernatural and miraculous interference with the order
of nature ?
Let an English historian and divine, who will be acknow-
ledged as no prejudiced witness, bear testimony upon some of
these points. " Nor is it less important," says Dean Milman,
" throughout the early history of Christianity, to seize the spirit of
the times. Events which appear to us so extraordinary that we
can scarcely conceive that they should either fail in exciting a
powerful sensation or ever be obliterated from the popular remem-
brance, in their own day might pass off as of little more than
ordinary occurrence. During the whole life of Christ, and the
early propagation of the religion, it must be borne in mind that
they took place in an age, and among a people, which superstition
had made so familiar with what were supposed to be preternatural
events that wonders awakened no emotion, or were speedily
superseded by some new demand on the ever-ready belief. The
Jews of that period not only believed that the Supreme Being had
the power of controlling the course of nature, but that the same
influence was possessed by multitudes of subordinate spirits, both
good and evil. Where the pious Christian of the present day
would behold the direct agency of the Almighty, the Jews would
1 J. H. Newman, Two Essays on Scriptiire Miracles and on Ecclesiastical,
1870, p. 171. This passage occurs in a reply lo the argument against admitting
ecclesiastical miracles as a whole, or against admitting certain of them, that
certain others are rejected on all hands as fictitious or pretended.
57
invariably have interposed an angel as the author or ministerial
agent in the wonderful transaction. Where the Christian moralist
would condemn the fierce passion, the ungovernable lust, or the
inhuman temper, the Jew discerned the workings of diabolical
possession. Scarcely a malady was endured, or crime committed,
which was not traced to the operation of one of these myriad
daemons, who watched every opportunity of exercising their malice
in the sufferings and the sins of men." 1
Another English divine, of certainly not less orthodoxy, but of
much greater knowledge of Hebrew literature, bears similar
testimony regarding the Jewish nation at the same period. " Not
to be more tedious, therefore, in this matter " (regarding the Bath
Kol, a Jewish superstition), " let two things only be observed :
(i) That the nation, under the second Temple, was given to
magical arts beyond measure ; and (2) That it was given to an
easiness of believing all manner of delusions beyond measure." 2
And in another place : " It is a disputable case, whether the
Jewish nation were more mad with superstition in matters of
religion, or with superstition in curious arts : -(i) There was not a
people upon earth that studied or attributed more to dreams than
they. (2) There was hardly any people in the whole world that
more used, or were more fond of, amulets, charms, mutterings,
exorcisms, and all kinds of enchantments. We might here produce
innumerable instances." 3 We shall presently see that these state-
ments are far from being exaggerated.
No reader of the Old Testament 4 can fail to have been struck
by the singularly credulous fickleness of the Jewish mind.
Although claiming the title of the specially selected people of
Jehovah, the Israelites exhibited a constant and inveterate
tendency to forsake his service for the worship of other gods. The
mighty "signs and wonders" which God is represented as
incessantly working on their behalf, and in their sight, had
apparently no effect upon them. The miraculous even then had,
as it would seem, already lost all novelty, and ceased, according to
the records, to excite more than mere passing astonishment. The
leaders and prophets of Israel had a perpetual struggle to restrain
1 History of Christianity, by H. H. Milman, D.D., Dean of St. Paul's;
Murray, 1867, i., p. 84 f.
2 John Lightfoot, D.D., Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge. Horce
Hebraiae et Tal/uudicie, Works (ed. Pitman), xi., p. 8l, cf. p. 170.
3 Ib., xi., p. 299 f. Cf. Schoettgen, Horn: Hebraic^ et Talinudicce, 1733, p.
474-
4 We do not, of course, touch here upon the results of critical examination of
the writings of the Old Testament, although these completely confirm the
results of this work, but simply refer to points which bear upon our argument in
the common view.
58 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the people from " following after " heathen deities, and whilst the
burden of the prophets is one long denunciation of the idolatry
into which the nation was incessantly falling, the verdict of
the historical books upon the several kings and rulers of Israel
proves how common it was, and how rare even the nominal
service of Jehovah. At the best, the mind of the Jewish nation,
only after long and slow progression, attained the idea of a perfect
monotheism, but added to the belief in Jehovah the recognition
of a host of other gods, over whom it merely gave him supremacy. 1
This is apparent even in the first commandment : " Thou shalt
have no other gods before me " ; and the necessity for such a law
received its illustration from a people who are represented as
actually worshipping the golden calf, made for them by the com-
plaisant Aaron, during the very time that the great Decalogue was
being written on the Mount by his colleague Moses. 2 It is not,
therefore, to be wondered at that at a later period, and through-
out patristic days, the gods of the Greeks and other heathen
nations were so far gently treated that, although repudiated
as deities, they were recognised as demons. In the Septuagint
version of the Old Testament, where " idols " are spoken of in the
Hebrew, the word is sometimes translated " demons " ; as, for
instance, Psalm xcvi. 5 is rendered : " For all the gods of the
nations are demons."3 The same superstition is quite as clearly
expressed in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul, for instance,
speaking of things sacrificed to idols, says : " But (I say) that the
things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and
not to God ; and I would not that ye should be partakers with
demons. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of
demons ; ye cannot partake of the Lord's table, and of the table
of demons. "*
The apocryphal Book of Tobit affords some illustration of the
opinions of the more enlightened Jews during the last century
. ' This is unconsciously expressed throughout the Bible in such passages as
Deut. x. 17 : " For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a
great God, a mighty and a terrible," etc. (cf. Joshua xxii. 22, Deut. xi. 28,
xii. 2 ff., Ps. Ixxxix. 6, 7, and a host of other passages).
2 An admirable inquiry into the religion of the Jewish nation is to be found
in Dr. A. Kuenen's very able work, De Godsdieiist van Israel, Haarlem.
Eerste deel, 1869; tweede deel, 1870.
3 "On iravTes oi 0eol rdv tOvuv dai^dvia (Ps. xcv. 5, Sept.). This is not to
be wondered at, when in so many other passages the Israelites are repre-
sented in the Hebrew as sacrificing to devils when they worshipped other
gods : cf. Levit. xvii. 7 ; Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Ps. cvi. (Sept. cv.) 37. In Isaiah
Ixv. ii the words translated in the English version " that prepare a table for
that troop " are referred to demons in the Septuagint : ccai erot/adfoj'res r$
daipovly rpdirf^av. In Ps. xcvii. 7 the word translated "gods" in the English
version becomes fiyyeXoi avrov in the Sept. (xcvi. 7).
4 i Cor. x. 20.
THE BOOK OF ENOCH 59
before the commencement of the Christian era. 1 The angel
Raphael prescribes, as an infallible means of driving a demon out
of man or woman so effectually that it should never more come
back, fumigation with the heart and liver of a fish. 2 By this
exorcism the demon Asmodeus, who, from love of Sara, the
daughter of Raguel, has strangled seven husbands who attempted
to marry her, 3 is overcome, and flies into " the uttermost parts of
Egypt," where the angel binds him.* The belief in demons, and
in the necessity of exorcism, is so complete that the author sees
no incongruity in describing the angel Raphael, who has been
sent, in answer to prayer, specially to help him, as instructing
Tobias to adopt such means of subjecting demons. Raphael is
described in this book as the angel of healing, 5 the office generally
assigned to him by the Fathers. He is also represented as saying
of himself that he is one of the seven holy angels which present
the prayers of the saints to God. 6
There are many curious particulars regarding angels and demons
in the Book of Enoch. This work, which is quoted by the author
of the Epistle of Jude,? and by some of the Fathers, as inspired
Scripture, was supposed by Tertullian to have survived the
universal deluge, or to have been afterwards transmitted by means
of Noah, the great-grandson of the author Enoch. 8 It may be
assigned to about a century before Christ, but additions were
made to the text, and more especially to its angelology, extending
probably to after the commencement of our era. It undoubtedly
represents views popularly prevailing about the epoch in which
we are interested. The author not only relates the fall of the
angels through love for the daughters of men, but gives the names
of twenty-one of them and of their leaders ; of whom Jequn was
he who seduced the holy angels, and Ashbeel it was who gave
them evil counsel and corrupted them. 9 A third, Gadreel, 10 was
he who seduced Eve. He also taught to the children of men the
use and manufacture of all murderous weapons, of coats of mail,
shields, swords, and of all the implements of death. Another
evil angel, named Penemue, taught them many mysteries of
rj'.-Or.- il.K ;*,;.:.;' :>li i.-:.t^',inLi. -^ t*-K If:' .-"JiU,-:
1 There is much discussion as to the date of this book. It is variously
ascribed to periods ranging from two centuries B.C., and even earlier, to one
century after Christ.
2 Tobit, vi. 7. 3 76. t Hi. 7 f. . v -i. 14. * 76., viii. 2 f.
5 76., iii. 17.
6 76., xii. 15. Origen also states that the archangel Michael presents the
prayers of the saints to God (Horn. xiv. in Num., Opp. ii., p. 323).
^ v. 14 f.
8 Tertullian, De Citltufem,, i. 3. 9 Cap. Ixix. i. flf., cf. vi.
10 In the extract preserved by George Syncellus in his Chronography (p. 1 1 )
the angel who taught the use of weapons of war, etc., is called Azael or
Azalzel.
6o SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
wisdom. He instructed men in the art of writing with paper
(xa/arr/?) and ink, by means of which, the author remarks,
many fall into sin even to the present day. Kaodeja, another
evil angel, taught the human race all the wicked practices of
spirits and demons, 1 and also magic and exorcism. 2 The offspring
of the fallen angels and of the daughters of men were giants,
whose height was 3,000 ells ;3 of these are the demons working
evil upon earth. * Azazel taught men various arts : the making
of bracelets and ornaments ; the use of cosmetics, the way to
beautify the eyebrows ; precious stones, and all dye-stuffs and
metals ; whilst other wicked angels instructed them in all kinds of
pernicious knowledge. 5 The elements and all the phenomena of
nature are controlled and produced by the agency of angels.
Uriel is the angel of thunder and earthquakes ; Raphael, of the
spirits of men ; Raguel is the angel who executes vengeance on
the world and the stars; Michael is set over the best of mankind
i.e., over the people of Israel ; 6 Saraqael, over the souls of the
children of men who are misled by the spirits of sin ; and Gabriel
is over serpents and over Paradise, and over the Cherubim. 7
Enoch is shown the mystery of all the operations of nature and
the action of the elements, and he describes the spirits which
guide them and control the thunder and lightning and the winds ;
the spirit of the seas, who curbs them with his might, or tosses
them forth and scatters them through the mountains of the earth ;
the spirit of hoar frost, and the spirit of hail, and the spirit of
snow. There are, in fact, special spirits set over every phenomenon
of nature frost, thaw, mist, rain, light, and so on. 8 The heavens
and the earth are filled with spirits. Raphael is the angel set
over all the diseases and wounds of mankind, Gabriel over all
powers, and Fanuel over the penitence and the hope of those
who inherit eternal life.9 The decree for the destruction of the
human race goes forth from the presence of the Lord because
men know all the mysteries of the angels, all the evil works of
Satan, and all the secret might and power of those who practise
the art of magic, and the power of conjuring and such arts. 10 The
stars are represented as animated beings. Enoch sees seven
stars bound together in space like great mountains, and flaming
as with fire ; and he inquires of the angel who leads him, on
account of what sin they are so bound ? Uriel informs him that
they are stars which have transgressed the commands of the
1 Enoch, c. Ixix. 2 C. vii.
3 C. vii. 2 : one MS. has 300. 4 C. xv. s c. viii.
6 Cf. Daniel x. 13, 21 ; xii. I. ^ C. xx.
8 Enoch, c. Ix. 12 ff., cf. xli. xxxiv.
9 C. xl. 9 f., cf. xxxix. I0 C. Ixv. 6 ff.
ANGELOLOGY OF THE JEWS 61
Highest God, and they are thus bound until ten thousand worlds,
the number of the days of their transgression, shall be accomplished. 1
The belief that sun, moon, and stars were living entities possessed
of souls was generally held by the Jews at the beginning of our
era, along with Greek philosophers, and we shall presently see
it expressed by the Fathers. Philo Judaeus considers the stars
spiritual beings full of virtue and perfection, 2 and that to them is
granted lordship over other heavenly bodies, not absolute, but as
viceroys under the Supreme Being. 3 We find a similar view
regarding the nature of the stars expressed in the Apocalypse,*
and it constantly appears in the Talmud and Targums. An
angel of the sun and moon is described in the Ascensio Isaice.s
We are able to obtain a full and minute conception of the
belief regarding angels and demons and their influence over
cosmical phenomena, as well as of other superstitions current
amongst the Jews at the time of Jesus, from the Talmud,
Targums, and other Rabbinical sources. We cannot, however,
do more, here, than merely glance at these voluminous materials.
The angels are perfectly pure spirits, without sin, and not visible
to mortal eyes. When they come down to earth on any mission,
they are clad in light and veiled in air. If, however, they remain
longer than seven days on earth, they become so clogged with the
earthly matter in which they have been immersed that they cannot
again ascend to the upper heavens. 6 Their multitude is innumer-
able, 7 and new angels are every day created, who in succession
praise God and make way for others. 8 The expression, " host of
heaven," is a common one in the Old Testament, and the idea
was developed into a heavenly army. The first Gospel represents
Jesus as speaking of "more than twelve legions of angels."^
Every angel has one particular duty to perform, and no more ;
thus of the three angels who appeared to Abraham, one was sent
to announce that Sarah should have a son, the second to rescue
Lot, and the third to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. 10 The
1 C. xxi., cf. xviii. 13 f.
2 De Mundo opificio, 48 ; De Gigantibus, 2, cf. De Somniis, i., 4 f., 22.
3 De Monarchia, i., I. 4 Rev. i. 20, iii. i, iv. 5, ix. I, etc.
5 C. iv. 1 8. This work referred to by Origen \Ep. ad Africanum},
Epiphanius (Hcer. xl. 2, Ixvii. 3), Jerome (in Esaice, Ixiv. 4), and others
(cf. Fabricius, Cod. Vet. Test., i., p. 1086 ff. ), as 'Ava^a.TiK6v "ELffatov, is dated
variously from the middle of the first to the beginning of the third century.
The work, long lost, was discovered and published by Lawrence, in 1819.
6 Sokar, Genesis, p. 124, p. 266 ; Pirke Elieser, xlvi. ; Eisenmenger, Entd.
Jttd., ii., p. 387 f. ; Gfrorer, Das Jahrh. d. Heils, i., p. 366.
7 Hieros. Targ. Exod., xii. 12, xxxiii. 23 ; Deut. xxxiv. 5, etc., etc.
8 Chagigah Bab., p. 14, I, 2; Eisenmenger, ib., ii., p. 371 ff.
9 Matt. xxvi. 53.
10 Hieros. Targ. Genes., xvii. 2 ; Gfrorer, ib., i., p. 363 f.
62 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
angels serve God in the administration of the universe, and to
special angels are assigned the different parts of nature. " There
is not a thing in the world, not even a little herb, over which
there is not an angel set, and everything happens according to the
command of these appointed angels." 1 It will be remembered
that the agency of angels is frequently introduced in the Old
Testament, and still more so in the Septuagint version, by altera-
tions of the text. One notable case of such agency may be
referred to, where the pestilence which is sent to punish David for
numbering the people is said to be caused by an angel, whom
David even sees. The Lord is represented as repenting of the
evil, when the angel was stretching forth his hand against
Jerusalem, and bidding him stay his hand after the angel had
destroyed seventy thousand men by the pestilence. 2 This theory
of disease has prevailed until comparatively recent times. The
names of many of the superintending angels are given as, for
instance : Jehuel is set over fire, Michael over water, Jechiel over
wild beasts, and Anpiel over birds. Over cattle Hariel is
appointed, and Samniel over created things moving in the waters,
and over the face of the earth ; Messannahel over reptiles, Deliel
over fish. Ruchiel is set over the winds, Gabriel over thunder
and also over fire, and over the ripening of fruit; Nuriel over hail,
Makturiel over rocks, Alpiel over fruit-bearing trees, Saroel over
those which do not bear fruit, and Sandalfon over the human
race ; and under each of these there are subordinate angels.3 It
was believed that there were two angels of Death, one for those
who died out of the land of Israel, who was an evil angel, called
Samae'l (and at other times Satan, Asmodeus, etc.), and the other,
who presided over the dead of the land of Israel, the holy angel
Gabriel ; and under these there was a host of evil spirits
and angels.* We shall presently see how general this belief
regarding angels was amongst the Fathers, but it is also expressed
in the New Testament. In the Apocalypse there appears an angel
who has power over fire, 5 and in another place four angels have
power to hurt the earth and the sea. 6 The angels were likewise
1 Jalkttt Chadasch, p. 147, 3 ; Eisenmenger, ib., ii., p. 376 ff. ; Gfrorer, ib., i.,
P- 369-
- 2 Sam. xxiv. 15 f.
3 Berith Minucha, p. 37, I ; cf. Tract Pesachim, p. 118, I, 2 ; Sanhedrin,
95, 2 ; Eisenmenger, ib., ii., p. 378 ff; Gfrorer, ib., i., p. 369. The Targum
upon I Kings xix. ii, 12, reads: "A host of the angels of the wind, a host
of the angels of commotion, a host of the angels of fire ; and after the host of
the angels of fire, the voice of the silent singers." Lightfoot, Hone Heb. et.
Talm., Works, xii., p. 35.
4 Bava Mezia, 36, I ; Sue f ah, 53, I ; Bava Bathra, 16, I ; Eisenmenger,
ib., i., p. 821 f., p. 854 ff. ; Lightfoot, ib., xii., p. 428, p. 507 f. : Schoettgen,
fforce Heb et Talm., p. 935.
s C. xiv. 18. 6 C. vii. 2, cf. \, ii ; xix. 17.
ANGELOLOGV OF THE JEWS 63
the instructors of men, and communicated knowledge to the
Patriarchs. The angel Gabriel taught Joseph the seventy
languages of the earth. 1 It appears, however, that there was
one language the Syriac which the angels do not understand,
and for this reason men were not permitted to pray for things
needful in that tongue. 2 Angels are appointed as princes over the
seventy nations of the world ; but the Jews consider the angels set
over Gentile nations merely demons. 3 The Septuagint translation
of Deuteronomy xxxii. 8 introduces the statement into the Old
Testament. Instead of the Most High, when he divided to the
nations their inheritance, setting the bounds of the people
" according to the number of the children of Israel," the passage
becomes, " according to the number of the angels of God "
(Kara dpidfjibv ayycXojv Seov). The number of the nations was
fixed at seventy, the number of the souls who went down into
Egypt. 4 The Jerusalem Targum on Genesis xi. 7, 8, reads as
follows : " God spake to the seventy angels which stand before
him : Come, let us go down and confound their language that they
may not understand each other. And the word of the Lord
appeared there (at Babel), with the seventy angels, according to the
seventy nations, and each had the language of the people which
was allotted to him, and the record of the writing in his hand, and
scattered the nations from thence over the whole earth in seventy
languages, so that the one did not understand what the other
said." 5 Michael was the angel of the people of Israel, 6 and he is
always set in the highest place amongst the angels, and often
called the High Priest of Heaven. ? It was believed that the
angels of the nations fought in heaven when their allotted peoples
made war on earth. We see an allusion to this in the Book of
Daniel, 8 and in the Apocalypse there is " war in heaven ; Michael
and his angels fought against the dragon ; and the dragon fought
and his angels. "9 The Jews of the time of Jesus not only held
that there were angels set over the nations, but also that each
1 7^-acf, Sotah, 33, I ; Gfrorer, ib. , i., p 366 ff ; Eisenmenger, ii>. t ii., p. 365,
P- 374 f-
2 Beracoth, c. 2; Bab. Schabbath, 12, 2; Sotah, 33, I ; Lightfoot, ib., xi.,
p. 22 ; Eisenmenger, ib., i., p. 675 f. ; ii., p. 392 f.
3 Eisenmenger, ib., i., p. 805 ff., p. 816 f.
4 Gen. xlvi. 27, Exod. i. 5, Deut. x. 22. Seventy disciples were, therefore,
chosen to preach the Gospel, Luke x. I f. Of course, we need not here speak
of the import of this number.
5 Cf. Pirkc Elieser, xxiv. ; Gfrorer, ib., i., p. 370 f. ; Eisenmenger, ib., i.,
p. 810. 6 Cf. Daniel x. 21.
7 Bab. Menacoth, no, i ; Beracoth, 4, 2; Sohar, Genes., fol. 17, col. 66;
Thosaphtah Chollin, ii. 6 ; Jalkut Rnbeni, 80, I, 92, 4 ; Sei'achim, 62, I ;
Gfrorer, ?'/>., i., p. 371 f. ; Schoettgen, ib., p. 1219 ff.
8 X. 10 ff., and more especially verse 13. 9 C. xii. 7.
64 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
individual had a guardian angel. 1 This belief appears in several
places in the New Testament. For instance, Jesus is represented
as saying of the children : " For I say unto you that their angels
do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." 2
Again, in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter is delivered from
prison by an angel and comes to the house of his friend, they will
not believe the maid who had opened the gate and seen him, but
say : " It is his angel " (o ayyeAos avrov rrtv).3 The passage
in the Epistle to the Hebrews will likewise be remembered where
it is said of the angels : " Are they not all ministering spirits sent
forth for ministry on account of them who shall be heirs of
salvation. "* There was at the same time a singular belief that
when any person went into the private closet the guardian angel
remained at the door till he came out again, and in the Talmud a
prayer is given for strength and help under the circumstances, and
that the guardian angel may wait while the person is there. The
reason why the angel does not enter is that such places are
haunted by demons. 5
The belief in demons at the time of Jesus was equally emphatic
and comprehensive, and we need scarcely mention that the New
Testament is full of references to them. 6 They are in the air, on
earth, in the bodies of men and animals, and even at the bottom
' of the sea. ? They are the offspring of the fallen angels who loved
the daughters of men. 8 They have wings like the angels, and can
fly from one end of heaven to another ; they obtain a knowledge
of the future, like the angels, by listening behind the veil of the
Temple of God in heaven.9 Their number is infinite. The earth
is so full of them that if man had power to see he could not exist
on account of them ; there are more demons than men, and they
are about as close as the earth thrown up out of a newly-made
grave. 10 It is stated that each man has 10,000 demons at his right
hand and 1,000 on his left, and the passage continues : " The
crush on the Sabbath in the synagogue arises from them, also the
1 Hieros. Targ. Genes., xxxiii. IO, xlviii. 16. 3 Matt, xviii. 10.
3 Acts xii. 15. Heb. i. 14.
5 Hieros Beracoth, ix. 5 ; Bab, Beracoth, 60, I ; Gittin, 70, I ; Eisenmenger,
ib., ii., p. 449 f. ; Gfrdrer, ib., i., p. 374 f. ; Mo'ise Schwab, Traitt des Berak-
hoth, 1871, p. 169.
6 Passing over the synoptic Gospels, in which references to demons abound,
cf. I Cor. x. 20, 21 ; James ii. 19 ; I Tim. iv. I ; Eph. ii. 2, cf. iv. 12 ; Rev.
ix. 2O, xvi. 14, xviii. 2.
7 Eisenmenger, ib., ii., p. 437 f.
8 7^.,i.,p. 380 f.
9 Bab. Chagigah, 16, i; Schoettgen, ib., p. 1049; Eisenmenger, ib., ii.,
P- 4I5-
10 Beracoth, 6, i; Sohar, Geties., p. 171 ; ib., Numbers, p. 291; Eisenmenger,
ib., ii., p. 446, p. 461 f.; Moise Schwab, Tram des Berakhoth, 1871, p. 239.
DEMONOLOGY OF THE JEWS 65
dresses of the Rabbins become so soon old and torn through
their rubbing ; in like manner they cause the tottering of the feet.
He who wishes to discover these spirits must take sifted ashes
and strew them about his bed, and in the morning he will perceive
their footprints upon them like a cock's tread. If anyone wish to
see them, he must take the afterbirth of a black cat which has
been littered by a first-born black cat, whose mother was also a
first-birth, burn and reduce it to powder, and put some of it in his
eyes, and he will see them." 1 Sometimes demons assume the form
of a goat. Evil spirits fly chiefly during the darkness, for they are
children of night. 2 For this reason the Talmud states that men
are forbidden to greet anyone by night, lest it might be a devil, 3 or
to go out alone even by day, but much more by night, into solitary
places. 4 It was likewise forbidden for any man to sleep alone in a
house, because anyone so doing would be seized by the she-devil
Lilith and die. 5 Further, no man should drink water by night on
account of the demon Schafriri, the angel of blindness. 6 An evil
spirit descended on anyone going into a cemetery by night. 7 A
necromancer is defined as one who fasts and lodges at night
amongst tombs, in order that the evil spirit may come upon him. 8
Demons, however, take more especial delight in foul and
offensive places, and an evil spirit inhabits every private closet in
the world.9 Demons haunt deserted places, ruins, graves, and
certain kinds of trees. 10 We find indications of these superstitions
throughout the Gospels. The possessed are represented as
dwelling among the tombs and being driven by the unclean spirits
into the wilderness, and the demons can find no rest in clean
places. 11 Demons also frequented springs and fountains. 12 The
1 Bab. Beracoth, 6, i. In the Tract. Gittin (68, 2) of the Talmud, Asmo-
deus is represented as coming to Solomon's wives by night with slippers on to
conceal his cock's feet. Eisenmenger, ib. , i., p. 356, p. 424 f. ; ii., p. 445;
Gfrorer, ib., i., pp. 407, 409 ; Moise Schwab, Traitt des Berakhoth, 1871, p.
239 f.
2 Sohar, Exod., f. 67, col 267 ; Schoettgen, ib. , p. 316; cf. Ephes. vi. 12.
3 Sanhedrin, 44, I ; Megillah, 3, i ; Gfrorer, ib., i., p. 408; Eisenmenger,
ib., ii., p. 452.
4 Sohar, Genes., 387 ; Eisenmenger, ib., ii., p. 451 f.
5 Schabbath, 151, 2.
6 Pesachint, 112, I ; Avoda Sarah, 12, 2; Eisenmenger, ib., i., p. 426 f. ;
ii., p. 452.
7 Chagigah, 3, 2 ; Trnmoth, 40, 2 ; Bava Bathra, 100, 2 ; Bab. San-
hedrin, 65, 2 ; Lightfoot, ib., xi., pp. 160, 170, xii., pp. 134, 349 ; Gfrorer, ib.,
i., p. 408.
8 Bab. Sanhedrin, 65, 2 ; Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 170 ; xii., p. 134 f.
9 Bab. Schabbath, 67, I; B.ib. Baracoth, 62, I; Eisenmenger, ib., ii., p. 449 f.
Schwab, Traitt dtis Berakhoth, p. 495 f.
" Bab. Btracoth, 3, i ; Pesachim, iii. 2 ; Targ. Hieros. Deut. xxx. IO ;
Schwab, ib., p. 227.
11 Matt. viii. 28, xii. 43 ; Mark v. 3, 5 ; Luke viii. 27, 29, xi. 24 f.
12 Vajicra Rabba, 24 ; Lightfoot, ib., xii., p. 282.
F
66 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
episode of the angel who was said to descend at certain seasons
and trouble the water of the pool of Bethesda, so that he who
first stepped in was cured of whatever disease he had, may be
mentioned here in passing, although the passage is not found in
some of the older MSS. of the fourth Gospel, 1 and it is argued by
some that it is a later interpolation. There were demons who
hurt those who did not wash their hands before meat. " Shibta
is an evil spirit which sits upon men's hands in the night, and if
any touch his food with unwashen hands that spirit sits upon that
food, and there is danger from it." 2 The demon Asmodeus is
frequently called the king of the devils, 3 and it was believed that
he tempted people to apostatise ; he it was who enticed Noah into
his drunkenness, and led Solomon into sin.* He is represented as
alternately ascending to study in the school of the heavenly
Jerusalem, and descending to study in the school of the earth. 5
The injury of the human race in every possible way was believed
to be the chief delight of evil spirits. The Talmud and other
Rabbinical writings are full of references to demoniacal possession ;
but we need not enter into details upon this point, as the New
Testament itself presents sufficient evidence regarding it. Not
only one evil spirit could enter into a body, but many took
possession of the same individual. There are many instances
mentioned in the Gospels, such as Mary Magdalene, " out of whom
went seven demons " (8aip6via rTa), 6 and the man whose
name was Legion, because " many demons " (Sai/xovia TroAAa)
were entered into him. 7 Demons likewise entered into the bodies
of animals, and in the narrative to which we have just referred
the demons, on being expelled from the man, request that they
may be allowed to enter into the herd of swine, which, being per-
mitted, " the demons went out of the man into the swine, and the
herd ran violently down the cliff into the lake, and were drowned," 8
1 John v. 3, 4. The authenticity is fully discussed in S. A'., complete ed.,
vol. ii., p. 420 f.
2 Bab. Taanith, 20, 2 ; Sohar, Bcreschith ; Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 215.
3 Gittin, 68, I. 4 Lightfoot, ib., xii., p. in.
5 Gittin, 68, I ; Eisenmenger, ib., i., p. 351. Schoettgen, ib., p. 1233,
iv. Schoettgen gives minute details from the Talmud, etc., regarding
the Academia Celestis, its constitution, and the questions discussed in it,
pp. 1230-1236. The representation of Satan in the book of Job will not be
forgotten.
* Luke viii. 2 ; cf. Mark xvi. 9.
7 Luke viii. 30 ff. The name Legion does not only express a great number,
but to the word was attached the idea of an unclean company, for a Legion
passing from place to place and entering a house rendered it " unclean." The
reason was : " For there is no legion which hath not some carcaphelion "
(Ka.pa.Ke paX-ff) ; that is to say, the skin of the head pulled off from a dead person
and used for enchantments. (Cf. Chollin, 1231 ; Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 394.)
8 Luke viii. 33.
SUPERSTITIONS OF THE JEWS 67
the evil spirits, as usual, taking pleasure only in the destruction and
injury of man and beast. Besides " possession," all the diseases
of men and animals were ascribed to the action of the devil and
of demons. 1 In the Gospels, for instance, the woman with a
spirit of infirmity, who was bowed together and could not lift
herself up, is described as "bound by Satan," although the case
was not one of demoniacal possession. 2
As might be expected from the universality of the belief in
demons and their influence over the human race, the Jews at the
time of Jesus occupied themselves much with the means of
conjuring them. " There was hardly any people in the whole
world," we have already heard from a great Hebrew scholar, "that
more used, or were more fond of, amulets, charms, mutterings,
exorcisms, and all kinds of enchantments."3 Schoettgen bears
similar testimony : " Cceterum judceos magicis artibus admodum
deditos esse, notissimum est."* All competent scholars are agreed
upon this point, and the Talmud and Rabbinical writings are full
of it. The exceeding prevalence of such arts alone proves the
existence of the grossest ignorance and superstition.- There are
elaborate rules in the Talmud with regard to dreams, both as to
how they are to be obtained and how interpreted. 5 Fasts were
enjoined in order to secure good dreams, and these fasts were not
only observed by the ignorant, but also by the principal Rabbins,
and they were permitted even on the Sabbath, which was unlawful
in other cases. 6 Indeed, the interpretation of dreams became a
public profession. 7 It would be impossible within our limits to
convey an adequate idea of the general superstition prevalent
amongst Jews regarding things and actions lucky and unlucky, or
the minute particulars in regard to every common act prescribed
for safety against demons and evil influences of all kinds. Nothing
was considered indifferent or too trifling, and the danger from the
most trivial movements or omissions to which men were supposed
to be exposed from the malignity of evil spirits was believed to be
1 Bab. Joma, 83, 2 ; Bab. Gittin, 67, 2 ; Hieros. Schabbath, 14, 3 ;
Mischna, Gittin, vii. I ; Geniara, 67, 2; Sohar, Genes., 42; Gfrorer, ib., i.,
p. 411 f. Eisenmenger, ib., ii.,p.454; Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 237 f., xii., p. 134 f.
Shihta, whom we have already met with, was said to take hold of the necks of
infants, and to dry up and contract their nerves. Aruch, in Shibta ; Lightfoot,
ib., xi., p. 237.
2 Luke xiii. n ff. ; cf. Mark ix. 25 ; Matt. xii. 22, ix. 32 ; Luke xi. 14.
3 Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 208.
4 Horn: Hebr. et Talin., p. 474 ; cf. Edzard, Avoda Sarah, ii., pp. 311-356 ;
Gfrorer, ib., i. , p. 143.
5 Bab. Beracoth, 56 ff. ; Schwab, Trait,! des Berakhoth, p. 457 ff.
6 Bab. Schabbath, II, I ; Beracoth, 14, i ; Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 299 f.,
p. 163.
7 Bab. Beracoth, 55, 2, 56, I ; Maasar Sheni, 52, 2, 3 ; Lightfoot, ib., xi.,
p. 300 ; Schwab, Traitf des Berakhoth, p. 457 ff.
68 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
great. 1 Amulets, consisting of roots, or pieces of paper with
charms written upon them, were hung round the neck of the sick
and considered efficacious for their cure. Charms, mutterings,
and spells were commonly said over wounds, against unlucky
meetings, to make people sleep, to heal diseases, and to avert en-
chantments. 2 The Talmud gives forms of enchantments against
mad dogs, for instance, against the demon of blindness, and the
like, as well as formulae for averting the evil eye, and mutterings
over diseases. 3 So common was the practice of sorcery and
magic that the Talmud enjoins " that the senior who is chosen into
the council ought to be skilled in the arts of astrologers, jugglers,
diviners, sorcerers, etc., that he may be able to judge of those
who are guilty of the same." 4 Numerous cases are recorded of
persons destroyed by means of sorcery. 5 The Jewish women
were particularly addicted to sorcery and, indeed, the Talmud
declares that they had generally fallen into it. 6 The New Testa-
ment bears abundant testimony to the prevalence of magic and
exorcism at the time at which its books were written. In the
Gospels, Jesus is represented as arguing with the pharisees, who
accuse him of casting out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the
devils : " If I by Beelzebub cast out the demons (TO. Sai/AoVia),
by whom do your sons cast them out ? Therefore, let them be
your judges. "7
The thoroughness and universality of the Jewish popular belief
in demons and evil spirits and in the power of magic is exhibited
in the ascription to Solomon, the monarch in whom the greatness
and glory of the nation attained its culminating point, of the
character of the powerful magician. The most effectual forms of
invocation and exorcism and the most potent spells of magic were
said to have been composed by him, and thus the grossest super-
stition of the nation acquired the sanction of their wisest king.
Rabbinical writings are never weary of enlarging upon the magical
power and knowledge of Solomon. He was represented as not
only king of the whole earth, but also as reigning over devils and
evil spirits, and having the power of expelling them from the
bodies of men and animals, and also of delivering people to them. 8
1 See, for instance, Bab. Berakhoth, 51, I ; Schwab, Traiti! des Berakhoth,
p. 433 f. 2 Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 301 f.
3 See references, Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 301 ; Bab. Beracoth, 57, 2, etc. ;
Schwab, ib., p. 302, p. 456 f. , etc., etc.
4 Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 301.
5 Hieros. Schab., 14, 3 ; Sanhedr., 18, 3 ; Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 301 f.
6 Hieros. Sanhedr., 23, 3; Bab. Sanhedr., 44, 2 ; Bab. Beracoth, 53, I ;
Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 302 : Gfrorer, ib., \., p. 413 ; Schwab, ib., p. 444.
7 Matt. xii. 27 ; cf. Luke xi. 19, ix. 49 ; Mark ix. 38 ; Acts xix. 13 ff.
8 Gittin, 68, I, 2 ; Succah, 53, I ; Eisenmenger, ib., i., pp. 355, 358 ; ii.,
pp. 416, 440; Lightfoot, ib., xii., p. 428. ,
EXORCISM OF DEMONS 69
It was, indeed, believed that the two demons Asa and Asael
taught Solomon all wisdom and all arts. 1 The Talmud relates
many instances of his power over evil spirits, and, amongst others,
how he made them assist in building the Temple. Solomon
desired to have the help of the worm Schamir in preparing the
stones for the sacred building, and he conjured up a devil and
a she-devil to inform him where Schamir was to be found. They
referred him to Asmodeus, whom the King craftily captured, and
by whom he was informed that Schamir is under the jurisdiction
of the Prince of the Seas ; and Asmodeus further told him how he
might be secured. By his means the Temple was built, but, from the
moment it was destroyed, Schamir for ever disappeared. 2 It was
likewise believed that one of the Chambers of the second Temple
was built by the magician called Parvah, by means of magic. 3
The Talmud narrates many stories of miracles performed by
various Rabbins. 4
The Jewish historian Josephus informs us that, among other
gifts, God bestowed upon King Solomon knowledge of the way to
expel demons, an art which is useful and salutary for mankind.
He composed incantations by which diseases are cured, and he
left behind him forms of exorcism by which demons may be so
effectually expelled that they never return a method of cure,
Josephus adds, which is of great efficacy to his own day. He
himself had seen a countryman of his own, named Eliezer,
release people possessed of devils in the presence of the Emperor
Vespasian and his sons, and of his army. He put a ring con-
taining one of the roots prescribed by Solomon to the nose of the
demoniac, and drew the demon out by his nostrils ; and, in the
name of Solomon, and reciting one of his incantations, he adjured
it to return no more. In order to demonstrate to the spectators
that he had the power to cast out devils, Eliezer was accustomed
to set a vessel full of water a little way off, and he commanded the
demon as he left the body of the man to overturn it, by which
means, says Josephus, the skill and wisdom of Solomon were
made very manifest. 5 Jewish Rabbins generally were known as
powerful exorcisers, practising the art according to the formulae of
their great monarch. Justin Martyr reproaches his Jewish oppo-
1 Eisenmenger, ib., i., p. 361 f.
2 Gittin, 68, I, 2 ; Sotah, 48, 2 ; Eisenmenger, ib., i., p. 350 ff. ; Gfrorer,
ib., i., p. 414 f. ; Buxtorf, Lexic. Talmud., p. 2455. Moses is also said to have
made use of Schamir. Fabricius, Cod. Vet. Test., ii., p. 119.
3 Gloss on Middot/i, cap. 5, hal. 3 ; Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 301.
4 Bava Mczia, 59, 1,2; Bab. Beracoth, 33, 34, 54, I ; Hieros. Sanhedr.,
25, 4 ; Bab. Taanith, 24 ; Juchas, 20, I ; 56, 2 ; Lightfoot, ib., xi., p. 301 f. ;
Eisenmenger, ib., i., 14 f. ; Schwab, ib., p. 358 ff., p. 448 f.
5 Antiq., viii., 2, 5.
70 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
nent, Tryphon, with the fact that his countrymen use the same art
as the Gentiles, and exorcise with fumigations and charms
(Ka.Ta.Srp.oi), and he shows the common belief in demoniacal
influence when he asserts that, while Jewish exorcists cannot
overcome demons by such means, or even by exorcising them in
the name of their kings, prophets, or patriarchs, though he
admits that they might do so if they adjured them in the name of
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet Christians at once sub-
dued demons by exorcising them in the name of the Son of God. 1
The Jew and the Christian were quite agreed that demons were
to be exorcised, and merely differed as to the formula of exorcism.
Josephus gives an account of a root potent against evil spirits. It
is called Baaras, and is flame-coloured, and in the evening sends
out flashes like lightning. It is certain death to touch it, except
under peculiar conditions. One mode of securing it is to dig
down till the smaller part of the root is exposed, and then to
attach the root to a dog's tail. When the dog tries to follow its
master from the place, and pulls violently, the root is plucked
up, and may then be safely handled ; but the dog instantly dies,
as the man would have done had he plucked it up himself.
When the root is brought to sick people, it at once expels
demons. 2 According to Josephus, demons are the spirits of the
wicked dead ; they enter into the bodies of the living, who die
unless succour be speedily obtained. 3 This theory, however, was
not general, demons being commonly considered the offspring of
the fallen angels and of the daughters of men.
The Jewish historian gives a serious account of the preternatural
portents which warned the Jews of the approaching fall of
Jerusalem, and he laments the infatuation of the people, who
disregarded these Divine denunciations. A star in the shape of a
sword, and also a comet, stood over the doomed city for the space
of a whole year. Then, at the feast of unleavened bread, before
the rebellion of the Jews which preceded the war, at the ninth
hour of the night, a great light shone round the altar and the
Temple, so that for half an hour it seemed as though it were
brilliant daylight. At the same festival other supernatural
warnings were given. A heifer, as she was led by the high priest
to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the Temple ; moreover,
the eastern gate of the inner court of the Temple, which was of
brass, and so ponderous that twenty men had much difficulty in
closing it, and which was fastened by heavy bolts descending deep
into the solid stone floor, was seen to open of its own accord, about
the sixth hour of the night. The ignorant considered some of
1 Dial. c. Tryph., 85 ; cf. Apol., ii., 6 ; Acts xix., 13 ff.
3 De Bella Jud., viii., 6, 3. ,3 Ib., vii., 6, 3.
COSMICAL THEORIES OF THE EATIIERS 71
these events good omens, but the pries. s interpreted them as
portents of evil. Another prodigious phenomenon occurred,
which Josephus supposes would be considered incredible were it
hot reported By those who saw it, and were the subsequent events
not of sufficient importance to merit such portents : before sunset,
chariots and troops of soldiers in armour were seen among the
clouds, moving about, and surrounding cities. And further, at
the feast of Pentecost, as the priests were entering the inner court
of the Temple to perform their sacred duties, they felt an earth-
quake, and heard a great noise, and then the sound as of a great
multitude saying, " Let us remove hence." 1 There is not a
shadow of doubt in the mind of Josephus as to the reality of any
of these wonders.
If we turn to patristic literature, we find everywhere the same
superstitions and the same theories of angelic agency and demoni-
acal interference in cosmical phenomena. According to Justin
Martyr, after God had made the world and duly regulated the
elements and the rotation of the seasons, he committed man and
all things under heaven to the care of angels. Some of these
angels, however, proved unworthy of this charge and, led away by
love of the daughters of men, begat children, who are the demons
who have corrupted the human race, partly by magical writings
(Sia [jLa.yi.KMv ypaqbwv) and partly by fears and punishments, and
who have introduced wars, murders, and other evils among them,
which are ignorantly ascribed by poets to God himself. 2 He
considers that demoniacs are possessed and tortured by the souls
of the wicked dead, 3 and he represents evil spirits as watching to
seize the soul at death. 4 The food of the angels is manna. 5 The
angels, says Clement of Alexandria, serve God in the administra-
tian of earthly affairs. 6 The host of angels and of gods (Qewv) is
placed under subjection to the Logos. 7 Presiding angels are
distributed over nations and cities, and perhaps are also deputed
to individuals, 8 and it is by their agency, either visible or
invisible, that God gives all good things.9 He accuses the Greeks
of plagiarising their miracles from the Bible, and he argues that,
if certain powers do move the winds and distribute showers, they
are agents subject to God. 10 Clement affirms that the Son gave
philosophy to the Greeks by means of the inferior angels, 11 and
argues that it is absurd to attribute it to the devil. 12 Theophilus
1 De Bella Jud., vi., 5, 3.
2 Apol., ii., 5 ; cf. Apol., i., 5, 14. 3 Apol., i., 18.
4 Dial. f. Tryph., 105. s Dial., 57, cf. 131.
6 Stromata, vii., i, 3. 7 Strom., vii., 2, $ 5.
8 Strom., vii., 2, S 6 ; vi., 17, 157. 9 Strom., vi., 17, S 161.
10 Strom., vi., 3, 30. " Strom., vii., 2, S 6.
'-' Strom., vi., 17, 150.
72 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
of Antioch, on the other hand, says that the Greek poets were
inspired by demons. 1 Athenagoras states, as one of the principal
points of belief among Christians, that a multitude of angels and
ministers are distributed and appointed by the Logos to occupy
themselves about the elements and the heavens and the universe
and the things in it, and the regulating of the whole. 2 For it is
the duty of the angels to exercise providence over all that God has
created, so that God may have the universal care of the whole,
but the several parts be ministered to by the angels appointed
over them. There is freedom of will amongst the angels as
among human beings, and some of the angels abused their trust,
and fell through love of the daughters of men, of whom were
begotten those who are called giants. 3 These angels who have
fallen from heaven busy themselves about the air and the earth ;
and the souls of the giants, 4 which are the demons that roam
about the world, work evil according to their respective natures. 5
There are powers which exercise dominion over matter, and by
means of it, and more especially one who is opposed to God.
This Prince of matter exerts authority and control in opposition
to the good designed by God. 6 Demons are greedy for sacrificial
odours and the blood of the victims, which they lick, and they
influence the multitude to idolatry by inspiring thoughts and
visions which seem to come from idols and statues.? According
to Tatian, God made everything which is good, but the wickedness
of demons perverts the productions of nature for bad purposes,
and the evil in these is due to demons and not to God. 8 None of
the demons have bodies- they are spiritual, like fire or air, and
can only be seen by those in whom the Spirit of God dwells.
They attack men by means of lower forms of matter, and come to
them whenever they are diseased ; and sometimes they cause
disorders of the body, but when they are struck by the power of
the word of God they flee in terror, and the sick person is healed. 9
Various kinds of roots and the relations of bone and sinew are
the material elements through which demons work. 10 Some of
those who are called gods by the Greeks, but are in reality demons,
1 Ail Autolycuni, ii. 8. Theophilus sees the punishment of the serpent in
the repulsive way in which he crawls on his belly and eats the dust. This and
the pains of women in childbirth are proofs of the truth of the account of the
fall in Genesis. Ad Auto/., ii. 23.
I.egatio pro Christ., x. ; cf. xxiv. 3 Legatio pro Christ., xiv.
4 It is said in the Clementine Recognitions that the giants were born in the
ninth generation of the human race, and that their bones are still preserved in
some places ; i. 29. Cf. Clement, Hoin. viii. 15.
3 Legal to pro Chiisl., xxv. 6 Jb. , xxiv., xxv.
7 ]!>., x.\vi., xxvii. s Or at. ad Gnccos, 12.
lit., 16. Jb., 17.
COSMICAL THEORIES OF THE FATHERS 73
possess the bodies of certain men, and then, by publicly leaving
them, they destroy the disease they themselves had created, and
the sick are restored to health. 1 Demons, says Cyprian of Carthage,
lurk under consecrated statues, and inspire false oracles and con-
trol the lots and omens. 2 They enter into human bodies and feign
various maladies in order to induce men to offer sacrifices for
their recovery, that they may gorge themselves with the fumes, and
then they heal them. They are really the authors of the miracles
attributed to heathen deities. 3
Tertullian enters into minute details regarding angels and
demons. Demons are the offspring of the fallen angels, and their
work is the destruction of the human race. They inflict diseases
and other painful calamities upon our bodies, and lead astray our
souls. From their wonderful subtleness and tenuity they find their
way into both parts of our composition. Their spirituality enables
them to do much harm to men, for, being invisible and impalpable,
they appear rather in their effects than in their action. They
blight the apples and the grain while in the flower as by some
mysterious poison in the breeze, and kill them in the bud, or nip
them before they are ripe, as though in some inexpressible way the
tainted air poured forth its pestilential breath. In the same way
demons and angels breathe into the soul and excite its corruptions,
and especially mislead men by inducing them to sacrifice to false
deities, in order that they may thus obtain their peculiar food of
fumes of flesh and blood. Every spirit, whether angel or demon,
has wings ; therefore, they are everywhere in a moment. The
whole world is but one place to them, and all that takes place any-
where they can know and report with equal facility. Their swift-
ness is believed to be divine because their substance is unknown,
and thus they seek to be considered the authors of effects which
they merely report, as, indeed, they sometimes are of the evil, but
never of the good. They gather intimations of the future from
hearing the prophets read aloud, and set themselves up as rivals of
the true God by stealing his divinations. From inhabiting the
air, and from their proximity to the stars and commerce with the
clouds, they know the preparation of celestial phenomena, and
promise beforehand the rains which they already feel coming.
They are very kind in reference to the cure of diseases, Tertullian
ironically says, for they first make people ill, and then, by way of
performing a miracle, they prescribe remedies either novel or
contrary to common experience, and, removing the cause, they
1 /*., 18 ; cf. Tertullian, Apo/., 22 ; Origen, Contra Cc/s., viii. 31 f.
- Cf. Tertullian, De Spectacnlis, 12, 13 ; Clem., Recog., iv. 19 ft".
3 C}-prian, DC Idol. Vanitate, 7 ; cf. Minutius Felix, Octavhis, 27 ;
TtTlallian, Afol., 22 ; Eusebius, Pncp. Evang., vii. 1 6.
74 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
are believed to have healed the sick. 1 If anyone possessed by a
demon be brought before a tribunal, Tertullian affims that the evil
spirit, when ordered by a Christian, will at once confess that he is
a demon. 2 The fallen angels were the discoverers of astrology
and magic. 3 Unclean spirits hover over waters in imitation of the
brooding (gestatio) of the Holy Spirit in the beginning, as, for
instance, over dark fountains and solitary streams and cisterns in
baths and dwelling-houses and similar places, which are said to
carry one off (rapere) that is to say, by the force of the evil
spirit/ The fallen angels disclosed to the world unknown material
substances and various arts such as metallurgy, the properties of
herbs, incantations, and interpretation of the stars ; and to women
specially they revealed all the secrets of personal adornment. 5
There is scarcely any man who is not attended by a demon ; and
it is well known that untimely and violent deaths which are
attributed to accidents are really caused by demons. 6 Those who
go to theatres may become specially accessible to demons. There
is the instance, the Lord is witness (domino teste], of the woman who
went to a theatre and came back possessed by a demon, and, on
being cast out, the evil spirit replied that he had a right to act as
he did, having found her within his limits. There was another
case, also well known, of a woman who at night, after having been
to a theatre, had a vision of a winding sheet (linteum), and heard
the name of the tragedian whom she had seen mentioned with
reprobation, and five days after the woman was dead. 7 Origen
attributes augury and divination through animals to demons. In
his opinion, certain demons, offspring of the Titans or giants, who
haunt the grosser parts of bodies and the unclean places of the
earth, and who, from not having earthly bodies, have some power
of divining the future, occupy themselves with this. They secretly
enter the bodies of the more brutal and savage animals, and force
them to make flights or indications of divination to lead men away
from God. They have a special leaning to birds and serpents, and
even to foxes and wolves, because the demons act better through
these in consequence of an apparent analogy in wickedness
between them. 8 It is for this reason that Moses, who had either
been taught by God what was similar in the nature of animals and
their kindred demons, or had discovered it himself, prohibited
as unclean the particular birds and animals most used for divina-
tion. Therefore, each kind of demon seems to have an affinity
1 Tertullian, Apol., 22 ; cf. 23, ad Sfafnilam, 2. 2 .//<?/., $ 23.
3 De Idolotria, 9 ; De Ciiltu Fern., i., 2. 4 De Baptismo, 5.
5 De Cultu Fein., i., 8 2, 10 ; Cf. Commodianus, Jnstit., 3 ; Lactantius,
Instit. Dtv., ii. 16 ; Clem. Horn., viii. 14.
6 De Anima, 57. 7 De Spectaculis, 26.
8 Contra Cels., iv. 92 ; cf. viii. n.
COSMICAL THEORIES OF THE FATHERS 75
with a certain kind of animal. They are so wicked that demons
even assume the bodies of weasels to foretell the future. 1 They
feed on the blood and odour of the victims sacrificed in idol
temples. 2 The spirits of the wicked dead wander about sepulchres,
and sometimes for ages haunt particular houses and other places. 3
The prayers of Christians drive demons out of men, and from
places where they have taken up their abode, and even sometimes
from the bodies of animals, which are frequently injured by them. 4
In reply to a statement of Celsus that we cannot eat bread or
fruit, or drink wine or even water, without eating and drinking with
demons, and that the very air we breathe is received from demons,
and that, consequently, we cannot inhale without receiving air
from the demons who are set over the air,s Origen maintains, on
the contrary, that the angels of God, and not demons, have the
superintendence of such natural phenomena, and have been
appointed to communicate all these blessings. Not demons but
angels have been set over the fruits of the earth and over the birth
of animals and over all things necessary for our race. 6 Scripture
forbids the eating of things strangled, because the blood is still in
them and blood, and more especially the fumes of it, is said to
be the food of demons. If we ate strangled animals, we might
have demons feeding with us ; 7 but, in Origen's opinion, a man
only eats and drinks with demons when he eats the flesh of idol
sacrifices, and drinks the wine poured out in honour of demons. 8
Jerome states the common belief that the air is filled with demons.9
Chrysostum says that angels are everywhere in the atmosphere. 10
Not content, however, with peopling earth and air with angels
and demons, the Fathers also shared the opinion, common to
Jews 11 and heathen philosophers, that the heavenly bodies were
animated beings. After fully discussing the question, with much
reference to Scripture, Origen determines that sun, moon, and
stars are living and rational beings, illuminated with the light of
knowledge by the wisdom which is the reflection (aTrauyao-^a) of
eternal light. They have free will and, as it would appear from a
passage in Job (xxv. 5), they are not only liable to sin, but actually
not pure from the uncleanness of it. Origen is careful to explain
that this has not reference merely to their physical part, but to the
spiritual ; and he proceeds to discuss whether their souls came
into existence at the same time with their bodies, or existed
1 Ib., iv. 93 ; cf. iii. 29, 35, 36, v. 5 ; Barnabas, Epist., x. ; Clemens Al.,
Pie dag., ii. 10.
- Contra Cels., vii. 35, cf. 5, viii. 61, cf. 60. 3 Ib., vii. 5.
4 Contra Cels., vii. 67. 5 Ib., viii. 28, 31.
6 Ib. , viii. 57, 31 f. 7 Ib., viii. 30.
8 Ib., viii. 31, cf. 57. 9 Hieron., Epist. ad Ephes. , iii. 6.
10 In Ascens. /. C. JI Cf. Philo, De Somniis, i., 22.
76 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
previously, and whether, at the end of the world, they will be released
from their bodies or will cease from giving light to the world. He
argues that they are rational beings because their motions could
not take place without a soul. "As the stars move with so much
order and method," he says, " that under no circumstances what-
ever does their course seem to be disturbed, is it not the extreme
of absurdity to suppose that so much order, so much observance
of discipline and method, could be demanded from or fulfilled by
irrational beings P" 1 They possess life and reason, he decides, and
he proves from Scripture that their souls were given to them, not
at the creation of their bodily substance, but like those of men
implanted strictly from without, after they were made. 2 They are
" subject to vanity " with the rest of the creatures, and " wait for
the manifestation of the sons of God." 3 Origen is persuaded that
sun, moon, and stars pray to the Supreme Being through his only
begotten Son.-* To return to angels, however, Origen states that
the angels are not only of various orders of rank, but have appor-
tioned to them specific offices and duties. To Raphael, for
instance, is assigned the task of curing and healing ; to Gabriel
the management of wars ; to Michael the duty of receiving the
prayers and the supplications of men. Angels are set over the
different churches, and have charge even of the least of their
members. These offices were assigned to the angels by God
agreeably to the qualities displayed by each. 5 Elsewhere Origen
explains that it is necessary for this world that there should be
angels set over beasts and over terrestrial operations, and also
angels presiding over the birth of animals, and over the propaga-
tion and growth of shrubs ; and, again, angels over holy works,
who eternally teach men the perception of the hidden ways of
God and knowledge of divine things ; and he warns us not to
bring upon ourselves those angels who- are set over beasts, by
leading an animal life, nqr those which preside over terrestrial
works, by taking delight in fleshly and mundane things, but rather
to study how we may approximate to the companionship of the
Archangel Michael, to whose duty of presenting the prayers of the
saints to God he here adds the office of presiding over medicine. 6
1 De Principiis, i. 7, 3 ; cf. Contra Cels., v. 10, n. 2 Ib., i. 7, 4.
3 lb., i. 7, 5 ; cf. iii. 5, 4. Origen applies to sun, moon, and stars the
wish of Paul (Phil. i. 23). Tatian likewise ascribes spirituality to stars, plants,
and waters ; but, although one and the same with the soul in angels and
animals, there are certain differences. Orat. ad Griecos, 12 ; cf. Eusebius,
Pnep. Evang., vii. 15.
4 Contra Cels., v. II.
s De Prindpiis, i. 8, I, cf. 4; Contra Cels., v. 4, 5. Cf. Hernias,
Pastor, ii., Mand. vi., I, 2 ; Tertullian, DeOrat., 12 ; De Anima, 37 ;
Clemens Al., Strom., v. 14, 92, vii. 13, 81.
6 Horn. xiv. in Num. , Opp. ii. , p. 323.
COSMICAL THEORIES OF THE FATHERS 77
It is through the ministry of angels that the water-springs in
fountains and running streams refresh the earth, and that the air
we breathe is kept pure. 1 In the Shepherd of Hermas, a work
quoted by the Fathers as inspired Scripture, which was publicly
read in the churches, which almost secured a permanent place in
the New Testament canon, and which appears after the canonical
books in the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest extant MS. of the New
Testament, mention is made of an angel who has rule over beasts,
and whose name is Hegrin. 2 Jerome also quotes an apocryphal
work in which an angel of similar name is said to be set over
reptiles, and in which fishes, trees, and beasts are assigned to the
care of particular angels. 3
Clement of Alexandria mentions, without dissent, the prevailing-
belief that hail-storms, tempests, and similar phenomena do not
occur merely from material disturbance, but also are caused by
the anger of demons and evil angels. 4 Origen states that, while
angels superintend all the phenomena of nature, and control what
is appointed for our good, famine, the blighting of vines and fruit
trees, and the destruction of beasts and of men, are, on the other
hand, the personal works 5 of demons, they, as public executioners,
receiving at certain times authority to carry into effect divine
decrees. 6 We have already quoted similar views expressed by
Tertullian,? and the universality and permanence of such opinions
may be illustrated by the fact that, after the lapse of many
centuries, we find St. Thomas Aquinas as solemnly affirming that
disease and tempests are the direct work of the devil ; 8 indeed,
this belief prevailed throughout the middle ages until very recent
times. The Apostle Peter, in the Recognitions of Clement,
informs Clement that, when God made the world, he appointed
chiefs over the various creatures, even over the trees and the
mountains and springs and rivers, and over everything in the
universe. An angel was set over the angels, a spirit over spirits, a
star over the stars, a demon over the demons, and so on.9 He
provided different offices for all his creatures, whether good or
bad ; 10 but certain angels, having left the course of their proper
order, led men into sin and taught them that demons could, by
magical invocations, be made to obey man. 11 Ham was the dis-
coverer of the art of magic. 12 Astrologers suppose that evils
1 Contra Cels., viii. 57, 31.
2 i. Visio, iv. 2 ; in the Sinaitic Codex, the name is Qeypi. Cotelerius,
in the Greek version, has * Ayptov.
3 ffieron., in ffabacuc, i. I, 14.
4 Stromata, vi. 3, 31. s Cf. Matt. viii. 31 ff.
6 Contra Cels., viii. 31. ^ Apolog., 22 f.
8 Suinma Theolog., i, qurest., 80, 2.
9 Clem., Recog., i. 45. I0 Ib., iv. 25. " Ib. , iv. 26.
12 Ib.,*\\. 27.
78 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
happen in consequence of the motions of the heavenly bodies,
and represent certain climacteric periods as dangerous, not
knowing that it is not the course of the stars, but the action of
demons, that regulates these things. 1 God has committed the
superintendence of the seventy-two nations into which he has
divided the earth to as many angels. 2 Demons insinuate them-
selves into the bodies of men, and force them to fulfil their
desires ;3 they sometimes appear visibly to men, and by threats or
promises endeavour to lead them into error ; they can transform
themselves into whatever forms they please. 4 The distinction
between what is spoken by the true God through the prophets or
by visions, and that which is delivered by demons, is this : that
what proceeds from the former is always true, whereas that which
is foretold by demons is not always true. 5 Lactantius says that
when the number of men began to increase, fearing that the
Devil should corrupt or destroy them, God sent angels to protect
and instruct the human race, but the angels themselves fell
beneath his wiles, and from being angels they became the
satellites and ministers of Satan. The offspring of these fallen
angels are unclean spirits, authors of all the evils which are done,
and the Devil is their chief. They are acquainted with the
future, but not completely. The art of the magi is altogether
supported by these demons, and at their invocation they deceive
men with lying tricks, making men think they see things which do
not exist. These contaminated spirits wander over all the earth,
and console themselves by the destruction of men. They fill
every place with frauds and deceits, for they adhere to individuals,
and occupy whole houses, and assume the name of genii, as
demons are called in the Latin language, and make men worship
them. On account of their tenuity and impalpability, they
insinuate themselves into the bodies of men, and through their
viscera injure their health, excite diseases, terrify their souls with
dreams, agitate their minds with phrenzies, so that they may by
these evils drive men to seek their aid. 6 Being adjured in the
name of God, however, they leave the bodies of the possessed,
uttering the greatest howling, and crying out that they are beaten,
or are on fire. 7 These demons are the inventors of astrology,
divination, oracles, necromancy, and the art of magic. 8 The
universe is governed by God through the medium of angels. The
demons have a foreknowledge of the purposes of God, from
having been his ministers and, interposing in what is being done,
1 Ib., ix. 12. " 76., ii. 42.
3 Clem., Recog., iv. 15 ff. 4 Ib., iv. 19. 5 /#., j v . 21.
6 Instit. Div., ii. 14 ; cf. fust. Epit. ad Pentad., 27 f.
7 Ib., ii. 15 ; cf. iv. 27, v. 21 ; cf. Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, i. 46.
8 Ib., ii. 16.
I'ATRISTIC THEORIES OF DEMONS 79
they ascribe the credit to themselves. 1 The sign of the cross is a
terror to demons, and at the sight of it they flee from the bodies
of men. When sacrifices are being offered to the gods, if one
be present who bears on his forehead the sign of the cross, the
sacred rites are not propitious (sacra nullo modo lilant\ and the
oracle gives no reply. 2
Eusebius, like all the Fathers, represents the gods of the Greeks
and other heathen nations as merely wicked demons. Demons,
he says, whether they circulate in the dark and heavy atmosphere
which encircles our sphere or inhabit the cavernous dwellings
which exist within it, find charms only in tombs and in the
sepulchres of the dead, and in impure and unclean places. They
delight in the blood of animals, and in the putrid exhalations
which rise from their bodies, as well as in earthly vapours. Their
leaders, whether as inhabitants of the upper regions of the atmos-
phere or plunged in the abyss of hell, having discovered that the
human race had deified and offered sacrifices to men who were
dead, promoted the delusion in order to savour the blood which
flowed and the fumes of the burning flesh. They deceived men
by the motions conveyed to idols and statues, by the oracles they
delivered, and by healing diseases, with which, by the power
inherent in their nature, they had before invisibly smitten bodies,
and which they removed by ceasing to torture them. These
demons first introduced magic amongst men.3 We may here
refer to the account of a miracle which Eusebius seriously quotes,
as exemplifying another occasional function of the angels. The
heretical Bishop Natalius, having in vain been admonished by
God in dreams, was at last lashed through the whole of a night
by holy angels, till he was brought to repentance and, clad in
sackcloth and covered with ashes, he at length threw himself at
the feet of Zephyrinus, then Bishop of Rome, pointing to the
marks of the scourges which he had received from the angels, and
implored to be again received into communion with the Church.*
Augustine says that demons inhabit the atmosphere, as in a prison,
and deceive men, persuading them, by their wonderful and false
signs or doings or predictions, that they are gods. 5 He considers
the origin of their name in the Sacred Scriptures worthy of notice ;
they are called AGU/AOVCS in Greek, on account of their knowledge. 6
By their experience of certain signs, which are hidden from us,
they can read much more of the future, and sometimes even
announce beforehand what they intend to do. Speaking of his
1 Instit. Div., ii. 16.
" /&., iv. 27 ; cf. Arnobius, Adv. Genies, i. 46.
3 Prap. Evang., v. 2 f.
4 H. E., v. 28. s D e Civitate Dei, viii. 22.
6 Cf. Lactantius,*/.r//y. Div., ii. 14.
8o SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
own time, and with strong expressions of assurance, Augustine
says that not only Scripture testifies that angels have appeared to
men with bodies which could not only be seen, but felt ; but, what
is more, it is a general report, and many have personal experience
of it, or have learned it from those who have knowledge of the
fact, and of whose truth there is no doubt, that satyrs and
fauns, generally called Incubi, have frequently perpetrated their
peculiar wickedness ;" and also that certain demons, called by
the Gauls Dusi'i, every day attempt and effect the same unclean-
ness, as witnesses equally numerous and trustworthy assert, so that
it would be impertinence to deny it. 2
Lactantius, again, ridicules the idea that there can be antipodes,
and he can scarcely credit that there can be anyone so silly as to
believe that there are men whose feet are higher than their heads,
or that grain and trees grow downwards, and rain, snow, and hail
fall upwards to the earth. After jesting at those who hold such
ridiculous views, he points out that their blunders arise from sup-
posing that the heaven is round, and the world, consequently,
round like a ball, and enclosed within it. But if that were
the case, it must present the same appearance to all parts
of heaven, with mountains, plains, and seas, and consequently
there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men
and animals. Lactantius does not know what to say to those
who, having fallen into such an error, persevere in their folly
(stultitia), and defend one vain thing by another ; but sometimes
he supposes that they philosophise in jest, or knowingly defend
falsehoods to display their ingenuity. Space alone prevents his
proving that it is impossible for heaven to be below the earth. 3
St. Augustine, with equal boldness, declares that the stories told
about the antipodes that is to say, that there are men whose feet
are against our footsteps, and upon whom the sun rises when it
sets to us are not to be believed. Such an assertion is not sup-
ported by any historical evidence, but rests upon mere conjecture,
based on the rotundity of the earth. But those who maintain
such a theory do not consider that, even if the earth be round, it
does not follow that the opposite side is not covered with water.
Besides, if it be not, why should it be inhabited, seeing that, on
' " Improbos stepe exstitisse mulieribus , et eanttn appetisse ac peregisse conctt-
bihtm"
* De Civ. Dei., xv. 23. So undeniable was the existence of these evil
spirits, Incubi and Succithi, considered, and so real their wicked practices,
that Pope Innocent VIII. denounced them in a Papal Bull in 1484. Burton
most seriously believed in them, as he shows in his Anatomy of Melancholy
(iii. 2). Similar demons are frequently mentioned in the Talmudic literature.
Cf. Eisenmenger, Entd. Jiident/ntm, i., p. 374 ; ii., p. 421 ff., 426 ff.
3 Instil. Div., iii. 24. ,
PATRISTIC VIEWS OF THE PHCENIX 8r
the one hand, it is in no way possible that the Scriptures can lie,
and, on the other, it is too absurd (iiimisque absurdum esf) to affirm
that any men can have traversed such an immensity of ocean to
establish the human race there from that one first man Adam ?*
Clement of Rome had no doubt of the truth of the story of
the Phoenix, 2 that wonderful bird of Arabia and the adjoining
countries which lives 500 years, at the end of which time,
its dissolution being at hand, it builds a nest of spices, in which it
dies. From the decaying flesh, however, a worm is generated,
which, being strengthened by the juices of the bird, produces
feathers and is transformed into a phoenix. Clement adds that
it then flies away with the nest containing the bones of its defunct
parent to the city of Heliopolis in Egypt, and in full daylight and
in the sight of all men it lays them on the altar of the sun. On
examining their registers, the priests find that the bird has returned
precisely at the completion of the 500 years. This bird, Clement
considers, is an emblem of the Resurrection. 3 So does Tertullian,
who repeats the story with equal confidence. * It is likewise
referred to in the Apostolic Constitutions. 5 Celsus quotes the
narrative in his work against Christianity as an instance of the
piety of irrational creatures, and although Origen, in reply, while
admitting that the story is indeed recorded, puts in a cautious " if
it be true," he proceeds to account for the phenomenon on the
ground that God may have made this isolated creature in order
that men might admire not the bird, but its creator. 6 Cyril of
Jerusalem likewise quotes the story from Clement. 7 The author
of the almost canonical Epistle of Barnabas, explaining the typical
meaning of the code of Moses regarding clean and unclean
animals which were or were not to be eaten, states as a fact that
the hare annually increases the number of its foramina, for it has
1 De Civ. Dei, xvi. 9. The Roman Clement, in an eloquent passage on the
harmony of the universe, speaks of " the unsearchable places of abysses and
the inexplicable arrangements of the lower world," and of " the ocean,
impassable to man, and the worlds beyond it" {Ep. ad Corinth., xx.).
Origen refers to this passage in the following terms : " Clement, indeed, a
disciple of the Apostles, makes mention also of those whom the Greeks call
'AvrixOoves, and of those parts of the orb of the earth to which neither can any
of our people approximate, nor can any of those who are there cross over to
us, which he called ' worlds,' saying," etc. (De Principiis, ii. 3, 6). Such
views, however, were general.
2 The Talmud speaks frequently of the Phoenix. It is not subject to the
angel of death, but is immortal, because when Eve offered it, together with all
other crealed things, the forbidden fruit to eat, it alone refused. See authorities,
Eisenmenger, Entd. Jud. , i. , p. 371, p. 867 ff.
3 Ep. ad Corinth., xxix. 4 De Resiirr. , 13. 5 v. 7.
6 Contra Ce/s., iv. 98. The same fable is referred to by Herodotus (ii. 73)>
and also by Pliny (Nat. Hist., x. 2).
7 Catcch., xviii. 8.
G
82 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
as many as the years it lives. 1 He also mentions that the hyena
changes its sex every year, being alternately male and female. 2
Tertullian also points out as a recognised fact the annual change
of sex of the hyena, and he adds : " I do not mention the stag,
since itself is the witness of its own age ; feeding on the serpent,
it languishes into youth from the working of the poison." 3 The
geocentric theory of the Church, which elevated man into the
supreme place in the universe, and considered creation in general
to be solely for his use, naturally led to the misinterpretation of all
cosmical phenomena. Such spectacles as eclipses and comets
were universally regarded as awful portents of impending evil,
signs of God's anger, and forerunners of national calamities. 4
We have already referred to the account given by Josephus of the
portents which were supposed to announce the coming destruction
of the Holy City, amongst which were a star shaped like a sword,
a comet, and other celestial phenomena. Volcanoes were con-
sidered openings into hell, and not only does Tertullian hold them
to be so, but he asks, Who will not deem these punishments some-
times inflicted upon mountains as examples of the judgments
which menace the wicked ? 5
1 "Oja yap try fg~, TOffaiTas ?x fi rp-jiro.s. C. x.
2 c. x. He also says of the weasel : TJ yap fu>os TOVTO r$ trro/tari KI'CI. Cf.
Origen, Contra Cels., iv. 93 ; Clement of Alex, refers to the common belief
regarding these animals, l\cdag. , ii. IO.
3 "Hyiena, si observes, sexns anua/is est, inarem et feininain alter nat. Taceo
eervum quid ct ipse ictatis sine a -biter, serpente pastas, veiieiio langucscit in
juventnlem" (De Pallia, 3).
4 Cf. Tertullian, Ad. Scap., S 3; Sozomen, H.E., viii. 4, iv. 5.
5 De Penitentia, $ 12. Gregory the Great gives a singular account (Dial.
iv. 30) which he had heard of a hermit who had seen Theodoric, and one of
the Topes, John, in chains, cast into the crater of one of the Lipari volcanoes,
which were believed to be entrances into hell.
CHAPTER V.
THE PERMANENT STREAM OF MIRACULOUS PRETENSION
WE have given a most imperfect sketch of some of the opinions
and superstitions prevalent at the time of Jesus, and when the
books of the New Testament were written. These, as we have
seen, continued with little or no modification throughout the first
centuries of our era. It must, however, be remembered that the
few details we have given, omitting most of the grosser particulars,
are- the views deliberately expressed by the most educated and
intelligent part of the community, and that it would have required
infinitely darker colours adequately to have portrayed the dense
ignorance and superstition of the mass of the Jews. It is impos-
sible to receive the report of supposed marvellous occurrences
from an age and people like this without the gravest suspicion.
Even so thorough a defender of miracles as Newman admits that
"Witnesses must be not only honest, but competent also; that
is, such as have ascertained the facts which they attest, or who
report after examination "; J and although the necessities of his
case oblige him to assert that " the testimony of men of science
and general knowledge " must not be required, he admits, under
the head of " deficiency of examination," that " Enthusiasm,
ignorance, and habitual credulity are defects which no number
of witnesses removes." 2 We have shown how rank were these
"defects" at the commencement of the Christian era, and among
the chief witnesses for Christianity. Miracles which spring from
such a hot-bed of superstition are too natural in such a soil to be
objects of surprise and, in losing their exceptional character, their
claims upon attention are proportionately weakened, if not altogether
destroyed. Preternatural interference with the affairs of life and
the phenomena of nature was the rule in those days, not the
exception, and miracles, in fact, had lost all novelty and, through
familiarity, had become degraded into mere commonplace. The
Gospel miracles were not original in their character, but were
substantially mere repetitions of similar wonders well known among
the Jews, or commonly supposed to be of daily occurrence even
at that time. In fact, the idea of such miracles, in such an age
and performed among such a people, as the attestation of a
1 Two Essays, etc., p. 78. 2 lb., p. 81.
83
84 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
supernatural Revelation, may with singular propriety be ascribed
to the mind of that period, but can scarcely be said to bear any
traces of the divine. Indeed, anticipating for a moment a part
of our subject regarding which we shall have more to say hereafter^
we may remark that, so far from being original either in its evidence
or form, almost every religion which has been taught in the world
has claimed the same divine character as Christianity, and has
surrounded the person and origin of its central figure with the
same supernatural mystery. Even the great heroes of history,
long before our era, had their immaculate conception and
miraculous birth.
There can be no doubt that the writers of the New Testament
shared the popular superstitions of the Jews. We have already
given more than one instance of this, and now we have only to
refer for a moment to one class of these superstitions, the belief
in demoniacal possession and origin of disease, involving clearly
both the existence of demons and their power over the human
race. It would be an insult to the understanding of those who
are considering this question to pause here to prove that the
historical books of the New Testament speak in the clearest and
most unmistakable terms of actual demoniacal possession. Now,
what has become of this theory of disease ? The Archbishop of
Dublin is probably the only one who asserts the reality of demo-
niacal possession formerly and at the present day, 1 and in this we
must say that he is consistent. Milman, on the other hand,
who spoke with the enlightenment of the nineteenth century,
" has no scruple in avowing his opinion on the subject of demo-
niacs to be that of Joseph Mede, Lardner, Dr. Mead, Paley, and
all the learned modern writers. It was a kind of insanity and
nothing was more probable than that lunacy should take the turn
and speak the language of the prevailing superstition of the times." 2
The Dean, as well as " all the learned modern writers " to whom
he refers, felt the difficulty ; but, in seeking to evade it, they sacri-
fice the Gospels. They overlook the fact that the writers of these
narratives not only themselves adopt " the prevailing superstition
of the times," but represent Jesus as doing so with equal complete-
ness. There is no possibility, for instance, of evading such state-
ments as those in the miracle of the country of the Gadarenes,
where the objectivity of the demons is so fully recognised that, on
being cast out of the man, they are represented as requesting to be
allowed to go into the herd of swine ; and, being permitted by
Jesus to do so, the entry of the demons into the swine is at once
signalised by the herd running violently down the cliff into the
1 Notes on Miracles, p. 164 f.
- History of Christianity, i., p. 217, note (e).
DEMONIACAL POSSESSION 85
lake, and being drowned. 1 Archbishop Trench adopts no such
ineffectual evasion, but rightly objects : " Our Lord Himself uses
language which is not reconcilable with any such explanation.
He everywhere speaks of demoniacs not as persons of disordered
intellects, but as subjects and thralls of an alien spiritual might ;
He addresses the evil spirit as distinct from the man : ' Hold thy
peace, and come out of him ' " ; and he concludes that " our idea
of Christ's absolute veracity, apart from the value of the truth
which He communicated, forbids us to suppose that He could
have spoken as He did, being perfectly aware all the while that
there was no corresponding reality to justify the language which
He used." 2 Milman, on the other hand, finds "a very strong
reason," which he does not remember to have seen urged with
sufficient force, " which may have contributed to induce our Lord
to adopt the current language on the point. The disbelief in these
spiritual influences was one of the characteristics of the unpopular
sect of the Sadducees. A departure from the common language,
or the endeavour to correct this inveterate error, would have raised
an immediate outcry against Him from His watchful and malignant
adversaries as an unbelieving Sadducee." 3 Such ascription of
politic deception for the sake of popularity might be intelligible in
an ordinary case, but when referred to the central personage of a
Divine revelation, who is said to be God incarnate, it is perfectly
astounding. The Archbishop, however, rightly deems that if
Jesus knew that the Jewish belief in demoniacal possession was
baseless, and that Satan did not exercise such power over the
bodies or spirits of men, there would be in such language " that
absence of agreement between thoughts and words in which the
essence of a lie consists."* It is difficult to say whether the
dilemma of the Dean or of the Archbishop is the greater the
one obliged to sacrifice the moral character of Jesus in order to
escape the admission for Christianity of untenable superstition,
the other obliged to adopt the superstition in order to support
the veracity of the language. At least, the course of the Arch-
bishop is consistent, and worthy of respect. The attempt to
eliminate the superstitious diagnosis of the disease, and yet to
preserve intact the miraculous cure, is quite ineffectual.
Dr. Trench anticipates the natural question, why there are no
demoniacs now, if there were so many in those days, 5 and he is
logically compelled to maintain that there may still be persons
1 Luke viii. 26, 33; Mark v. 12, 13; cf. Matt. viii. 28, 34. In the
latter Gospel the miracle is said to be performed in the country of the
Gergesenes, and there are two demoniacs instead of one.
2 Notes on Miracles, p. 152 f.
3 Milman, History of Christianity, i., p. 218, note.
4 Notes on Miracles, p. 154. 5 Ib., p. 163.
86 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
possessed. " It may well be a question, moreover," he says, "if
an apostle, or one with apostolic discernment of spirits, were to
enter into a madhouse now, how many of the sufferers there he
might not recognise as possessed?" 1 There can scarcely be a
question upon the point at all, for such a person issuing direct
from that period, without subsequent scientific enlightenment,
would most certainly pronounce them all " possessed." It did
not, however, require an apostle, nor even one with apostolic dis-
cernment of spirits, to recognise the possessed at that time. All
those who are represented as being brought to Jesus to be healed
are described by their friends as having a devil or being possessed,
and there was no form of disease more general or more commonly
recognised by the Jews. For what reason has the recognition of,
and belief in, demoniacal possession passed away with the igno-
rance and superstition which were then prevalent?
It is important to remember that the theory of demoniacal
possession, and its supposed cure by means of exorcism and
invocations, was most common among the Jews long before the
commencement of the Christian era. As casting out devils was
the most common type of Christian miracles, so it was the
commonest belief and practice of the Jewish nation. Christianity
merely shared the national superstition, and changed nothing but
the form of exorcism. Christianity did not, through a " clearer
perception of spirits," therefore, originate the belief in demoniacal
possession, or first recognise its victims ; nor did such superior
enlightenment accompany the superior morality of Christianity as
to detect the ignorant fallacy. In the Old Testament we find the
most serious evidence of the belief in demonology and witchcraft.
The laws against them set the example of that unrelenting severity
with which sorcery was treated for so many centuries. We read in
Exodus xxii. 18 : " Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Levit.
xix. 31 : ".Regard not them-which have familiar spirits, neither seek
after wizards to be defiled by them." Levit. xx. 6 : " And the soul
that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards,
to go a-whoring after them, I will even set my face against that
soul, and cut him off from among his people" ; and verse 27 : "A
man also, or a woman, that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a
wizard, shall surely be put to death ; they shall stone them with
stones ; their blood shall be upon them." Deut. xviii. 10: " There
shall not be found among you anyone that maketh his son or his
daughter to pass through the fire, or an enchanter, or a witch ;
n. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard,
'. Notes on Miracles, p. 165. In a note the Archbishop says that "he
understands that Esquirol recognises demoniacs now, and that there could
not be a higher authority." ,
WITCHCRAFT PROSCRIBED BY CHURCH AND STATIC 87
or a necromancer ; 12. For all that do these things are an abomi-
nation unto the Lord," etc. The passages which assert the reality
of demonology and witchcraft, however, are much too numerous
to permit their citation here. But not only did Christianity thus
inherit the long-prevalent superstition, but it transmitted it intact
to succeeding ages ; and there can be no doubt that this demon-
ology, with its consequent and inevitable belief in witchcraft,
sorcery, and magic, continued so long to prevail throughout
Christendom, as much through the authority of the sacred writings
and the teaching of the Church as through the superstitious
ignorance of Europe.
It would be impossible to select for illustration any type of the
Gospel miracles whose fundamental principle belief in the reality,
malignant action, and power of demons, and in the power of man
to control them has received fuller or more permanent living
acceptance from posterity, down to very recent times, than the
cure of disease ascribed to demoniacal influence. The writings
of the Fathers are full of the belief ; the social history of Europe
teems with it. The more pious the people, the more firm was
their conviction of its reality. From times antecedent to Chris-
tianity, until medical science slowly came into existence, every
form of disease was ascribed to demons. Madness, idiotcy,
epilepsy, and every shape of hysteria were the commonest forrrs
of their malignity ; and the blind, the dumb, and the deformed
were regarded as unquestionable victims of their malice. Every
domestic calamity, from the convulsions of a child to the death of
a cow, was unhesitatingly attributed to their agency. The more
ignorant the community, the greater the number of its possessed.
Belief in the power of sorcery, witchcraft, and magic was inherent
in the superstition, and the universal prevalence shows how catholic
was the belief in demoniacal influence. The practice of these
arts is solemnly denounced as sin in the New Testament and
throughout Patristic literature, and the Church has in all ages
fulminated against it. No accusation was more common than
that of practising sorcery, and no class escaped from the fatal
suspicion. Popes were charged with the crime, and bishops were
found guilty of it. St. Cyprian was said to have been a magician
before he became a Christian and a Father of the Church. 1
Athanasius was accused of sorcery before the Synod of Tyre. 2
Not only the illiterate, but even the learned, in the estimation of
their age, believed in it. No heresy was ever persecuted with
more unrelenting hatred. Popes have issued bulls vehemently
anathematising witches and sorcerers, councils have proscribed
1 Greg. Nazianz., Oral., xviii.
2 Theodoret, ff. ., i. 30; cf. Milman, Hist, of Christianity, ii., p. 3/8.
88 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
them, ecclesiastical courts have consigned tens of thousands of
persons suspected of being such to the stake, monarchs have
written treatises against them and invented tortures for their con-
viction, and every nation in Europe, and almost every generation,
have passed the most stringent laws against them. Upon no
point has there ever been greater unanimity of belief. Church
and State have vied with each other for the suppression of the
abominable crime. Every phenomenon of nature, every unwelcome
occurrence of social life, as well as every natural disease, has been
ascribed to magic and demons. The historical records of Europe
are filled with the deliberate trial and conviction, upon what
was deemed evidence, of thousands of sorcerers and witches.
Hundreds have been found guilty of exercising demoniacal
influence over the elements, from Sopater the philosopher, executed
under Constantine for preventing, by adverse winds, the arrival
of corn ships at Constantinople, to Dr. Fian and other witches
horribly tortured and burnt for causing a stormy passage on the
return of James I. from Denmark. 1 Thousands of men and tens
of thousands of women have been done to death by every con-
ceivable torment for causing sickness or calamity by sorcery, or
for flying through the air to attend the witches' sabbath. When
scepticism as to the reality of the demoniacal powers of sorcery
tardily began to arise, it was fiercely reprobated by the Church as
infidelity. Even so late as the seventeenth century, a man like Sir
Thomas Browne not only did not include the belief among the
vulgar errors which he endeavoured to expose, but, on the contrary,
wrote : " For my part, I have ever believed, and do now know,
that there are witches. They that doubt of them do not only
deny them, but spirits ; and are obliquely, and upon consequence,
a SDrt not of infidels, but Atheists." 2 In 1664 Sir Thomas Hale,
in passing sentence of death against two women convicted of
being witches, declared that the reality of witchcraft was undeniable,
because " first, the Scriptures had affirmed so much ; and, secondly,
the wisdom of all nations had provided laws against such persons,
which is an argument of their confidence in such a crime." 3 Even
the eighteenth century was stained with the blood of persons
tortured and executed for sorcery.
Notwithstanding all this persistent and unanimous confirmation,
' Pitcairn's Criminal Trials of Scotland, i., pp, 213, 223.
2 Religio Medici, Works (Bohn), ii., p. 43 f.
3 Collection of Rare and Curious Tracts Relating to Witchcraft, London,
1838. Cf. Lecky, Hist, of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism
in Europe, 3rd ed. , 1866, i., p. 120. The reader is referred to this able work,
as well as to Buckle's Hist, of Civilisation, for much interesting information
regarding magic and witchcraft, as well as religious superstition and miraculous
pretensions generally.
BELIEF IN WITCHCRAFT DISPELLED 89
we ask again : What has now become of the belief in demoniacal
possession and sorcery ? It has utterly disappeared. " Joseph
Mede, Lardner, Dr. Mead, Paley, and all the learned modern
writers " with Dean Milman, as we have seen, explain it away, and
such a theory of disease and elemental disturbance is universally
recognised to have been a groundless superstition. The countless
number of persons tormented and put to death for the supposed
crime of witchcraft and sorcery were mere innocent victims to
ignorance and credulity. At the commencement of our era every
disease was ascribed to the agency of demons simply because the
nature of disease was not understood, and the writers of the
Gospels were not, in this respect, one whit more enlightened than
the Jews. The progress of science, however, has not only dispelled
the superstitious theory as regards disease in our time ; its effects
are retrospective. Science not only declares the ascription of
disease to demoniacal possession or malignity to be an idle super-
stition now, but it equally repudiates the assumption of such a
cause at any time. The diseases referred by the Gospels, and by
the Jews of that time, to the action of devils, exist now, but they
are known to proceed from purely physical causes. The same
superstition and medical ignorance would enunciate the same
diagnosis at the present day. The superstition and ignorance,
however, have passed away, and with them the demoniacal
theory. In that day the theory was as baseless as in this. This
is the logical conclusion of every educated man.
It is obvious that, with the necessary abandonment of the
theory of " possession " and demoniacal origin of disease, the
largest class of miracles recorded in the Gospels is at once
exploded. The asserted cause of the diseases of this class, said
to have been miraculously healed, must be recognised to be a
mere vulgar superstition, and the narratives of such miracles,
ascribing as they do, in perfect simplicity, distinct objectivity to the
supposed " possessing " demons, and reporting their very words
and actions, at once assume the character of mere imaginative and
fabulous writings based upon superstitious tradition, and cannot be
accepted as the sober and intelligent report of eye-witnesses. We
shall presently see how far this inference is supported by the
literary evidence regarding the date and composition of the
Gospels.
The deduction, however, does not end here. It is clear that,
this large class of Gospel miracles being due to the superstition of
an ignorant and credulous age, the insufficiency of the evidence
for any of the other supposed miraculous occurrences narrated in
the same documents becomes at once apparent. Nothing but the
most irrefragable testimony could possibly warrant belief in state-
ments of supernatural events which contradict all experience, and
90 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
are opposed to all science. When these statements, however, are
not only rendered, a priori, suspicious by their proceeding from a
period of the grossest superstition and credulity, but it becomes
evident that a considerable part of them are due solely to that
superstition and credulity, by which, moreover, the rest may
likewise be most naturally explained, they cannot stand against the
opposing conviction of invariable experience. The force of the
testimony is gone. We are far from using this language in an
offensive sense concerning the Gospel narratives, which, by the
simple faith of the writers, present the most noble aspect of the
occurrences of which superstition is capable. Indeed, viewed as
compositions gradually rising out of pious tradition, and
representing the best spirit of their times, the Gospels, even in
ascribing such miracles to Jesus, are a touching illustration of the
veneration excited by his elevated character. Devout enthusiasm
surrounded his memory with the tradition of the highest exhibi-
tions of power within the range of Jewish imagination, and that
these conceptions represent merely an idealised form of prevalent
superstition was not only natural, but inevitable. We shall here-
after fully examine the character of the Gospels, but it will be
sufficient here to point out that none of these writings lays claim
to any special inspiration, or in the slightest degree pretends to be
more than a human composition, 1 and subject to the errors of
human history.
We have seen how incompetent those who lived at the time
when the Gospel miracles are supposed to have taken place were
to furnish reliable testimony regarding such phenomena ; and the
gross mistake committed in regard to the largest class of these
miracles, connected with demoniacal possession, altogether destroys
the value of the evidence for the rest, and connects the whole, as
might have been expected, with the general superstition and
ignorance of the period. It may be well to inquire, further,
whether there is any valid reason for excepting any of the miracles
of Scripture from this fate, and whether there was any special
" Age of Miracles " at all, round which a privileged line can be
drawn on any reasonable ground.
We have already pointed out that the kind of evidence which
is supposed to attest the Divine revelation of Christianity, so far
from being invented for the purpose, was so hackneyed, so to
speak, as scarcely to attract the notice of the nation to which the
revelation was, in the first instance, addressed. Not only did the
1 See, for instance, the reasons for the composition of the third Gospel stated
in the first four verses. It was clearly intended in the first instance to he a
private document for the use of Theophilus. ,
CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN MIRACLES 91
Old Testament contain accounts of miracles of every one of the
types related in the New, but most of them were believed to be
commonly performed both before and after the commencement of
the Christian era. That demons were successfully exorcised, and
diseases cured, by means of spells and incantations, was never
doubted by the Jewish nation. Satanic miracles, moreover, are
not only recognised throughout the Old and New Testaments, but
formed a leading feature of the Patristic creed. The early
Christians were as ready as the heathen to ascribe every inexplicable
occurrence to supernatural agency, and the only difference between
them was as to the nature of that agency. The Jews and their
heathen neighbours were too accustomed to supposed preter-
natural occurrences to feel much surprise or incredulity at the
account of Christian miracles ; and it is characteristic of the
universal superstition of the period that the Fathers did not dream
of denying the reality of Pagan miracles, but merely attributed
them to demons, whilst they asserted the Divine origin of their
own. The reality of the powers of sorcery was never questioned.
Every marvel and every narrative of supernatural interference
with human affairs seemed matter of course to the superstitious
credulity of the age. However much miracles are exceptions to
the order of nature, they have always been the rule in the history
of ignorance. In fact, the excess of belief in them throughout
many centuries of darkness is fatal to their claims to credence
now. The Christian miracles are rendered as suspicious from
their place in a long sequence of similar occurrences, as they are
by being exceptions to the sequence of natural phenomena. It
would indeed be extraordinary if whole cycles of miracles occurring
before and since those of the Gospels, and in connection with
every religion, could be repudiated as fables, and those alone
maintained as genuine.
No attempt is made to deny the fact that miracles are common
to all times and to all religious creeds. Newman states among
the conclusions of his essay on the miracles of early ecclesiastical
history: "That there was no Age of Miracles, after which miracles
ceased ; that there have been at all times true miracles and false
miracles, true accounts and false accounts ; that no authoritative
guide is supplied to us for drawing the line between the two." 1
Dr. Mozley also admits that morbid love of the marvellous in the
human race "has produced a constant stream of miraculous
pretension in the world, which accompanies man wherever he is
found, and is a part of his mental and physical history." 2 Igno-
rance and its invariable attendant, superstition, have done more
1 Two Essays on Scripture Miracles, etc., 1870, p. 100,
2 Bauipton Lectures, p. 206,
9 2 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
than mere love of the marvellous to produce and perpetuate
belief in miracles, and there cannot be any doubt that the removal
of ignorance always leads to their cessation. 1 The Bampton
lecturer proceeds : " Heathenism had its running stream of super-
natural pretensions in the shape of prophecy, exorcism, and the
miraculous cures of diseases, which the temples of Esculapius
recorded with pompous display." 2 So far from the Gospel miracles
being original, and a presentation, for the first time, of phenomena
until then unknown and unlikely to suggest themselves to the
mind, " Jewish supernaturalism was indeed going on side by side
with our Lord's miracles." 3 Dr. Mozley, however, rebuts the
inference which has been drawn from this, " That His miracles
could not, in the very nature of the case, be evidences of His
distinctive teaching and mission, inasmuch as miracles were
common to Himself and His opponents," by the assertion that a
very marked distinction exists between the Gospel miracles and
all others.* He perfectly recognises the consequence if such a
distinction cannot be clearly demonstrated. "The criticism,
therefore, which evidential miracles, or miracles which serve as
evidence of a revelation, must come up to, if they are to accom-
plish the object for which they are designed, involves at the outset
this condition that the evidence of such miracles must be
distinguishable from the evidences of this permanent stream of
miraculous pretension in the world ; that such miracles must be
separated by an interval not only from the facts of the order of
nature, but also from the common running miraculous, which is
the simple offshoot of human nature. Can evidential miracles
be inserted in this promiscuous mass, so as not to be confounded
with it, but to assert their own truth and distinctive source? If
they cannot, there is an end to the proof of a revelation by miracles;
if they can, it remains to see whether the Christian miracles are
thus distinguishable, and whether their nature, their object, and
their evidence vindicate their claim to this distinctive truth and
Divine source." 5
Now, regarding this distinction between Gospel and other
miracles, it must be observed that the religious feeling which
influenced the composition of the Scripture narratives of miracles
naturally led to the exclusion of all that was puerile or ignoble in
the traditions preserved regarding the Great Master. The elevated
character of Jesus afforded no basis for what was petty, and the
devotion with which he was regarded when the Gospels were
written insured the noblest treatment of his history within certain
1 Cf. Buckle, Hist, of Civilisation, i., p. 373 ff.; cf. p. 122 ff.; Hi., p. 35.
2 Bampton Lectures, p. 206.
3 Ib., p. 209. 4 Ib., p. 209. s Ib., p. 208.
THE CONTINUANCE OF MIRACULOUS POWER 93
limits. We must, therefore, consider the bare facts composing
the miracles, rather than the narrative of the manner in which
they are said to have been produced, in order rightly to judge of
the comparative features of different miracles. If we take the
case of a person raised from the dead, literary skill may invest
the account with more or less of dramatic interest and dignity;
but, whether the main fact be surrounded with pathetic and
picturesque details, as in the account of the raising of Lazarus in
the fourth Gospel, or the person be simply restored to life without
them, it is the fact of the resurrection which constitutes the
miracle, and it is in the facts alone that we must seek distinction,
disregarding and distrusting the accessories. In the one case the
effect may be much more impressive, but in the other the bare
raising of the dead is not a whit less miraculous. We have been
accustomed to read the Gospel narratives of miracles with so
much special veneration that it is now difficult to recognise how
much of the distinction of these miracles is due to the composition,
and to their place in the history of Jesus. No other miracles, or
account of miracles, ever had such collateral advantages.
The Archbishop of Dublin says : " Few points present greater
difficulties than the attempt to fix accurately the moment when
these miraculous powers were withdrawn from the Church " ; and
he argues that they were withdrawn when it entered into what he
calls its permanent state, and no longer required " these props and
strengthenings of the infant plant." 1 That their retrocession was
gradual he considers natural, and he imagines the fulness of
Divine power as gradually waning as it was subdivided, first
among the Apostles and then among the ever-multiplying
members of the Church, until by sub-division it became virtually
extinct, leaving as a substitute " the standing wonder of a
Church." 2 This, of course, is not argument, but merely the Arch-
bishop's fanciful explanation of a serious difficulty. The fact is,
however, that the Gospel miracles were preceded and accompanied
by others of the same type, and were also followed by a long
succession of others, quite as well authenticated, whose occurrence
only became less frequent in proportion as the diffusion of
knowledge dispelled popular credulity. Even at the present day
a stray miracle is from time to time reported in outlying districts,
where the ignorance and superstition which formerly produced so
abundant a growth of them are not yet entirely dispelled.
Papias of Hierapolis narrates a wonderful story, according to
Eusebius, which he had heard from the daughters of the Apostle
Philip, who lived at the same time in Hierapolis : " For he relates
that a dead man was restored to life in his day." 3 Justin Martyr,
1 Notes on Miracles, p. 54. " Ib. , p. 55. 3 Eusebius, H. E. , iii. 39.
94
speaking of his own time, frequently asserts that Christians still
receive the gift of healing, of foreknowledge, and of prophecy, 1
and he points out to the Roman Senate, as a fact happening under
their own observation, that many demoniacs throughout all the
world and in their own city have been healed, and are healed,
many of the Christian men among us exorcising them in the name
of Jesus Christ, subduing and expelling the possessing demons
out of the man, although all the other exorcists, with incantations
and spells, had failed to do so. 2 Theophilus of Antioch likewise
states that to his day demons are exorcised. 3 Irenaeus, in the
clearest manner, claims for the Church of his time the continued
possession of the Divine x a P^ (r l MI - Ta - He contrasts the miracles
of the followers of Simon and Carpocrates, which he ascribes to
magical illusions, with those of Christians. " For they can neither
give sight to the blind," he continues, " nor to the deaf hearing,
nor cast out all demons, but only those introduced by themselves
if they can even do that nor heal the sick, the lame, the
paralytic, nor those afflicted in other parts of the body, as has
been often done in regard to bodily infirmity But so far are
they from raising the dead, as the Lord raised them and the
Apostles by prayer, and as frequently in the brotherhood, when
the whole Church in a place made supplication with much fasting
and prayer, the spirit of the dead was constrained to return, and
the man was freely restored in answer to the prayers of the saints,
that they do not believe this can possibly be done." 4 Dr.
Mozley, who desires, for the purpose of his argument, to weaken
the evidence of patristic belief in the continuance of miracles,
says, regarding this last passage on raising the dead : " But the
reference is so vague that it possesses but little weight as testi-
mony.'^ The language of Irenasus is vague only in so far as
specific detailed instances are not given of the miracles referred
to ; but no language could be more definite or explicit to express
his meaning namely, the assertion that the prayers of Christian
communities had frequently restored the dead to life. Eusebius,
who quotes the passage and who has preserved to us the original
Greek, clearly recognised this. He says, when making the
quotations : " In the second book of the same work he [Irenaeus]
testifies that up to his time tokens of Divine and miraculous
power remained in some Churches." 6 In the next chapter, Irenaeus
further says : " On which account also his true disciples, receiving
1 Cf. Dial. c. Tryph., xxxix., Ixxxii., Ixxxviii. etc.
* AfoL, ii. 6, cf. Dial. c. Tryphon., xxx., Ixxvi., Ixxxv., etc.
3 Ad A utolycum, ii. 8.
4 Irenaeus, Adv. ff.er., ii. 31, 2 ; Eusebius, H. ., v. 7.
5 Bampton Lectures, Note i. on Lecture VIII. (p. 210), D. 171
6 H. ., v. 7.
ECCLESIASTICAL MIRACLES 95
grace from him, work (miracles) in his name for the benefit of the
rest of mankind, according to the gift received from him by each
of them. For some do certainly and truly (/?/3ou'ws KUI dA.?/#ws)
cast out demons, so that frequently those very men who have thus
been cleansed from the evil spirits both believe and are now in the
Church. And some have foreknowledge of future occurrences
and visions and prophetic utterances. Others heal the sick by the
imposition of hands, and make them whole. Indeed, as we have
already stated, even the dead have been raised up, and have
remained with us for many years. And what more shall I say ?
It is not possible to state the number of the gifts which the
Church throughout the world has received from God in the name
of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she
each day employs for the benefit of the heathen," etc. 1
Tertullian speaks with the most perfect assurance of miracles
occurring in his day, and of the power of healing and of casting
out devils still possessed by Christians. In one place, for instance,
after asserting the power which they have generally over demons,
so that, if a person possessed by a devil be brought before one of
the Roman tribunals, a follower of Christ can at once compel the
wicked spirit within him to confess that he is a demon, even if he
had before asserted himself to be a god, he proceeds to say : " So,
at our touch and breathing, violently affected by the contempla-
tion and representation of those fires [of hell], they [demons] also
depart at our command out of bodies, reluctant and complaining,
and put to shame in your presence." 2 He declares that, although
dreams are chiefly inflicted upon us by demons, yet they are also
sent by God, and, indeed, "almost the greater part of mankind
derive their knowledge concerning God from visions." 3 He, else-
where, states that he himself knows that a brother was severely
castigated by a vision the same night on which his slaves had,
without his knowledge, done something reprehensible. 4 He
narrates, as an instance of the continued possession of spiritual
charismata by Christians : " There is at this day amongst us a sister
who has the gift of revelations, which she receives in church
amidst the solemnities of the Lord's Day by ecstasy in the spirit ;
she converses with angels, and sometimes also with the Lord, and
she both hears and sees mysteries (sacramenta), and she reads the
hearts of some men, and prescribes medicines to those who are in
need." 5 Tertullian goes on to say that, after the people were
1 Eusebius, //. ., v. 7 ; Adv. ffier., ii. 32, 4 ; cf. v. 6, i.; cf. Theophilus,
Ad Autol. , i. 13.
2 Apologeticus, 23, cf. De Idol., II ; De Sfectac., 29; DC Exhort.
Castit., S IO ; Ad Si'afnlni/i, S 4 ; DC Aniina, $ 57.
' 3 De Ani ma, 47 ; De Idol., 15. + De Idol., 8 15.
? De Amina, 9.
96 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
dismissed from the church, this sister was in the regular habit of
reporting what she had seen, and that most diligent inquiries were
made in order to test the truth of her communications; 1 and,
after narrating a vision of a disembodied soul vouchsafed to her,
he states : " This is the vision, God being witness, and the Apostle 2
having foretold that such spiritual gifts should be in the Church."^
Further on Tertullian relates a story within his own knowledge :
" I know the case of a woman, born within the fold of the Church,
who was in the prime of life and beauty. After being but once,
and only a short time, married, having fallen asleep in peace, in
the interval before interment, when the presbyter began to pray, as
she was being made ready for burial, at the first breath of prayer she
removed her hands from her sides, folded them in the attitude of
supplication, and again, when the last rites were over, restored them
to their former position." 4 He then mentions another story known
amongst them that a dead body in a cemetery moved itself in
order to make room beside it for another body ; 5 and then he
remarks : " If similar cases are also reported amongst the heathen,
we conclude that God displays signs of his power for the consola-
tion of his own people, and as a testimony to others.'' 6 Again, he
mentions cases where Christians had cured persons of demoniacal
possession, and adds : "And how many men of position (for we
do not speak of the vulgar) have been delivered either from devils
or from diseases ?"? Tertullian, in the same place, refers to the
miracle of the " Thundering Legion," 8 and he exclaims : " When,
indeed, have not droughts been removed by our prayers and
fastings ?"? Minucius Felix speaks of the casting out of devils
from sick persons by Christians in his own day as a matter of
public notoriety even among Pagans. 10 St. Cyprian echoes the
same assertions." He likewise mentions cases of miraculous
punishment inflicted upon persons who had lapsed from the
Christian faith. One of these, who ascended the Capitol to make
denial of Christ, suddenly became dumb after he had spoken the
words. 12 Another a woman was seized by an unclean spirit even
at the baths, and bit with her own teeth the impious tongue which
had eaten the idolatrous food, or spoken the words, and she
shortly expired in great agony. '3 He likewise maintains that
Christians are admonished by God in dreams and by visions, of
which he mentions instances. ' Origen claims for Christians the
1 DC Anima, 9. 2 i Cor. xii. I ff. 3 fie Anima, 9. //>., 5;.
* Ih - 8 SI- '/*., 51. 7 Ad Scapiilitm, 4.
Cf. Eusebius, //. E., v. 5. 9 Ad Sfaf>itlnt, 4. "> Octaviits, 27.
Tract, ii., De Idol. Vanitate, 7 ; Ad Dgmetriantun, S 15.
" De Lafsis, $ 24. '3 /<*., 34, cf. 8 25, 26. '
14 />., liii., 8 1-5 ; Ixii., 8 17 ; Ixviii., 9, 10 (ed. Migne) ; Dt Morlolali-
ta/e, Jj 19. ,
ECCLESIASTICAL MIRACLES 97
power still to expel demons and to heal diseases in the name of
Jesus, 1 and he states that he had seen many persons so cured of
madness and countless other evils, which could not be otherwise
cured by men or devils. 2 Lactantius repeatedly asserts the power
of Christians over demons ; they make them flee from bodies
when they adjure them in the name of God. 3
Passing over the numerous apocryphal writings of the early
centuries of our era, in which many miracles are recorded, we
find in the pages of Eusebius narratives of many miraculous
occurrences. Many miracles are ascribed to Narcissus, Bishop of
Jerusalem, of which Eusebius relates several. While the vigils of
the great watch of the Passover were being kept, the oil failed ;
whereupon Narcissus commanded that water from the neigh-
bouring well should be poured into the lamps. Having prayed
over the water, it was changed into oil, of which a specimen had
been preserved until that time. 4 On another occasion, three men
having spread some vile slanders against Narcissus, which they
confirmed by an oath, and with imprecations upon themselves of
death by a miserable disease, of death by fire, and of blindness,
respectively, if their statements were not true, omnipotent justice
in each case inflicted upon the wretches the curse which each had
invoked. 5 The election of Fabianus to the episcopal chair of
Rome was marked by the descent of a dove from on high, which
rested upon his head, as the Holy Ghost had descended upon our
Saviour. 6 At Cassarea Philippi there is a statue of Jesus Christ,
which Eusebius states that he himself had seen, said to have been
erected by the woman healed of the bloody issue, and on the
pedestal grows a strange plant as high as the hem of the brazen
garment, which is an antidote to all diseases.? Great miracles
are recorded as taking place during the persecutions in Caesarea. 8
Gregory of Nyssa gives an account of many wonderful works
performed by his namesake Gregory of Neo-Caesarea, who was
called Thaumaturgus from the miraculous power which he
possessed and very freely exercised. The Virgin Mary and the
Apostle John appeared to him, on one occasion, when he was in
doubt as to the doctrine which he ought to preach, and, at the
request of Mary, the Apostle gave him all needful instructions.9
If his faith did not move mountains, it moved a huge rock to
convert a pagan priest. 10 He drove a demon out of a heathen
1 Contra Cels., i. 67, 2, 6, 46 ; ii. 33 ; ii. 24, 28, 36.
Ib., iii. 24. 3 Instit. Div., ii. 16, iv. 27, v. 22.
Eusebius, H. E., vi. 9. s /j g> vi. 9. 6 Ib., vi. 29.
Ib., H. E., vii. 18 ; cf. Sozomen, H. E., v. 21.
Eusebius, De Martyr. Palcest., iv., ix. ; cf. Theodoret, H. E., iv. 22.
Greg. Nyss., De Vit. Greg. J^haum., iii., p. 545 f.
Ib., p. 550.
H
98 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
temple in which he had taken refuge, and the evil spirit could not
re-enter until he gave permission. 1 Nyssen relates how St. Gregory
averted an armed contest of two brothers who quarrelled about
the possession of a lake on their father's property. The saint
passed the night in prayer beside the lake, and in the morning it
was found dried up. 2 On another occasion he rescued the
country from the devastation of a mountain stream, which periodi-
cally burst the dykes by which it was restrained and inundated
the plain. He went on foot to the place and, invoking the name
of Christ, fixed his staff in the earth at the place where the torrent
had broken through. The staff took root and became a tree, and
the stream never again burst its bounds. The inhabitants of the
district were converted to Christianity by this miracle. The tree
was still living in Nyssen's time, and he had seen the bed of the
lake covered with trees, pastures, and cottages. 3 Two vagabond
Jews once attempted to deceive him. One of them lay down and
pretended to be dead, while the other begged money from the
saint wherewith to buy him a shroud. St. Gregory quietly took
off his cloak and laid it on the man, and walked away. His
companion found that he was really dead. 4 St. Gregory expelled
demons from persons possessed, healed the sick, and performed
many other miracles ; 5 and his signs and wonders are not only
attested by Gregory of Nyssa, but by St. Basil, 6 whose grand-
mother, St. Macrina, was brought up at Neo-Caesarea by the
immediate followers of the saint.
Athanasius, in his memoir of St. Anthony, who began to lead
the life of a recluse about A.D. 270, gives particulars of many
miracles performed by the saint. Although he possessed great
power over demons, and delivered many persons possessed
by them, Satan tormented him sadly, and he was constantly
beset by legions of devils. One night Satan with a troop of
evil spirits so belaboured the saint that he lay on the ground
speechless and almost dead from their blows.? We have already
referred to the case of Natalius, who was scourged by angels
1 Greg., Nyss.,Z><f Vit. Greg. Tkaum., p. 548. Cf. Socrates, H. E., iv. 27.
He gave Jhis permission in writing " Gregory to Satan : Enter." Tpriytpios
rif Zoravp, E&rt\0e.
7 *-'R:5S5f- 3/0., p . 55 8ff.
4 /*., iii., p. 561 f. The same story is related of St. Epiphanius of
Cyprus, and Sozomen sees no ground for doubting the veracity of either
account. He states that St. Epiphanius also performed many other miracles
(If. ., vn. 27).
6 f n' ffi- ^c' 55 '' 552) 553 ' 566 ' 5 6 7. 577-
De Spir. Sancto, c. 29, torn, iii., pp. 62, 63, Bened.; cf. Ep. 204, p.
7 o S> Atha , nasii - Vita et Convert. S. Antony, 8, Opp. torn, i., pars, ii.,
p. 802 ff., Bened.
ECCLESIASTICAL MIRACLES 99
during a whole night, till he was brought to repentance. 1 Upon
one occasion, when St. Anthony had retired to his cell resolved to
pass a time in perfect solitude, a certain soldier came to his door
and remained long there knocking and supplicating the saint to
come and deliver his daughter, who was tormented by a demon.
At length St. Anthony addressed the man and told him to go,
and if he believed in Jesus Christ and prayed to God his prayer
should be fulfilled. The man believed, invoked Jesus Christ, and
his daughter was delivered from the demon. 2 As Anthony was
once travelling across the desert to visit another monastery, the
water of the caravan failed them, and his companions in despair
threw themselves on the ground. St. Anthony, however, retired
a little apart, and in answer to his prayer a spring of water issued
at the place where he was kneeling.3 A man named Fronto, who
was afflicted with leprosy, begged his prayers, and was ordered by
the saint to go into Egypt, where he should be healed. Fronto at
first refused, but, being told that he could not be healed if he
remained, the sick man went believing, and as soon as he came in
sight of Egypt he was made whole. 4 Another miracle was
performed by Anthony at Alexandria in the presence of St.
Athanasius. As they were leaving the city a woman cried after
him, " Man of God, stay ; my daughter is cruelly troubled by a
demon "; and she entreated him to stop lest she herself should die
in running after him. At the request of Athanasius and the rest,
the saint paused, and, as the woman came up, her daughter fell on
the ground convulsed. St. Anthony prayed in the name of Jesus
Christ, and immediately the girl rose perfectly restored to health,
and delivered from the evil spirit. 5 He astonished a number of
pagan philosophers, who had come to dispute with him, by
delivering several demoniacs, making the sign of the cross over
them three times, and invoking the name of Jesus Christ. 6 It is
unnecessary, however, to multiply instances of his miraculous
power to drive out demons and heal diseases,? and to perform
other wonderful works. St. Athanasius, who was himself for a
long time a personal follower of St. Anthony, protests in his
preface to the biography his general accuracy, he having every-
where been mindful of the truth. 8
Hilarion, again, a disciple of St. Anthony, performed many
miracles, an account of some of which is given by St. Jerome.
He restored sight to a woman who had been blind for no less than
1 Eusebius, H. ., v. 28. 2 Vita, 48, p. 832.
3 If,., 54, p. 836 f. 4 /j. f 57, p. 839.
s Ib., 71, p. 849. 6 Ib., 72, p. 849.
i Cf. ib., 55, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 70, etc.
8 Ib., p. 797.
,oo SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
ten years ; he cast out devils, and miraculously cured many
diseases. Rain fell in answer to his prayers, and he further
exhibited his power over the elements by calming a stormy sea.
When he was buried, ten months after his death, not only was his
body as perfect as though he had been alive, but it emitted a
delightful perfume. He was so favoured of God that, long after,
diseases were healed and demons expelled at his tomb. 1
St. Macarius, the Egyptian, is said to have restored a dead man
to life in order to convince an unbeliever of the truth of the
resurrection. 2 St. Martin, of Tours, restored to life a certain
catechumen who had died of a fever, and Sulpicius, his disciple,
states that the man, who lived for many years after, was known to
himself, although not until after the miracle. He also restored
to life a servant who had hung himself. 3 He performed a multi-
tude of other miracles, to which we need not here more minutely
refer. The relics of the two martyrs Protavius and Gervasius,
whose bones, with much fresh blood, the miraculous evidence of
their martyrdom and identity, were discovered by St. Ambrose,
worked a number of miracles. A man suffering from demoniacal
possession indicated the proximity of the relics by his convulsions.
St. Augustine states that he himself was in Milan when a blind
man, who merely touched the cloth which covered the two bodies
as they were being moved to a neighbouring church, regained his
sight. 4 Paulinus relates many miracles performed by his master,
St. Ambrose, himself. He not only cast out many demons and
healed the sick,s but he also raised the dead. Whilst the saint
was staying in the house of a distinguished Christian friend, his
child, who a few days before had been deliveredfrom an unclean spirit,
suddenly expired. The mother, an exceedingly religious woman, full
of faith and the fear of God, carried the dead boy down and laid
him on the saint's bed during his absence. When St. Ambrose
returned, filled with compassion for the mother and struck by her
faith, he stretched himself, like Elisha, on the body of the child,
praying, and restored him living to his mother. Paulinus relates
this miracle with minute particulars of name and address. 6
St. Augustine asserts that miracles are still performed in his day
in the name of Jesus Christ, either by means of his sacraments or
by the prayers or relics of his saints, although they are not so well
known as those of old, and he gives an account of many miracles
which had recently taken place.? After referring to the miracle
Sozomen, H. ., in. 14. > /j H . E -^ , 4<
Sulpicius, Vita S. Mart.; cf. Sozomen, H. E., iii. 14.
Ambrose, Epist. Class., \. 22; August., De Civ. Dei, xxii. 8 ; Paulinus,
Vita S. Ambrosii, 14 f.
Vita S. Ambr., 21, 43, 44. ,
/6 -> 2g - 7 De Civ. Dei, xxii. 8.
MIRACLES RECORDED BY ST. AUGUSTINE 101
performed by the relics of the two martyrs upon the blind man in
Milan, which occurred when he was there, he goes on to narrate
the miraculous cure of a friend of his own, named Innocent,
formerly advocate of the prefecture in Carthage, where Augustine
was, and beheld it with his own eyes (ubi nos interfuimus et oculis
aspeximus nostris). A lady of rank in the same city was
miraculously healed of an incurable cancer, and St. Augustine is
indignant at the apathy of her friends which allowed so great
a miracle to be so little known. 1 An inhabitant of the
neighbouring town of Curubis was cured of paralysis and other
ills by being baptised. When Augustine heard of this, although
it was reported on very good authority, the man himself was
brought to Carthage by order of the holy bishop Aurelius in order
that the truth might be ascertained. Augustine states that on one
occasion, during his absence, a tribunitian man among them named
Hesperius, who had a farm close by called Zubedi, in the Fussalian
district, begged one of the Christian presbyters to go and drive
away some evil spirits whose malice sorely afflicted his servants
and cattle. One of the presbyters accordingly went and offered
the sacrifice of the body of Christ with earnest prayer, and by the
mercy of God the evil was removed. Now, Hesperius happened
to have received from one of his friends a piece of the sacred
earth of Jerusalem, where Jesus Christ was buried and rose again
the third day, and he had hung it up in his room to protect
himself from the evil spirits. When his house had been freed
from them, however, he begged St. Augustine and his colleague
Maximinus, who happened to be in that neighbourhood, to come
to him, and, after telling them all that had happened, he prayed
them to bury the piece of earth in some place where Christians
could assemble for the worship of God. They consented and did
as he desired. A young peasant of the neighbourhood who was
paralytic, hearing of this, begged that he might be carried without
delay to the holy spot, where he offered up prayer, and rose up
and went away on his feet perfectly cured. About thirty miles
from Hippo, at a farm called Victoriana, there was a memorial to
the two martyrs Protavius and Gervasius. To this, Augustine
relates, was brought a young man who, having gone one summer
day at noon to water his horse in the river, was possessed by a
demon. The lady to whom the place belonged came, according
to her custom, in the evening with her servants and some holy
women to sing hymns and pray. On hearing them, the demoniac
started up and seized the altar with a terrible shudder, without
daring to move and as if bound to it, and the demon, praying with
a loud voice for mercy, confessed where and when he had entered
1 De Civ. Dei, xxii. 8.
102
into the young man. At last the demon named all the members
of his body, with threats to cut them off as he made his exit, and
saying these words came out of him. In doing so, however, the
eye of the youth fell from its socket on to his cheek, retained only
by a small vein, as by a root, whilst the pupil became altogether
white. Well pleased, however, that the young man had been
freed from the evil spirit, they returned the eye to its place as well
as they could, and bound it up with a handkerchief, praying
fervently, and one of his relatives said : " God, who drove out the
demon at the prayer of his saints, can also restore the sight." On
removing the bandage seven days after, the eye was found perfectly
whole. St. Augustine knew a girl of Hippo who was delivered
from a demon by the application of oil, with which had mingled
the tears of the presbyter who was praying for her. He also knew
a bishop who prayed for a youth possessed by a demon, although
he had not even seen him, and the young man was at once
cured.
Augustine further gives particulars of many miracles performed
by the relics of the most glorious martyr Stephen. 1 By their
virtue the blind receive their sight, the sick are healed, the
impenitent converted, and the dead are restored to life. " Andurus
is the name of an estate," Augustine says, " where there is a church,
and in it is a shrine dedicated to the martyr Stephen. A certain
little boy was playing in the court, when unruly bullocks drawing
a waggon crushed him with the wheel, and immediately he lay in
the agonies of death. Then his mother raised him up, and placed
him at the shrine, and he not only came to life again, but had
manifestly received no injury. A certain religious woman, who
lived in a neighbouring property called Caspalianus, being dan-
gerously ill and her life despaired of, her tunic was carried to the
same shrine; but before it was brought back she had expired.
Nevertheless, her relatives covered the body with this tunic, and
she received back the spirit and was made whole. At Hippo a
certain man named Bassus, a Syrian, was praying at the shrine of
the same martyr for his daughter, who was sick and in great peril,
and he had brought her dress with him ; when lo ! some of his
household came running to announce to him that she was dead.
But, as he was engaged in prayer, they were stopped by his friends,
who prevented their telling him, lest he should give way to his
grief in public. When he returned to his house, which already
resounded with the wailing of his household, he cast over the
Ixxiy of his daughter her mantle, which he had with him, and
immediately she was restored to life. Again, in the same city,
the son of a certain man among us named Irenaeus, a collector of
1 De Civ. Dei, xxii.*8.
MIRACLES RECORDED BY ST. AUGUSTINE 103
taxes, became sick and died. As the dead body lay, and they
were preparing, with wailing and lamentation, to bury it, one
of his friends, consoling him, suggested that the body should
be anointed with oil from the same martyr. This was done, and
the child came to life again. In the same way a man among us
named Elusinus, formerly a tribune, laid the body of his child,
who had died from sickness, on a memorial of the martyr which
is in his villa in the suburbs, and after he had prayed, with many
tears, he took up the child living." 1 St. Augustine further relates
some remarkable cases : " Eucharius, a presbyter from Spain,
resided at Calama, who had for a long time suffered from stone.
By the relics of the same martyr, which the Bishop Possidius
brought to him, he was made whole. The same presbyter, after-
wards succumbing to another disease, lay dead, so that they were
already binding his hands. Succour came from the relics of the
martyr, for the tunic of the presbyter being brought back from
the relics and placed upon his body, he revived." 2
Two objections have been raised to the importance of the
miracles reported by St. Augustine, to which we must briefly
refer. 3 (i) That "his notices of the cases in which persons had
been raised to life again are so short, bare, and summary that they
evidently represent no more than mere report, and report of a
very vague kind." (2) " That, with the preface which Augustine
prefixes to his list, he cannot be said even to profess to guarantee
the truth or accuracy of the different instances contained in it."
It is true that in several cases Augustine gives the account of
miraculous cures at greater length than those of restoration to
life. It seems to us that this is almost inevitable at all times, and
that the reason is obvious. Where the miracle consists merely of
the cure of disease, details are naturally given to show the nature
and intensity of the sickness, and they are necessary not only for
the comprehension of the cure, but to show its importance. In
the case of restoration to life, the mere statement of the death and
assertion of the subsequent resurrection exclude all need of
details. The pithy reddita est vifce, or factum est et revixit, is
more striking than any more prolix narrative. In fact, the greater
the miracle the more natural is conciseness and simplicity ; and,
practically, we find that Augustine gives a more lengthy and
verbose report of trifling cures, whilst he relates the more
important with greater brevity and force. He narrates many of
his cases of miraculous cure, however, as briefly as those in which
the dead are raised. We have quoted the latter, and the reader
must judge whether they are unduly curt. One thing may be
1 De Civ. Dei, xxii. 8. 2 Il>., xxii. 8.
3 Mozley, Bamplon Lectures, p. 372 f.
I04 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
affirmed, that nothing of importance is omitted, and in regard to
essential details they are explicit as the mass of other cases
reported. In every instance names and addresses are stated, and
it will have been observed that all these miracles occurred in, or
close to, Hippo, and in his own diocese. It is very certain that
in every case the fact of the miracle is asserted in the most direct
and positive terms. There can be no mistake either as to the
meaning or intention of the narrative, and there is no symptom
whatever of a thought on the part of Augustine to avoid the
responsibility of his statements, or to give them as mere vague
report. If we compare these accounts with those of the Gospels,
we do not find them deficient in any essential detail common to
the latter. There is in the Synoptic Gospels only one case in
which Jesus is said to have raised the dead. The raising of
Jairus' daughter 1 has long been abandoned, as a case of restora-
tion to life, by all critics and theologians, except the few who still
persist in ignoring the distinct and positive declaration of Jesus,
" The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth." The only case, there-
fore, in the Synoptics is the account in the third Gospel of the
raising of the widow's son, 2 of which, strange to say, the other
Gospels know nothing. Now, although, as might have been
expected, this narrative is much more highly coloured and
picturesque, the difference is chiefly literary, and, indeed, there are
really fewer important details given than in the account by
Augustine, for instance, of the restoration to life of the daughter
of Bassus the Syrian, which took place at Hippo, of which he was
bishop, and where he actually resided. Augustine's object in
giving his list of miracles did not require him to write picturesque
narratives. He merely desired to state bare facts, whilst the
authors of the Gospels composed the Life of their Master, in
which interesting details were everything. For many reasons we
refrain here from alluding fo the artistic narrative of the raising
of Lazarus, the greatest miracle ascribed to Jesus, which is never-
theless unknown to the other three Evangelists, who, so readily
repeating the accounts of trifling cures, would most certainly not
have omitted this wonderful event had they ever heard of it.
A complaint is made of the absence of verification and proof
of actual death in these cases, or that they were more than mere
suspension of the vital powers. We cordially agree in the desire
for such evidence, not only in these, but in all miracles. We
would ask, however, what verification of the death have we in the
case of the widow's son which we have not here ? If we apply
*-. VfcJIi X'" 1 -- 1 ''I'' J'l.U' 1 vf.MiJ; 1 !; :;;, /:..'; /;!:";, i r .!.'iJ( 'it.lHfl
Matt. ix. 18, 19, 23-26; Mark v. 22, 24, 35-43; Luke viii. 41, 42,
49-50-
3 Luke vii. 11-16.
MIRACLES RECORDED BY ST. AUGUSTINE 105
such a test to the miracles of the Gospels, we must reject them as
certainly as those of St. Augustine. In neither case have we
more than a mere statement that the subjects of these miracles
were dead or diseased. So far are we from having any competent
medical evidence of the reality of the death, or of the disease,
or of the permanence of the supposed cures in the Gospels, that
we have little more than the barest reports of these miracles by
writers who, even if their identity were established, were not, and
do not pretend to have been, eye-witnesses of the occurrences
which they relate. Take, for instance, this very raising of the
widow's son in the third Gospel, which is unknown to the other
Evangelists, and the narrative of which is given only in a Gospel
which is not attributed to a personal follower of Jesus.
Now we turn to the second statement : " That with the preface
which Augustine prefixes to his list he cannot be said even to
profess to guarantee the truth or accuracy of the different instances
contained in it." We shall as briefly as possible state what is
actually the " preface " of St. Augustine to his list of miracles,
and his avowed object for giving it. In the preceding chapter
Augustine has been arguing that the world believed in Christ by
virtue of divine influence, and not by human persuasion. He
contends that it is ridiculous to speak of the false divinity of
Romulus when Christians speak of Christ. If, in the time of
Romulus, some 600 years before Cicero, people were so enlightened
that they refused to believe anything of which they had not experi-
ence, how much more, in the still more enlightened days of
Cicero himself, and notably in the reigns of Augustus and
Tiberius, would they have rejected belief in the resurrection and
ascension of Christ, if divine truth and the testimony of miracles
had not proved not only that such things could take place, but
that they had actually done so. When the evidence of prophecy
joined with that of miracles, and showed that the new doctrines
were only contrary to experience and not contrary to reason, the
world embraced the faith. 1 " Why, then, say they, do these
miracles, which you declare to have taken place formerly, not
occur nowadays ?" Augustine, in replying, adopts a common
rhetorical device. " I might, indeed, answer," he says, " that
miracles were necessary before the world believed, in order that
the world might believe. Anyone who now requires miracles
in order that he may believe is himself a great miracle in not
believing what all the world believes. But, really, they say this in
order that even those miracles should not be believed either."
And he reduces what he considers to be the position of the world
in regard to miracles and to the supernatural dogmas of Christianity
l ^>e Civ. Dei, xxii. 7.
I0 6 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
to the following dilemma : " Either things incredible which never-
theless occurred and were seen, led to belief in something else
incredible which was not seen ; or that thing was in itself so credible
that no miracles were required to establish it, and so much more
is the unbelief of those who deny confuted. This might I say to
these most frivolous objectors." He then proceeds to affirm that
it cannot be denied that many miracles attest the great miracle of
the ascension in the flesh of the risen Christ, and he points out
that the actual occurrence of all these things is not only recorded
in the most truthful books, but the reasons also given why they
took place. These things have become known that they might
create belief ; these things by the belief they have created have
become much more clearly known. They are read to the people,
indeed, that they may believe ; yet, nevertheless, they would not
be read to the people if they had not been believed. After thus
stating the answer which he might give, Augustine now returns to
answer the question directly. " But, furthermore," he continues,
" miracles are performed now in his name, either by means of his
sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints, but they are
not brought under the same strong light as caused the former to
be noised abroad with so much glory ; inasmuch as the canon of
sacred scriptures, which must be definite, causes those miracles to
be everywhere publicly read, and become firmly fixed in the
memory of all peoples ; but these are scarcely known to the whole
of a city itself in which they are performed, or to its neighbour-
hood. Indeed, for the most part, even there very few know of
them, and the rest are ignorant, more especially if the city be
large ; and when they are related elsewhere and to others, the
authority does not so commend them as to make them be believed
without difficulty or doubt, albeit they are reported by faithful
Christians to the faithful." He illustrates this by pointing out
that the miracle in Milan by the bodies of the two martyrs,
which took place when he himself was there, might reach
the knowledge of many because the city is large, and the
Emperor and an immense crowd of people witnessed it ; but
who knows of the miracle performed at Carthage upon his friend
Innocent, when he was there also, and saw it with his own eyes ?
Who knows of the miraculous cure of cancer, he continues, in a
lady of rank in the same city ? at the silence regarding which he is
so indignant. Who knows of the next case he mentions in his
list ? the cure of a medical man of the same town, to which he
adds : " We, nevertheless, do know it, and a few brethren to whose
knowledge it may have come." 1 Who, out of Curubus, besides
the very few who may have heard of it, knows of the miraculous
1 De Civ. Dei, xxn. 8.
MIRACLES RECORDED BY ST. AUGUSTINE 107
cure of the paralytic man, whose case Augustine personally
investigated? And so on. Observe that there is merely a
question of the comparative notoriety of the Gospel miracles
and those of his own time, not a doubt as to the reality
of the latter. Again, towards the end of his long list, immediately
after the narrative of the restoration to life of the child of
Eleusinus, which we have quoted, Augustine says : " What can I
do ? The promise of the completion of this work is pressing, so
that I cannot here recount all [the miracles] that I know ; and
without doubt many of our brethren, when they read this work,
will be grieved that I have omitted so very much, which they
know as well as I do. This, even now, I beg thai they will pardon,
and consider how long would be the task of doing that which, for
the completion of the work, it is thought necessary not to do.
For if I desired to record merely the miracles of healing, without
speaking of others, which have been performed by this martyr
that is to say, the most glorious Stephen in the district of
Calama and in ours of Hippo, many volumes must be composed ;
yet will it not be possible to make a complete collection of them,
but only of such as have been published for public reading. For
that was our object, since we saw repeated in our time signs of
divine power similar to those of old, deeming that they ought not
to be lost to the knowledge of the multitude. Now, this relic has
not yet been two years at Hippo-Regius, and accounts of many of
the miracles performed by it have not been written, as is most
certainly known to us ; yet the number of those which have been
published up to the time this is written amounts to about seventy.
At Calama, however, where these relics have been longer, and
more of the miracles were recorded, they incomparably exceed
this number." 1 Augustine goes on to say that, to his knowledge,
many very remarkable miracles were performed by the relics of
the same martyr also at Uzali, a district near to Utica, and of one
of these, which had recently taken place when he himself was
there, he gives an account. Then, before closing his list with the
narrative of a miracle which took place at Hippo, in his own
church, in his own presence, and in the sight of the whole con-
gregation, he resumes his reply to the opening question. " Many
miracles, therefore," he says, "are also performed now; the same
God who worked those of which we read performing these by
whom he wills, and as he wills ; but these miracles neither become
similarly known, nor, that they may not slip out of mind, are they
stamped, as it were like gravel, into memory, by frequent reading.
For even in places where care is taken, as is now the case among
us, that accounts of those who receive benefit should be publicly
1 De Civ, Dei, xxii. 8.
io8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
read, those who are present hear them only once, and many are
not present at all, so that those who were present do not, after a
few days, remember what they heard, and scarcely a single person
is met with who repeats what he has heard to one whom he may
have known to have been absent." 1
We shall not attempt any further detailed reference to the myriads
of miracles with which the annals of the Church teem up to very
recent times. The fact is too well known to require evidence.
The saints in the calendar are legion. It has been computed that
the number of those whose lives are given in the Bollandist
Collection 2 amounts to upwards of 25,000, although, the saints
being arranged according to the Calendar, the unfinished work
only reaches the 24th of October. When it is considered that all
those upon whom the honour of canonisation 1 is conferred have
worked miracles, many of them, indeed, almost daily performing
such wonders, some idea may be formed of the number of miracles
which have occurred in unbroken succession from Apostolic days,
and have been believed and recognised by the Church. Vast
numbers of these miracles are in all respects similar to those
narrated in the Gospels, and they comprise hundreds of cases of
restoration of the dead to life. If it be necessary to point out
instances in comparatively recent times, we may mention the
miracles of this kind liberally ascribed to St. Francis of Assisi, in
the thirteenth century, and to his namesake St. Francis Xavier in
the sixteenth, although we might refer to much more recent
miracles authenticated by the Church. At the present day such
phenomena have almost disappeared, and, indeed, with the excep-
tion of an occasional winking picture, periodical liquefaction of
blood, or apparition of the Virgin, confined to the still ignorant
and benighted corners of the earth, miracles are extinct.
' De Civ. Dei, xxii. 8.
' Ada Sanctorum quotquot toto orbe coluntttr ; collegil, etc., Johannes
Bollandus, cum cotitin. Henschenii, 54 vol. fol. Venetiis, 1734-1861.
CHAPTER VI.
MIRACLES IN RELATION TO IGNORANCE AND SUPERSTITION
WE have maintained that the miracles reported after apostolic
days are precisely of the same types in all material points
as the earlier miracles. Setting aside miracles of a trivial and
unworthy character, there remain a countless number cast in the
same mould as those of the Gospels miraculous cure of diseases,
expulsion of demons, transformation of elements, supernatural
nourishment, resurrection of dead of many of which we have
quoted instances. A natural objection is anticipated by Dr.
Mozley : " It will be urged, perhaps, that a large portion even of
the Gospel miracles are of the class here mentioned as ambiguous
cures, visions, expulsions of evil spirits ; but this observation does
not affect the character of the Gospel miracles as a body, because
we judge of the body or whole from its highest specimen, not
from its lowest." He takes his stand upon, " e.g., our Lord's
Resurrection and Ascension." 1 Now, without discussing the
principle laid down here, it is evident that the great distinction
between the Gospel and other miracles is thus narrowed to a very
small compass. It is admitted that the mass of the Gospel
miracles are of a class characterised as ambiguous, because "the
current miracles of human history " are also chiefly of the same
type, and the distinctive character is derived avowedly only from a
few high specimens such as the Resurrection. We have already
referred to the fact that in the Synoptic Gospels there is only one
case, reported by the third Gospel alone, in which Jesus is said to
have raised the dead. St. Augustine alone, however, chronicles
several cases in which life was restored to the dead. Post-apostolic
miracles, therefore, are far from lacking this ennobling type.
Observe that there is not here so much a discussion of the reality of
the subsequent miracles of the Church as a contrast drawn between
them and other reputed miracles and those of the Gospel ; but
from this point of view it is impossible to maintain that the
Gospels have a monopoly of the highest class of miracles. Such
miracles are met with long before the dawn of Christianity, and
continued to occur long after apostolic times.
Much stress is laid upon the form of the Gospel miracles ; but,
1 Bampton Lectures, p. 214.
109
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
as we have already shown, it is the actual resurrection of the
dead, for instance, which is the miracle, and this is not affected by
the more or less dramatic manner in which it is said to have been
effected, or in which the narrative of the event is composed.
Literary skill and the judicious management of details may make
or mar the form of any miracle. The narrative of the restoration
of the dead child to life by Elisha might have been more impressive
had the writer omitted the circumstance that the child sneezed seven
times before opening his eyes, and the miracle would probably have
been considered greater had the prophet merely said to the child,
" Arise !" instead of stretching himself on the body ; but, setting
aside human cravings for the picturesque and artistic, the essence
of the miracle would have remained the same. There is one point,
however, regarding which it may be well to make a few remarks.
Whilst a vast number of miracles are ascribed to direct personal
action of saints, many more are attributed to their relics. Now,
this is no exclusive characteristic of later miracles, but Christianity
itself shares it with still earlier times. The case in which a dead
body which touched the bones of Elisha was restored to life will
occur to everyone. " And it came to pass, as they were burying
a man, that, behold, they spied a band of Moabites ; and they cast
the man into the sepulchre of Elisha : and when the man was let
down and touched the b'ones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up
on his feet." 1 The mantle of Elijah smiting asunder the waters
before Elisha may be cited as another instance. 2 The woman who
touches the hem of the garment of Jesus in the crowd is made
whole, 3 and all the sick and "possessed" of the country are
represented as being healed by touching Jesus, or even the mere
hem of his garments It was supposed that the shadow of Peter
falling on the sick as he passed had a curative effect, 5 and it is
very positively stated : "And God wrought miracles of no common
kind by the hands of Paul'; so that from his body were brought
unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed
from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." 6
^ The argument which assumes an enormous distinction between
Gospel and other miracles betrays the prevalent scepticism,
even in the Church, of all miracles except those which it is
considered an article of faith to maintain. If we inquire how
those think who are more logical and thorough in their belief
in the supernatural, we find the distinction denied. "The
1 2 Kings xiii. 21.
" 2 Kings ii 14, c f. 8. In raising the dead child, Elisha sends his staff to be
laid on the child.
3 Mark v. 27 ff. ; cf. Luke viii. 44 ff. ; Matt. ix. 20 ff.
Matt. xiv. 36 ; cf. Luke vi. 19 ; Mark iiL 10.
s Acts v. 15. ? Ib xix I2
ABSENCE OF DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER in
question," says Newman, " has hitherto been argued on the
admission that a distinct line can be drawn in point of character
and circumstances between the miracles of Scripture and those
of Church history ; but this is by no means the case. It is true,
indeed, that the miracles of Scripture, viewed as a whole, recom-
mend themselves to our reason, and claim our veneration beyond
all others, by a peculiar dignity and beauty ; but still it is only as
a whole that they make this impression upon us. Some of them,
on the contrary, fall short of the attributes which attach to them
in general ; nay, are inferior in these respects to certain ecclesias-
tical miracles, and are received only on the credit of the system of
which they form part. Again, specimens are not wanting in the
history of the Church, of miracles as awful in their character, and
as momentous in their effects, as those which are recorded in
Scripture." 1 Now here is one able and thorough supporter of
miracles denying the enormous distinction between those of the
Gospel and those of human history, which another admits to be
essential to the former as evidence of a revelation.
Such a difficulty, however, is met by asserting that there would
be no disadvantage to the Gospel miracles, and no doubt
regarding them involved, if for some later miracles there was
evidence as strong as for those of the Gospel. " All the result
would be, that we should admit these miracles over and above
the Gospel ones." 2 The equality of the evidence, however, is
denied, in any case. " Between the evidence, then, upon which
the Gospel miracles stand, and that for later miracles, we see a
broad distinction arising, not to mention again the nature and
type of the Gospel miracles themselves from the contemporaneous
date of the testimony to them, the character of the witnesses, the
probation of the testimony ; especially when we contrast with
these points the false doctrine and audacious fraud which rose up
in later ages, and in connection with which so large a portion of
the later miracles of Christianity made their appearance." 3 We
consider the point touching the type of the Gospel miracles
disposed of, and we may, therefore, confine ourselves to the rest
of this argument. If we look for any external evidence of the
miracles of Jesus in some marked effect produced by them at the
time they are said to have occurred, we find anything but con-
firmation of the statements of the Gospels. It is a notorious fact
that, in spite of these miracles, very few of the Jews amongst
whom they were performed believed in Jesus, and that Christianity
made its chief converts not where the supposed miracles took
place, but where an account of them was alone given by
1 J. H. Newman, Two Essays on Miracles, p. 160 f.
2 Mozley, Bampton Lectures, p. 231. 3 Ib., p. 220 f.
H2 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
enthusiastic missionaries. Such astounding exhibitions of power
as raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, walking on the sea,
changing water into wine, and indefinitely multiplying a few loaves
and fishes, not only did not make any impression on the Jews
themselves, but were never heard of out of Palestine until long
after the events are said to have occurred, when the narrative
of them was slowly disseminated by Christian teachers and
writers.
Dr. Mozley refers to the contemporary testimony " for certain
great and cardinal Gospel miracles which, if granted, clears away
all antecedent objection to the reception of the rest," and he says :
"That the first promulgators of Christianity asserted as a fact
which had come under the cognizance of their senses the Resur-
rection of our Lord from the dead is as certain as anything in
history." 1 What they really did assert, so far from being certain,
must, as we shall hereafter see, be considered matter of the
greatest doubt. But if the general statement be taken that the
Resurrection, for instance, was promulgated as a fact which the
early preachers of Christianity themselves believed to have taken
place, the evidence does not in that case present the broad
distinction he asserts. The miracles recounted by St. Athanasius
and St. Augustine, for example, were likewise proclaimed with
equal clearness, and even greater promptitude and publicity, at the
very spot where many of them were said to have been performed,
and the details were much more immediately reduced to writing.
The mere assertion in neither case goes for much as evidence, but
the fact is that we have absolutely no tontemporaneous testimony
as to what the first promulgators of Christianity actually
asserted, or as to the real grounds upon which they made such
assertions. We shall presently enter upon a thorough examination
of the testimony for the Gospel narratives, their authorship and
authenticity ; but we may here be permitted so far to anticipate
as to remark that, applied to documentary evidence, any reasoning
from the contemporaneous date of the testimony, and the character
of the witnesses, is contradicted by the whole history of New
Testament literature. Whilst the most uncritically zealous assertors
of the antiquity of the Gospels never venture to date the earliest
of them within a quarter of a century from the death of Jesus,
every tyro is aware that there is not a particle of evidence of the
existence of our Gospels until very long after that interval-
hereafter we shall show how long that two of our Synoptic
Gospels, at least, were not composed in their present form
by the writers to whom they are attributed; that there is,
indeed, nothing worthy of the name of evidence that any one of
1 Bampton Lectures, p. 219.
COMPARISON OF EVIDENCE 113
these Gospels was written by the person whose name it bears;
that the second Gospel is attributed to one who was not an eye-
witness, and of whose identity there is the greatest doubt, even
amongst those who assert the authorship of Mark ; that the third
Gospel is an avowed later compilation, 1 and likewise ascribed to
one who was not a follower of Jesus himself; and that the author-
ship of the fourth Gospel and its historical character are amongst
the most unsettled questions of criticism, not to use here any more
definite terms. This being the state of the case, it is absurd to lay
such emphasis on the contemporaneous date of the testimony,
and on the character of the witnesses, since it has not even been
determined who those witnesses are, and two even of the supposed
evangelists were not personal eye-witnesses at all. 2 Surely the
testimony of Athanasius regarding the miracles of St. Anthony,
and that of Augustine regarding his list of miracles occurring in,
or close to, his own diocese within two years of the time at which
he writes, or, to refer to more recent times, the evidence of Pascal
for the Port-Royal miracles, it must be admitted, not only does not
present the broad distinction of evidence asserted, but, on the
contrary, is even more unassailable than that of the Gospel
miracles. The Church, which is the authority for those miracles,
is also the authority for the long succession of such works wrought
by the saints. The identity of the writers we have instanced has
never been doubted ; their trustworthiness in so far as stating
what they believe to be true is concerned has never been impugned ;
the same could be affirmed of writers in every age who record
such miracles. The fact is that theologians demand evidence for
later miracles which they have not for those of the Gospels, and
which transmitted reverence forbids their requiring. They strain
out a gnat and swallow a camel.
The life of sacrifice and suffering of the Apostles is pointed out
as a remarkable and peculiar testimony to the truth of the Gospel
miracles, and notably of the Resurrection and Ascension. Without
examining, here, how much we really know of those lives and
sufferings, one thing is perfectly evident : that sacrifice, suffering,
and martyrdom itself are evidence of nothing except of the
personal belief of the person enduring them ; they do not prove
the truth of the doctrines believed. No one doubts the high
religious enthusiasm of the early Christians, or the earnest and
fanatical zeal with which they courted martyrdom ; but this is no
1 Luke i. 1-4,
2 We need scarcely point out that Paul, to whom so many of the writings of
the New Testament are ascribed, and who practically is the author of eccle-
siastical Christianity, not only was not an eye-witness of the Gospel miracles,
but never even saw Jesus.
I
II4 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
exclusive characteristic of Christianity. Every religion has had
its martyrs, every error its devoted victims. Does the marvellous
endurance of the Hindoo, whose limbs wither after years of
painful persistence in vows to his Deity, prove the truth of
Brahmanism ? or do the fanatical believers who cast themselves
under the wheels of the car of Jagganath establish the soundness
of their creed ? Do the Jews, who for centuries bore the fiercest
contumely of the world, and were persecuted, hunted, and done
to death by every conceivable torture for persisting in their denial
of the truth of the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension, and
in their rejection of Jesus Christ do they thus furnish a convincing
argument for the truth of their belief and the falsity of Chris-
tianity ? Or have the thousands who have been consigned to the
stake by the Christian Church herself, for persisting in asserting
what she has denounced as damnable heresy, proved the correct-
ness of their views by their sufferings and death ? History is full
of the records of men who have honestly believed every kind of
error and heresy, and have been steadfast to the death, through
persecution and torture, in their mistaken belief. There is nothing
so inflexible as superstitious fanaticism, and persecution, instead of
extinguishing it, has invariably been the most certain means of its
propagation. The sufferings of the Apostles, therefore, cannot
prove anything beyond their own belief, and the question, what it
was they really did believe and suffer for, is by no means so
simple as it appears.
Now the long succession of ecclesiastical and other miracles
has an important bearing upon those of the New Testament,
whether we believe or deny their reality. If we regard the
miracles of Church history to be in the main real, the whole force
of the Gospel miracles, as exceptional supernatural evidence of a
Divine Revelation, is annihilated. The " miraculous credentials
of Christianity" assume a very different aspect when they are
considered from such a point of view. Admitted to be scarcely
recognisable from miracles wrought by Satanic agency, they are
seen to be a continuation of wonders recorded in the Old Testa-
ment, to be preceded and accompanied by pretension to similar
power on the part of the Jews and other nations, and to be
succeeded by cycles of miracles, in all essential respects the same,
performed subsequently for upwards of fifteen hundred years.
Supernatural evidence of so common and prodigal a nature
certainly betrays a great want of force and divine speciality. How
could that be considered as express evidence for a new Divine
revelation which was already so well known to the world, and
which is scattered broadcast over so many centuries, as well as
successfully simulated by Satan ? ,
If, on the other hand, we dismiss the miracles of later ages as
THE GOSPEL MIRACLES SINK IN THE STREAM 115
false, and as merely the creations of superstition or pious imagina-
tion, how can the miracles of the Gospel, which are precisely the
same in type, and not better established as facts, remain unshaken ?
The Apostles and Evangelists were men of like passions, and also
of like superstitions, with others of their time, and must be
measured by the same standard.
If we consider the particular part which miracles have played
in human history, we find precisely the phenomena which might
have been expected if, instead of being considered as real occur-
rences, they are recognised as the mistakes or creations of
ignorance and superstition during that period in which " reality
melted into fable, and invention unconsciously trespassed on the
province of history." Their occurrence is limited to ages which
were totally ignorant of physical laws, and they have been
numerous or rare precisely in proportion to the degree of imagina-
tion and love of the marvellous characterising the people amongst
whom they are said to have occurred. Instead of a few evidential
miracles taking place at one epoch of history, and filling the
world with surprise at such novel and exceptional phenomena, we
find miracles represented as occurring in all ages and in all
countries. The Gospel miracles are set in the midst of a series
of similar wonders, which commenced many centuries before the
dawn of Christianity and continued, without interruption, for
fifteen hundred years after it. They did not in the most remote
degree originate the belief in miracles, or give the first suggestion
of spurious imitation. It may, on the contrary, be much more
truly said that the already existing belief created these miracles.
No divine originality characterised the evidence selected to
accredit the Divine Revelation. The miracles with which the
history of the world is full occurred in ages of darkness and
superstition, and they gradually ceased when enlightenment became
more generally diffused. At the very time when knowledge of the
laws of nature began to render men capable ot judging of the reality
of miracles, these wonders entirely failed. This extraordinary
cessation of miracles, precisely at the time when their evidence
might have acquired value by an appeal to persons capable of
appreciating them, is perfectly unintelligible if they be viewed as
the supernatural credentials of a Divine revelation. If, on the
other hand, they be regarded as the mistakes of imaginative
excitement and ignorance, nothing is more natural than their
extinction at the time when the superstition which created them
gave place to knowledge.
As a historical fact, there is nothing more certain than that
miracles, and the belief in them, disappeared exactly when educa-
tion and knowledge of the operation of natural laws became
,16 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
diffused throughout Europe, and that the last traces of belief in
supernatural interference with the order of nature are only to be
found in localities where ignorance and superstition still prevail,
and render delusion or pious fraud of that description possible.
Miracles are now denied to places more enlightened than Naples
or La Salette. The inevitable inference from this fact is fatal to
the mass of miracles, and it is not possible to protect them from
it. Miracle cures by the relics of saints, upheld for fifteen
centuries by all the power of the Church, utterly failed when
medical science, increasing in spite of persecution, demonstrated
the natural action of physiological laws. The theory of the
demoniacal origin of disease has been entirely and for ever
dispelled, and the host of miracles in connection with it retro-
spectively exploded by the progress of science. Witchcraft and
sorcery, the belief in which reigned supreme for so many centuries,
are known to have been nothing but the delusions of ignorant
superstition.
Notwithstanding the facts which we have stated, it has been
argued : " Christianity is the religion of the civilised world, and it
is believed upon its miraculous evidence. Now, for a set of
miracles to be accepted in a rude age, and to retain their authority
throughout a succession of such ages, and over the ignorant and
superstitious part of mankind, may be no such great result for the
miracle to accomplish, because it is easy to satisfy those who do
not inquire. But this is not the state of the case which we have
to meet on the subject of the Christian miracles. The Christian
being the most intelligent, the civilised portion of the world, these
miracles are accepted by the Christian body as a whole, by the
thinking and educated, as well as the uneducated, part of it, and
the Gospel is believed upon that evidence." 1 The picture of
Christendom here suggested is purely imaginary. We are asked to
believe that succeeding generations of thinking and educated, as
well as uneducated, men since the commencement of the period
in which the adequate inquiry into the reality of miracles became
possible, have made that adequate inquiry, and have intelligently
and individually accepted miracles and believed the Gospel in
consequence of their attestation. The fact, however, is that
Christianity became the religion of Europe before men either
possessed the knowledge requisite to appreciate the difficulties
involved in the acceptance of miracles, or minds sufficiently freed
from ignorant superstition to question the reality of the supposed
supernatural interference with the order of nature, and belief had
become so much a matter of habit that, in our time, the
great majority of men have professed belief for no better reason
' Mozley, Hampton Lectures, p. 27.
MIRACLES DENIED BY THE EDUCATED 117
than that their fathers believed before them. Belief is now little
more than a transmitted quality or hereditary custom. Few men,
even now, have either the knowledge or trie leisure requisite to
enable them to enter upon such an examination of miracles as can
entitle them to affirm that they intelligently accept miracles for
themselves. We have shown, moreover, that so loose are the ideas
even of the clergy upon the subject that dignitaries of the Church
fail to see either the evidential purpose of miracles or the
need for evidence at all, and the first intelligent step towards
inquiry doubt has generally been stigmatised almost as a
crime.
So far from the statement which we are considering being
correct, it is notorious that the great mass of those who are
competent to examine, and who have done so, altogether reject
miracles. Instead of the "thinking and educated" men of
science accepting miracles, they, as a body, distinctly deny them,
and hence the antagonism between science and ecclesiastical
Christianity; and it is surely not necessary to point out how many
of the profoundest critics and scholars of Geftnany, and of all
other countries in Europe, who have turned their attention to
Biblical subjects, have long ago rejected the miraculous elements
of the Christian religion.
It is necessary that we should now refer to the circumstance
that all the arguments which we have hitherto considered in
support of miracles, whether to explain or account for them, have
proceeded upon an assumption of the reality of the alleged
phenomena. Had it been first requisite to establish the truth of
facts of such an astounding nature, the necessity of accounting
for them would never have arisen. It is clear, therefore, that an
assumption which permits the argument to attain any such position
begs almost the whole question. Facts, however astounding, the
actual occurrence of which had been proved, would claim a latitude
of explanation, which a mere narrative of those alleged facts, written
by an unknown person some eighteen centuries ago, could not
obtain. If, for instance, it be once established as an absolute
fact that a man actually dead, and some days buried, upon whose
body decomposition had already made some progress, 1 had been
restored to life, the fact of his death and of his subsequent
resuscitation being so absolutely proved that the possibility of
deception or of mistake on the part of the witnesses was totally
excluded, it is clear that an argument, as to whether such an
occurrence should be ascribed to known or unknown laws, would
assume a very different character from that which it would
have borne if the argument merely sought to account for so
1 Cf. John xi. 39.
n8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
astounding a phenomenon of whose actual occurrence there was
no sufficient evidence.
It must not be forgotten, therefore, that, as the late Professor
Baden Powell pointed out, " At the present day it is not a miracle,
but the narrative of a miracle, to which any argument can refer,
or to which faith is accorded." 1 The discussion of miracles, then,
is not one regarding miracles actually performed within our own
knowledge, but merely regarding miracles said to have been
performed eighteen hundred years ago, the reality of which was
not verified at the time by any scientific examination, and whose
occurrence is merely reported in the Gospels. Now, although
Paley and others rightly and logically maintain that Christianity
requires, and should be believed only upon, its miraculous
evidence, the fact is that popular Christianity is not believed
because of miracles, but miracles are accepted because they are
related in the Gospels which are supposed to contain the doctrines
of Christianity. The Gospels have for many generations been
given to the child as inspired records, and doubt of miracles has,
therefore, either rfever arisen or has been instantly suppressed,
simply because miracles are recorded in the sacred volume. It
could scarcely be otherwise, for in point of fact the Gospel
miracles stand upon no other testimony. We are therefore in
this position : We are asked to believe astounding announcements
beyond the limits of human reason, which we could only be
justified in believing upon miraculous evidence, upon the testimony
of miracles which are only reported by the records which also
alone convey the announcements which those miracles were
intended to accredit. There is no other contemporary evidence
whatever. The importance of the Gospels, therefore, as the
almost solitary testimony to the occurrence of miracles can
scarcely be exaggerated. We have already made an anticipatory
remark regarding the nature of these documents, to which we may
add that they are not the work of perfectly independent historians,
but of men who were engaged in disseminating the new doctrines,
and in saying this we have no intention of accusing the writers of
conscious deception; it is, however, necessary to state the fact
in order that the value of the testimony may be fairly estimated.
The narratives of miracles were written by ardent partisans, with
minds inflamed by religious zeal and enthusiasm, in an age of
ignorance and superstition, a considerable time after the supposed
miraculous occurrences had taken place. All history shows how
rapidly pious memory exaggerates and idealises the traditions of
the past, and simple actions might readily be transformed into
miracles, as the narratives circulated, in a period so prone to
1 Order of Nature, p. "285.
THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED 119
superstition and so characterised by love of the marvellous.
Religious excitement could not, under such circumstances and in
such an age, have escaped this exaggeration. How few men in
more enlightened times have been able soberly to appreciate, and
accurately to record, exciting experiences, where feeling and
religious emotion have been concerned. Prosaic accuracy of
observation and of language, at all times rare, are the last qualities
we could expect to find in the early ages of Christianity. In the
certain fact that disputes arose among the Apostles themselves so
shortly after the death of their great Master, we have one proof
that even amongst them there was no accurate appreciation of the
teaching of Jesus, 1 and the frequent instances of their misunder-
standing of very simple matters, and of their want of enlighten-
ment, which occur throughout the Gospels are certainty not
calculated to inspire much confidence in their intelligence and
accuracy of observation.
Now it is apparent that the evidence for miracles requires to
embrace two distinct points : the reality of the alleged facts, and
the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced
by supernatural agency. The task would even then remain of
demonstrating the particular supernatural Being by whom the
miracles were performed, which is admitted to be impossible.
We have hitherto chiefly confined ourselves to a consideration of
the antecedent credibility of such events, and of the fitness of
those who are supposed to have witnessed them to draw accurate
inferences from the alleged phenomena. Those who have formed
any adequate conception of the amount of testimony which
would be requisite in order to establish the reality of occurrences
in violation of an order of nature, which is based upon universal
and invariable experience, must recognise that, even if the
earliest asserted origin of our four Gospels could be established
upon the most irrefragable grounds, the testimony of the writers
men of like ignorance with their contemporaries, men of like passions
with ourselves would be utterly incompetent to prove the reality
of miracles. We have already sufficiently discussed this point,
more especially in connection with Hume's argument, and need
not here resume it. Every consideration, historical and philo-
sophical, has hitherto discredited the whole theory of miracles,
and further inquiry might be abandoned as unnecessary. In
order, however, to render our conclusion complete, it remains
for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be any special evidence
regarding the alleged facts entitling the Gospel miracles to
exceptional attention. If, instead of being clear and direct, the un-
doubted testimony of known eye-witnesses free from superstition,
1 E.g., Gal. ii. II ff.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly to estimate the
alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts have none
of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to miracles
and the reality of Divine revelation will be easy and conclusive.
PART II.
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
INTRODUCTION
BEFORE commencing our examination of the evidence as to the
date, authorship, and character of the Gospels, it may be well to
make a few preliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons
of criticism. We shall make no attempt to establish any theory
as to the date at which any of the Gospels was actually written,
but simply examine all the testimony which is extant, with the view
of ascertaining what is known of these works and their authors,
certainly and distinctly, as distinguished from what is merely con-
jectured or inferred. Modern opinion in an Inquiry like ours
must not be taken for ancient evidence. We propose, therefore,
as exhaustively as possible to search all the writings of the early
Church for information regarding the Gospels, and to examine
even the alleged indications of their use.
It is very important, however, that the silence of early writers
should receive as much attention as any supposed allusions to the
Gospels. When such writers, quoting largely from the Old Testa-
ment and other sources, deal with subjects which would naturally
be assisted by reference to our Gospels, and still more so by
quoting such works as authoritative; and yet we find that not only
they do not show any knowledge of those Gospels, but actually
quote passages from unknown sources, or sayings of Jesus derived
from tradition ; the inference must be that our Gospels were either
unknown or not recognised as works of authority at the time.
It is still more important that we should constantly bear in mind
that a great number of Gospels existed in the early Church which
are no longer extant, and of most of which even the names are
lost. We need not here do more than refer, in corroboration of
this remark, to the preliminary statement of the author of the third
Gospel : " Forasmuch as many (TroAAoi) took in hand to set forth in
order a declaration of the things which have been accomplished
122 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
among us," etc. 1 It is, therefore, evident that before our
third Synoptic was written many similar works were already in
circulation. Looking at the close similarity of large portions of
the three Synoptics, it is almost certain that many of the writings
here mentioned bore a close analogy to each other and to our
Gospels, and this is known to have been the case, for instance,
amongst the various forms of the " Gospel according to the
Hebrews." When, therefore, in early writings we meet with quota-
tions closely resembling, or, we may add, even identical with,
passages which are found in our Gospels, the source of which,
however, is not mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated, the
similarity, or even identity, cannot by any means be admitted as
proof that the quotation is necessarily from our Gospels, and not
from some other similar work now no longer extant, and more
especially not when, in the same writings, there are other quota-
tions from sources different from our Gospels. Whether regarded
as historical records or as writings embodying the mere tradition
of the early Christians, our Gospels cannot be recognised as the
exclusive depositories of the genuine sayings and doings of Jesus.
So far from the common possession by many works in early times
of sayings of Jesus in closely similar form being either strange or
improbable, the really remarkable phenomenon is that such
material variation in the report of the more important historical
teaching should exist amongst them. But whilst similarity to our
Gospels in passages quoted by early writers from unknown sources
cannot prove the use of our Gospels, variation from them would
suggest or prove a different origin, and, at least, it is obvious that
anonymous quotations which do not agree with our Gospels
cannot, in any case, necessarily indicate their existence. It may
be well, before proceeding further, to illustrate and justify the
canons of criticism which we have laid down by examples in our
three Synoptics themselves.
Let us for a moment suppose the " Gospel according to Luke "
to have been lost like the " Gospel according to the Hebrews,"
and so many others. In the works of one of the Fathers we
discover the following quotation from an unnamed evangelical
work: "And he said unto them (eAeyev 8e irpfc avrov?) :
The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few : pray ye
therefore the Lord of the harvest that he would send forth labourers
into his harvest. Go your ways : (vrrayerc) behold I send
you forth as lambs (fyi/as) in the midst of wolves." Apologetic
critics would probably maintain that this was a compilation from
memory of passages quoted freely from our first Gospel, that is to
say Matt. ix. 37 : " Then saith he unto his disciples (TOT*
1 Luke i. i.
CANONS OF CRITICISM 123
rots fj-a8r]TaL<s avTou) the harvest," etc., and Matt. x. 16 : " Behold
I (eyw) send you forth as sheep (irpoftara) in the midst of
wolves : be ye therefore," etc., which, with the differences which
we have indicated, agree. It would probably be in vain to argue
that the quotation indicated a continuous order, and the variations
combined to confirm the probability of a different source; and still
more so to point out that, although parts of the quotation separated
from their context might, to a certain extent, correspond with
scattered verses in the first Gospel, such a circumstance was no
proof that the quotation was taken from that and from no other
Gospel. The passage, however, is a literal quotation from Luke x.
2, 3, which, as we have assumed, had been lost.
Again, still supposing the third Gospel no longer extant, we
might find the following quotation in a work of the Fathers :
" Take heed to yourselves (lav-rots) of the leaven of the
Pharisees, which is hypocrisy (^/ns eo-riv t-Tro/c^wris). For
there is nothing covered up (o-uy/ceKaA.iju//,evov) which shall
not be revealed, and hid which shall not be known." It would, of
course, be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two
verses of our first Gospel, quoted almost literally, with merely a
few very immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note, and the
explanatory words " which is hypocrisy " introduced by the Father,
and not a part of the quotation at all. The two verses are Matt,
xvi. 6 : " Beware and (opart. KOI) take heed of the leaven of
the Pharisees and Sadducees" (KGU SaSSouKouW), and Matt.
x. 26 "For (yap) there is nothing covered (KeKaA.v/x/xevov)
that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be known." It
would probably be argued that the sentence should be divided, and
each part would then have its parallel in separate portions of the
Gospel. That such a system is mistaken is clearly established by
the fact that the quotation, instead of being such a combination,
is simply taken as it stands from the Gospel according to
Luke xii. i, 2.
To give another example, and such might easily be multiplied,
if our second Gospel had been lost and the following passage were
met with in one of the Fathers without its source being indicated,
what would be the argument of those who insist that quota-
tions, though differing from our Gospels, were yet taken from
them ? " If any one have (c? ns e'x") ears to hear, let him
hear. And he said unto them : Take heed what (TI) ye hear ;
with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you : and more
shall be given unto you. For he (os) that hath to him shall be
given, and he (KCU 6s) that hath not from him shall be taken
even that which he hath." Upon the principle on which patristic
quotations are treated, it would probably be positively affirmed
that this passage was a quotation from our first and third Gospels
124 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
combined and made from memory. The exigencies of the occasion
might probably lead to the assertion that the words, "And
he said to them," really indicated a separation of the latter
part of the quotation from the preceding, and that the Father
thus showed that the passage was not consecutive ; and as to the
phrase, " and more shall be given unto you," that it was evidently
an addition of the Father. The passage would be dissected, and
its different members compared with scattered sentences, and
declared almost literal quotations from the Canonical Gospels.
Matt. xiii. 9 : " He that hath (o Zx wv ) ears to hear, let him hear." 1
Luke viii. 18 : "Take heed, therefore, how (ovv TTWS) ye hear."
Matt. vii. 2 : " with what measure ye mete it shall be measured
to you." 2 Matt. xiii. 12: "For whosoever (OO-TIS) hath, to him
shall be given (and he shall have abundance) ; but whosoever
(oo-ris 8e) hath not from him shall betaken even that which he hath. "3
In spite of these ingenious assertions, however, the quotation in
reality is literally and consecutively taken from Mark iv. 23-25.
These examples may suffice to show that any argument which
commences by the assumption that the order of a passage quoted
may be entirely disregarded, and that it is sufficient to find
parallels scattered irregularly up and down the Gospels to warrant
the conclusion that the passage is compiled from them, and is not
a consecutive quotation from some other source, is utterly
unfounded and untenable. The supposition of a lost Gospel
which has just been made to illustrate this argument is, however,
not a mere supposition, but a fact ; for we no longer have the
Gospel according to Peter, nor that according to the Hebrews,
not to mention the numerous other works in use in the early
Church. The instances we have given show the importance of
the order, as well as the language, of quotations, and while they
prove the impossibility of demonstrating that a consecutive
passage which differs not only in language, but in order, from the
parallels in our Gospels must be derived from them, they likewise
attest the probability that such passages are actually quoted from
a different source.
If we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations
which differ merely in language, we arrive at the very same con-
clusion. Supposing the third Gospel to be lost, what would be
the source assigned to the following quotation from an unnamed
Gospel in the work of one of the Fathers ? " No servant (oi'Seis
oi/cTj;s) can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one
and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise
the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." Of course the
' Cf. Matt. xi. 15 ; Lulje viii. 8.
Cf. Luke vi. 38. 3 Cf. Matt. xxv. 29 ; Luke viii. 18, xix. 26.
CANONS OF CRITICISM 125
passage would be claimed as a quotation from memory of Matt.
vi. 24, with which it perfectly corresponds, with the exception of
the addition of the second word OIKC-T^S, which, it would no
doubt be argued, is an evident and very natural amplification of
the simple ov8el<s of the first Gospel. Yet this passage, only
differing by the single word from Matthew, is a literal quotation
from the Gospel according to Luke xvi. 13. Or, to take another
instance, supposing the third Gospel to be lost, and the following
passage quoted, from an unnamed source, by one of the Fathers :
"Beware (Trpoo-exere) of the Scribes which desire to walk in
long robes, and love (<iAoiWwv) greetings in the markets, and
chief seats in the synagogues and uppermost places at feasts
which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long
prayers : these shall receive greater damnation." This would,
without hesitation, be declared a quotation from memory of Mark
xii. 38-40: " Beware (/^A-en-ere) of the Scribes which desire
to walk in long robes and greetings in the markets, and chief seats
in the synagogues and uppermost places at feasts ; which devour
widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers : these shall
receive," etc. It is, however, a literal quotation of Luke xx. 46,
47 ; yet, probably, it would be in vain to submit to apologetic
critics that the passage was not derived from Mark, but
from a lost Gospel. To quote one more instance, let us
suppose the " Gospel according to Mark " no longer extant,
and that in some early work there existed the following
quotation : " It is easier for a camel to go through the eye
(rpv/zaXias) of a needle than for a rich man to enter into
the Kingdom of God." This would, of course, be claimed as a
quotation from memory of Matt. xix. 24, 1 with which it agrees,
with the exception of the substitution of Tpi^/xaros for the
Tpu/xaAtas. It would not the less have been an exact quotation
from Mark x. 2$. 2
The actual agreement of any saying of Jesus, quoted by one of
the early Fathers from an unnamed source, with a passage in our
Gospels is by no means conclusive evidence that the quotation
was actually derived from that Gospel. It must be apparent that
1 Cf. Luke xviii. 25.
2 For further instances compare
Luke xiv. n with Matt, xxiii. 12 and Luke xviii. 14.
,, xvii. 37 ,, xxiv. 28.
,, vi. 41
Mark vi. 4
,, viii. 34
Matt, xviii. 1 1
,, xxiv. 37
,, vn. 3.
,, xiii. 57.
Luke ix. 23.
,, xix. 10.
xiii. 34
xxiv. 34-36 with Mark xiii. 30-32 and Luke xxi. 32-33.
,26 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
literal agreement in reporting short and important sayings is not
in itself so surprising as to constitute proof that, occurring in two
histories, the one must have copied from the other. The only
thing which is surprising is that such frequent inaccuracy should
exist. When we add, however, the fact that most of the larger
early evangelical works, including our Synoptic Gospels, must
have been compiled out of the same original sources, and have
been largely indebted to each other, the common possession of
such sayings becomes a matter of natural occurrence. Moreover,
it must be admitted even by apologetic critics that, in a case of
such vast importance as the report of Sayings of Jesus, upon the
verbal accuracy of which the most essential doctrines of Chris-
tianity depend, it cannot be a wonder, to the extent of proving
plagiarism so to say, if various Gospels report the same saying of
Jesus in the same words. Practically the Synoptic Gospels differ
in their reports a great deal more than is right or desirable ; but
we may take them as an illustration of the fact that identity of
passages, where the source is unnamed, by no means proves that
such passages in a work of the early Fathers were derived from
one Gospel, and not from any other. Let us suppose our first
Gospel to have been lost, and the following quotation from an
unnamed source to be found in an early work : " Every tree that
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the
fire." This, being in literal agreement with Luke iii. 9, would
certainly be declared by modern apologists conclusive proof that
the Father was acquainted with that Gospel ; and although the
context in the work of the Father might, for instance, be : " Ye
shall know them from their works, and every tree," etc., and
yet, in the third Gospel, the context is : " And now also, the axe
is laid unto the root of the trees : and every tree," etc., that would
by no means give them pause. The explanation of combination
of texts, and quotation from memory, is sufficiently elastic for
every emergency. Now, the words in question might in reality
be a quotation from the lost Gospel according to Matthew, in
which they twice occur ; so that here is a passage which is literally
repeated three times Matt. iii. 10, vii. 19, and Luke iii. 9.
In Matt. iii. 10, and in the third Gospel, the words are part of
a saying of John the Baptist ; whilst in Matt. vii. 19 they are
given as part of the Sermon on the Mount, with a different
context.
Another illustration of this may be given, by supposing the
Gospel of Luke to be no longer extant, and the following sentence
in one of the Fathers : " And ye shall be hated by all men, for
my name's sake." These very words occur both in Matt. x. 22
and Mark xiii. 13, in both of which places there follow the words :
"but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."
CANONS OF CRITICISM 127
There might here have been a doubt as to whether the Father derived
the words from the first or second Gospel, but they would have
been ascribed either to the one or to the other, whilst in reality
they were taken from a different work altogether Luke xxi. 17.
Here again we have the same words in three Gospels. In how
many more of them may not the same passage have been found ?
One more instance to conclude. The following passage might be
quoted from an unnamed source by one of the Fathers : " Heaven
and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." If
the Gospel according to Mark were no longer extant, this would
be claimed as a quotation either from Matt. xxiv. 35 or Luke
xxi. 33, in both of which it occurs ; but, notwithstanding, the
Father might not have been acquainted with either of them, and
simply have quoted from Mark xiii. 3I. 1 And here again the
three Gospels contain the same passage without variation.
Now, in all these cases not only is the selection of the Gospel
from which the quotation was actually taken completely an open
question, since they all have it, but still more is the point
uncertain, when it is considered that many other works may also
have contained it, historical sayings being naturally common
property. Does the agreement of the quotation with a passage
which is equally found in the three Gospels prove the existence of
all of them ? and if not, how is the Gospel from which it was
actually taken to be distinguished ? If it be difficult to do so,
how much more when the possibility and probability, demonstrated
by the agreement of the three extant, that it might have formed
part of a dozen other works is taken into account.
It is unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from
apostolic times without positive evidence of the existence and
authenticity of our Gospels, so does the value of their testimony
dwindle away. Indeed, requiring as we do clear, direct, and irre-
fragable evidence of the integrity, authenticity, and historical
character of these Gospels, doubt or obscurity on these points
must inevitably be fatal to them as sufficient testimony if they
could, under any circumstances, be considered sufficient testimony
for miracles and a direct Divine revelation like ecclesiastical
Christianity.
We propose to examine, first, the evidence for the three
Synoptics, and then, separately, the testimony regarding the fourth
Gospel.
1 Cf. Matt. vii. 7-8 with Luke xi. 9-10 ; Matt. xi. 25 with Luke x. 21.
CHAPTER I.
CLEMENT OF ROME THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
THE PASTOR OF HERMAS
THE first work which presents itself for examination is the so-
called first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, which, together
with a second Epistle to the same community, likewise attributed
to Clement, is preserved to us in the Codex Alexandrinus, a MS.
assigned by the most competent judges to the second half of the
fifth or beginning of the sixth century, in which these Epistles
follow the books of the New Testament. The second Epistle,
which is evidently not epistolary, but the fragment of a Homily,
although it thus shares with the first the honour of a canonical
position in one of the most ancient codices of the New Testa-
ment, is not mentioned at all by the. earlier Fathers who refer to
the first ;' and Eusebius, who is the first writer who mentions it,
expresses doubt regarding it, while Jerome and Photius state that
it was rejected by the ancients. It is now universally regarded as
spurious, and dated about the end of the second century, or
later. We shall hereafter see that many other pseudographs
were circulated in the name of Clement, to which, however, we
need not further allude at present.
There has been much controversy as to the identity of the
Clement to whom the first Epistle is attributed. In early days he
was supposed to be the Clement mentioned in the Epistle to the
Philippians (iv. 3), 2 but ' this is now generally doubted or
denied, and the authenticity of the Epistle has, indeed, been
called in question both by earlier and later critics. It is unneces-
sary to detail the various traditions regarding the supposed writer,
but we must point out that the Epistle itself makes no mention of
the author's name. It merely purports to be addressed by " The
Church of God which sojourns at Rome to the Church of God
sojourning at Corinth " ; but in the Codex Alexandrinus the title
of " The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians " is added at
1 Dionysius, Cor. in Euseb., H. ., iv. 23; Irenaeus, Adv. Ha>r., Hi. 3;
Clemens AL, Stroniata, iv. 17, 107, i. 7, 38, v. 12, 81, vi. 8, 65 ;
Ongen, De Prindp., ii. 3, 6; in Ezech. 8; Epiphanius, Ha>r., xxvii. 6.
Cf. Cyril, Hieros., Catech., xviii. 8.
3 Ensebius, ff.E., UL 15, 16 ; Hieron., de Vir. III., 15 ; Photius, Bibl. Cod.
128
CLEMENT OF ROME 129
the end. Clement of Alexandria calls the supposed writer the
"Apostle Clement "; J Origen reports that many also ascribed to
him the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; 2 and Photius
mentions that he was likewise said to be the writer of the Acts of
the Apostles. 3 We know that, until a comparatively late date, this
Epistle was quoted as Holy Scripture, * and was publicly read in
the churches at the Sunday meetings of Christians. s It has, as
we have seen, a place amongst the canonical books of the New
Testament in the Codex Alexandrinus, but it did not long retain
that position in the canon, for, although in the Apostolic Canons 6
of the sixth or seventh century both Epistles appear, yet in the
Stichometry of Nicephorus, a work of the ninth century, derived,
however, as Credner? has demonstrated, from a Syrian catalogue
of the fifth century, both Epistles are classed among the
Apocrypha. 8
Great uncertainty prevails as to the date at which the Epistle
was written. Reference is supposed to be made to it by the so-
called Epistle of Polycarp, but, owing to the probable inauthenti-
city of that work itself, no weight can be attached to this circum-
stance. The first certain reference to it is by Hegesippus, in the
second half of the second century, mentioned by Eusebius. 9
Dionysius of Corinth, in a letter ascribed to him, addressed to
Soter, Bishop of Rome, is the first who distinctly mentions the
name of Clement as the author of the Epistle. 10 There is some
difference of opinion as to the order of his succession to the
Bishopric of Rome. Irenaeus 11 and Eusebius 12 say that he followed
Anacletus, and the latter adds the date of the twelfth year of the
reign of Domitian (A.D. 91-92), and that he died nine years after,
in the third year of Trajan's reign (A.D. too). 13 Internal evidence 14
shows that the Epistle was written after some persecution of the
Roman Church, and the selection lies between the persecution
under Nero, which would suggest the date A.D. 64-70, or that
under Domitian, which would assign the letter to the end of the
first century, or to the beginning of the second. Those who
adhere to the view that the Clement mentioned in the Epistle to
the Philippians is the author maintain that the Epistle was
written under Nero. One of their principal arguments for this
I Strom, iv. 17, 107. 2 Eusebius, H.E., vi. 25.
3 Qucest. AmphiL, Gallandi, Bibl. /tar. ,1765, xiii., p. 722.
4 Irenseus, Adv. Jftzr.yiv. 3 ; Clemens Al. , Strom., I.e.
5 Dion., Cor. in Euseb. H. E., iv. 23, iii. 16 ; Epiphanius, Har., xxx. 15 ;
Ilieron., de Vir. III., 15.
6 Can. 76 (85). 7 Zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1847, p. 97 ff.
8 Credner, ib., p. 122. 9 H. E., iii. 16, iv. 22. 10 Euseb., H. E., iv. 23.
II Adv. ff&r., iii. 3, 3 ; Euseb., ff. E., v. 6.
12 H. E., iii. 15, cf. 4. '3 H. E., iii. 15, 34. I4 Ch. i.
K
I 3 o SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
conclusion is a remark occurring in chapter xli.: " Not everywhere,
brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered up, or the votive offerings,
or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but only in
Jerusalem. But even there they are not offered in every place,
but only at the altar before the Sanctuary, examination of the
sacrifice offered being first made by the High Priest and the
ministers already mentioned." From this it is concluded that the
Epistle was written before the destruction of the Temple. It has,
however, been shown that Josephus, 1 the author of the " Epistle to
Diognetus " (c. 3), and others, long after the Jewish worship of the
Temple was at an end, continually speak in the present tense of
the Temple worship in Jerusalem ; and it is evident, as Cotelier
long ago remarked, that this may be done with propriety even in
the present day. The argument is therefore recognised to be
without value. Tischendorf, who systematically adopts the earliest
possible or impossible dates for all the writings of the first two
centuries, decides, without stating his reasons, that the grounds for
the earlier date, about A.D. 69, as well as for the episcopate of
Clement from A.D. 68-77, 2 are conclusive ; but he betrays his more
correct impression by classing Clement, in his index, along with
Ignatius and Polycarp as representatives of the period, " First and
second quarters of the second century ";3 and in the Prolegomena
to his New Testament he dates the episcopate of Clement " ab
anno 92 usque 102."* The earlier episcopate assigned to him by
Hefele upon most insufficient grounds is contradicted by the
direct statements of Irseneus, Eusebius, Jerome, and others who
give the earliest lists of Roman Bishops, s as well as by the internal
evidence of the Epistle itself. In chapter xliv. the writer speaks
of those appointed by the apostles to the oversight of the Church,
" or afterwards by other notable men, the whole Church consenting
who have for a long time been commended by all, etc.,"
which indicates successions of Bishops since apostolic days. In
another place (chap, xlvii.) he refers the Corinthians to the Epistle
addressed to them by Paul " in the beginning of the Gospel," and
speaks of "the most stedfast and ancient Church of the
Corinthians," which would be absurd in an Epistle written about
A.D. 69. Moreover, an advanced episcopal form of Church
government is indicated throughout the letter, which is quite
1 Antig., iii. 6, 12 ; Contra Apiou., i. 7, ii. 23.
* He refers in a note particularly to Hefele, Pair. Ap., 1855, p. 33 ff.
" Erstes und zweites Viertel des 2 Jahrh. Clemens v. Rom. Ignatius und
Polycarp." Wann wurden uns. Evangelien verfasst? 4th Aufl., 1866, p. 20,
cf. Uebersicht des Inhalts.
* Nov. Test. Graece, Lips. Sumpt. Ad. Winter, Ed. septima Crit. min.
Proug., p. cxxix.
5 Cf. Lipsius, Chronologic der rom. Bischofe,*i86g.
CLEMENT OF ROME 131
inconsistent with such a date. The great mass of critics, therefore,
have decided against the earlier date of the episcopate of Clement,
and assign the composition of the Epistle to the end of the first
century (A.D. 95-100). Others, however, date it still later. There
is no doubt that the great number of Epistles and other writings
falsely circulated in the name of Clement may well excite
suspicion as to the authenticity of this Epistle also, which is far
from unsupported by internal proofs. Of these, however, we shall
only mention one. We have already incidentally remarked that
the writer mentions the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, the
only instance in which any New Testament writing is referred to
by name ; but along with the Epistle of the " blessed Paul " the
author also speaks of the " blessed Judith," and this leads to the
inquiry : When was the Book of Judith written ? Hitzig, Volkmar,
and others, contend that it must be dated A.D. n 7-118,' and if
this be admitted, it follows, of course, that an Epistle which
already shows acquaintance with the Book of Judith cannot have
been written before A.D. 120-125 at the earliest, which many, for
this and other reasons, affirm to be the case with the Epistle of
pseudo-Clement. Whatever date be assigned to it, however, it is
probable that the Epistle is interpolated, although it must be
added that this is not the view of the majority of critics.
It is important to ascertain whether or not this ancient Chris-
tian Epistle affords any evidence of the existence of our Synoptic
Gospels at the time when it was written. Tischendorf, who is
ever ready to claim the slightest resemblance in language as a
reference to New Testament writings, states that, although this
Epistle is rich in quotations from the Old Testament, and that
Clement here and there also makes use of passages from Pauline
Epistles, he nowhere refers to the Gospels. 2 This is perfectly
true, but several passages occur in this Epistle which are either
quotations from Evangelical works different from ours, or derived
from tradition, and in either case they have a very important bear-
ing upon our inquiry.
The first of these passages occurs in ch. xiii., and for greater
facility of comparison we shall at once place it both in the Greek
and in translation, in juxta-position with the nearest parallel
readings in our Synoptic Gospels ; and, as far as may be, we shall
in the English version indicate differences existing in the original
texts. The passage is introduced thus : " Especially remembering
1 Hitzig, Zur Kritik d. apokr. Biicher d. A. T., Zeitschr. f. -wiss. TheoL,
1860, p. 240 ff. ; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1856, p. 362 ff., 1857, p. 441 ff.
H'buch. Einl. in d. Apokr., 1860, i. p. 268; Baur, Lehrb. chr. Dogmen-
geschichte, 1858, p. 82 anm. ; Groetz, Gesch. d. Judenvom Unterg. d. jiid.
Staates u. s. w., 1866, p. 132 ff.
2 " Aber nirgends aitfdie Evangelien." Wann wurden u. s. TV., p. 20 f.
'32
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spake teaching gentle-
ness and long-suffering. For thus he said " :
El'ISTJ.E, XIII.
(o) Be pitiful, that ye
may be pitied ;
MATTHEW.
v. 7. Blessed are the
they shall
pitiful, for
obtain pity.
() forgive, that it may vi. 14. For if ye for-
be forgiven to you ; give men their tres-
passes, &c.
(y) as ye do, so shall
it be done to you ;
vii. 12. Therefore all
things whatsoever ye
would that men should
do to you, do ye even so
to them.
vii. 2. For with what
(8) as ye give, so shall
it be given to you ;
(e) as ye judge, so
shall it be judged to you ; judgment ye judge, ye
(f) as ye show kind-
ness shall kindness be
shown to you ;
(17) with what mea-
sure ye mete, with the
same shall it be mea-
sured to you.
LUKE.
vi. 36. Be ye there-
fore merciful, as your
Father also is merciful.
vi. 37 pardon' and
ye shall be pardoned,
vi. 31. And as ye
would that men should
do to you, do ye also to
them likewise.
vi. 38 give, and it
shall be given to you.
vi. 37. Judge not, and
ye shall not be judged,
shall be judged,
and
with what measure ye vi. 38. For with the
mete, it shall be mea- j same measure that ye
sured to you.
(a) 'EXeare, Iva eXey- 1 v. 7 Ma/tdpiot oi e'Xej;-
OrfTf.
() d0fcre, iva d#e0?f
VfllV.
(y) u>s
otfrw
(5) ws 5t8ore, ourws
iifi.lv.
/aoves, OTL avrol i\erf-
Orjffovrai.
vi. 14 'Edv yap a
rots dv0pa>7rots ra wap-
aimbfiaTa avr&v, K.T.\.
vii. 12 lld^ra ovv off a
av
Iva. iroi&ffiv
mete withal, it shall be
j measured to you again.
vi. 36 yivfffOe ovv
olKTlpfLOVes, K.T.\.
vi. 37 d^roXilere, Kal
diro\v6ri<Tfff()e.
vi. 31 Kal Kadus 0e'Xere
v/MV ol fyOpuirot, OVTUS
Kal vjieis irotetre avrois.
() <! Kplvere, oOrwj vii. 2 tv $ yap Kpi/j.ari
iva
vp.v
Trotetre airrots 6/u.otajs.
vi. 38 SiSore,
VfUV.
(f)
VfUV.
?) V
CLVTIf
4v
fie-
vfilv.
i. 37 Kttl
vi. 38
KplVtTf
r(f5 yap avrijj
fifrpeire dfTi-
rai vjj.lv.
We use this word not as the best equivalent of dwoXriere, but merely to
indicate to readers unacquainted with Greek the use of a different word from
the d<prjre of the first Gospel, and from the d^/ere of the Epistle ; and this
system we shall adopt as much as possible throughout.
3 Cf. Mark iv. 24. Cf. Horn. Clem, xviii. 16,
CLEMENT OF ROME 133
Of course, it is understood that, although for convenience of
comparison we have broken up this quotation into these phrases,
it is quite continuous in the Epistle. It must be evident to
anyone who carefully examines the parallel passages that "the
words of the Lord Jesus " in the Epistle cannot have been
derived from our Gospels. Not only is there no similar con-
secutive discourse in them, but the scattered phrases which are
pointed out as presenting superficial similarity with the quotation
are markedly different both in thought and language. In it, as in
the "beatitudes" of the "Sermon on the Mount" in the first
Gospel, the construction is peculiar and continuous : " Do this ......
in order that (iva) ...... "; or, "As (o>s) ye do ...... so (OVTWS) ...... "
The theory of a combination of passages from memory, which
is usually advanced to explain such quotations, cannot serve here,
for thoughts and expressions occur in the passage in the Epistle
which have no parallel at all in our Gospels, and such dismem-
bered phrases as can be collected from our first and third Synoptics,
for comparison with it, follow the course of the quotation in the
ensuing order: Matt. v. 7, vi. 14, part of vii. 12, phrase without
parallel, first part of vii. 2, phrase without parallel, last part of
vii. 2 ; or Luke vi. 36, last phrase of vi. 37, vi. 31, first phrase of
vi. 38, first phrase of vi. 37, phrase without parallel, last phrase
of vi. 38.
The only question with regard to this passage, therefore, is
whether the writer quotes from an unknown written source or
from tradition. He certainly merely professes to repeat " words
of the Lord Jesus," and does not definitely indicate a written
record ; but it is much more probable, from the context, that he
quotes from a gospel now no longer extant than that he derives
this teaching from oral tradition. He introduces the quotation not
only with a remark implying a well-known record : " Remembering
the words of the Lord Jesus which he spake, teaching," etc.; but
he reiterates : " For thus he said," in a way suggesting careful and
precise quotation of the very words ; and he adds at the end :
" By this injunction and by these instructions let us establish our-
selves, that we may walk in obedience to his holy words, thinking
humbly of ourselves." 1 It seems improbable that the writer
would so markedly have indicated a precise quotation of words of
Jesus, and would so emphatically have commended them as the
rule of life to the Corinthians, had these precepts been mere
floating tradition, until then unstamped with written permanence.
The phrase, "As ye show kindness (xp/^Tevco-fe)," etc., which is
1 Tai/rr; TT; tvroXrj Kal rois TrapayytXfjiaffi TOVTOIS ffTijpit.uiJ.ev eavroi/s eis TO
TTOpeveaQa-i inrriK6ovs 5vTas ro?s ayioirpetrtcri \6yois avrov, TaTretvo<ppoi>ovt>Tes.
c. xiii.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
nowhere found in our Gospels, recalls an expression quoted by-
Justin Martyr, apparently from a Gospel different from ours, and
frequently repeated by him in the same form : " Be ye kind and
merciful (xpijo-Tol KOI oiKTt/afioves) as your Father also is kind
(XP>?O-TOS) and merciful." 1 In the very next chapter of the Epistle a
similar reference again occurs : " Let us be kind to each other
(x/>J/o-Tuo-w/x0a avrois), according to the mercy and benignity
of our Creator." 2 Without, however, going more minutely into
this question, it is certain, from its essential variations in language,
thought, and order, that the passage in the Epistle cannot be
claimed as a compilation from our Gospels ; and we shall pre-
sently see that some of the expressions in it which are foreign to
our Gospels are elsewhere quoted by other Fathers, and there is
reason to believe that these " words of the Lord Jesus " were not
derived from tradition, but from a written source different from
our Gospels. When the great difference which exists between the
parallel passages in the first and third Synoptics, and still more
between these and the second, is considered, it is easy to under-
stand that other Gospels may have contained a version differing
as much from them as they do from each other.
We likewise subjoin the next passage to which we must refer
with the nearest parallels in our Synoptics. We may explain that
the writer of the Epistle is rebuking the Corinthians for strifes
and divisions amongst them, and for forgetting that they "are
members one of another," and he continues (c. xlvi.) : " Remember
the words of our Lord Jesus ; for he said : "
EPISTLE, XLVI.
Woe to that man ;
(it were) well for him if
he had not been born
(rather) than that he
should offend one of my
elect ;
it were) better for
him (that) a millstone
should be attached (to
him) and he should be
drowned in the sea,
(rather) than that he
should pervert one of my
elect.
MATTHEW.
xxvi. 24. Woe to
that man by whom
the Son of Man is
delivered up ; (it were)
well for him if that
man had not been
born.
xviii. 6. But whoso
shall offend one of
these little ones which
believe in me, it were
profitable for him that
a great millstone were
suspended upon his
neck, and that he were
drowned in the depth
of the sea.
LUKE.
xvii. I... but woe...
through whom they
(offences) come.
xvii. 2. It were ad-
vantageous for him
that a great millstone
were hanged about his
neck, and he cast in
the sea, (rather) than that
he offend one of these
little ones.
Mark xiv. 21 but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is delivered
1 Af>oL, i. 15, and again twice in Dial.
CLEMENT OF ROME
135
up, (it were) well for him if that man had not been born ix. 42. And
whosoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it is well
for him rather that a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he thrown
in the sea.
EPISTLE, XLVI.
Oval r dvdpunrif)
MATTHEW.
xxvi. 24 oval de T<f
'dpil}ir(f) ^Keivifi dl o5 6
TOV dvdp&irov jrapa-
Ka\bv
f-y(VVJ]t)r)
avry el OVK
?) eva T&V eKMKT&r /JLOV
tTKavSaXlcrai-
tcpeiTTOV T)v
drfvai /M'>\OV,
vepi-
eis ryv OdXacrcrav,
r) Hva r(av eK\eKT&v /j,ov
Siaarpe'ij/ai.
Ka\6v fjv avTif ei OVK
eyevvridrj 6 avOpwTros
^/ceTvos. XVIII. 6 8s S'av
ffKav8a\la"ri va T&V
fUKp&V TOVTdJV TUIV
iriffTevbvTbjv eh (*,
XVII. 2
ffv/j,(pepei avrf 'tva ' \vffiTe\ei
Kpe/j,a<r6rj /ui'Xos 6vi.Kos fJ,v\os 6viK&
Trepl Tbv TpdxTJ\ov avTOv '' Trepl TOV Tp
Kal KaTairovTiffOrj
/cat eppiTTT
XL
LUKE.
XVII. I oval dt Si
(rd ffKavdaX
TTJS
e/y TT)V OdXacrffav, 7) 'iva
ffKavSa\t<rj] %va 3 r&v
/J.IKP&V TOVTWV.
This quotation is clearly not from our Gospels, but must be
assigned to a different written source. The writer would scarcely
refer the Corinthians to such words of Jesus if they were merely
traditional. It is neither a combination of texts nor a quotation
from memory. The language throughout is markedly different
from any passage in the Synoptics, and to present even a super-
ficial parallel it is necessary to take a fragment of the discourse of
Jesus at the Last Supper regarding the traitor who should deliver
him up (Matt. xxvi. 24), and join it to a fragment of his remarks
in connection with the little child whom he set in the midst
(xviii. 6). The parallel passage in Luke has not the opening
words of the passage in the Epistle at all, and the portion which
it contains (xvii. 2) is separated from the context in which it
stands in the first Gospel, and which explains its meaning. If we
contrast the parallel passages in the three Synoptics, their differ-
ences of context are very suggestive ; and, without referring to
their numerous and important variations in detail, the confusion
amongst them is evidence of very varying tradition. * This alone
would make the existence of another form like that quoted in the
Epistle before us more than probable.
Tischendorf, in a note to his statement that Clement nowhere
1 The Cod. Sin. and Cod. D. (Bezse), insert 7r\V before ovat.
2 Cod. Sin. and D. read Xi0os fj.v\iKos instead of fj.v\os.
3 The Vatican (B. ) and Sinaitic, as well as most of the other Codices, put
eva at the end of the phrase.
4 Cf. Matt, xviii. 1-8 ; Mark ix. 33-43 ; Luke ix. 46-48, 49-50, xvii. 1-3.
136 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
refers to the Gospels, quotes the passage we are now considering,
the only one to which he alludes, and says : "These words are
expressly cited as ' words of Jesus our Lord,' but they denote
much more oral apostolic tradition than a use of the parallel
passages in Matt. (xxvi. 24 ; xviii. "6) and Luke (xvii. 2)." 1 It is
now, of course, impossible to determine finally whether the passage
was actually derived from tradition or from a written source different
from our Gospels ; but, in either case, the fact is that the Epistle
not only does not afford the slightest evidence for the existence of
any of our Gospels, but, from only making use of tradition or an
apocryphal work as the source of information regarding words of
Jesus, it is decidedly opposed to the pretensions made on behalf
of the Synoptics.
Before passing on, we may, in the briefest way possible, refer to
one or two other passages, with the view of further illustrating the
character of the quotations in this Epistle. There are many
passages cited which are not found in the Old Testament, and
others which have no parallels in the New. At the beginning of
the very chapter in which the words which we have just been con-
sidering occur there is the following quotation : " It is written :
Cleave to the holy, for they who cleave to them shall be made
holy," 2 the source of which is unknown. In a previous chapter
the writer says : " And our Apostles knew, through our Lord
Jesus Christ, that there will be contention regarding the name
(ovofutTO'i, office, dignity) of the episcopate."3 What was the
writer's authority for this statement ? We find Justin Martyr
quoting, as an express prediction of Jesus : " There shall be
schisms and heresies, " which is not contained in our Gospels,
but evidently derived from an uncanonical source a fact rendered
more apparent by the occurrence of a similar passage in the
Clementine Homilies, still more closely bearing upon our Epistle :
" For there shall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets,
heresies, desires for supremacy. "s Hegesippus also speaks in a
similar way : " From these came the false Christs, false prophets,
false apostles who divided the unity of the Church." 6 As
Wann ivnrden, u. s. w., p. 21, anm. 2. Cf. Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers,
n. Clement of A'ome, 1890, p. 141.
3 I tyairTai ydp- " KoXXacr&f TO?S aylois, art ol KoXXw/j.fi'ot aiVotj ayiaffB-fiffovrai.
c. xlvi., cf. c. xxx. A similar expression occurs in Clement of Alexandria.
Strom. v. 8, S 53.
3 Kal oi &Tr6ffToXot w&v tyvwav 5td TOV Kvplov T)fj.uv 'Iri<rov XptffTou, on (pis
tffToi tft TOV 6v6/j.a.Tos TTJJ tiriffKoirrjs. C. xliv. , cf. xlv. , xlvi.
4 "Effovrai ffxiffnara Kal alptfftts. Dial. c. Tryph. 35, cf. 51.
Jwovrcu yip, ws 6 Kiptos eZ, ^vSairdffroXoi, tevSfis wpotprjrai, alpt<T(i<;,
jiXapXiai- Clem. Hon,. t xvi. 21 ; cf. Comtit. Apost., vi. 13 ; Clem. Recog.,
iv. 34.
, ^fvSatroffroXoi, oirivts
TIJS tKK\i,ffla<:, K, T. X. Eusebius, H. ., iv. 22.
TFIE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 137
Hegesippus, and in all probability Justin Martyr and the author
of the Clementines, made use of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, or to Peter, it is probable that these Gospels con-
tained passages to which the words of the Epistle may refer. 1
It may be well to point out that the author also cites a passage
from the fourth Book of Ezra, ii. 16 : 2 "And I shall remember
the good day, and I shall raise you from your tombs." 3 Ezra
reads : " Et restiscitabo mortuos de locis suis et de monumentis
educam illos" etc. The first part of the quotation in the Epistle,
of which we have only given the latter clause above, is taken from
Isaiah xxvi. 20 ; but there can be no doubt that the above is from
this apocryphal book, which, as we shall see, was much used in
the early Church.
We now turn to the so-called " Epistle of Barnabas," another
interesting relic of the early Church, many points in whose history
have considerable analogy with that of the Epistle of pseudo-
Clement. The letter itself bears no author's name, is not dated
from any place, and is not addressed to any special community.
Towards the end of the second century, however, tradition began
to ascribe it to Barnabas, the companion of Paul. 4 The first
writer who mentions it is Clement of Alexandria, who calls its
author several times the " Apostle Barnabas "; 5 and Eusebius says
that he gave an account of it in one of his works now no longer
extant. 6 Origen also refers to it, calling it a " Catholic Epistle,"
and quoting it as Scripture.? We have already seen in the case of
the Epistles ascribed to Clement of Rome and, as we proceed,
we shall become only too familiar with the fact the singular
facility with which, in the total absence of critical discrimination,
spurious writings were ascribed by the Fathers to Apostles and
their followers. In many cases such writings were deliberately
inscribed with names well known in the Church ; but both in the
case of the two Epistles to the Corinthians and the letter we are
now considering no such pious fraud was attempted, nor was it
necessary. Credulous piety, which attributed writings to every
Apostle, and even to Jesus himself, soon found authors for each
anonymous work of an edifying character. To Barnabas, the
1 See other instances in chapters xvii. , xxiii., xxvi., xxvii. , xxx. , xlii.,
xlvii. , etc.
2 2 Esdras of the English authorised Apocrypha.
3 /cat /J.v7jcrd-ficrofji.ai r//afyas ayaOrjs, /cai avaffT-rjaw i/yuas K TUV OrjKCiv vfiwv. c. L.
4 Acts iv. 36, xi. 22 f. , 30, xii. 25, etc.
5 Stromata ii., 6, 31, 7, 35, 20, 116, v. 10, 64, cf. 15, 67, 18, 84,
v. 52.
6 ff. ., vi. 14, cf. J3.
7 ytypaTrrai 5?j v ry BapvAfia KaOoXiKy tiriaroXri, K. r. \. Contra Cels. , i. 63,
cf. De Princip., iii. 2, 4.
138 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
friend of Paul, not only this Epistle was referred, but he was also
reported by Tertullian and others to be the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews ;' and an apocryphal " Gospel according to
Barnabas," said to have had close affinity with our first Synoptic, is
condemned, along with many others, in the decretal of Gelasius. 2
Eusebius, however, classes the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas"
amongst the spurious books (ev rots voflots), 3 and elsewhere also
speaks of it as uncanonical.4 Jerome mentions it as read amongst
apocryphal writings. 5 Had the Epistle been seriously regarded as
a work of the " Apostle " Barnabas, it could scarcely have failed
to attain canonical rank. That it was highly valued by the early
Church is shown by the fact that it stands, along with the Shepherd
of Hermas, after the canonical books of the New Testament in
the Codex Sinaiticus, which is probably the most ancient MS. of
them now known. In the earlier days of criticism some writers,
without much question, adopted the traditional view as to the
authorship of the Epistle ; but the great mass of critics are now
agreed in asserting that the composition, which itself is perfectly
anonymous, cannot be attributed to Barnabas, the friend and
fellow- worker of Paul. Those who maintain the former opinion
date the Epistle about A.D. 70-73, or even earlier; but this is
scarcely the view of any living critic. There are many indications
in the Epistle which render such a date impossible ; but we do
not propose to go into the argument minutely, for it is generally
admitted that, whilst there is a clear limit further back than which
the Epistle cannot be set, there is little or no certainty how far
into the second century its composition may not reasonably be
advanced. Critics are divided upon the point ; a few are disposed
to date the Epistle about the end of the first or beginning of the
second century, while a still greater number assign it to the reign
of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138); and others, not without reason,
consider that it exhibits .marks of a still later period. It is
probable that it is more or less interpolated. Until the discovery
of the Sinaitic MS. a portion of the " Epistle of Barnabas " was
only known through an ancient Latin version, the first four and a
half chapters of the Greek having been lost. The Greek text,
1 De Pudif., 20; Hieron., De vir. ill. 5. Many modern writers have
supported the tradition. Cf. Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 175 ff. ;
Thiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 199 ff. ; Ullmann, Theol. Stud. u.
Ant., 1828, p. 377 ft. ; Wieseler, Unters. iib. d. Hebrderbrief, 1861, i., p.
3 Decretum de Hbris redpiendis et non recipiendis, in Credner, Zur Gesch.
des Kanons, 1847, p. 215. Cf. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i., p. 341 ; Grabe,
Spicil. Pair., i., p. 303.
3 H. ., iii. 25. *&.., vi. 14, cf. 13.
5 Hieron, De vir. ill. 6, Comment, in Ezech., xliii. 19.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 139
however, is now complete, although often very corrupt. The author
quotes largely from the Old Testament, and also from apocryphal
works. He nowhere mentions any book or writer of the New
Testament, and, with one asserted exception, which we shall
presently examine, he quotes no passage agreeing with our
Gospels. We shall refer to these, commencing at once with
the most important.
In the ancient Latin translation of the Epistle the only form,
as we have just said, in which, until the discovery of the Codex
Sinaiticus, the first four and a half chapters were extant, the
following passage occurs : "Adtendamus ergo, ne forte, sicut
scrip turn est, multi vocati pauci electi inveniamur."* " Let us, there-
fore beware lest, as it is written : Many are called, few are chosen."
These words are found in our first Gospel (xxii. 14), and, as the
formula by which they are here introduced "it is written" is
generally understood to indicate a quotation from Holy Scripture,
it was, and is, argued by some that here we have a passage from
one of our Gospels quoted in a manner which shows that, at the
time the Epistle of Barnabas was written, the " Gospel according
to Matthew was already considered Holy Scripture." 2 Whilst
this portion of the text existed only in the Latin version, it was
argued that the " sicut scrip turn est" at least, must be an interpola-
tion, and in any case that it could not be deliberately applied, at
that date, to a passage in any writings of the New Testament.
On the discovery of the Sinaitic MS., however, the words were
found in the Greek text in that Codex : Trpoo-e^w/Aev, /r^n-ore, d>s
yeypaTTTCu, TroAAoi K\.rjToi, oXiyot Se e/cAeKTOi e{>/De$a>ju.v. The question,
therefore, is so far modified that, however much we may suspect the
Greek text of interpolation, it must be accepted as the basis of
discussion that this passage, whatever its value, exists in the
oldest, and indeed only (and this point must not be forgotten),
complete MS. of the Greek Epistle.
Now", with regard to the value of the expression "it is written,"
it may be remarked that in no case could its use in the Epistle of
Barnabas indicate more than individual opinion, and it could not,
for reasons to be presently given, be considered to represent the
decision of the Church. In the very same chapter in which the
formula is used in connection with the passage we are considering,
it is also employed to introduce a quotation from the Book of
Enoch, 3 TTf.pl ov ytypairrai, o>s 'Evw^ A.eye6, and elsewhere (c. xii.)
he quotes from another apocryphal book-* as one of the prophets.
"Again, he refers to the Cross of Christ in another prophet,
1 Ch. iv. 2 Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w. , p. 92 ff.
3 Enoch Ixxxix. 61 f., xc. 17. This book is again quoted in ch. xvi.
4 Cf. 4 Ezra iv. 33, v. 5.
140 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
saying : 'And when shall these things come to pass ? and the Tx>rd
saith : When,' etc v aAA( 7rpo<^ry Xeyovri Xeyet Ki'pios*
K.T.A.." He also quotes (ch. vi.) the apocryphal " Book of Wisdom "
as Holy Scripture, and in like manner several other unknown
works. When it is remembered that the Epistle of Clement to
the Corinthians, the Shepherd of Hernias, the Epistle of Barnabas
itself, and many other apocryphal works, have been quoted by the
Fathers as Holy Scripture, the distinctive value of such an expres-
sion may be understood.
With this passing remark, however, we proceed to say that this
supposed quotation from Matthew as Holy Scripture, by proving
too much, destroys its own value as evidence. The generality of
competent and impartial critics are agreed that it is impossible
to entertain the idea that one of our Gospels could have held the
rank of Holy Scripture at the date of this Epistle, seeing that, for
more than half a century after, the sharpest line was drawn between
the writings of the Old Testament and of the New, and the former
alone quoted as, or accorded the consideration of, Holy Scripture.
If this were actually a quotation from our first Gospel, already in
the position of Holy Scripture, it would, indeed, be astonishing
that the Epistle, putting out of the question other Christian
writings for half a century after it, teeming, as it does, with
extracts from the Old Testament, and from known and unknown
apocryphal works, should thus limit its use of the Gospel to a few
words, totally neglecting the rich store which it contains, and
quoting, on the other hand, sayings of Jesus not recorded at all
in any of our Synoptics. It is most improbable that, if the author
of the " Epistle of Barnabas " was acquainted with any one of our
Gospels, and considered it an inspired and canonical work, he
could have neglected it in such a manner. The peculiarity of the
quotation which he is supposed to make, which we shall presently
point out, renders such limitation to it doubly singular upon any
such hypothesis. The unreasonable nature of the assertion, how-
ever, will become more apparent as we proceed with our examina-
tion, and perceive that none of the early writers quote our Gospels,
if they knew them at all, but, on the other hand, make use of other
works, and that the inference that Matthew was considered Holy
Scripture, therefore, rests solely upon this quotation of half-a-dozen
words.
The application of such a formula to a supposed quotation from
one of our Gospels, in so isolated an instance, led to the belief
that, even if the passage were taken from our first Synoptic, the
author of the Epistle, in quoting it, laboured under the impres-
sion that it was derived from some prophetical book. We daily
see how difficult it is to trace the source even of the most familiar
quotations. Instances of such confusion of memory are frequent
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 141
in the writings of the Fathers, and many can be pointed out in the
New Testament itself. For instance, in Matt, xxvii. 9 f. the
passage from Zechariah xi. 12, 13, is attributed to Jeremiah; in
Mark i. 2 a quotation from Malachi iii. i is ascribed to Isaiah.
In i Corinthians ii. 9 a passage is quoted as Holy Scripture
which is not found in the Old Testament at all, but which is
taken, as Origen and Jerome state, from an apocryphal work,
" The Revelation of Elias " ;* and the passage is similarly quoted
by the so-called Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (xxxiv.).
Then in what prophet did the author of the first Gospel find the
words (xiii. 35) : " That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
the prophet, 2 saying, I will open my mouth in parables ; I will utter
things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the
world"?
Orelli, 3 afterwards followed by many others, suggested that the
quotation was probably intended for one in 4 Ezra viii. 3 : " Nam
multi creati sunt, pauci autem salvabuntur."* " For many are
created, but few shall be saved." Bretschneider proposed, as an
emendation of the passage in Ezra, the substitution of " vocati "
for "creati" ; but, however plausible, his argument did not meet
with much favour. Along with this passage was also suggested a
similar expression in 4 Ezra ix. 15: " Plures sunt qui pereunt,
quam qui salvabuntur." " There are more who perish than who
shall be saved." 5 The Greek of the three passages may read as
follows :
Mt. xxii. 14. IIoXXoi yap elaiv, K\ijroi, 6\iyoi de fK\KToi.
Ep. Bar. iv. IloXXcn K\rjrol, 6\lyoi 5e K\eKToi.
4 Ezra, viii. 3 IloXXoi yap fyewfiGrjcrav, 6\iyoi 5 crw^crocrcu.
There can be no doubt that the sense of the reading in 4 Ezra
is exactly that of the Epistle, but the language is somewhat
different. We must not forget, however, that the original Greek
of 4 Ezra is lost, and that we are wholly dependent on the
versions and MSS. extant, regarding whose numerous variations
and great corruption there are no differences of opinion. Orelli's
theory, moreover, is supported by the fact that the Epistle, else-
where (c. xii.), quotes from 4 Ezra (iv. 33 ; v. 5).
On examining the passage as it occurs in our first Synoptic, we
are, at the very outset, struck by the singular fact that this short
1 Origen, Tract., xxxv. , 17 Matt. ; Hieron. ad Isaice, Ixiv. , Epist. ci. ; cf.
Fabricius, Cod. Apocr., N. T., i., p. 342.
2 In the Cod. Sinaiticus a later hand has here inserted " Isaiah."
3 Selecta Patr., p. 5. 4 Cf. Volkmar, H buck EM. Apocr. ii., p. 105.
5 We might also point to the verse x. 97, " For thou art blessed above many,
and art called near to the Most High, and so are but few. " " Tit enim beatus
es prce multis, et vocatus es apud Altissimum, sicut et pauci. "
142 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
saying appears twice in that Gospel with a different context, and
in each case without any propriety of application to what precedes
it, whilst it is not found at all in either of the other two Synoptics.
The first time we meet with it is at the close of the parable of the
labourers in the vineyard. 1 The householder engages the labourers
at different hours of the day, and pays those who had worked but
one hour the same wages as those who had borne the burden and
heat of the day, and the reflection at the close is (xx. 16) : " Thus
the last shall be first, and the first last ; for many are called, but
few chosen." It is perfectly evident that neither of these sayings,
but especially not that with which we are concerned, has any con-
nection with the parable at all. There is no question of many or
few, or of selection or rejection ; all the labourers are engaged and
paid alike. If there be a moral at all to the parable, it is the justi-
fication of the master : " Is it not lawful for me to do what I will
with mine own ?" It is impossible to imagine a saying more
irrelevant to its context than " many are called, but few chosen,"
in such a place. The passage occurs again (xxii. 14) in connection
with the parable of the king who made a marriage for his son.
The guests who are at first invited refuse to come, and are
destroyed by the king's armies ; but the wedding is, nevertheless,
" furnished with guests " by gathering together as many as are
found in the highways. A new episode commences when the king
comes in to see the guests (v. n). He observes a man there who
has not on a wedding garment, and he desires the servants to
(v. 13) " Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness
without," where " there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth "; 2
and then comes our passage (v. 14), " For many are called, but few
chosen." Now, whether applied to the first or to the latter part
of the parable, the saying is irrelevant. The guests first called
were in fact chosen as much as the last, but themselves refused to
come, and of all those who, being "called" from the highways and
byways, ultimately furnished the wedding with guests in their
stead, only one was rejected. It is clear that the facts here dis-
tinctly contradict the moral that "few are chosen." In both
places the saying is, as it were, " dragged in by the hair." On
examination, however, we find that the oldest MSS. of the New
Testament omit the sentence from Matthew xx. 16. It is neither
found in the Sinaitic nor Vatican codices, and whilst it has not the
support of the Codex Alexandrinus, which is defective at the
1 Matt. xx. 1-16.
- This is not the place to criticise the expectation of finding a wedding
garment on a guest hurried in from highways and byways, or the punishment
inflicted for such an offence, as questions affecting the character of the
parable.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 143
part, nor of the Dublin rescript (z), which omits it, many other
MSS. are also without it. The total irrelevancy of the saying to
its context, its omission by the oldest authorities from Matt. xx.
1 6, where it appears in later MSS., and its total absence from
both of the other Gospels, must at once strike everyone as peculiar,
and as very unfortunate, to say the least of it, for those who make
extreme assertions with regard to its supposed quotation by the
Epistle of Barnabas. Weizsacker, with great probability, suggests
that in this passage we have merely a well-known proverb, 1 which
the author of the first Gospel has introduced into his work from
some uncanonical or other source, and placed in the mouth of
Jesus. 2 Certainly, under the circumstances, it can scarcely be
maintained in its present context as a historical saying of Jesus.
Ewald, who naturally omits it from Matthew xx. 16, ascribes the
parable : xx. 1-16, as well as that : xxii. 1-14, in which it stands,
originally to the Spruchsammlung 3 or collection of discourses, out
of which, with intermediate works, he considers that our first
Gospel was composed. 4 However this may be, there is., it seems
to us, good reason for believing that it was not originally a part of
these parables, and. that it is not in that sense historical; and there
is, therefore, no ground for asserting that it may not have been
derived by the author of the Gospel from some older work, from
which also it may have come into the " Epistle of Barnabas." 5
There is, however, another passage which deserves to be men-
tioned. The Epistle has the following quotation : " Again, I will
show thee how, in regard to us, the Lord saith, He made a new
creation in the last times. The Lord saith, Behold I make the
first as the last.'' 6 Even Tischendorf does not claim this as a
1 An illustration of such proverbial sayings is found in the Phaedo of
Plato : eki yap dr), <f>a.ffiv oi wept rots reXerds, vap6r)KO<f>6poi ^v iro\\ol, fi&icxoi
dt re iravpoi, edStepk., i. , p. 69, " For many, as they say in the Mysteries, are
the thyrsus-bearers, but few are the mystics." Cf. Jowett, Plato, i., p. 441,
P- 381-
2 Zur Kr. des Barnabasbr. , p. 34 f. [In the fourth edition of his work
on the Canon, Dr. Westcott very fairly states in a note: "On the other
hand, it is just to add that the proverbial form of the saying (' Many are
called, but few chosen ' ) is such as to admit of the supposition that it may
have been derived by Barnabas from some older book than St. Matthew,"
p. 51, note 2.]
3 Die drei ersten Ew>., 1850. 4 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., ii., 1849, p. 191 ff.
5 Professor A. D. Loman, who impartially and ably discusses this quotation,
is unable to admit that the passage is taken from our first Synoptic ; and he
conjectures that the common source from which both the Synoptist and the
author of the Epistle may have derived the saying may be a work which he
supposes to be referred to in Luke xi. 49, Theol. Tijdschrift, 1872, p. 196 f. ;
cf. 1867, p. 553, p. 559.
6 HdXiv ffoi liridei^u, TTWS 7rp6s rj/ucis Xe7ei Kvpior deurepav TrXaffiv iv
tffX&TW ^iroirjffev. \tyei Kvpios' 'I5oO, iroiu TO, Ho'x a - Ta ws T< * irpwTCi. C. vi.
144
quotation of Matt. xx. 16,' "Thus the last shall be first and the
first last " (OVTWS etroirai 01 ea-^arot TT^WTOI /ecu ol TT/DWTCH
rxToi), the sense of which is quite different. The applica-
tion of the saying in this place in the first, and, indeed, in the
other, Synoptic Gospels is evidently quite false, and depends
merely on the ring of words and not of ideas. In xix. 30 it is
quoted a second time, quite irrelevantly, with some variation :
'' But many first shall be last, and last first" (TroAAot 8e
rOITGU TT/OWTOl ffT^aTOl KOI <T)(OiTOl TTpMTOi). NOW, it Will be
remembered that at xx. 16 it occurs in several MSS. in connection
with " Many are called, but few are chosen," although the oldest
codices omit the latter passage, and most critics consider it inter-
polated. The separate quotation of these two passages by the
author of the Epistle, with so marked a variation in the second,
renders it most probable that he found both in the source from
which he quotes. We have, however, more than sufficiently dis-
cussed this passage. The author of the Epistle does not indicate
any source from which he makes his quotation; and the mere
existence in the first Synoptic of a proverbial saying like this does
not in the least involve the conclusion that it is necessarily the
writing from which the quotation was derived, more especially as
apocryphal works are repeatedly cited in the Epistle. If it be
maintained that the saying is really historical, it is obvious that the
prescriptive right of our Synoptic is at once excluded, and it may
have been the common property of a score of evangelical works.
There can be no doubt that many Scriptural texts have crept
into early Christian writings which originally had no place there ;
and where attendant circumstances are suspicious, it is always well
to remember the fact. An instance of the interpolation of which
we speak is found in the " Epistle of Barnabas." In one place,
the phrase, "Give to everyone that asketh of thee" (iraim T<O
aiVouvTi (re oYSov), 2 occurs, not as a quotation, but merely woven
into the Greek text as it existed before the discovery of the Sinaitic
MS. This phrase is the same as the precept in Luke vi. 30,
although it was argued by some that, as no other trace of the third
Gospel existed in the Epistle, it was more probably an alteration
of the text of Matt. v. 42. Omitting the phrase from the
passage in the Epistle, the text read as follows : " Thou
shall not hesitate to give, neither shalt thou murmur when thou
givest so shalt thou know who is the good Recompenser of the
reward." The supposed quotation, inserted where we have left a
1 Dr. Westcott does not make any reference to it either. [In the
4th ed. of his work on the Canon (p. 62) he expresses an opinion that it
is a reference "to some passage of the O. T.," and suggests Ezek.
xxxvi. II.]
' Ch. xixr
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 145
blank, really interrupted the sense, and repeated the previous
injunction. The oldest MS., the Codex Sinaiticus, omits the
quotation, and so ends the question, but it is afterwards inserted
by another hand. Some pious scribe, in fact, seeing the relation
of the passage to the Gospel, had added the words in the margin
as a gloss, and they afterwards found their way into the text. In
this manner very many similar glosses have crept into texts which
they were originally intended to illustrate. 1
Tischendorf, who does not allude to this, lays much stress upon
the following passage : " But when he selected His own apostles,
who should preach His Gospel, who were sinners above all sin, in
order that he might show that He came not to call the righteous,
but sinners, then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God." 2
We may remark that in the common Greek text the words " to
repentance " were inserted after " sinners," but they are not found
in the Sinaitic MS. In like manner many Codices insert them in
Matt. ix. 13 and Mark ii. 17, but they are not found in some of
the oldest MSS., and are generally rejected. Tischendorf con-
siders them a later addition both to the text of the Gospel and of
the Epistle. 3 But this very fact is suggestive. It is clear that a
supposed quotation has been deliberately adjusted to what was
considered to be the text of the Gospel. Why should the whole
phrase not be equally an interpolation ? We shall presently see
that there is reason to think that it is so. Although there is no
quotation in the passage, who, asks Tischendorf, could mistake
the words as they stand in Matt. ix. 13, "For I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners " ? This passage is referred to by
Origen in his work against Celsus, in a way which indicates that
the supposed quotation did not exist in his copy. Origen says :
" And as Celsus has called the Apostles of Jesus infamous men,
saying that they were tax-gatherers and worthless sailors, we have
to remark on this, that, etc Now, in the Catholic Epistle of
Barnabas, from which, perhaps, Celsus derived the statement that
the Apostles were infamous and wicked men, it is written that
' Jesus selected his own Apostles, who were sinners above all
sin,' " 5 and then he goes on to quote the expression of Peter to
Jesus (Luke v. 8), and then i Timothy i. 15 ; but he nowhere
1 The phrase, "Give to everyone that asketh of thee," occurs also in the
" Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," i., 5, with which little treatise, published
since the complete edition of this work was issued, several other passages in the
Epistle agree cf. p. 149 ff.
2 "Ore 5 TOI)S ISiovs airocrT6\ovs TOVS /x^XXoyTas Krjpvffffet.v rb evayyt\ioi>
O.UTOV ^eA^aro, dWas virtp Traffav a/jLapriav avo/j-wrtpovs, 'iva Set^y, 6n OVK
?i\dev KdA^rat 5i.Ka.lovs, dXXa d/xa/3rwXoi;s, r6re efiavtpucrev eavrbv etvai vlbv Oeov.
c. v.
3 IVann warden, u. s. w., p. 96, anm. 1.
4 /<$., p. 96. 5 Contra Cels., i. 63.
L
I4 6 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
refers to the supposed quotation in the Epistle. Now, if we read
the passage without the quotation, we have : " But when he
selected his own Apostles who should preach his Gospel, who
were sinners above all sin ...... then he manifested himself to be
the Son of God." Here a pious scribe very probably added in
the margin the gloss, "in order that he might show that he came
not to call the righteous, but sinners," to explain the passage; and,
as in the case of the phrase, "Give to every one that asketh of
thee," the gloss became subsequently incorporated with the text.
The Epistle, however, goes on to give the only explanation which
the author intended, and which clashes with that of the scribe.
" For, if he had not come in the flesh, how could men have been
saved by beholding him ? Seeing that looking on the sun that
shall cease to be, the work of his hands, they have not even power
to endure his rays. Accordingly, the Son of Man came in the
flesh for this, that he might bring to a head the number of their
sins who had persecuted to death his prophets." 1 The argument
of Origen bears out this view, for he does not at all take the
explanation of the gloss as to why Jesus chose his disciples from
such a class, but he reasons : " What is there strange, therefore,
that Jesus, being minded to manifest to the race of men his power
to heal souls, should have selected infamous and wicked' men, and
should have elevated them so far that they became a pattern of
the purest virtue to those who were brought by their persuasion to
the Gospel of Christ ?" 2 The argument, both of the author of the
Epistle and of Origen, is different from that suggested by the
phrase under examination, and we consider it a mere gloss intro-
duced into the text ; which, as the s fMrdvoiav shows, has, in
the estimation of Tischendorf himself, been deliberately altered.
Even if it originally formed part of the text, however, it would be
wrong to affirm that it affords proof of the use or existence of the
first Gospel. The words of Jesus in Matt. ix. 12-14 evidently
belong to the oldest tradition of the Gospel, and, in fact, Ewald
ascribes them, apart from the remainder of the chapter, originally
to the Spruchsammlung, from which, with two intermediate books,
he considers that our present Matthew was composed. 3 Nothing
can be more certain than that such sayings, if they be admitted
to be historical at all, must have existed in many other works, and
the mere fact of their happening to be also in one of the Gospels
which has survived cannot prove its use, or even its existence at
the time the Epistle of Barnabas was written, more especially as
the phrase does not occur as a quotation, and there is no indica-
tion of the source from which it was derived.
Tischendorf, however, finds a further analogy between the
Contra Ce/s., i. 63. 3 j^, e j re i ersten EW, p. 15, p. I.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 147
Epistle and the Gospel of Matthew, in ch. xii. " Since, therefore,
in the future they were to say that Christ is the son of David,
fearing and perceiving clearly the error of the wicked, David him-
self prophesies : ' The Lord said unto my Lord, sit at my right
hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.' " Tischendorf,
upon this, inquires, " Could Barnabas so write without the sup-
position that his readers had Matt. xxii. 41 ff. before them,
and does not such a supposition likewise infer the actual authority
of Matthew's Gospel P" 1 Such rapid argument and extreme con-
clusions are startling indeed ; but, in his haste, our critic has
forgotten to state the whole case. The author of the Epistle has
been elaborately showing that the Cross of Christ is repeatedly
typified in the Old Testament, and at the commencement of the
chapter, after quoting the passage from 4 Ezra iv. 33, v. 5, he
points to the case of Moses, to whose heart " the spirit speaks that
he should make a form of the cross," by stretching forth his arms
in supplication, and so long as he did so Israel prevailed over
their enemies ; and again he typified the cross when he set up the
brazen serpent upon which the people might look and be healed.
Then, that which Moses as a prophet said to Joshua (Jesus), the
son of Nave, when he gave him that name, was solely for the
purpose that all the people might hear that the Father would
reveal all things regarding his Son to the son of Nave. This name
being given to him when he was sent to spy out the land, Moses
said : "Take a book in thy hands, and write what the Lord saith,
that the Son of God will in the last days cut off by the roots all
the house of Amelek." This, of course, is a falsification of the
passage, Exodus xvii. 14, for the purpose of making it declare
Jesus to be the " Son of God." Then, proceeding in the same
strain, he says : " Behold again, Jesus is not the son of Man, but
the Son of God, manifested in the type and in the flesh. Since,
therefore, in the future, they were to say that Christ is the son of
David " (and here follows the passage we are discussing) " fearing
and perceiving clearly the error of the wicked, David himself
prophesied : ' The Lord said unto my Lord, sit at my right hand
until I make thine enemies thy footstool.' And again, thus speaks
Isaiah : ' The Lord said to Christ my Lord, whose right hand I
have held, that the nations may obey Him, and I will break in
pieces the strength of kings.' Behold how David calleth Him
Lord, and the Son of God." And here end the chapter and the
subject. Now it is quite clear that the passage occurs, not as a
reference to any such dilemma as that in Matt. xxii. 41 ff., but
simply as one of many passages which, at the commencement of
our era, were considered prophetic declarations of the divinity of
1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 96.
I 4 8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Christ, in opposition to the expectation of the Jews that the
Messiah was to be the son of David ;' and, as we have seen, in
order to prove his point, the author alters the text. To argue that
such a passage of a Psalm, quoted in such a manner in this Epistle,
proves the use of our first Synoptic is in the highest degree
arbitrary.
We have already pointed out that the author quotes apocryphal
works as Holy Scripture, and we may now add that he likewise
cites words of Jesus which are nowhere found in our Gospels.
For instance, in ch. vii. we meet with the following expressions
directly attributed to Jesus. " Thus he says : ' Those who desire
to behold me and to attain my kingdom must through tribulation
and suffering receive me.' " Hilgenfeld 2 compares this with another
passage, similar in sense, in 4 Ezra vii. 14 ; but in any case it is
not a quotation from our Gospels ; and, with so many passages in
them suitable to his purpose, it would be amazing if he knew and
held Matthew in the consideration which Tischendorf asserts, that
he should neglect their stores, and go elsewhere for such quotations.
There is nothing in this Epistle worthy of the name of evidence
even of the existence of our Gospels.
The " Shepherd " of Hermas is another work which very nearly
secured permanent canonical rank with the writings of the New
Testament. It was quoted as Holy Scripture by the Fathers, and
held to be divinely inspired, and it was publicly read in the
churches.3 It has a place with the " Epistle of Barnabas," in the
Sinaitic Codex after the canonical books. In early times it was
attributed to the Hermas who is mentioned in the Epistle to the
Romans xiv. 14, in consequence of a mere conjecture to that effect
by Origen ;+ but the Canon of Muratoris confidently ascribes it to
a brother of Pius, Bishop of Rome, and, at least, there does not
seem any ground for the statement of Origen. It may have
been written about the middle of the second century or a little
earlier.
Tischendorf dismisses this important memorial of the early
Christian Church with a note of two lines, for it has no quota-
1 Cf. Gfrorer, Das Jahrh. des Heils, ii., p. 219 ff., 258 ff., 292 ff.
* Die Proph. Ezra u. Daniel, p. 70.
3 Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. t iv. 20, 2 ; Clemens Al., Strom., i. 29, 181, ii.
it 3. vi - I5 '3 1 J Tertullian, De Oral., 12. He rejected it later. De
Pudic., 10 ; Origen, Comm. in Rom., lib. x. 31, Horn., viii. in Num., Horn. i.
in Psalm 37, De Princip. , ii. i, 3, iii. 2, 4 ; cf. Eusebius, H. E., iii. 3, v. 8 ;
iii. 25 ; Cotelier, Pair. Ap. , i. 68 f.
Puto autem quod Hermas iste sit scriptor libelli illius qui Pastor appelatur,
qua scriptura valde mihi utilis videtur, et ut puto divinitus inspirata. In Rom.
lib. x. 31.
s Routh, Reliq. Sacra, i., p. 396 ; Tregell^, Canon Murat., p. 20.
THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES 149
tions either from the Old or New Testament. 1 He does not even
suggest that it contains any indications of acquaintance with our
Gospels. The only direct quotation in the " Shepherd " is from
an apocryphal work which is cited as Holy Scripture : " The Lord
is nigh unto them who return to him, as it is written in Eldad and
Modat, who prophesied to the people in the wilderness." 2 This
work, which appears in the Stichometry of Nicephorus amongst
the apocrypha of the Old Testament, is no longer extant.
THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES.
In 1873, Bryennius, then Metropolitan of Serrae,and now Patriarch
of Nicomedia, discovered an interesting MS. volume in the library
of the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulchre at
Constantinople. It contained seven Greek documents, amongst
which may be mentioned the Epistle of Barnabas, the first Epistle
of Clement in the only complete form known, the spurious second
Epistle of Clement, Epistle of Mary of Cassoboli to Ignatius the
Martyr of Antioch, twelve Epistles of pseudo-Ignatius, and the
" Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," with which we are now
concerned. At the end of the MS. volume is the signature of
the copyist, " Leon, notary and sinner," with a date which cor-
responds with A.D. 1056. In 1875, Bryennius published the two
Epistles of Clement; but it was not until the close of 1883 that
he was able to lay before the world the Greek text of the short
treatise in which we are now interested, 3 and, as an able writer
has truly remarked, it has ever since been "the spoiled child of
criticism."-* Bryennius himself assigns the " Teaching " to a date
between A.D. 120-160.
Several ancient writers mention a work with a similar, yet
different, title. The first of these is Eusebius. After speaking of
the " Shepherd " of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the
Epistle of Barnabas, he adds : " the so-called ' Teachings of tne
Apostles ' " (TWV aTrocrToXwv at Aeyo/xerai 8t8a^ttt).5 Somewhat
later Athanasius 6 mentions " the so-called Teaching of the
Apostles " (AtSax?) KaXov^vr) TWV a7ro<rToA.a>v), along with other
uncanonical works, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom
of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and the " Shepherd." Twenty
years after Athanasius, Rufinus? substantially repeats his state-
1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 182 ; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 175 ; Reuss,
Hist, du Canon, p. 48 f.
- Vis. ii. 3 ; cf. Numbers xi. 26 f. , Sept. Vers.
3 The complete edition of this work had been published some years earlier,
so that we now deal with the Didarhe for the first time.
4 Charles Bigg, D.D., The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, 1898, p. 21.
5 Hist. Ecd., iii. 25. 6 Ep. Fest., 39. ^ Comm. in Symb. Apost., 38.
150 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
ments ; but, in regard to the apocrypha of the New Testament,
for the so-called " Teaching of the Apostles " he substitutes " that
which is called ' The Two Ways, or Judgment of Peter ' " (qui
appellatur Duce Vice vel Judidum Petri), We shall have more to
say presently regarding this work. Our tract bears the title of
" The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles " (Ai8a^ TWV SwSexa
aTToo-rdXcov), and this is confirmed and enlarged by a sub-title : " The
Teaching of the Lord, by the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles "
(Ai8av7 Kvpiov Sid TU)V o'wo'eKa, aTrocrroAtov TOIS fOvecriv}. Dr.
Lightfoot and many other writers prefer to call it simply " The
Teaching of the Apostles," in spite of this double heading,
because that "is the designation in several ancient writers who
refer to it," 1 thus calmly assuming the identity of the two works ;
but we must protest against so unwarrantable an alteration of the
title of a MS. to make it more closely agree with supposed
references in the Fathers, for which no other justification is
advanced.
In connection with this, we may point out that we have some
very instructive testimony concerning the " Teaching of the
Apostles " to which probably Eusebius and Athanasius refer
in the Stichometry of Nicephorus. He gives a list of apocryphal
books, amongst which he mentions the " Teaching of the Apostles "
as containing 200 lines (OTI'XOI). Does this at all confirm the
supposed application of these references to our " Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles" in its present form? Unfortunately it does
not, but quite the contrary, for Harnack has calculated that our
little work extends to 300 o-ri'xoi. 2 It could not, therefore, as we
now have it, have been the " Teaching of the Apostles " to which
reference has been made.
It may be well here to refer to the contents of our Didache.
It commences with a dissertation on the " Two Ways." " There
are two ways one of life and one of death, and there is a great
difference between the two ways." This text is expounded
throughout the first six divisions of the work ; the sixth, however,
being very brief, and evidently added to lead up to the remainder
of the "Teaching," which deals (vii.-x.) with Baptism, Fasting,
Prayer, and the Eucharist ; whilst the third (xi.-xvi.) is devoted
to later orders in the Church apostles, prophets, bishops, and
deacons and lays down rules for their conduct and treatment.
The first theme of the " Two Ways " has evidently been suggested
by Jeremiah xxi. 8 : " Behold, I set before you the way of life
and the way of death "; which may also be connected with Deut.
xxx. 19: "I have set before you life and death, blessing and
1 Lightfoot, The Apost. Fathers, 1898, p. 215. i ..
J Harnack, Die Apostellehre, 1886, p. 35, ecL of 1896, p. 41 f.
THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES 151
cursing ; therefore choose life." The same texts are very probably
the basis of the saying in Matt. vii. 13, 14; which shows how
much the idea had influenced thought amongst the Jews. The
"Teaching" is written, or rather adapted, by the compiler him-
self, and no attempt is made to connect it with the Apostles ;
whilst the section i. 3-6 is manifestly of a much later date than
the rest of the dissertation on the " Two Ways," and consists of
reminiscences of the " Sermon on the Mount " introduced by the
compiler. With that exception, probably the whole of the first
and second divisions (i.-vi., vii.-x.) are of Jewish origin. 1 Dr. Light-
foot says of our little treatise : " The manual consists of two parts :
(i) a moral treatise founded on an ancient work called 'The Two
Ways,' and setting forth the paths of righteousness and unrighteous-
ness, of life and death, respectively. This first part is not neces-
sarily altogether of Christian origin; indeed, there is reason to
believe that some portions of it were known to the Jews, and
perhaps also to the Greeks, though it has undoubtedly gathered
by accretions." 2 It is interesting to note, however, that, notwith-
standing the Hebraistic character of the ancient work embodied
in the " Teaching," the compiler represents a time when a complete
breach between Jew and Christian had been accomplished in the
Church. The Jews to him are simply " the hypocrites "3 (viii. i) :
" Let not your fastings be with the hypocrites "; " Neither pray ye
as the hypocrites "; and, still more strongly to point his meaning
and mark the difference between Jew and Christian, the fasts kept
by the former on the second and fifth days of the week are to be
abandoned, and kept by Christians on the fourth and sixth days.
But the substance of the treatise on the " Two Ways " is far
from being confined to the " Teaching of the Twelve Apostles."
It is also found more or less fully set forth in the Epistle of
Barnabas, and the " Shepherd " of Hermas, and a large part of the
critical battle regarding the date of our Didache has been fought
round the connection of the three works to each other ; one section
of critics asserting the priority of the "Teaching," another the
dependence of the tract on the Epistle and the "Shepherd," and a
third maintaining that all three drew their material from an earlier
work, whilst a fourth dates the " Teaching " very much later and
1 Dr. Taylor gives interesting illustrations of this by comparison with the
Talmud and Talmudic writings (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 1886).
Mr. Rendel Harris even says: "The teaching is Hebraistic from cover to
cover" (The Teaching of the Apostles, 1887, p. 78).
2 Apost. Fathers, p. 215. The idea of the "Two Ways" is found in classical
works as early as Ilesiod (Op. et Dies, 285). It is used in "The Choice of
Hercules," which is usually ascribed to Prodicus the Sophist (Zenophont.
Mem., ii. 1-21).
3 Harnack, Chron. altchristl. Lit., 1897, i., p. 428,
, 5 2 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
considers that the author derived his matter from works of the
third or fourth century. But the subject of the " Two Ways " is
not limited to these writings, but is found embodied in much later
works. In 1843, Bickell 1 published a Greek tract from a Vienna
MS. which is generally known as the " Ecclesiastical Canons," or
the Epitome of the Holy Apostles. Hilgenfeld conjectures this
tract to be the work referred to by Rufinus under the name of
" Dua Vice vel Judicium Petri" and in this he is supported by
many able scholars. In this work, which contains a large part of
the "Two Ways" as it exists in our "Teaching" and in the "Epistle
of Barnabas," the doctrine is divided into twelve parts, each of
which is put into the mouth of an apostle, the opening being
enunciated by John in identically the same words as our Didache.
This tract is generally dated at least in the third century. In the
same way the dissertation on the "Two Ways"is practically embodied
in the seventh book of. the Apostolic Constitutions, which is
usually assigned to a still later date. In the Epistle of Barnabas,
the " Shepherd " of Hermas, the Epitome and the Apostolic
Constitutions, therefore, nearly the whole treatise of the " Two
Ways " is included, and the only question is as to the chronological
order of these various forms of the doctrine. That our Didache
was not the original source, as we have already pointed out, is
certain, and it may, on the other hand, have been the last, col-
lecting from the foregoing what may have seemed to the compiler
the most striking passages.
This is not all, however, for in 1884, after the publication of our
Didache by Bryennius, von Gebhardt brought to light the short
fragment of a Latin translation of the "Two Ways," with which
he had met some years before, and which approximates to the
form of our "Teaching," with the important difference that it
omits all the references to the Sermon on the Mount, which, taken
in connection with the similar omission elsewhere, 2 are thus shown
to be the later amplification of the compiler.
Not only is it maintained by many that, in spite of its different
title, our Didache is the work referred to by Eusebius and
Athanasius, but it is asserted to be the work from which Clement
of Alexandria quoted as " Scripture." Clement says : " Such an
' Gesch. d. Kirchenrechts, 1843. It bears the title A.i Siarayai ai 3tA
K.\Jl/j.tvTos teal Kav6vf<; {KK\r)ffiaffTiKol rCov aytuv diroffT6\<av. Cardinal Pitra
found the same tract in a MS. in the Ottobonian library bearing the title
'KriTOfj.}) Spuv TWV ayiuv d.Tro<rT6\wi> KaOoXncrjs irapaSfoeus. It is also given
by Hilgenfeld in his N. T. extra Can. Recept., 1884, Fasc. iv. Codices in
Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic have since been discovered.
3 I .act ant ins, Epit. div. Instit., c. lix, for instance, and in writings of pseudo-
Athanasius, but still more markedly in the Epistle of Barnabas, the writer of
which could have no reason for omitting them if they had stood in the original
treatise of which he made use.
THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES 153
one is called a thief by the Scripture ; at least, it says, ' Son (Vt),
become not a liar, for (yap) lying leads to (Trpbs) theft.' " In the
"Teaching" these words occur (iii. 5) : "My child (TeKi/ov p>v),
become not a liar, since (eTreiS^) lying leads to (eis) theft."
Now, it is remarkable that the quotation in Clement begins with
" Son " ; but if there be anything more characteristic of the
Didache than another, it is the use of the phrase " My child " as
the precursor of such admonitions. In the first six chapters,
devoted to the "Two Ways," it is used six times, and "Son" is
never introduced. No one reading this form of the "Two Ways,"
and even quoting from memory, would be in the least likely to
couple with these admonitions any other style of address, and
when we bear in mind the numerous works in which the ancient
text of the "Two Ways" has been incorporated, of which we
have already mentioned five, it is evidently extremely hazardous to
affirm that the few works used by Clement identify this particular
tract. The phrase, in fact, is found in the Epitome (ii.), " Child,
become not a liar, since lying leads unto (CTTI) theft," which may,
with equal reason, be identified as the source of Clement's
quotation.
No work has recently received more keen attention from critics
of all schools than the " Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," and
few .have excited deeper interest or received more divergent judg-
ments. Whilst many have pronounced it to be one of the earliest
Christian writings extant, emanating even from about the middle
of the first century, others have assigned it to the fourth century. 1
1 Middle of the first century Sabatier La Didache, 1885, p. 159.
Second half first century Bestmann, Gesch. christl. Sitte, 1885, ii., p. 136
ff. ; Jacquier, La Doctrine d. douze Ap., 1891, p. 97 ; Majocchi, La Dottrina
dei dod. Ap., 1886, p. 71 ; Petersen, Lehre d. zivolf Ap., 1884, p. 12;
II. de Romestin, Teaching of Twelve Aps., 1884, p. 6, 1885 Pref. and ed. ;
Spence, Teaching of the Aps., 1885, p. 98; Wiinsche, Lehre d. zw. Ap., 1884,
p. 6.
End first century or beginning of second Binnie, Br. and Foreign Ev. Rev.,
Oct., 1885, p. 640 ff. ; Farrar, Contemp. Rev., 1884, p. 698 ff. ; Expositor,
1884, p. 380 ff. ; Funk, Theol. Quartalsckrift, 1884, p. 401 ; Doctrina
duodecini Apost., 1887, p. xxxii. ; Heron, Church of Sub-ap. Age, 1888, p.
83 ; Hitchcock and Brown, Teaching of Twelve Aps., 1885, p. xc. f. Light-
foot, Apost. Fathers, 1898, p. 216 ; Expositor, 1885, p. 6 ; Lechler, Urkun-
denfunde Gesch. christl. Altertums, 1886, p. 75 ; Massebieau, L? Enseigne-
nif.nt des douze Af>., 1884, p. 35 ; E. von Renesse, Die Lehre zwolf Ap., 1897,
p. 85; Schaff, Oldest Church Manual, 1885, p. 119 ff. ; Taylor, Teaching
Twelve Aps., 1886, p. 118 ; Venables, Brit. Quarterly Rev., 1885, p. 333 ff. ;
Warfield, Bibl. Sacra, 1886, p. 100 ff. ; Wordsworth, Guardian, Mar. igth,
1884; Zahn, Theol. Literaturblatt , June 27th, July nth, 1884; Forsch. Gesch.
N. T. Kanons, 1884, iii., p. 318 f.
First half second century Baltzer, }Viedergef. Zwb'lfapostellehre, 1 886,
p. 13. A.D. 110-130 Robinson, Encyclop. Bibl., 1899, i., p. 676. A.D. 120 too
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
It only remains for us now briefly to examine the supposed
references to our Gospels in the "Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles." The compiler does not in the least endeavour to
associate the Apostles directly with his dissertation, nor does he
even mention the name of any one of them. He does not, of
course, indicate the title of any work in the New Testament.
For him, apparently, the Old Testament books are the only holy
" Scripture," and to these he twice refers. Harnack has counted
some twenty-three Gospel expressions which are considered more
or less like some in our Synoptics ; but of these seventeen are
said more nearly to approximate to passages in Matthew, and he
regards one of these at least as a mixture of the first and third of
our Gospels, though he is in doubt whether the compiler may not
have used Tatian's Diatessaron, or even the Gospel of Peter. 1
All of these passages are more or less near coincidences with
expressions in the " Sermon on the Mount," and it is argued that
it is not possible they could be derived from oral tradition, and
that consequently they indicate a "written Gospel." As these
expressions have closer similarity to our first Synoptic than to any
of the others, it is at once claimed by eager critics that they prove
the use of that Gospel. A circumstance which, in most cases,
strengthens this view is the fact that in several instances these
expressions are said by the writer to come " in the Gospel." This
form occurs in the following cases (viii. 2): "As the Lord com-
manded in his Gospel " (u>s (KfXevo-ev 6 Kvpios kv T<p evayyeXiw
avrov) ; xi. 3 : "But regarding the apostles and prophets, according
to the decree of the Gospel (KCITO. TO Sdy/xa rov eva.yyeX.iov
ovrws), so do ye "; xv. 3 : " But reprove one another, not in
anger, but in peace, as ye find in the Gospel " (u>s e\ fT 6 ' v T V
evayyeXiy) ; and in xv. 4 : " But yuur prayers and alms and all
your deeds do as ye find in the Gospel of our Lord " (o>s ex T
fv T(j> cvayyeXiw TOV Kvptov rj^wv}. We may simply make the
remark that only in the first of these which we shall presently
early, A.D. 160, too late for parts, Gordon, Modern Rev., 1884, p. 457. A.D.
'33- '35 Volkmar, Die Lehre d. z. Ap., 1885, p. 44.
Later than A.D. 130-140 Van Manen, Encydop. Bibl., iii., 1902, p. 3,484.
A.D. 131-160, Harnack, Chronol. altehristl. Lit., 1897, i., p. 438; Die
Apostellehre, 1896, p. 20 f. ; Bryennius, Aidax^l rdv dudeKa ' Airoffr6\wv ,
1883, p. 20. After middle of second century, Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. -wiss.
Theol., 1885, p. loo. A.D. 140-165, Lipsius, Lit. Centralblatt, Jan., 1885, cf.
Deutsclie Liter aturzeit. , 1884, p. 1,449 ff- Before A.D. 140 Addis, Dublin
Rev., Oct., 1884, P- 442 ff- A.D. 140-165, Meyboom, Theol. Tijdschr., 1885,
p. 628 ff. A.D. 160-190 Bonet-Maury, La Doctrine des douze Ap., 1884,
p. 34 ff. A.D. 200 Krawutzcky, Theol. Q^uartalschr., 1884, p. 585 ff.
Fourth century Bigg, Doctrine of Twelve Ap., 1898, p. 23; Cotterill,
Scottish Church Rev. 1884, July and Sept. ; Hoole, The Didache, 1894, p.
45 f. ; Long, Baptist Quarterly, 1884, July and September.
1 Harnack, Die Apostellehre, 1896, p. 8 ff.
THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES 155
discuss is there any direct reference to any passage resembling
our Gospels ; though the last, with its admonition regarding
prayers, alms, and actions, may be taken as a general reference to
the teaching of Jesus. Now, though no one would maintain that,
at the time when this Didache was compiled, there was no written
"Gospel," too much stress must not be laid upon these expres-
sions. It is certain that, to the majority of Christians in early
times, oral tradition must have been the means of rendering
familiar the more remarkable sayings of Jesus much more than
written documents, which could only be in limited circulation,
and to the mass of these converts his teaching must therefore
have been more a spoken than a written Gospel. If we
look in the New Testament itself, we find similar words used,
which no one will assert to refer to a written Gospel. For
instance (Matt. iv. 23) : "And he went about in all Galilee,
teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the
kingdom" (TO cvayye/Uov riys /^ao^Aetas) ; cf. ix. 35, xxvi. 13.
In Mark viii. 35 there is a similar expression : "Whosoever shall
lose his life for my sake and the Gospel's (KCU TOV ei'ayyA.iov)
will save it." In i Cor. iv. 15, again, we read: "For in Christ
Jesus I begot you through the Gospel " (Sia TOV cuayyeAtov)
cf. ix. 14; and in Gal. ii. 2 : "And communicated to them the
Gospel [TO evayyeAiov] which I preach among the Gentiles."
We may now consider the first of the above passages, which
contains the principal of the supposed references. Matt. viii. 2 :
" Neither pray ye as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded
in his Gospel, thus pray ye "; and then follows what is known as
the Lord's Prayer. The prayer is given as it appears in our first
Synoptic (vi. 9-13), but with some noteworthy alterations. " Our
Father which art in heaven " (cv r^ oi'pavoJ) is used instead of
"in the heavens" (ev TO?? ovpavots) ; and "forgive us our debt"
(TT;V o<f>ei\,r]v I^/AWV) instead of " our debts " (TO, d^etXiy/jiaTa ^/AWV).
A still more important divergence occurs in the doxology, which
in the Didache is given : " For thine is the power, and the glory
for ever," omitting both " the kingdom " and the final " amen." 1
Of course, it may be noted that the oldest and best texts of
Matt. vi. 13 omit the doxology altogether, and it has now dis-
appeared even from the Revised Version ; but the variation we
point out makes the Didache differ even from the Codices which
contain it. That the omission of " kingdom " is not accidental is
proved by the fact that the very same peculiar doxology is again
used in the "Teaching " in connection with another prayer (x. 5).
Probably no part of the so-called Sermon on the Mount was more
1 We do not mention the substitution of eX^rw for A#O.TW and d0/e/u.ec
for a<j>riKa/j.ev, for this is supported by some of our oldest texts.
I S 6 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
spread abroad in oral tradition than this prayer, and to suppose
that this faulty agreement is evidence of the use specially of the
first Synoptic is not permissible.
The same remark applies to all the reminiscences of the
" Sermon " in this tract, and we do not consider it necessary
further to examine them here. Nothing is more remarkable than
the habit, even of able critics when examining supposed quotations in
early writings, boldly to ascribe them to our Synoptics, however much
they differ from our texts, in total forgetfulness of the fact that
many records of doings and sayings of Jesus, which are no longer
extant, existed before our Gospels were composed, and circulated
with them. Many of these, subsequently absorbed by our Gospels,
or displaced by them, undoubtedly contained the best passages in
the teaching of Jesus in very similar shape, and were long very
widely read. More especially does this remark apply to reminis-
cences of the " Sermon on the Mount," to which the expressions
in the Didache are confined. We have even in our first and third
Synoptics an illustration of this statement. In the first Gospel
we have the " Sermon on the Mount " with all these passages
joined together in one long discourse. In the third Synoptic we
find no " Sermon on the Mount " at all, but part of that long
discourse is given as a " Sermon on the Plain," whilst other
portions are scattered throughout the Gospel. In the second
Synoptic we have neither a " Sermon on the Mount " nor on the
plain, but many fragments are separately introduced. In all three
the various passages are put in a context which is often contradictory
of each other. Who can doubt that the Logia and the documents
which lie behind the three Synoptics contained them in one shape
or another, and that it is impossible to claim the use in any ancient
work of such sayings from unnamed sources as proof of the exist-
ence of any particular Gospel ?
There is one further passage to which we may refer. In his first
chapter, 6, the compiler of our Didache says : " But regarding
this it is also said : ' Let thine alms sweat into thy hands until thou
knowest to whom to give.' "' This saying, which is quoted in some
way as Scripture, " it is also said " (et/jT/rai), is not found in our
Synoptics, and is referred to an apocryphal Gospel. It is in
immediate sequence to admonitions, in which are incorporated
reminiscences of the " Sermon on the Mount," which wind up
with words like those in Matt. v. 26, " He shall not come out
thence till he hath given back the last farthing." Then at once
follow the words just discussed. If these words were "also
said " in the work in which the expression like Matt. v. 26 was
d\Xd KO.I irtpl TOVTOV 5t fipjrai' (Spwrdrw r; AfTjyocrt'j'?; ffoveis ras
rivi 5(j.
THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES 157
found, why should all the reminiscences from the " Sermon on
the Mount " not have been derived from the same apocryphal
source ?
We have, however, devoted more space to this little book than
may seem necessary, for in so far as our particular purpose is con-
cerned a decision is perfectly certain and easy. The " Teaching
of the Twelve Apostles " is anonymous, and nothing is either
known or surmised as to its compiler. He does not mention any
of the Apostles, and gives no indication whatever of the writer of
any work in our New Testament. He does not afford the slightest
evidence, therefore, even of the existence of any of our Gospels,
and in no way bears testimony to their credibility as witnesses for
miracles and the reality of Divine revelation.
CHAPTER II.
THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP
ALTHOUGH in reality appertaining to a very much later period, we
shall here refer to the so-called "Epistles of Ignatius," and examine
any testimony which they afford regarding the date and authenticity
of our Gospels. There are in all fifteen Epistles bearing the name
of Ignatius ; three of these, addressed to the Virgin Mary and the
Apostle John (2), exist only in a Latin version, and these, together
with five others directed to Mary of Cassobola, to the Tarsians,
to the Antiochans, to Hero of Antioch, and to the Philippians,
of which there are versions both in Greek and Latin, are universally
admitted to be spurious, and may, so far as their contents are
concerned, be at once dismissed from all consideration. They are
not mentioned by Eusebius, nor does any early writer refer to
them. Of the remaining seven Epistles, addressed to the Ephesians,
Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and
to Polycarp, there are two distinct versions extant : one long
version, of which there are both Greek and Latin texts; and
another much shorter, and presenting considerable variations, of
which there are also both Greek and Latin texts. After a couple
of centuries of discussion, critics, almost without exception, have
finally agreed that the longer version is nothing more than an
interpolated version of the shorter and more ancient form of the
Epistles. The question regarding the authenticity of the Ignatian
Epistles, however, was re-opened and complicated by the publica-
tion in 1845, by Dr. Cureton, of a Syriac version of three Epistles
only to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans in a
still shorter form, discovered amongst a large number of MSS.
purchased by Dr. Tattam from the monks of the Desert of Nitria.
These three Syriac Epistles have been subjected to the severest
scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to
be the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do
not admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from
Ignatius, still prefer them to the version of seven Greek Epistles,
and consider them the most ancient form of the letters which we
possess. As early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest
doubts were expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the
Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first
attacked them, and Calvin declared them to be spurious, an
158
THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 159
opinion fully shared by Daille and others; Chemnitz regarded
them with suspicion ; and similar doubts, more or less definite,
were expressed throughout the seventeenth century, and onward to
comparatively recent times, although the means of forming a
judgment were not then so complete as now. That the Epistles
were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller examination and
more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have confirmed
earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics has either recognised
that the authenticity of none of these Epistles can be established,
or that they can only be considered later and spurious composi-
tions.
Omitting for the present the so-called Epistle of Polycarp to the
Philippians, the earliest reference to any of these Epistles, or to
Ignatius himself, is made by Irengeus, who quotes a passage which
is found in the Epistle to the Romans (ch. iv.), without, however,
any mention of name, introduced by the following words : " As a
certain man of ours said, being condemned to the wild beasts on
account of his testimony to God : ' I am the wheat of God, and
by the teeth of beasts I am ground, that I may be found pure
bread.' " r Origen likewise quotes two brief sentences which he
refers to Ignatius. The first is merely : " But my love is crucified," 2
which is likewise found in the Epistle to the Romans (ch. vii.) ;
and the other quoted as "out of one of the Epistles" of the
martyr Ignatius : " From the Prince of this world was concealed
the virginity of Mary, "3 which is found in the Epistle to the
Ephesians (ch. xix.). Eusebius mentions seven Epistles,* and
quotes one passage from the Epistle to the Romans (ch. v.), and
a few words from an apocryphal Gospel contained in the Epistle
to the Smyrnaeans (ch. iii.), the source of which he says that he
does not know, and he cites from Irenaeus the brief quotation
given above, and refers to the mention of the Epistles in the letter
of Polycarp, which we reserve. Elsewhere 5 he further quotes a
short sentence found in the Epistle to the Ephesians (ch. xix.),
part of which had previously been cited by Origen. It will be
observed that all these quotations, with the exception of that from
Irenagus, are taken from the three Epistles which exist in the
Syriac translation, and they are found in that version ; and the
first occasion on which any passage attributed to Ignatius is quoted
which is not in the Syriac version of the three Epistles occurs in
the second half of the fourth century, when Athanasius, in his
1 Irenseus, Adv. Har., v. 28, 4 ; Eusebius, H. ., iii. 36. Lardner
expresses a doubt whether this is a quotation at all.
2 Prolog, in Cantic. Canticor.
3 Horn. vi. in Lucam- 4 H. ., iii. 36.
5 Qucest. ad Steph. ; cf. Cureton, Corp. Ign., p. 164.
160 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Epistle regarding the Synods of Ariminum and Selucia, 1 quotes a
few words from the Epistle to the Ephesians (ch. vii.) ; but,
although foreign to the Syriac text, it is to be noted that the words
are at least from a form of one of the three Epistles which exist in
that version. It is a fact, therefore, that up to the second half of
the fourth century no quotation ascribed to Ignatius, except one
by Eusebius, exists, which is not found in the three short Syriac
letters.
As we have already remarked, the Syriac version of the three
Epistles is very much shorter than the shorter Greek version ; the
Epistle to the Ephesians, for instance, being only about one-third
of the length of the Greek text. Those who still maintain the
superior authenticity of the Greek shorter version argue that the
Syriac is an epitome of the Greek. This does not, however, seem
tenable when the matter is carefully examined. Although so
much is absent from the Syriac version, not only is there no
interruption of the sense, and no obscurity or undue curtness in
the style, but the Epistles read more consecutively, without faults
of construction or grammar ; and passages which in the Greek
text were confused, and almost unintelligible, have become quite
clear in the Syriac. The interpolations of the text, in fact, had
been so clumsily made that they had obscured the meaning, and
their mere omission, without any other alteration of grammatical
construction, has restored the epistles to clear and simple order.
It is, moreover, a remarkable fact that the passages which, long
before the discovery of the Syriac epistles, were pointed out as
chiefly determining that the epistles were spurious, are not found
in the Syriac version at all. Archbishop Usher, who only
admitted the authenticity of six epistles, showed that much
interpolation of these letters took place in the sixth century ; 2
but this very fact increases the probability of much earlier inter-
polation also, to which the various existing versions most clearly
point. The interpolations can be explained upon the most
palpable dogmatic grounds, but not so the omissions upon the
hypothesis that the Syriac version is an abridgment made upon
any distinct dogmatic principle, for that which is allowed to remain
renders the omissions ineffectual for dogmatic reasons. There is
no ground of interest, therefore, upon which the portions omitted
and retained by the Syriac version can be intelligently explained.
Finally, here, we may mention that the MSS. of the three Syriac
epistles are more ancient by some centuries than those of any of
the Greek versions of the Seven epistles. 3 The strongest internal
as well as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in
1 Opera, Bened. ed. t i., p. 761.
9 Dissert., ch. vi., p. xxxiii. 3 Curetog, The Anc. Syr. Vers., p. xl.
THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 161
detail, has led the majority of critics to recognise the Syriac
version as the most ancient form of the letters of Ignatius extant,
and this is admitted by many of those who nevertheless deny the
authenticity of any of the epistles. 1
Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all
equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that
number was mentioned by Eusebius, from whom, for the first time
in the fourth century, except the general reference in the so-
called Epistle of Polycarp, to which we shall presently refer, we
hear of them. Now, neither the silence of Eusebius regarding
the eight Epistles, nor his mention of the seven, can have much
weight in deciding the question of their authenticity. The only
point which is settled by the reference of Eusebius is that, at. the
date at which he wrote, seven Epistles were known to him which
were ascribed to Ignatius. He evidently knew little or nothing
regarding the man or the Epistles beyond what he had learnt from
themselves, and he mentions the martyr-journey to Rome as a
mere report : "It is said that he was conducted from Syria to Rome
to be cast to wild beasts on account of his testimony to Christ." 2
It would be unreasonable to argue that no other Epistles existed
simply because Eusebius did not mention them ; and, on the other
hand, it would be still more unreasonable to affirm that' the seven
Epistles are authentic merely because Eusebius, in the fourth
century that is to say, some two centuries after they are supposed
to have been written had met with them. Does anyone believe
the letter of Jesus to Abgarus, Prince of Edessa, to be genuine
because Eusebius inserts it in his history 3 as an authentic docu-
ment out of the public records of the city of Edessa ? There is,
in fact, no evidence that the brief quotations of Irenasus and
Origen are taken from either of the extant Greek versions of the
Epistles ; for, as we have mentioned, they exist in the Syriac
Epistles, and there is nothing to show the original state of the
letters from which they were derived. Nothing is more certain
than the fact that, if any writer wished to circulate letters in the
name of Ignatius, he would insert such passages as were said to have
been quoted from genuine Epistles of Ignatius, and, supposing those
quotations to be real, all that could be inferred on finding such pas-
sages would be that, at least, so much might be genuine. It is a total
mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius
have been transmitted to us in any special way. These Epistles
are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient Latin
1 Regarding the Armenian version, see Preface to 6th ed., p. xliv. ff.
2 A6yos 5" ^x et TOVTOV a.Trb 2vpias eiri TTJV 'Pw/jiaiuv ir6\iv, K.T.\., ff. .,
iii. 36.
3ff. E., i. 13.
M
162 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally announced to be
spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal
honour. The recognition of the number seven may, therefore, be
ascribed simply to the reference to them by Eusebius, and his
silence regarding the rest.
What, then, is the position of the so-called Ignatian Epistles ?
Towards the end of the second century, Irenaeus makes a very
short quotation from a source unnamed, which Eusebius, in the
fourth century, finds in an Epistle attributed to Ignatius. Origen,
in the third century, quotes a very few words, which he ascribes to
Ignatius, although without definite reference to any particular
Epistle ; and in the fourth century Eusebius mentions seven
Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. There is no other evidence. There
are, however, fifteen Epistles extant attributed to Ignatius,
of all of which, with the exception of three which are only
known in a Latin version, we possess both Greek and Latin
versions. Of seven of these Epistles and they are those men-
tioned by Eusebius we have two Greek versions, one of which is
very much shorter than the other ; and, finally, we now possess a
Syriac version of three Epistles only, in a form still shorter than
the shorter Greek version, in which are found all the quotations of
the Fathers, without exception, up to the fourth century. Eight
of the fifteen Epistles are universally rejected as spurious. The
longer Greek version of the remaining seven Epistles is almost
unanimously condemned as grossly interpolated ; and the majority
of critics recognise that the shorter Greek version is also much
interpolated ; whilst the Syriac version, which so far as MSS. are
concerned is by far the most ancient text of any of the letters
which we possess, reduces their number to three, and their
contents to a very small compass. It is not surprising that the
majority of critics have .expressed doubt more or less strong
regarding the authenticity of all of these Epistles, and that so
large a number have repudiated them altogether. One thing is
quite evident, that amidst such a mass of falsification, interpolation,
and fraud, the Ignatian Epistles cannot, in any form, be considered
evidence on any important point.
These doubts, however, have been intensified by consideration
of the circumstances under which the Ignatian Epistles are repre-
sented as having been composed. They profess to have been
written by Ignatius during his journey from Antioch to Rome, in
the custody of Roman soldiers, in order to be exposed to wild
beasts, the form of martyrdom to which he had been condemned.
The writer describes the circumstances of his journey as follows :
" From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by sea and
by land, by night and day ; being bound amongst ten leopards,
which are the band of soldiers, who, even receiving benefits,
THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 163
become worse." 1 Now, if this account be in the least degree
true, how is it possible to suppose that the martyr could have
found means to write so many long Epistles, entering minutely
into dogmatic teaching, and expressing the most deliberate and
advanced views regarding ecclesiastical government ? Indeed, it
may be asked why Ignatius should have considered it necessary in
such a journey, even if the possibility be for a moment conceded,
to address such Epistles to communities and individuals to whom,
by the showing of the letters themselves, he had just had oppor-
tunities of addressing his counsels in person. The Epistles them-
selves bear none of the marks of composition under such
circumstances, and it is impossible to suppose that soldiers, such
as the quotation above describes, would allow a prisoner, con-
demned to wild beasts for professing Christianity, deliberately to
write long Epistles at every stage of his journey, promulgating the
very doctrines for which he was condemned. And not only this,
but on his way to martyrdom, he has, according to the Epistles, 2
perfect freedom to see his friends. He receives the bishops,
deacons, and members of various Christian communities, who come
with greetings to him, and devoted followers accompany him on
his journey. All this without hindrance from the " ten leopards,"
of whose cruelty he complains, and without persecution or harm
to those who so openly declare themselves his friends and fellow-
believers. The whole story is absolutely incredible.
Against these objections Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments,
derived from Zahn, regarding the Roman procedure in cases that
are said to be " known." These cases, however, are neither
analogous nor have they the force which is assumed. That
Christians imprisoned for their religious belief should receive their
nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything but extra-
ordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many
cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The case of
Ignatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of of K<U
et'e/oyeTcn'^evcH ^etpovs yivovrai be that, although receiving bribes,
the " ten leopards " only became more cruel, the very reverse of the
leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the Roman procedure is
described by the writer himself as actually taking place, and
certainly nothing approaching a parallel to the correspondence of
pseudo-Ignatius can be pointed out in any known instance. The
case of Saturus and Perpetua, even if true, is no confirmation, the
6rjpLO/j.ax^ dia 777? Kal 6a\dffO'T]s, VVKTOS KC
e Servos 5^/ca XeoTrdpSocs, 5 effTiv ffTpariwriK^v rdy/j-a' ot Kal fvepytrovirevot
ovs ylvovra.1. Ep. Ad. Rom., v.
2 Cf. ad Ephes., i. ii., ad Magnes. ii. xv., ad Trail, i., ad Rom. x., ad
Philadelph. xi., ad Smyrn. x. xiii., etc.
,64 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
circumstances being very different; 1 but, in fact, there is no
evidence whatever that the extant history was written by either of
them, 3 but, on the contrary, every reason to believe that it was not.
Dr. Lightfoot advances the instance of Paul as a case in point
of a Christian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who
" writes letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates
with churches and individuals as he desires." 3 It is scarcely
possible to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of
pseudo-Ignatius and Paul, as narrated in the " Acts of the
Apostles," although doubtless the story of the former has been
framed upon some of the lines of the latter. Whilst Ignatius is
condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a Christian, Paul is
not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a Roman
citizen, rescued from infuriated Jews (xxiii. 27), repeatedly declared
by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds
(xxv. 25, xxvi. 31), and who might have been set at liberty but
that he had appealed to Caesar (xxv. n f., xxvi. 32). His posi-
tion was one which secured the sympathy of the Roman soldiers.
Ignatius " fights with beasts from Syria even unto Rome," and is
cruelly treated by his "ten leopards"; but Paul is represented as
receiving very different treatment. Felix commands that his own
people should be allowed to come and minister to him (xxiv. 23),
and when the voyage is commenced it is said that Julius, who had
charge of Paul, treated him courteously, and gave him liberty to
go to see his friends at Sidon (xxvii. 3). At Rome he was allowed
to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him (xxviii. 16),
and he continued for two years in his own hired house (xxviii. 28).
These circumstances are totally different from those under which
the Epistles of Ignatius are said to have been written.
" But the most powerful testimony," Dr. Lightfoot goes on to
say, "is derived from the representations of a heathen writer. "
The case of Peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to us even more
unfortunate than that of Paul. Of Peregrinus himself, historically,
we really know little or nothing, for the account of Lucian is
scarcely received by anyone as serious. Lucian narrates that this
Peregrinus Proteus, a cynic philosopher, having been guilty of
parricide and other crimes, found it convenient to leave his own
country. In the course of his travels he fell in with. Christians
and learnt their doctrines, and, according to Lucian, the Christians
soon were mere children in his hands, so that he became in his
own person " prophet, high priest, and ruler of a synagogue ";
1 Ruinart, Acta Mart., p. 137 ff. ; cf. Baronius, Mart. Rom., 1631, p. 152.
' Cf. Lardner, Credibility, etc., Works, iii., p. 3.
3 Contemporary Review, February, 1875, p., 349.
/*., p- 35-
THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 165
and, further, " they spoke of him as a god, used him as a law-
giver, and elected him as their chief man." 1 After a time he was
put in prison for his new faith, which, Lucian says, was a real
service to him afterwards in his impostures. During the time he
was in prison he is said to have received those services from
Christians which Dr. Lightfoot quotes. Peregrinus was subsequently
set at liberty by the Governor of Syria, who loved philosophy, 2
and travelled about, living in great comfort at the expense of the
Christians, until at last they quarrelled, in consequence, Lucian
thinks, of his eating some forbidden food. Finally, Peregrinus
ended his career by throwing himself into the flames of a funeral
pile during the Olympian games. An earthquake is said to have
taken place at the time ; a vulture flew out from the pile, crying
out with a human voice ; and shortly after Peregrinus rose again,
and appeared clothed in white raiment, unhurt by the fire.
Now, this writing, of which we have given the barest sketch, is
a direct satire upon Christians, or even, as Baur affirms, " a parody
of the history of Jesus." 3 There are no means of ascertaining
that any of the events of the Christian career of Peregrinus were
true ; but it is obvious that Lucian's policy was to exaggerate the
facility of access to prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention
of the Christians to Peregrinus, the ease with which they were
duped being the chief point of the satire.
There is another circumstance which must be mentioned.
Lucian's account of Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the
Ignatian Epistles as evidence for them.-* "The singular corres-
pondence in this narrative with the account of Ignatius, combined
with some striking coincidences of expression," they argue, show
" that Lucian was acquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with
the Ignatian letters." These are the words of Dr. Lightfoot,
although he guards himself, in referring to this argument, by the
words, "if it be true," and does not express his own opinion ; but
he goes on to say : "At all events it is conclusive for the matter
in hand, as showing that Christian prisoners were treated in the
very way described in these Epistles." 5 On the contrary, it is in
no case conclusive of anything. If it were true that Lucian
employed, as the basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistles and
Martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as inde-
pendent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the
treatment of Christian prisoners. On the other hand, as this
cannot be shown, his story remains a mere satire, with very little
1 De Morte Peregr., II. 2 //;., 14.
3 Gesch. chr. Kirche, i., p. 410 f.
4 See, for instance, Denzinger, Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish. Textes d. Ignat.
Briefe, 1849, P- 87 ff. ; Zahn, Igttatius v. Ant., 1873, p. 517 ff.
5 Contemporary Review, February, 1875, p. 350 f.
1 66 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
historical value. Apart from all this, however, the case of
Peregrinus, a man confined in prison for a short time, under a
favourable governor, and not pursued with any severity, is no
parallel to that of Ignatius, condemned ad fostias, and, according
to his own express statement, cruelly treated by the " ten leopards ";
and, further, the liberty of pseudo-Ignatius must greatly have
exceeded all that is said of Peregrinus, if he was able to write
such Epistles, and hold such free intercourse as they represent.
There seems to be good reason for believing that Ignatius was
not sent to Rome at all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself
on the 2oth December A.D. 115, being condemned to be cast to
wild beasts in the amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical
excitement produced by the earthquake which occurred on the
1 3th of that month. There are no less than three martyrologies
of Ignatius giving an account of the martyr's supposed journey
from Antioch to Rome, but these can have no weight, as they are
all recognised to be mere idle legends, of whose existence we do
not hear till a very late period.
We shall briefly state the case for holding that the martyrdom
took place in Antioch, and not in Rome. The Ignatian Epistles
and martyrologies set forth that, during a general persecution of
Christians, in Syria at least, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan,
when he wintered in Antioch during the Parthian War, to be
taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre.
When we inquire whether these facts are supported by historical
data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is known of the
treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well as of
the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition that
Ignatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even
by a provincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to
the beasts. It is well known that, under Trajan, there was no
general persecution of Christians, although there may have been
instances in which prominent members of the body were either
punished or fell victims to popular fury and superstition. 1 An
instance of this kind was the martyrdom of Simeon, Bishop of
Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not condemned
ad bestias, however, and much less deported to Rome for the
purpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally
treated ? In fact, even during the persecutions under Marcus
Aurelius, although Christians in Syria were frequently enough
cast to the beasts, there is no instance recorded in which anyone
condemned to this fate was sent to Rome. Such a sentence is
1 Milman says : " Excepting of Ignatius, probably of Simeon of Jerusalem,
there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of Trajan." Hist, of Chris-
tianity, 1867, ii., p. 103 note.
THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 167
quite at variance with the clement character of Trajan and his
principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by
Baur, says : " As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity
mere fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were
combined with clemency, if too much noise were not made about
it, the open demonstration not left unpunished, but also minds not
stirred up by persecution, fanatical enthusiasm would more easily
cool down, and the matter by degrees come to an end." 1 This
was certainly the policy which mainly characterised his reign.
Now, not only would such a severe sentence have been contrary to
such principles, but the agitation excited would have been
enormously increased by sending the martyr a long journey by
land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through some of
the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various
Christian communities, and address long epistles to them. With
the fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey
would have been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere
excitement and enthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an
indication of the results of impartial examination, to point out
that Neander's inability to accept the Ignatian epistles largely
rests on his disbelief of the whole tradition of this sentence and
martyr-journey. " We do not recognise the Emperor Trajan in
this narrative " (the martyrology), he says, "therefore cannot but
doubt everything which is related by this document, as well as
that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild
beasts." 2
If, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned
by Trajan himself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial
governor, the story does not gain greater probability. It is not
credible that such an official would have ventured to act so much
in opposition to the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides,
if such a governor did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did
he not execute it in Antioch ? Why send the prisoner to Rome ?
By doing so he made all the more conspicuous a severity which
was not likely to be pleasing to the clement Trajan. The cruelty
which dictated a condemnation ad bestias would have been more
gratified by execution on the spot. The transport to Rome is in
no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is that
Ignatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to
death during this reign, more especially if the event be associated
with some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the
Christians, to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim.
We are not without indications of such a cause operating in the
case of Ignatius.
1 K. G., 1842, i., p. 171. 2 //'., p. 172 anm.
i68 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
It is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch
is A.D. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian war. An
earthquake occurred on the i3th of December of that year, which
was well calculated to excite popular superstition. It may not be
out of place to quote here the account of the earthquake given
by Dean Mil man, who, although he mentions a different date, and
adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still associates the condemna-
tion of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says : " Nevertheless,
at that time there were circumstances which account with singular
likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in Antioch
At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and
destructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its
most appalling ravages Antioch, crowded with the legionaries
prepared for the Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors
and tributary kings from all parts of the East. The city shook
through all its streets ; houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell
crashing down. Many were killed : the Consul Pedo died of his
hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped through a window,
and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some days in the
open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of the
Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices ? This was
towards the end of January; early in February the Christian
Bishop, Ignatius, was arrested. We know how, during this
century, at every period of public calamity, whatever that calamity
might be, the cry of the panic-stricken Heathens was, ' The
Christians to the lions !' It may be that, in Trajan's humanity,
in order to prevent a general massacre by the infuriated populace,
or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice, the execution was
ordered to take place, not in Antioch, but in Rome." 1 These
reasons, on the contrary, render execution in Antioch infinitely
more probable. To continue, however : the earthquake occurred
on the 1 3th, and the martyrdom of Ignatius took place on the
2oth of December, just a week after the earthquake. His remains,
as we know from Chrysostom and others, were interred at Antioch.
The natural inference is that the martyrdom, the only part of the
Ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in Rome, but in
Antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against the
aOeoi aroused by the earthquake.
We must now go more into the details of the brief statements
just made, and here we come to John Malalas. In the first place
he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the i3th of
December. We shall quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his
further important narrative. He says :
" The words of John Malalas are :
1 Hist, of Christianity, ift^p. 101 f.
"The same king Trajan was residing in the same city (Antioch) when the
visitation of God (i.e. , the earthquake) occurred. And at that time the holy
Ignatius, the bishop of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony,
e/j-apruprja-e) before him (tirl avrov) ; for he was exasperated against him
because he reviled him.'" 1
Dr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this state-
ment. He argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other
matters, and, therefore, is not to be believed here ; but so simple
a piece of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer
who elsewhere may record stupid traditions. 2 If the narrative of
foolish stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in
everything else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the
Fathers are disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. Then
Dr. Lightfoot actually makes use of the following extraordinary
argument to explain away the statement of Malalas :
" But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is capable
of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some earlier authority,
whose language lent itself to misinterpretation. The words fiaprvpeiv, fiap-
Tvpta, which were afterwards used especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier
ages a wider sense, including other modes of witnessing to the faith : the
expression eirl Tpal'dvov again is ambiguous and might denote either ' during
the reign of Trajan ' or ' in the presence of Trajan.' A blundering writer like
Malalas might have stumbled over either expression. "3
It would be difficult, indeed, to show that the words /ta/jTv/mv,
/jLaprvpia, already used in that sense in the New Testament, were
not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius
which Malalas could have had before him was written, employed
to express martyrdom when applied to such a case, as Dr. Light-
foot, indeed, has in the first instance rendered the phrase. Even
Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so implicitly follows, emphatically
decides against him on both points. " The ori avrov together
with TOT* can only signify ' coram Trajano* ('in the presence of
Trajan '), and epaprvprjo-e only the execution." 4 Let anyone
simply read over Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering, which we have
quoted above, and he will see that Malalas seems excellently
well, and directly, to have interpreted his earlier authority.
That the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports
of the Fathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to
believe that none of them had information from any other source
than the Ignatian Epistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius
evidently had not. Irenaeus, Origen, and some later Fathers
tell us nothing about him. Jerome and Chrysostom clearly take
their accounts from these sources. Malalas is the first who, by
his variation, proves that he had another and different authority
1 P. 276 (ed. Bonn), Contemporary Review, February, 1875, p. 352.
2 Ib., p. 353 f. 3 Jh^ p. 353 f. 4 Ignatius v. Ant., p. 66, anm. 3.
I 7 o SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
before him, and, in abandoning the martyr-journey to Rome, his
account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalas lived
at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It is
objected that so, also, did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period,
and yet he repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid
argument against Malalas. Chrysostom was too good a Church-
man to doubt the story of Epistles so much tending to edification,
which were in wide circulation, and had been quoted by earlier
Fathers. It is in no way surprising that, some two centuries and
a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly have accepted the
representations of the Epistles purporting to have been written by
the martyr himself, and that their story should have shaped the
prevailing tradition.
The remains of Ignatius, as we are informed by Chrysostom
and Jerome, long remained interred in the cemetery of Antioch,
but finally in the time of Theodosius, it is said were translated
with great pomp and ceremony to a building which, such is the
irony of events, had previously been a Temple of Fortune. The
story told, of course, is that the relics of the martyr had been
carefully collected in the Coliseum and carried from Rome
to Antioch. After reposing there for some centuries, the relics,
which are said to have been transported from Rome to Antioch,
were, about the seventh century, carried back from Antioch to
Rome. 1 The natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead
of this double translation, the bones of Ignatius had always
remained in Antioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the
tradition that they had been brought back from Rome was merely
the explanation which reconciled the fact of their actually being in
Antioch with the legend of the Ignatian Epistles.
The 2oth of December is the date assigned to the death of
Ignatius in the Martyrology, 2 and Zahn admits that this interpre-
tation is undeniable. 3 Moreover, the anniversary of his death was
celebrated on that day in the Greek churches and throughout the
East. In the Latin Church it is kept on the ist of February.
There can be little doubt that this was the day of the translation
of the relics to Rome, and this was evidently the view of Ruinart,
who, although he could not positively contradict the views of his
own Church, says : " Ignatii festum Graeci vigtsima die mensis
Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum fuisse Acta testantur ; Latini
vero die prima FebruaHi, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus reliqiiiarum
1 I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these relics were
first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards translated to
Antioch.
2 Ruinart, Acta Mart., pp. 59, 69.
T A * t y r H
3 Ignatius v. Ant., p. 68.
THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS 171
trans lationem ? plures enim fuisse cons fat." 1 Zahn 2 states that the
Feast of the translation in later calendars was celebrated on the
2 Qth of January, and he points out the evident ignorance which
prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius.3
On the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we
possess regarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the
story that Ignatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the
Coliseum ; and all the positive evidence which exists, independent
of the Epistles themselves, tends to establish the fact that he
suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself. On the other hand, all the
evidence which is offered for the statement that Ignatius was sent
to Rome is more or less directly based upon the representations of
the letters, the authenticity of which is in discussion, and it is sur-
rounded with improbabilities of every kind.
We might well spare our readers the trouble of examining
further the contents of the Epistles themselves, for it is manifest
that they cannot afford testimony of any value on the subject of
our inquiry. We shall, however, briefly point out all the passages
contained in the seven Greek Epistles which have any bearing
upon our Synoptic Gospels, in order that their exact position may
be more fully appreciated. Tischendorf* refers to a passage in the
Epistle to the Romans, c. vi., as a verbal quotation of Matt. xvi.
26, but he neither gives the context nor states the facts of the case.
The passage reads as follows : " The pleasures of the world shall
profit me nothing, nor the kingdoms of this time ; it is better for
me to die for Jesus Christ than to reign over the ends of the earth.
For what is a man profited if he gain the whole world but lose his
soul ?"s Now, this quotation not only is not found in the Syriac
version of the Epistle, but it is also omitted from the ancient Latin
version, and is absent from the passage in the work of Timotheus
of Alexandria against the Council of Chalcedon, and from other
authorities. It is evidently a later addition, and is recognised as
1 Ruinart, Ada Mart., p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of the
martyrdom ist February, and that of the translation I7th December. Mart.
Rom., p. 87, p. 766 ff.
2 Ignatius v. Ant., p. 27, p. 68, anm. 2.
3 There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that in Chrysostom's
time the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere allusion, in a
Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently" the feast of Sta.
Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar Qth June) had been celebrated, by no means
justifies such a conclusion and there is nothing else to establish it.
4 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 22.
5 Ovdtv fj.e c5</>e\i7<rei rot Tr^para TOV K6ff/j.ov, oi58 ai /SaffiXetai TOV at&vos
TOVTOV. Ka\6v /mot aTroOavfiv Sid Xptordp 'Itjcrovv, 7) f3a<n\eveiv r&v irepdruv
7>}s. Ti yap u></>e\emu AvOpwiros, tav Kepd^ffj) TOV K6fffj.ov o\ov, TTJV
avrov fyfuwd-fj ; c. vi.
1 7 2 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
such by most critics. 1 It was probably a gloss, which subsequently
was inserted in the text. Of these facts, however, Tischendorf
does not say a word. 2
The next passage to which he refers is in the Epistle to the
Smyrnaeans, c. i., where the writer says of Jesus, " He was baptised
by John in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by
Him, "3 which Tischendorf considers a reminiscence of Matt. iii.
15, " For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness."-* The
phrase, besides being no quotation, has, again, all the appearance
of being an addition ; and when in ch. iii. of the same Epistle we
find a palpable quotation from an apocryphal Gospel, which
Jerome states to be the " Gospel according to the Hebrews," to
which we shall presently refer, a Gospel which we know to have
contained the baptism of Jesus by John, it is not possible, even if
the Epistle were genuine, which it is not, to base any such con-
clusion upon these words. There is not only the alternative of
tradition, but the use of the same apocryphal Gospel, elsewhere
quoted in the Epistle, as the source of the reminiscence.
Tischendorf does not point out any more supposed references
to our Synoptic Gospels, but we proceed to notice all the other
passages which have been indicated by others. In the Epistle to
Polycarp, c. ii., the following sentence occurs : " Be thou wise as
the serpent in everything, and harmless as the dove." This is, of
course, compared with Matt. x. 16, "Be ye therefore, wise as
serpents, and innocent as doves." The Greek of both is as
follows :
EPISTLE.
3>p6i'i/jLos ylvov cis 6 6<f>
a.K("pa.tos ws i) irepiffTfpd.
MATT. x. 16.
o$v </>p6i>tfj,oi wj oi
al wepiffrepal,
In the Syriac version the passage reads, " Be thou wise as the
serpent in everything, and harmless as to those things which are
requisite as the dove." 6 It is unnecessary to add that no source is
indicated for the reminiscence. Ewald assigns this part of our
first Gospel originally to the Spruchsammlung, and, even apart
from the variations presented in the Epistle, there is nothing to
1 Anger, Synops. Ev., p. 119 f. ; Cureton, Ancient Syriac Version, etc.,
p. 42 ff. ; Dressel, Pair. Ap., p. 170; Grabe, Spicil Pair., ii., p. 16 ;
Jacobson, Patr. Ap., ii., p. 402 ; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 48, anm.
6 ; etc.
2 Dr. Lightfoot omits the supposed quotation from his text of the Epistle
Apost. Fathers, p. 122. Dr. Westcott does not refer to the passage at all.
3 ptpairTifffdvov virb 'ludvvov, Iva TT\r)pu8rj iraffa diKaioff^vr) vir' avrov, K.T.\.
c. i.
4 oCrws yh.p irptwov tarlv iffiiv TrXijpCxrai ira/rav diKato<rvvt)v.
5 The Cod. Sin. alone reads ws 6 0#is here.
6 Cf. Cureton, Ancient Syriac Version, etc., p? 5, p. 72.
THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS
173
warrant exclusive selection of our first Gospel as the source of
the saying. The remaining passages we subjoin in parallel
columns :
EP. TO THE EPHESIANS v.
For if the prayer of one or two
has such power, how much more
that of the bishop and of all the
Church. 1
EP. TO EPHESIANS vi.
For every one whom the Master
of the house sends to be over his own
household we ought to receive as
we should him that sent (irtfj.\l/ai>Ta)
him.
lldvra yap 6v ire/jLTrei, 6 ot'/coSecrTr^rT/s
eis idiav oiKOvo/niav, otfrws Set Tf/ucts
O.VTOV dexeffOai, u>s avrov rbv irtfJ.t//avTa.
EP. TO TRALLIANS xi.
For these are not a planting of
the Father.
Ourot yap O$K eiffiv tfivTfia irarp6s.
EP. TO SMYRN^EANS vi.
He that receiveth it let him
receive it.
'0 x u &" x we ' rw -
MATT. xvm. 19.
Again I say unto you that if two
of you shall agree on earth as touch-
ing anything that they shall ask it
shall be done for them by my
Father, v. 20. For where two or
three are gathered together, etc.
MATT. x. 40.
He that receiveth you receiveth
me, and he that receiveth me re-
ceiveth him that sent
me.
v/j,as efie
MATT. xv. 13.
Every plant which my heavenly
Father did not plant shall be rooted
up.
ITacra <j>vrela ty oiiK ^<J>i'/Tev<rv 6
6 ovpdvios ^Kpff
MATT. xix. 12.
He that is able to receive it let him
receive it.
'0 5vvd/J.fvos x/upeiv
None of these passages are quotations, and they generally present
such marked linguistic variations from the parallel passages in our
first Gospel that there is not the slightest ground for specially
referring them to it. The last words cited are introduced without
any appropriate context. In no case are the expressions indicated
as quotations from, or references to, any particular source. They
may either be traditional, or reminiscences of some of the numerous
Gospels current in the early Church, such as the Gospel according
to the Hebrews. That the writer made use of one of these cannot
be doubted. In the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, c. iii., there occurs
a quotation from an apocryphal Gospel to which we have already,
in passing, referred : " For I know that also after his resurrection
he was in the flesh, and I believe he is so now. And when he
came to those who were with Peter he said to them : Lay hold,
handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit (
1 EZ yap ev6r KCU devrtpov TrpocrevxTl roffaurriv icr
TOV Airier K6irov tcai TTCUJ-^S rffs tKK\r)ffla.s ;
, ir6<rt{>
ij re
I74 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
And immediately they touched him and believed, being convinced
by his flesh and spirit." 1 Eusebius, who quotes this passage,
says that he does not know whence it is taken. 2 Origen, however,
quotes it from a work well known in the early Church, called " The
Teaching of Peter " (Ai&xx^ Herpov) ;3 and Jerome found it in
the " Gospel according to the Hebrews," in use among the
Nazarenes, 4 which he translated, as we shall hereafter see. It
was, no doubt, in both of those works. The narrative, Luke
xxiv. 39 f., being neglected, and an apocryphal Gospel used here,
the inevitable inference is clear, and very suggestive. As it is
certain that this quotation was taken from a source different from
our Gospels, there is reason to suppose that the other passages
which we have cited are reminiscences of the same work. The
passage on the three mysteries in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
c. xix., is evidently another quotation from an uncanonical
source. 5
We must, however, again point out that, with the single excep-
tion of the short passage in the Epistle to Polycarp, c. ii., which
is not a quotation, none of these supposed reminiscences of
our Synoptic Gospels are found in the Syriac version of the three
Epistles.
With regard to Scriptural quotations in all the seven Ignatian
letters, it may be well to quote the words of Dr. Lightfoot. " The
Ignatian letters do, indeed, show a considerable knowledge of the
writings included in our Canon of the New Testament ; but this
knowledge betrays itself in casual words and phrases, stray
metaphors, epigrammatic adaptations, and isolated coincidences
of thought. Where there is an obligation, the borrowed figure or
expression has passed through the mind of the writer, has been
assimilated, and has undergone some modification in the process.
Quotations from the New Testament, strictly speaking, there
are none." 6 Dr. Lightfoot' is speaking here, not only of the
Gospels, but of the whole New Testament, and he adds, in
regard to such approaches : " Even such examples can be
counted on the fingers." Without discussing how such know-
ledge can be limited to special writings, it is obvious that, whatever
view may be taken of the Ignatian letters, they afford no evidence
1 'Eyu yap Kal /otera rj]v avdffTa<riv tv (rapid afnbv olSa Kal iriffreuu 6vra. Kal
Srf jrpAi roi>$ irepl lUrpov ^\6ev, </>?; aiVoir "Adhere, ^?;Xa.<^<rar<? /xe, Kal
ISfTt &TI oik elfjtl daifj.6ftoi> aadinarov." Kai_ei)0i>j avrov i]\f/avTO, K
KpaOtfTtt Ty crapKl avrov Kai r$ a'l/ttart.
7 OVK old' 6ir60ei> farois ffiiy^xprirai. H. . , iii. 36.
3 De Princip. Pra>f., 8.
4 De vir. ill., 16 ; cf. Comm. in Is. lib. xviii., prcef.
5 Cf. Ewald, Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. y vii., p. 318, anm. i.
6 Apostolic Fathers, part ii., vol. i., 1885, p. 586.
175
even of the existence of our Gospels, and throw no light whatever
on their authorship and trustworthiness as witnesses for miracles
and the reality of Divine revelation.
We have hitherto deferred all consideration of the so-called
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, from the fact that, instead
of proving the existence of the Epistles of Ignatius, with which
it is intimately associated, it is itself discredited in proportion as
they are shown to be inauthentic. We have just seen that the
martyr-journey of Ignatius to Rome is, for cogent reasons, declared
to be wholly fabulous, and the Epistles purporting to be written
during that journey must be held to be spurious. The Epistle of
Polycarp, however, not only refers to the martyr-journey (c. ix.),
but to the Ignatian Epistles which are inauthentic (c. xiii.), and
the manifest inference is that it also is spurious.
Polycarp, who is said by Irenaeus 1 to have been in his youth a
disciple of the Apostle John, became Bishop of Smyrna, and
suffered martyrdom at a very advanced age. 2 On the authority of
Eusebius and Jerome it has hitherto been generally believed that
his death took place in A.D. 166-167. In the account of his
martyrdom, which we possess in the shape of a letter from the
Church of Smyrna, purporting to have been written by eye-
witnesses, which must be pronounced spurious, Polycarp is said
to have died under the Proconsul Statius Quadratus. 3 If this
statement be correct, the date hitherto received can no longer be
maintained, for recent investigations have determined that Statius
Quadratus was proconsul in A.D. 155-5 or J 55~6. 4 Some critics,
who affirm the authenticity of the Epistle attributed to Polycarp,
date the Epistle before A.D. 120, but the preponderance of
opinion assigns it to a much later period. Doubts of its authen-
ticity, and of the integrity of the text, were very early expressed,
and the close scrutiny to which later and more competent
criticism has subjected it has led very many to the conclusion
that the Epistle is either largely interpolated or altogether spurious.
The principal argument in favour of its authenticity is the fact
that the Epistle is mentioned by Irenaeus,s who in his extreme
1 Adv. Hcer., iii., 3, 4 ; cf. Eusebius, H. E., v. 20.
2 In the Mart. Polycarpi (c. 9) he is represented as declaring that he had
served Christ eighty-six years.
3 Mart. Polycarpi, c. 21.
4 Waddington, Mem. de Vlnst. imp. de France, Acad. des Inscript. et Belles
Lettres, T. xxvi., I Part., 1867, p. 232 ff. ; cf. Pastes des Provinces A siatiques,
1872, i Part., p. 219 ff. It should be mentioned, however, that in A.D. 167
there was a Consul of the name of Ummidius Quadratus (Waddington, I.e.,
p. 238). Wieseler and Keim reject M. Waddington's conclusions, and adhere to
the later date.
5 Adv. Hcer., iii. 3, 4.
176 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
youth was acquainted with Polycarp. 1 We have no very precise
information regarding the age of Irenaeus ; but Jerome states that
he flourished under Commodus (180-192), and we may, as a
favourable conjecture, suppose that he was then about 35-37. In
that case his birth must be dated about A.D. 145. There is reason
to believe that he fell a victim to persecution under Septimius
Severus, and it is only doubtful whether he suffered during the
first outbreak in A.D. 202 or later. According to this calculation
the martyrdom of Polycarp, in A.D. 155-156, took place when he
was ten or eleven years of age. Even if a further concession be
made in regard to his age, it is evident that the intercourse of
Irenaeus with the Bishop of Smyrna must have been confined to
his very earliest years a fact which is confirmed by the almost
total absence of any record in his writings of the communications
of Polycarp. This certainly does not entitle Irenaeus to speak
more authoritatively of an Epistle ascribed to Polycarp than
anyone else of his day.
In the Epistle itself there are several anachronisms. In ch. ix.
the " blessed Ignatius " is referred to as already dead, and he is
held up with Zosimus and Rufus, and also with Paul and the rest
of the Apostles, as examples of patience men who have not run
in vain, but are with the Lord ; but in ch. xiii. he is spoken of as
living, and information is requested regarding him, " and those
who are with him." 2 Yet, although thus spoken of as alive, the
writer already knows of his Epistles, and refers, in the plural, to
those written by him " to us, and all the rest which we have by
us."3 The reference here, it will be observed, is not only to the
Epistles to the Smyrnaeans, and to Polycarp himself, but to other
spurious Epistles which are not included in the Syriac version.
Daille-* pointed out long ago that ch. xiii. abruptly interrupts the
conclusion of the Epistle, and most critics, including those who
assert the authenticity of the rest of the Epistle, reject it, at least,
although many of these likewise repudiate ch. ix. as interpolated.
Others, however, consider that the latter chapter is quite consistent
with the later date, which, according to internal evidence, must be
assigned to the Epistle. The writer vehemently denounces, 5 as
already widely spread, the Gnostic heresy and other forms of false
doctrine which did not exist until the time of Marcion, to whom
1 'Ev TV irpwrr) ij/uav ^Xi/c/p K.T.\. Adv. Hcer., iii. 3, 4, Eusebius, H. .,
iv., 14, cf. v. 20.
2 t de ipso fgnatio, et de his qui cum eo sunt, quod certius agnoveritis,
significate. Cf. Donaldson, Hht. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., i., p. 184 f.
3 TAi ^irwToXAs 'lyvariov rdj TrffupOdcras tifuv vir' avrov, /cat dXXas Seras
elX<oii*v xa.fi rjfj.if, K.T.\.
4 De Scripti s, etc., 427 ff.
5 Cf. chaps, vi., vii.
THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 177
and to whose followers he refers in unmistakeable terms. An
expression is used in ch. vii., in speaking of these heretics, which
Polycarp is reported by Irenceus to have actually applied to
Marcion in person, during his visit to Rome. He is said to have
called Marcion the " first-born of Satan " (TTPCOTOTOKOS rov Sarai/a), 1
and the same term is employed in this Epistle with regard to
everyone who holds such false doctrines. The development of
these heresies, therefore, implies a date for the composition of the
Epistle, at earliest, after the middle of the second century, a date
which is further confirmed by other circumstances. 2 The writer of
such a letter must have held a position in the Church, to which
Polycarp could only have attained in the latter part of his life,
when he was deputed to Rome for the Paschal discussion, and the
Epistle depicts the developed ecclesiastical organisation of a later
time. 3 The earlier date which has now been adopted for the
martyrdom of Polycarp by limiting the period during which it is
possible that he himself could have written any portion of it, only
renders the inauthenticity of the Epistle more apparent. Hilgen-
feld has pointed out, as another indication of the same date, the
injunction, "Pray for the kings" (Orate pro regibus), which, in i
Peter ii. 17, is "Honour the King" (rov /3a<ri\ea rt/xare),
which, he argues, accords with the period after Antoninus Pius had
elevated Marcus Aurelius to joint sovereignty (A.D. 147), or, better
still, with that in which Marcus Aurelius appointed Lucius Verus
his colleague, A.D. 161 ; for to rulers outside the Roman Empire
there can be no reference. If authentic, however, the Epistle
must have been written, at latest, shortly after the martyrdom of
Ignatius in A.D. 115; but, as we have seen, there are strong internal
characteristics excluding such a supposition. The reference to the
1 Adv. ffcer., in. 3, 4 ; Eusebius, H. ., iv. 14.
2 Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit, ii., p. 155 f. ; Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Vciter, p.
272 f. ; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1874, p. 208 f. ; Scholten, Die alt.
Zeugnisse, p. 41 ff. ; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 44 ff. Schwegler and
Hilgenfeld consider the insertion of this phrase, reported to have been
actually used in Rome against Marcion, as proof of the inauthenticity of
the Epistle. They argue that the well-known saying was employed to give
an appearance of reality to the forgery. In any case, it shows that the
Epistle cannot have been written earlier than the second half of the second
century.
3 Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., ii., p. 158; Hilgenfeld, Die ap. Vtiter,
p. 273 ; Ritschl., Enst. altk. Kirche, p. 402 f. ; Scholten, Die. alt. Zeugnisse,
p. 42. It has been pointed out that, in the superscription, Polycarp is
clearly distinguished, as Bishop, from the Presbyters of Smyrna : Ho\iJKa.pTros
Kal ot <rvv avrf wpefffivTepoi. Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, 1851, i., p. 172 f.
anm. ; Rothe, Anfiinge chr. Kirche, 1837, i., p. 408 f. anm. 107, 108 ; Hil-
genfeld, 1. c. ; Ritschl., 1. c. The writer, in admonishing the Philippians,
speaks of their " being subject to the Presbyters and Deacons as to God and
Christ " viroTaffffo^vovs rots irpeo-purtpots KCU Siaicdvois ws rf Qef Kal X/H<TT
/c.T.X. c. 5.
! J- N
178
martyr-journey of Ignatius and to the Epistles falsely ascribed to
him is alone sufficient to betray the spurious nature of the compo-
sition, and to class the Epistle with the rest of the pseudo-Ignatian
literature.
We shall now examine all the passages in this Epistle which are
pointed out as indicating any acquaintance with our Synoptic
Gospels. 1 The first occurs in ch. ii., and we subjoin it in con-
trast with the nearest parallel passages of the Gospels ; but, although
we break it up into paragraphs, it will, of course, be understood
that the quotation is continuous in the Epistle :
EPISTLE, c. n.
Remembering what the Lord said,
teaching :
Judge not, that ye be not judged ;
forgive, and it shall be forgiven to
you ;
be pitiful, that ye may be pitied ;
with what measure ye mete it shall
be measured to you again ; and that
blessed are the poor and those
that are persecuted for righteousness
sake, for theirs is the kingdom of
God.
EPISTLE c. n.
MTJ Kplvere, tva /tr? KpiffrJTf.
diplfTt, Kal dtpfd-fffferai Vfjuv.
MATTHEW.
vii. i.
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
vi. 14. For if ye forgive men their
trespasses your heavenly Father
will also forgive you : (cf. Luke vi.
37 ...... pardon and ye shall be
pardoned. )
v. 7. Blessed are the pitiful, for
they shall obtain pity.
vii. 2. With what measure ye mete
it shall ba measured to you.
v. 3. Blessed are the poor in
spirit ...... v. 10. Blessed are they
that are persecuted for righteous-
ness sake, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven.
MATTHEW.
Vll. 1.
Mij Kplvere, tva. /J.r) KpiOr/rf.
vi. 14. 'Eav yap d<f>TJrt rots ,,V0pc67rots
K. T. \. (cf. Luke vi. 37, 'A.iro\v(T
v. 7. M.aK<ipicn ol e\eri[i.oves, STI avrol
eij6riffovra.L.
vii. 2. fv $ utTpy fjLerpfire fJ.trprj-
Aeare, Iva
if /t^r/Mf) nerpeiTe, a
vfi.lv.
Sri fiaKdpiot ol irruxol Kal ol v. 3. MaKdpioi ol irruxoi r^ vvev-
ZvtKev oiKaioffvvyi, on avr&v pan 10 '/jiaK. ol 8ediiayfj.tvoi
iffrlv ri pa<ri\{la rov Oeov. SiKaioff^v^, on avrwv cvrlv i] paffi\da
r&v ovpaviav.
It will be remembered that an almost similar direct quotation of
words of Jesus occurs in the so-called Epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians, ch. xiii., which we have already examined. 2 There the
1 Tischendorf, Wann wurden, n. s. w., p. 23 f.; Westcott, On the Canon,
p. 48, note.
P. 223 f.
THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP 179
passage is introduced by the same words, and in the midst of
brief phrases which have parallels in our Gospel there occurs
in both Epistles the same expression, " Be pitiful, that ye
may be pitied," which is not found in any of our Gospels.
In order to find parallels for the quotation, upon the
hypothesis of a combination of texts, we have to add
together portions of the following verses in the order
shown : Matt. vii. i, vi. 14 (although, with complete linguistic
variations, the sense of Luke vi. 37 is much closer), v. 7, vii. 2,
v. 3, v. 10. Such fragmentary compilation is in itself scarcely con-
ceivable in an Epistle of this kind, but when in the midst we find
a passage foreign to our Gospels, which occurs in another
work in connection with so similar a quotation, it is reasonable to
conclude that the whole is derived from tradition or from a
Gospel different from ours. In no case can such a passage be
considered material evidence even of the existence of any one of
our Gospels.
Another expression which is pointed out occurs in ch. vii.,
" beseeching in our prayers the all-searching God not to lead us
into temptation, as the Lord said : The spirit, indeed, is willing,
but the flesh is weak." 1 This is compared with the phrase in
"the Lord's Prayer" (Matt. vi. 13), or the passage (xxvi. 41):
" Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation : the spirit,
indeed, is willing, but the flesh is weak." 2 The second Gospel,
however, equally has the phrase (xiv. 38), and shows how unreason-
able it is to limit these historical sayings to a single Gospel. The
next passage is of a similar nature (ch. vi.) : " If, therefore, we pray
the Lord that he may forgive us, we ought also ourselves to
forgive." 3 The thought, but not the language, of this passage
corresponds with Matt. vi. 12-14, tmt: equally so with Luke xi. 4.
Now, we must repeat that all such sayings of Jesus were the
common property of the early Christians were, no doubt, orally
current amongst them, and still more certainly were recorded by
many of the numerous Gospels then in circulation, as they are by
several of our own. In no case is there any written source indi-
cated from which these passages are derived; they are simply
quoted as words of Jesus, and, being all connected either with
the " Sermon on the Mount " or the " Lord's Prayer," the two
portions of the teaching of Jesus which were most popular,
widely known, and characteristic, there can be no doubt that they
were familiar throughout the whole of the early Church, and must
1 Sf/iffeffiv alrovfjievoi. rbv ira.vTeir6irT-r)v Oebv, /t-Jj el<reve~yKeiv T/^uaj els ireipaa-
fjibv, K0.0&S flirev 6 Kirpios' rb /j.ev irvev/j-a irpbdv^ov, i) de aapt. dcrffevris. c. vii.
2 ypTiyopflre Kail irpoffeuxeffBe, iva [J.r) el(Te\9i}T els Treipa<T/j,6v. rb /J,ev Tr^eO/aa
Trp66vfjLov, i] Se crapi; dffOfvrjs. Matt. xxvi. 41.
3 EZ oiV 5f6fj.etta roO KvpLou, 'iva, ijfuv d<f>fj, 6(f>ei\o/j.ev /ecu i]fj.els d(f>L(vo,i. c. vi.
180 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
have formed a part of most, or all, of the many collections of the
words of the Master. The anonymous quotation of historical
expressions of Jesus cannot prove even the existence of one special
document among many to which we may choose to trace it, much
less establish its authorship and character.
CHAPTER III.
JUSTIN MARTYR
WE shall now consider the evidence furnished by the works of
Justin Martyr regarding the existence of our Synoptic Gospels at
the middle of the second century, and we may remark, in anticipa-
tion, that, whatever differences of opinion may finally exist
regarding the solution of the problem which we have to examine,
at least it is clear that the testimony of Justin Martyr is not of a
nature to establish the date, authenticity, and character of Gospels
professing to communicate such momentous and astounding
doctrines. The determination of the source from which Justin
derived his facts of Christian history has for a century attracted
more attention, and excited more controversy, than almost any
other similar question in connection with patristic literature, and
upon none have more divergent opinions been expressed.
Justin, who suffered martyrdom about A.D. I66-I67 1 under
Marcus Aurelius, probably at the instigation of the cynical philo-
sopher, Crescens, was born in the Greek-Roman colony, Flavia
Neapolis, 2 established during the reign of Vespasian, near the
ancient Sichem in Samaria. By descent he was a Greek, and
during the earlier part of his life a heathen ; but, after long and
disappointed study of Greek philosophy, he became a convert to
Christianity 3 strongly tinged with Judaism. It is not necessary to
enter into any discussion as to the authenticity of the writings
which have come down to us bearing Justin's name, many of
which are undoubtedly spurious, for the two Apologies and the
Dialogue with Trypho, with which we have almost exclusively to
do, are generally admitted to be genuine. It is true that there
has been a singular controversy regarding the precise relation to
each other of the two Apologies now extant, the following
contradictory views having been maintained : that they are the
two Apologies mentioned by Eusebius, and in their original
order ; that they are Justin's two Apologies, but that Eusebius was
wrong in affirming that the second was addressed to Marcus
Aurelius ; that our second Apology was the preface or appendix
to the first, and that the original second is lost. The shorter
1 Eusebius, H. ., iv. 16, Chron. PascA., A.D. 165. 2 Apol., i. I.
3 Dial. c. Try ph., ii. ff.
181
iS 2 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Apology contains nothing of interest connected with our inquiry.
There has been much controversy as to the date of the two
Apologies, and much difference of opinion still exists on the
point. Many critics assign the larger to about A.D. 138-140, and
the shorter to A.D. 160-161. A passage, however, occurs in the
longer Apology, which indicates that it must have been written
about a century and a half after the commencement of the
Christian era, or, according to accurate reckoning, about A.D. 147.
Justin speaks, in one part of it, of perverted deductions being
drawn from his teaching "that Christ was born 150 years ago
under Cyrenius." 1 Those who contend for the earlier date have
no stronger argument against this statement than the unsupported
assertion, that in this passage Justin merely speaks " in round
numbers " ; but many important circumstances confirm the date
which Justin thus gives us. In the superscription of the Apology,
Antoninus is called " Pius," a title which was first bestowed upon
him in the year 139. Moreover, Justin directly refers to Marcion,
as a man "now living and teaching his disciples and who has,
by the aid of demons, caused many of all nations to utter
blasphemies," etc. 2 Now the fact has been established that
Marcion did not come to Rome, where Justin himself was, until
A.D. 139-142, when his prominent public career commenced, and
it is apparent that the words of Justin indicate a period when his
doctrines had already become widely diffused. For these and
many other strong reasons, which need not here be detailed, the
majority of competent critics agree in more correctly assigning the
first Apology to about A.D. 147. The Dialogue with Trypho, as
internal evidence shows, 3 was written after the longer Apology,
and it is therefore generally dated some time within the first
decade of the second half of the second century.
In these writings Justin quotes very copiously from the Old
Testament, and he also very' frequently refers to facts of Christian
history and to sayings of Jesus. Of these references, for instance,
some fifty occur in the first Apology, and upwards of seventy in
the Dialogue with Trypho, a goodly number, it will be admitted,
by means of which to identify the source from which he quotes.
Justin himself frequently and distinctly says that his information
and quotations are derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles
(aTTofj.i>rj [i.ov tv para TWV aTroo-ToAwi/), but except upon one occa-
sion, which we shall hereafter consider, when he indicates
Peter, he never mentions an author's name. Upon examination
it is found that, with only one or two brief exceptions, the
numerous quotations from these Memoirs differ more or less
widely from parallel passages in our Synoptic Gospels, and in
1 ApoL, i. 46. * Apol., i. 26. 3 Di a i c . Tr., cxx.
JUSTIN MARTYR 183
many cases differ in the same respects as similar quotations found
in other writings of the second century, the writers of which are
known to have made use of uncanonical Gospels ; and, further,
that these passages are quoted several times, at intervals, by
Justin with the same variations. Moreover, sayings of Jesus are
quoted from these Memoirs which are not found in our Gospels
at all, and facts in the life of Jesus and circumstances of Christian
history derived from the same source, not only are not found in
our Gospels, but are in contradiction with them.
These peculiarities have, as might have been expected, created
much diversity of opinion regarding the nature of the Memoirs
of the Apostles. In the earlier days of New Testament
criticism more especially, many of course at once identified the
Memoirs with our Gospels exclusively, and the variations were
explained by conveniently elastic theories of free quotation from
memory, imperfect and varying MSS., combination, condensation,
and transposition of passages, with slight additions from tradition,
or even from some other written source, and so on. Others
endeavoured to explain away difficulties by the supposition that
they were a simple harmony of our Gospels, or a harmony of the
Gospels, with passages added from some apocryphal work. A
much greater number of critics, however, adopt the conclusion
that, along with our Gospels, Justin made use of one or more
apocryphal Gospels, and more especially of the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, or according to Peter, and also perhaps of
tradition. Others assert that he made use of a special unknown.
Gospel, or of the Gospel according to the Hebrews or according
to Peter, with the subsidiary use of a version of one or two of our
Gospels, to which, however, he did not attach much importance,
preferring the apocryphal work ; whilst others have concluded
that Justin did not make use of our Gospels at all, and that his
quotations are either from the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
or according to Peter, or from some other special apocryphal
Gospel now no longer extant.
Evidence permitting of such wide diversity of results to serious
and laborious investigation of the identity of Justin's Memoirs
of the Apostles cannot be of much value towards establishing the
authenticity of our Gospels, and, in the absence of any specific
mention of our Synoptics, any very elaborate examination of the
Memoirs might be considered unnecessary, more especially as it is
admitted almost universally by competent critics that Justin did
not himself consider the Memoirs of the Apostles inspired, or of
any dogmatic authority, and had no idea of attributing canonical
rank to them. In pursuance of the system which we desire
invariably to adopt of enabling every reader to form his own
opinion, we shall, as briefly as possible, state the facts of the
,8 4 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
case, and furnish materials for a full comprehension of the
subject.
Justin himself, as we have already mentioned, frequently and
distinctly states that his information regarding Christian history
and his quotations are derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles
(a.irop,vr][j,ovfvfw.Ta TCOV aTroo-roXwv), to adopt the usual trans-
lation, although the word might more correctly be rendered
" Recollections," or " Memorabilia." It has frequently been sur-
mised that this name was suggested by the aTro/Air^ovet'/AUTtt
2wK/>aTov? of Xenophon, but, as Credner has pointed out, the
similarity is purely accidental, and, to constitute a parallel,
the title should have been Memoirs of Jesus. 1 - The word
a7rcyiKr;/iovei'pzTa is here evidently used merely in the sense
of records written from memory, and it is so employed by Papias
in the passage preserved by Eusebius regarding Mark, who,
although he had not himself followed the Lord, yet recorded his
words from what he heard from Peter, and who, having done so
without order, is still defended for " thus writing some things as
he remembered them " (OUTWS evict y/oa^as <!>$ aTreyuv^ovevo-ev). 2
In the same way Irenaeus refers to the " Memoirs of a certain
Presbyter of apostolic times " (a7ro/xv?//uiovi'/>iaTa aTroa-ToXiKov
nvbs Trpf<r/3vTepov),3 whose name he does not mention ; and
Origen still more closely approximates to Justin's use of the
word when, expressing his theory regarding the Epistle to the
Hebrews, he says that the thoughts are the Apostle's, but the
phraseology and the composition are of one recording from
memory what the Apostle said (aTro/iVT/jt/.ovei'o-aj/Tos TIVOS TO
diroo-ToXiKa), and as of one writing at leisure the dictation of
his master^ Justin himself speaks of the authors of the Memoirs
as 01 aTro/jiviy/AovewravTes, 5 and the expression was then and
afterwards constantly in use amongst ecclesiastical and other
writers. 6
This title, Memoirs of the Apostles, however, although the
most appropriate to mere recollections of the life and teaching of
Jesus, evidently could not be applied to works ranking as canonical
Gospels, but, in fact, excludes such an idea ; and the whole of
Justin's views regarding Holy Scripture prove that he saw in the
Memoirs merely records from memory to assist memory. He
does not call them ypa^ai, but adheres always to the familiar
name of aTro/ii^oi/evpiTa, and whilst his constant appeals to a
1 Credner, Beitrage, i., p. 105. a Eusebius, H.E., iii. 39.
3 /* , v. 8. < 71,., vi. 25. s Apol., i. 33.
6 Credner, Beitrage, i., p. 105 f., Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 12 ; Reuss, Hist.
du Canon, p. 53 f. ; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 95, note I. The Clementine
Recognitions (ii. i) make the Apostle Peter say : In consuetudine habui verba
donnni mei, qua ab if so audieram revocare ad metitoriam.
JUSTIN MARTYR 185
written source show very clearly his abandonment of oral tradition,
there is nothing in the name of his records which can identify
them with our Gospels.
Justin designates the source of his quotations ten times, the
Memoirs of the Apostles* and five times he calls it simply the
" Memoirs." 2 He says, upon one occasion, that these Memoirs were
composed "by his Apostles and their followers," 3 but except in one
place to which we have already referred, and which we shall hereafter
fully examine, he never mentions the author's name, nor does he
ever give any more precise information regarding their composition.
It has been argued that, in saying that these Memoirs were
recorded by the Apostles and their followers, Justin intentionally
and literally described the four canonical Gospels, the first and
fourth of which are ascribed to Apostles and the other two to
Mark and Luke, the followers of Apostles ; but such an inference
is equally forced and unfounded. The language itself forbids this
explanation, for Justin does not speak indefinitely of Memoirs of
Apostles and their followers, but of Memoirs of the Apostles,
invariably using the article which refers the Memoirs to the
collective body of the Apostles. Moreover, the incorrectness of
such an inference is manifest from the fact that circumstances are
stated by Justin as derived from these Memoirs, which do not
exist in our Gospels at all, and which, indeed, are contradictory to
them. Vast numbers of spurious writings, moreover, bearing the
names of Apostles and their followers, and claiming more or less
direct apostolic authority, were in circulation in the early Church
Gospels according to Peter,* to Thomas, 5 to James, 6 to Judas,?
according to the Apostles, or according to the Twelve, 8 to
Barnabas,9 to Matthias, 10 to Nicodemus, 11 etc., and ecclesiastical
1 Apol., i. 66, 67, cf. i. 33 ; Dial. c. Tr., 88, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, and
twice in 106. 2 Dial., 103, 105, thrice 107.
3 'Ec yap TO?S airofj.vrjfjiovvfj,a<Ti a (jyqfju. virb r&v airoaroKtav avrov /cat rCiv
CKeivois TrapaKoXovffrjffdvTuv avvTeraxSo-i, K.T.\. Dial., 103.
4 Eusebius, H. ., iii., 3, 25, vi. 12 ; Hieron., De Vir. III., I ; Origen, in
Matth., x. 17.
5 Eusebius, H. E., iii., 25; Origen, Hom.'\. in Lucam ; Irenaeus, Adv.
Hczr., i. 20; cf. Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr., 1853, proleg., p. xxxviii. ff. ;
Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 89 f. ; Hieron., Prcef. in Matth.
6 Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr. proleg., p. xii. ff. ; Epiphanius, Hce.r., Ixxix. ,
5> etc.
7 Irenaeus, Adv. ffezr., i. 31, i ; Epiphanius, H<zr., xxxviii., i ; Theo-
doret, Fab. Hcer., i. 15.
8 Origen, Horn. i. in Lucam; Hieron., Prcef. in Matth. ; Adv. Pelcegianos,
iii. i ; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i., p. 339 f.
9 Decret. Gelasii, vi., 10.
10 Origen, Horn. i. in Lucam ; Eusebius, H. E. , iii. , 25 ; Decret. Gelasii,
vi. 8 ; Hieron., Prcef. in Matth.
11 If this be not its most ancient title, the Gospel is in the Prologue
directly ascribed to Nicodemus. The superscription which this apocryphal
186 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
writers bear abundant testimony to the early and rapid growth of
apocryphal literature. 1 The very names of most of such apocry-
phal Gospels are lost, whilst of others we possess considerable
information ; but nothing is more certain than the fact that there
existed many works bearing names which render the attempt to
interpret the title of Justin's Gospel as a description of the four
in our canon quite unwarrantable. The words of Justin evidently
imply simply that the source of his quotations is the collective
recollections of the Apostles, and those who followed them, regard-
ing the life and teaching of Jesus.
The title, Memoirs of the Apostles, by no means indicates a
plurality of Gospels. A single passage has been pointed out in
which the Memoirs are said to have been called eva.yyeA.ia in
the plural : " For the Apostles in the Memoirs composed by them,
which are called Gospels," 2 etc. The last expression, d KuAetrai
era.yyeA.ia, as many scholars have declared, is probably an
interpolation. It is, in all likelihood, a gloss on the margin of
some old MS. which some copyist afterwards inserted in the text. 3
If Justin really stated that the Memoirs were called Gospels, it
seems incomprehensible that he should never call them so himself.
In no other place in his writings does he apply the plural to them,
but, on the contrary, we find Trypho referring to the " so-called
Gospel," which he states that he has carefully read, 4 and which, of
course, can only be Justin's " Memoirs "; and, again, in another
part of the same dialogue, Justin quotes passages which are
written "in the Gospel " 5 (ev TW et'ayyeAiy yeypaTrrat). The
term " Gospel " is nowhere else used by Justin in reference to a
written record. 6 In no case, however, considering the numerous
Gospels then in circulation, and the fact that many of these,
different from the canonical Gospels, are known to have been
Gospel bears in the form now extant, inroiJ.v/1/j.a.Ta TOV Kvplov i)/j.>v '
Xpiffrov, recalls the titles of Justin's Memoirs. Tischendorf, Evang.
Apocr., \>. 203 f., cf. Prolog., p. liv. ff. : Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i.,
p. 213 ff. ; Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. cxviii.-cxlii., p. 487 ff.
1 Luke i. I ; Irenseus, Adv. Hier., i. 20, I ; Origen, Horn. i. in Lucam.
Eusebius, H. ., iii. 3, 25, iv. 22, vi. 12 ; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. ;
Thilo, Cod.^Apocr. N. T. ; Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr.
3 01 yap a.ir6ffTo\oi ev rots ytvofitvois vir O.VTUV d'jro/j.vij/j.oi'evfjLaffiv, d /caXetVai
eu'ayyAta. K.T.\. Afol., i. 66.
3 An instance of such a gloss getting into the text occurs in Dial. 107,
where in a reference to Jonah's prophecy that Nineveh should perish in three
days, according to the version of the Ixx. which Justin always quotes, there is
a former marginal gloss " in other versions forty, incorporated parenthetically
with the text.
4 ra ff T$ Xeyofj-tvy (vcLyyt\l v jrapayy^Xnara. K.T.\. Dial. c. 7V., 10.
* Dial., 100.
6 There is one reference in the singular to the Gospel in the fragment De
Resurr., 10, which is of doubtful authenticity?
JUSTIN MARTYR
exclusively used by distinguished contemporaries of Justin, and by
various communities of Christians in that day, could such an
expression be taken as a special indication of the canonical
Gospels. 1
Describing the religious practices amongst Christians in another
place, Justin states that, at their assemblies on Sundays, " the
Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read
as long as time permits." 2 This, however, by no means identifies
the Memoirs with the canonical Gospels, for it is well known that
many writings which have been excluded from the canon were
publicly read in the churches until very long after Justin's day.
We have already met with several instances of this. Eusebius
mentions that the Epistle of the Roman Clement was publicly
read in churches in his time, 3 and he quotes an Epistle of
Dionysius of Corinth to Soter, the Bishop of Rome, which states
that fact for the purpose of " showing that it was the custom to
read it in the churches, even from the earliest times."* Dionysius
likewise mentions the public reading of the Epistle of Soter to the
Corinthians. Epiphanius refers to the reading in the churches of
the Epistle of Clement, 5 and it continued to be so read in Jerome's
day. 6 In like manner the Shepherd of Hennas, 7 the "Apocalypse
of Peter," 8 and other works excluded from the canon, were publicly
read in the church in early days.9 It is certain that Gospels which
did not permanently secure a place in the canon, such as the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to Peter, the
Gospel of the Ebionites, and many kindred Gospels, which in
1 Credner argues that, had Justin intended such a limitation, he must have
said, 8. /caXetrcu Ta T^crcrapa etiayyt\ia. Gesch. d. N. T. Kan., p. IO.
2 Ta aTTOfj.vtj/j.oi'eiJfjLaTa ruv diroffToXuv, T) TO, criryypd/u./x.aTa riav Trpo<f>t]TU>>
drayivdxrKCTcu ^xp^ YX. w P e ~ l - Apol., i. 67.
3 H. E., iii. 1 6.
4 H. E., iv. 23.
5 Hcer., xxx. 15.
6 De Vir. III., 15 "qua in nonnullis ecclesiis publice legititr.''
i Eusebius, H. E., iii. 3 ; Hieron., De Vir. III., 10.
8 Sozom., H..E., vii. 19 ; Canon Murator., Tregelles, p, 56 f.
9 The Shepherd of Hernias and the Apocalypse of Peter are enumerated
amongst the books of Holy Scripture in the Stichometry of the Codex
Claramontanus (cd. Tischendorf, p. 469 ; cf. Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kan., p.
175 f. ), and the latter is placed amongst the ai>Ti\ey6/j.eva in the Stichometry
of Nicephorus, together with the Apocalypse of John and the Gospel according
to the Hebrews. (Credner, Zur Gesch. d. Kan., p. 117 ff.) In the Can.
Murat. the Apoc. of Peter is received along with that of John, although some
object to its being read in the Church. (Can. Murat., Tregelles, p. 65;
Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 175 f.) Tischendorf conjectures that the
Apocalypse of Peter may have been inserted between the Ep. of Barnabas and
the Shepherd of Hernias, where six pages are missing in the Codex Sinaitifiis.
{Nov. Test. Sinait., LipsiiE, 1863, Proleg., p. xxxii. )
188 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
early times were exclusively used by various communities, 1 must
have been read at their public assemblies. The public reading of
Justin's Memoirs, therefore, does not prove anything, for this
practice was by no means limited to the works now in our canon.
The idea of attributing inspiration to the Memoirs, or to any
other work of the Apostles, with the single exception, as we shall
presently see, of the Apocalypse of John, 2 which, as prophecy,
entered within his limits, was quite foreign to Justin, who recog-
nised the Old Testament alone as the inspired Word of God.
Indeed, as we have already said, the very name " Memoirs " in
itself excludes the thought of inspiration, which Justin attributed
only to prophetic writings ; and he could not in any way regard
as inspired the written tradition of the Apostles and their followers,
or a mere record of the words of Jesus. On the contrary, he
held the accounts of the Apostles to be credible solely from their
being authenticated by the Old Testament, and he clearly states
that he believes the facts recorded in the Memoirs because the
spirit of prophecy had already foretold them. 3 According to
Justin, the Old Testament contained all that was necessary for
salvation, and its prophecies are the sole criterion of truth the
Memoirs, and even Christ himself, being merely its interpreters. 4
He says that Christ commanded us not to put faith in human
doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the holy prophets, and
taught by himself. 5 Prophecy and the words of Christ himself
are alone of dogmatic value ; all else is human teaching. Indeed,
from a passage quoted with approval by Irenaeus, Justin, in his
lost work against Marcion, said : " I would not have believed the
Lord himself if he had proclaimed any other God than the
Creator that is to say, the God of the Old Testament." 6
That Justin does not mention the name of the author of the
Memoirs would, in any case, render any argument as to their
identity with our canonical Gospels inconclusive ; but the total
omission to do so is the more remarkable from the circumstance
that the names of Old Testament writers constantly occur in his
1 Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Hter., i. 26, 2, Hi., 11, 7 ; Origen, Comm. in Ezech.,
xxiv. 7; Eusebius, H. E., iii. 25, 27, vi. 12; Epiphanius, Heer. t xxix. 9,
xxx. 3, 13 f. ; Thepdoret, Hasr. Fab., ii. 22; Hieron., Adv. Felag., iii. 2,
Comm. in Matth., xii. 13.
3 Dial. c. 7>., 8l.
3 Apol., i. 33 ; cf. Dial. c. Tr., 119, Apol., i. 32, Dial. c. Tr., 48, 53.
4 Cf. Apol. } i. 30, 32, 52, 53, 61, Dial. c. Tr., 32, 43, 48, 100.
s e*-ei5^ oJ* avOpUTTfioi j SiSdypcuri Ke/ceXewr/aetfa fa' avrou rov Xpiffrov
vtlOfffOai, a'XXa rots Sid TUV /j,a.Kapiwv wpodrnruv icnpvxdelai Kal Si avrov
SiSa X Oetffi. Dial. c. Tr., 48.
6 Kal^aXws 6 'lowmvos eV nj> 7iy>ds Mapicltava ffwrdy/jLaTl <fni<Tiv "On avr<f rtp
Kvply OVK &v fetMlpi dXXox Oebv Kara.yyt\\ovTi irapa rbv Swiovpybv
Adv. ffar., iv. 6, 2. Eusebius, H. ., iv. ft.
JUSTIN MARTYR 189
writings. Semisch counts 197 quotations of ^ie Old Testament,
in which Justin refers to the author by name, or to the book, and
only 1 17 in which he omits to do so, 1 and the latter number might
be reduced by considering the nature of the passages cited, and
the inutility of repeating the reference. 2 When it is considered,
therefore, that notwithstanding the numerous quotations and refer-
ences to facts of Christian history, all purporting to be derived
from the Memoirs, he absolutely never, except in the one
instance referred to, mentions an author's name, or specifies more
clearly the nature of the source, the inference must not only be
that he attached small importance to the Memoirs, but also that
he was actually ignorant of the author's name, and that his Gospel
had no more definite superscription. Upon the theory that the
Memoirs of the Apostles were simply our four canonical Gospels,
the singularity of the omission is increased by the diversity of con-
tents and of authors, and the consequently greater necessity and
probability that he should, upon certain occasions, distinguish
between them. The fact is that the only writing of the New
Testament to which Justin refers by name is, as we have already
mentioned, the Apocalypse, which he attributes to " a certain man
whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who
prophesied by a revelation made to him," etc.3 The manner in
which John is here mentioned, after the Memoirs had been so
constantly indefinitely referred to, clearly shows that Justin did not
possess any Gospel also attributed to John. That he does name
John, however, as author of the Apocalypse, and so frequently
refers to Old Testament writers by name, yet never identifies the
author of the Memoirs, is quite irreconcilable with the idea that they
were the canonical Gospels.
It is perfectly clear, however and this is a point of very great
importance, upon which critics of otherwise widely diverging views
are agreed that Justin quotes from a written source, and that oral
tradition is excluded from his system. He not only does not, like
Papias, attach value to tradition, but, on the contrary, he affirms
that in the Memoirs is recorded " everything that concerns our
1 Semisch, Denkwilrd. Justinus, p. 84.
2 It is not requisite that we should in detail refute the groundless argument '
that the looseness of Justin's quotations from the Old Testament justifies the
assumption that his evangelical quotations, notwithstanding their disagreement
and almost universal inaccuracy, are taken from our Gospels. Those, however,
who desire to examine the theory further may be referred to Semisch, Die ap.
Denkw. d. Mtirt. Justinus, pp. 239-273, and Bindemann, Th. Stud. u.
Kritiken, 1842, p. 412 ff. , on the affirmative side, and to its refutation by
Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, pp. 46-62, Theol. Jahrb., 1850, pp. 385-439,
567~578 ; and Credner, Beitrage, ii.
3 Kai eVeiS?; KO.I 7ra/5 ij/uv dv-ffp rts, $ 6vo/j.a IwdvvTjs, eh rCiv dwo(rT6\(t}t> rov
Xpto-rou, tv diroKa\v\j/ti yevo/jitvri avrtp, K.T.X. Dial. c. 7V., 8l.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Saviour Jesus Christ." 1 He constantly refers to them, directly, as
the source of his information regarding the history of Jesus, and
distinctly states that he has derived his quotations from them.
There is no reasonable ground for affirming that Justin supple-
mented or modified the contents of the Memoirs by oral
tradition. It must, therefore, be remembered, in considering the
nature of these Memoirs, that the facts of Christian history and
the sayings of Jesus are derived from a determinate written source,
and are quoted as Justin found them there. Those who attempt
to explain the divergences of Justin's quotations from the canonical
Gospels, which they still maintain to have been his Memoirs, on
the plea of oral tradition, defend the identity at the expense of the
authority of the Gospels ; for nothing could more forcibly show
Justin's disregard and disrespect for the Gospels than would the
fact that, possessing them, he not only never names their authors,
but considers himself at liberty continually to contradict, modify,
and revise their statements.
As we have already remarked, when we examine the contents
of the Memoirs of the Apostles through Justin's numerous quota-
tions, we find that many parts of the Gospel narratives are
apparently quite unknown, whilst, on the other hand, we meet
with facts of evangelical history which are foreign to the canonical
Gospels, and others which are contradictory of Gospel statements.
Justin's quotations, almost without exception, vary more or less
from the parallels in the canonical text, and often these variations
are consistently repeated by himself, and are found in other works
about his time. Moreover, Justin quotes expressions of Jesus
which are not found in our Gospels at all. The omissions,
though often very singular, supposing the canonical Gospels
before him, and almost inexplicable when it is considered
how important they would often have been to his argument,
need not, as merely negative evidence, be dwelt on here ;
but we shall briefly illustrate the other peculiarities of Justin's
quotations.
The only genealogy of Jesus which is recognised by Justin is
traced through the Virgin Mary. She it is who is descended from
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and from the house of David, and
Joseph is completely set aside. 2 Jesus " was born of a virgin of
the lineage of Abraham and tribe of Judah and of David, Christ,
the Son of God."3 " Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has been
1 ol diroiwriti.o)>ftoarrtt v6.vro. TO. irepl TOV (rwrrjpos i]/j.C)v 'Irjaov
fdida^av. Apol., i. 33.
3 Dial. c. 7>. 23, 43 twice, 45 thrice, 100 twice, 101, I2O, Apol., i. 32 ; cf.
Matt. i. 1-16 ; Luke iii. 23-28.
3 rov 8ia TTJS d rov ytvovs rov 'A/3/>aa/u, /cat <j>v\r)s 'lovda, Kal Aa/3t5
xapOtvov ytwrjetvra vlbv TOV 6eoO XpiffT6>>. Dial. c. 7'r., 43.
JUSTIN MARTYR 191
born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the lineage of Abraham." 1
" For of the virgin of the seed of Jacob, who was the father of
Judah, who, as we have shown, was the father of the Jews, by the
power of God was he conceived ; and Jesse was his forefather
according to the prophecy, and he (Jesus) was the son of Jacob
and Judah according to successive descent." 2 The genealogy of
Jesus in the canonical Gospels, on the contrary, is traced solely
through Joseph, who alone is stated to be of the lineage of David. 3
The genealogies of Matthew and Luke, though differing in
several important points, at least agree in excluding Mary. That
of the third Gospel commences with Joseph, and that of the first
ends with him : "And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary,
of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." 4 The angel who
warns Joseph not to put away his wife addresses him as " Joseph,
thou son of David "; 5 and the angel Gabriel, who, according to the
third Gospel, announces to Mary the supernatural conception, is
sent " to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of
the house of David." 6 So persistent, however, is Justin in
ignoring this Davidic descent through Joseph that not only does
he at least eleven times trace it through Mary, but his Gospel
materially differs from the canonical, where the descent of Joseph
from David is mentioned by the latter. In the third Gospel
Joseph goes to Judaea, " unto the city of David, which is called
Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David." 7
Justin, however, simply states that he went "to Bethlehem for
his descent was from the tribe of Judah, which inhabited that
region." 8 There can be no doubt that Justin not only did not
derive his genealogies from the canonical Gospels, but that, on the
contrary, the Memoirs, from which he did learn the Davidic descent
through Mary only, differed persistently and materially from them.
Many traces still exist to show that the view of Justin's
Memoirs of the Apostles of the Davidic descent of Jesus through
Mary instead of through Joseph, as the canonical Gospels
represent it, was anciently held in the Church. Apocryphal
Gospels of early date, based without doubt upon more ancient
evangelical works, are still extant, in which the genealogy of Jesus
is traced, as in Justin's Memoirs, through Mary. One of these
is the Gospel of James, commonly called the Protevangelium, a
work referred to by ecclesiastical writers of the third and fourth
centuries,^ and which Tischendorf even ascribes to the first three
1 Dial. c. Tr., 23. 2 Apol., i. 32. 3 Matt. i. 1-16 ; cf. Luke iii. 23-28.
4 Matt. i. 16 ; cf. Luke iii. 23. 5 Matt. i. 20. 6 Luke i. 27.
7 Luke ii. 4. 8 Dial. c. Tr. , 78.
9 Clemens, Al., Strom., vii. 16, 93; Origen, Comm. in Afatth. iii. ;
Epiphanius, Har., Ixxix. , 5 ; cf. Fabricius, Cod. Apofr. N. T., i. , p. 39 ff. ;
Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. proleg. , xlv. ff.
I 9 2 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
decades of the second century, 1 in which Mary is stated to be of
the lineage of David. 2 She is also described as of the royal race
and family of David in the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary ;3 and
in the Gospel of pseudo-Matthew her Davidic descent is promi-
nently mentioned.* There can be no doubt that all of these
works are based upon earlier originals, 5 and there is no reason
why they may not have been drawn from the same source from
which Justin derived his version of the genealogy in contradiction
to the Synoptics. 6
In the narrative of the events which preceded the birth of
Jesus, the first Gospel describes the angel as appearing only to
Joseph and explaining the supernatural conception,? and the
author seems to know nothing of any announcement to Mary. 8
The third Gospel, on the contrary, does not mention any such
angelic appearance to Joseph, but represents the angel as
announcing the conception to Mary herself alone.9 Justin's
Memoirs know of the appearances, both to Joseph and to Mary ;
but the words spoken by the angel on each occasion differ
materially from those of both Gospels. 10 In this place only one
point, however, can be noticed. Justin describes the angel as
1 Wann wurden u. s. w. , p. 76 ff. , cf. Evangelia Apocr. Proleg. , p. xii. ff.
2 Ko.2 e fjivf}ff0Ti 6 Itpevs rijs iraiSbs Mapidju, 8n fy tK rrjs <fw\ijs Aa/3/5, K.T. \.
Protevangelinm Jacobi, x. Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocr., p. 19 f. ; Fabricius,
Cod. Apocr. N. T.,\., p. 90.
3 Maria de stirpe regia et familia David oriunda. Evang. de Nativ.
Marice, i. ; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T.,i.,p. 19; Tischendorf, Ev. Apocr.,
p. 106.
4 Pseudo-AIatth. Evang., i., xiii., etc.; Tischendorf, Ev. Apocr., p. 54,
73 ; cf. Hist, de Nativ. Mar. et de Inf. Salv., xiii ; Thilo, Cod. ap. N. T.,
p. 374. Regarding the antiquity of some of these works, cf. Tischendorf, Ev.
Apocr. Proleg., p. xxv. ff.
5 Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 154 ff. Hilgenfeld conjectures that the
Protevangelium may have been based upon the Gnostic work, the Yfvva.
Map/as mentioned by Epiphanius, or on the Gospel according to Peter, ib.,
p. 159 ff. ; cf. Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 84 ff. ; Tischendorf, Wann wurden,
u. s. w. , p. 78 ff.
6 Several of the Fathers in like manner assert the Davidic descent through
Mary. Irenseus states that she was " of the lineage of David " (oCrfo t<rrn> K
TT/J Aa/3i5 -KapOtvov yer6[j.evos. Adv. Har., iii., 21, 5), and he argues
that the Davidic descent through the Virgin was clearly indicated by prophecy.
The same argument is taken up by Tertullian, who distinctly traces the descent
of Christ through Mary (ex stirpe autem Jesse deputatum per Mariam inde
censendum. Adv. Marcionem, iii. 17. Eundem ex genere David secnndum
Maria- censurn, Ib., iv. i, cf. v. 8). It is most probable that both Irenseus and
Tertullian, who were well acquainted with the writings of Justin, followed him in
this matter, for they very closely adopt his arguments. They may, however,
have known apocryphal works containing the Davidic descent through Mary.
They certainly did not derive it from the canonical Gospels.
i Matt. i. 20 f. 8 Cf. Matt. i. 18. Luke i. 26 f., cf. ii. 5-6.
10 Apol., i. 33, Dial. c. Tr., 78, 100.
JUSTIN MARTYR 193
saying to Mary, " ' Behold, thou shall conceive of the Holy Ghost,
and shalt bear a son, and he shall be called the Son of the Highest,
and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people
from their sins,' as they taught who recorded everything that con-
cerns our Saviour Jesus Christ." 1 Now, this is a clear and direct
quotation, but, besides distinctly differing in form from our
Gospels, it presents the important peculiarity that the words, " for
he shall save his people from their sins," are not, in Luke,
addressed to Mary at all, but that they occur in the first Gospel
in the address of the angel to Joseph. 2
These words, however, are not accidentally inserted in this
place, for we find that they are joined in the same manner to the
address of the angel to Mary in the Protevangelium of James :
" For the power of the Lord will overshadow thee ; wherefore also
that holy thing which is born of thee shall be called the Son of
the Highest, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save
his people from their sins." 3 Tischendorf states his own opinion
that this passage is a recollection of the Protevangelium uncon-
sciously added by Justin to the account in Luke,4 but the arbitrary
nature of the limitation " unconsciously " (ohne dass er sick dessen
bewusst war) here is evident. There is a point in connection with
this which merits a moment's attention. In the text of the
Protevangelium, edited by Tischendorf, the angel commences his
address to Mary by saying, " Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found
favour before the Lord, and thou shalt conceive of His Word "
(/cat a-vXXf'j\l/y tK Xoyov a.vrov).s Now, Justin, after quoting
the passage above, continues to argue that the Spirit and the
power of God must not be misunderstood to mean anything else
than the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the prophet
Moses declared ; and it was this which, when it came upon the
Virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive. 6 The
occurrence of the singular expression in the Protevangelium
1 'I8ov ffv\\T)\f/ri ev yatrrpl etc TTvevfiaTOS ayiou, /ecu T^r) viov, /ecu vibs vif/iffTov
/e\?;077<reTcu ' Kal Ka\^<ms r6 8vofj.a avrou 'Irjcrovv' avrbs yap craxret rbv \abv avrov
aVo rCiv a/j-apriwv avru>v' ws oi dirofivrinovetiffavTfs irdvra ra irepl rov trwr^pos
7)fj.u>v 'ITJO-QV XpiffTOv edlSafav. ApoL, i. 33.
2 Matt. i. 21.
3 AiSva/us yap Kvpiov eiriffKiaffei trot' 5i6 /ecu rb yevviji^evov IK trov aytov
/eX?7#?7<rercu vios vtylarov' /ecu /eaXecrets TO cW/xa avrov "'Itjffovv. airrds yap ffwfffi
rbv \aov avrov dirk rSjv a^ap-ndiv avrwv. Protev. Jacobi, xi. ; Tischendorf,
Evang. Apocr., p. 22 ; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i., p. 93.
4 Wann wurden, u. s. w. , p. 77.
5 Protev. Jac., xi. ; Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr., p. 21 f. The peculiar
expression is wanting in most of the other known MSS.
5 T6 Trvevfj.a oSv Kal rr)i> d6vafj.iv TTJV wapd TOV deov ov5v ctXXo vofjffai 0t/J.is ?)
rbv \6yov, 5j /eat 7rpWT<5ro/eos T<^ fe<p tffri, ws Mwtr^j 6 irpodedTjXufi^vo^ irpo^r^s
dfjnrjvvcre. Kal TOVTO, ^\66v tirl TTJV TrapOtvov Kal tiTLffKidffav, K.T.\. ApoL, i. 33.
O
94
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
and the similar explanation of Justin immediately accompanying a
variation from our Gospels, which is equally shared by the
apocryphal work, strengthens the suspicion of a similarity of
origin. Justin's divergences from the Protevangelium prevent our
supposing that, in its present state, it could have been the actual
source of his quotations ; but the wide differences which exist
between the extant MSS. of the Protevangelium show that even
the most ancient does not present it in its original form. It is
much more probable that Justin had before him a still older work,
to which both the Protevangelium and the third Gospel were
indebted.
Justin's account of the removal of Joseph to Bethlehem is
peculiar, and evidently is derived from a distinct uncanonical
source. It may be well to present his account and that of Luke
side by side :
JUSTIN. DIAL. c. TR. 78.
On the occasion of the first census
which was taken in Judcea (tv rfj
'lovSala)
under Cyrenius (first Procurator
(^Trh-poTros) of Judcea. Apol., i. 34),
Joseph had gone up from Nazareth,
where he dwelt,
to Bethlehem, from whence he was,
to enrol himself ;
for his descent was from the tribe
of Judah, which inhabited that
region.
LUKE ii. 1-5.
i there went out a decree
from Caesar Augustus that all the
world (irdffav rty olKovfj.tvrjv) should
be enrolled.
2. And this census was first
made when Cyrenius was Governor
(ifyefjiuv) of Syria. 4. And Joseph
went up from Galilee, out of the
city of Nazareth into Judsea, unto
the City of David, which is called
Bethlehem ;
because he was of the house and
lineage of David ; 5. to enrol him-
self.
Attention has already been drawn to the systematic manner in
which the Davidic descent of Jesus is traced by Justin through
Mary, and to the suppression in this passage of all that might
seem to indicate a claim of descent through Joseph. As the con-
tinuation of a peculiar representation of the history of the infancy
of Jesus, differing materially from that of the Synoptics, it is
impossible to regard this, with its remarkable variations, as an
arbitrary correction by Justin of the canonical text, and we must
hold it to be derived from a different source perhaps, indeed, one
of those from which Luke's Gospel itself first drew the elements
of the narrative; and this persuasion increases as further variations
in the earlier history, presently to be considered, are taken into
account. It is not necessary to enter into the question of the
correctness of the date of this census, but it is evident that Justin's
Memoirs clearly and deliberately modify the canonical narrative.
The limitation of the census to Judea, instead of extending it to
the whole Roman Empire; the designation of Cyrenius as
JUSTIN MARTYR 195
of Judaea instead of i^yepuv of Syria ; and the
careful suppression of the Davidic element in connection with
Joseph, indicate a peculiar written source different from the
Synoptics.
Had Justin departed from the account in Luke with the view of
correcting inaccurate statements, the matter might have seemed
more consistent with the use of the third Gospel, although, at the
same time, it might have evinced but little reverence for it as a
canonical work. On the contrary, however, the statements of
Justin are still more inconsistent with history than those in Luke,
inasmuch as, so far from being the first Procurator of Judea, as
Justin's narrative states in opposition to the third Gospel, Cyrenius
never held that office, but was really, later, the imperial proconsul
over Syria, and, as such, when Judaea became a Roman province
after the banishment of Archelaus, had the power to enrol the
inhabitants, and instituted Caponius as first Procurator of Judaea.
Justin's statement involves the position that at one and the same
time Herod was the King, and Cyrenius the Roman Procurator of
Judaea. 1 In the same spirit, and departing from the usual narra-
tive of the Synoptics, which couples the birth of Jesus with " the
days of Herod the King," Justin, in another place, states that
Christ was born "under Cyrenius." 2 Justin evidently adopts,
without criticism, a narrative which he found in his Memoirs, and
does not merely correct and remodel a passage of the third Gospel,
but, on the contrary, seems altogether ignorant of it.
The genealogies of Jesus in the first and third Gospels differ
irreconcileably from each other. Justin differs from both. In
this passage another discrepancy arises. While Luke seems to
represent Nazareth as the dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary, and
Bethlehem as the city to which they went solely on account of the
census, 3 Matthew, who appears to know nothing of the census,
makes Bethlehem, on the contrary, the place of residence of
Joseph ; 4 and, on coming back from Egypt, with the evident
intention of returning to Bethlehem, Joseph is warned by a dream
to turn aside into Galilee, and he goes and dwells apparently for
the first time " in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophets : He shall be called a Nazarene." 5
Justin, however, goes still further than the third Gospel in his
1 Cf. Joseph., Antiq., xviii. i, i ; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iv. 19.
2 Apol., i. 46. 3 Luke ii. 4.
* Matt. ii. I ; cf. Alford, Greek Test., i., p. 14.
5 Matt. ii. 22 f. It is scarcely necessary to point out that the author of
the first Gospel quotes some apocryphal work, and that the last word is a
total misconception of the phrase. The word Naf/><uo$ should have been
Nafc/ratos, and the term has nothing whatever to do with the town of
Nazareth.
196
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
departure from the data of Matthew, and where Luke merely
infers, Justin distinctly asserts Nazareth to have been the dwelling-
place of Joseph (evOa o)Kt), and Bethlehem, in contradistinction,
the place from which he derived his origin (oOtv tfv).
The same view is to be found in several apocryphal Gospels
still extant. In the Protevangelium of James, again, we find
Joseph journeying to Bethlehem with Mary before the birth of
Jesus. 1 The census here is ordered by Augustus, who commands :
" That all who were in Bethlehem ofjudaa should be enrolled," 2
a limitation worthy of notice in comparison with that of Justin.
In like manner the Gospel of the Nativity. This Gospel represents
the parents of Mary as living in Nazareth, in which place she was
born, 3 and it is here that the angel Gabriel announces to her
the supernatural conception.* Joseph goes to Bethlehem to set
his house in order and prepare what is necessary for the marriage,
but then returns to Nazareth, where he remains with Mary until
her time was nearly accomplished, 5 " when Joseph, having taken
his wife, with whatever else was necessary, went to the city of
Bethlehem, whence he was." 6 The phrase " unde ipse erat" recalls
the odfv yv of Justin.?
As we continue the narrative of the birth and infancy of Jesus
we meet with further variations from the account in the canonical
Gospels for which the preceding have prepared us, and which
indicate that Justin's Memoirs certainly differed from them.
JUSTIN. DIAL. 78.
But the child having been born in
Bethlehem for Joseph, not being
able to find a lodging in the village,
lodged in a certain cave near the
village, and then while they were
there Mary had brought forth the
Christ and had placed him- in a
manger, etc.
LUKE n. 7.
And she brought forth her first-
born son, and wrapped him in
swaddling clothes and laid him in
the manger ; because there was no
room in the inn.
1 Protev. Jac. , xvii., cf. xxi. ; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i., p. 103;
Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr., p. 30, p. 39.
2 KAewts 5 fylvero dirb A.vyo6<rrov J3a<n\^ws d.Troypd<J>e<rt)ai. irdvTas roi)s iv
BriOXeifi, rijs 'lovSalas. Protev. Jac. , xvii.
3 Evan?, de Nativ. Maria, i. and viii. ; cf. Evang. Thoma Lat., iii. ;
Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr., p. 158.
4 Ev. de Nat. Maria, ix. s J , t v iii., ix.
b Joseph, uxore cum aliis qut necessaria erant assutnta Bethlehem civitatem,
unde ipse erat, tetendit. Evang. de Nat. Mar., x. ; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr.
N. T., i., p. 37 ; Tischendorf, Ev. Apocr., p. 114, cf. Evang. infantia: Arab.,
ii. ; Fabricius, ib., i., p. 169; Tischendorf, ib., p. 171. Here Joseph goes
from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, his native city.
i Cf. Hist, de Nat. Mar. et de Inf. Salv., xiii. " Necesse autem fuerat, ut
et Joseph cum Maria proficisceretur in Bethlehem, quia exinde erat, et Maria
de tribu Juda et de domo ac patria David." Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T.,
P- 374-
JUSTIN MARTYR 197
At least it is clear that these particulars of the birth of Jesus
not taking place in Bethlehem itself, but in a cave (ev <nn<)\ai(p)
near the village, because Joseph could not find a lodging there
are not derived from our Gospels ; and here even Semisch 1 is
forced to abandon his theory that Justin's variations arise merely
from imperfectly quoting from memory, and to conjecture that he
must have adopted tradition. It has, however, been shown that
Justin himself distinctly excludes tradition, and in this case, more-
over, there are many special reasons for believing that he quotes
from a written source. Ewald rightly points out that here, and in
other passages where, in common with ancient ecclesiastical
writers, Justin departs from our Gospels, the variation can in no
way be referred to oral tradition ; 2 and, moreover, that when
Justin proves 3 from Isaiah xxxiii. 16 that Christ must be born in
a cave, he thereby shows how certainly he found the fact of the
cave in his written Gospel. 4 The whole argument of Justin
excludes the idea that he could avail himself of mere tradition.
He maintains that everything which the prophets had foretold of
Christ had actually been fulfilled, and he perpetually refers to the
Memoirs and other written documents for the verification of his
assertions. He either refers to the prophets for the confirmation
of the Memoirs or shows in the Memoirs the narrative of facts
which are the accomplishment of prophecies ; but in both cases
it is manifest that there must have been a record of the facts
which he mentions. There can be no doubt that the circum-
stances we have just quoted, and which are not found in the
canonical Gospels, must have been narrated in Justin's Memoirs.
We find, again, the same variations as in Justin in several
extant apocryphal Gospels. The Protevangelium of James
represents the birth of Jesus as taking place in a cave ; 5 so, also,
the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, 6 and several others.? This
uncanonical detail is also mentioned by several of the Fathers,
Origen and Eusebius both stating that the cave and the manger
were still shown in their day. 8 Tischendorf does not hesitate to
1 Denkwiirdigk. d. Mart. Just. , p. 390 f.
2 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss, 1853-54, p. 60.
3 Dial. 71, cf. 70. 4 Ib., p. 60, anm. I.
5 Protev. Jac. , xviii. ; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i., p. 105; Tischen-
dorf, Evang. Apocr.) p. 32.
6 Evang. Infantice Arab., ii., iii. ; Fabricius, ib., i. , p. 169 f. ; Tischendorf,
id., p. 171 f.
7 Pseudo-Matt. Ev. , xiii. , xiv. ; Tischendorf, ib. , p. 74 f. ; Historia
fosephi Fab. Lign., vii. ; Tischendorf, ib., p. 118 ; Hist, de Nat. Mar. et de
'inf. Salv., xiv.; Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. 7\, p. 381.
8 Origen, Contra Cels., i. 51 ; Eusebius, Vita Const., iii. 40 f. Their only
variation from Justin's account is, that they speak of the cave as in Beth-
lehem, while Justin describes it as near the village. Credner remarks that
198 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
affirm that Justin derived this circumstance from the Protevan-
gelium. 1 Justin, however, does not distinguish such a source ;
and the mere fact that we have still extant a form of that Gospel
in which it occurs by no means justifies such a specific con-
clusion, when so many other works, now lost, may equally have
contained it. If the fact be derived from the Protevangelium,
that work, or whatever other apocryphal Gospel may have supplied
it, must be admitted to have at least formed part of the Memoirs
of the Apostles, and with that necessary admission ends all special
identification of the Memoirs with our canonical Gospels. Much
more probably, however, Justin quotes from the more ancient
source from which the Protevangelium and, perhaps, Luke drew
their narrative. There can be very little doubt that the Gospel
according to the Hebrews contained an account of the birth in
Bethlehem, and, as it is at least certain that Justin quotes other
particulars known to have been in it, there is fair reason to suppose
that he likewise found this fact in that work. In any case, it is
indisputable that he derived it from a source different from our
canonical Gospels.
Justin does not apparently know anything of the episode of the
shepherds of the plain, and the angelic appearance to them,
narrated in the third Gospel. 2
To the cave in which the infant Jesus is born came the Magi ;
but, instead of employing the phrase used by the first Gospel,
" Magi from the East " 3 (//.ayoi cnro avaroAcov), Justin always
describes them as " Magi from Arabia " (/txayot a?ro 'Apa/8tas).
Justin is so punctilious that he never speaks of these Magi
without adding " from Arabia," except twice, where, however, he
immediately mentions Arabia as the point of the argument for
which they are introduced ; and in the same chapter in which this
occurs he four times calls them directly Magi from Arabia.* He
uses this expression not less than nine times. 5 That he had no
objection to the term " the East," and that with a different context
it was common to his vocabulary, is proved by his use of it else-
where. 6 It is impossible to resist the conviction that Justin's
Memoirs contained the phrase, "Magi from Arabia," which is
foreign to our Gospels.
the sacredness of the spot might by that time have attracted people, and led
to the extension of the town in that direction, till the site might have become
really joined to Bethlehem. Credner, Beitrage, i., p. 235, cf. Socrates,
H. ., \. 17 ; Sozomen, H. ., ii. 2; Epiphanius, ffeer., xx. I ; Hieron.,
Ep., Iviii., ad Paul.
1 Evang. Apocr. Pro/eg., p. xiii., Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 76 ff.
2 Luke ii. 8, 20. 3 Matt. ii. i. 4 Dial. c. Tr., 78.
s Dial. 77, 78 four times, 88, 102, 103, 106.
* Dial. 76, 120, 121, 126, 140, etc.; cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Em. Justin's,
p. 149.
JUSTIN MARTYR 199
Again, according to Justin, the Magi see the star " in the heaven "
(ev TO) ou/savw), 1 and not "in the East" (lv 777 dvaroXy), as the
first Gospel has it : 2 " When a star rose in heaven (ev ovpav<a) at
the time of his birth, as is recorded in the Memoirs of the
Apostles."* He apparently knows nothing of the star guiding
them to the place where the young child was. 4 Herod, moreover,
questions the elders (7r/}eo-/3vTe/x>t)5 as to the place where the
Christ should be born, and not the " chief priests and scribes of
the people " (ap^ie/acis Ka ' ypa/A/xa/ms TOU Xaou). 6 These diver-
gences, taken in connection with those which are interwoven with
the whole narrative of the birth, can only proceed from the fact
that Justin quotes from a source different from ours.
Justin relates that when Jesus came to Jordan he was believed
to be the son of Joseph, the carpenter, and he appeared without
comeliness, as the Scriptures announced ; " and being considered
a carpenter for, when he was amongst men, he made carpenter's
works, ploughs, and yokes (aporpa Kcd vya) ; by these both
teaching the symbols of righteousness and an active life." 7 These
details are foreign to the canonical Gospels. Mark has the expres-
sion, " Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary ?" 3 but Luke
omits it altogether.9 The idea that the Son of God should do
carpenter's work on earth was very displeasing to many Christians,
and attempts to get rid of the obnoxious phrase are evident in
Mark. Apparently the copy which Origen used had omitted even
the modified phrase, for he declares that Jesus himself is nowhere
called a carpenter in the Gospels current in the Church. 10 A few
MSS. are still extant without it, although it is found in all the
more ancient Codices.
Traces of these details are found in several apocryphal works ;
especially in the Gospel of Thomas, where it is said : " Now, his
father was a carpenter, and made at that time ploughs and yokes "
11 an account which, from the similarity of
1 Dial. 106. a Matt. ii. 2, cf. ii. 9. 3 Dial. 106.
4 Matt. ii. 9. 5 Dial. 78. 6 Matt. ii. 4.
i Kal TKTOVOS vo/Mifoufrov ravra ya.p rd reKroviKa Hpya eipydfero tv
dv0p<J}Trois &v, aporpa Kal vyd' did TOVTUV Kal rd rijs SiKaioffvvrjs <ri}/u./9oXa
diddcTKwv, Kal evepyrj filov. Dial. 88.
8 oi/x oCr6s IffTiv 6 T^KTWV, 6 uWj Mapt'aj ; Mark vi. 3.
' Cf. Luke iii. 23.
10 8n ovdafjiov T&V ev TCUJ ^KK\ri<rtai3 (^epo^vwv evayyeXlw reKTWv avrbs 6
'I?7<rous dvaytypairrai. Contra Ce/s., vi. 36 ; cf. Credner, Beitrage, i., p. 239 ;
Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 152.
11 5 TrarTj/) avrov T^KTWV J;v, Kal twolfi v TCfJ Ka.ip(# ^Keivtf) aporpa Kal firyoi/s.
Evang. Thomce Greece, A. xiii.; Tischendorf, Ev. Apocr., p. 144 cf. ; Evang.
Tkomce Lat., xi. ; Tischendorf, ib., p. 166 ; Pseudo-Matth. Ev., xxxvii. ;
Tischendorf, ib. , p. 99 ; Evang. Infant. Arab. t xxxviii. ; Tischendorf, ib. t
p. 193 ; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 200.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
language, was in all probability derived from the same source as
that of Justin. The explanation which Justin adds, " by which
he taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life," seems
to indicate that he refers to a written narrative containing the
detail, already, perhaps, falling into sufficient disfavour to require
the aid of symbolical interpretation.
In the narrative of the baptism there are many peculiarities
which prove that Justin did not derive it from our Gospels.
Thrice he speaks of John sitting by the river Jordan : " He cried
as he sat by the river Jordan ";' " While he still sat by the river
Jordan "; 2 and " For when John sat by the Jordan." 3 This
peculiar expression, so frequently repeated, must have been derived
from a written Gospel. Then Justin, in proving that Jesus pre-
dicted his second coming, and the reappearance of Elijah, states :
"And therefore our Lord, in his teaching, announced that this
should take place, saying Elias also should come " (CITTWV /cat 'HAiW
e'AeiWrflai). A little lower down he again expressly quotes the
words of Jesus : " For which reason our Christ declared on earth
to those who asserted that Elias must come before Christ : Elias,
indeed, shall come," etc. ('HAias /AV eA-evo-erai, K.r.X).4 Matthew,
however, reads : " Elias indeed cometh," 'HXtas juev tp^frai, K.T.A..S
Now, there is no version in which IXevo-erat is substituted for
pX Tai as Justin does ; but, as Credner has pointed out, 6 the
whole weight of Justin's argument lies in the use of the future
tense. As there are so many other variations in Justin's context,
this likewise appears to be derived from a source different from
our Gospels.
When Jesus goes to be baptised by John many striking
peculiarities occur in Justin's narrative : "As Jesus went down
to the water a fire also was kindled in the Jordan ; and when he
came up from the water the Holy Spirit, like a dove, fell upon
him, as the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote and at
the same time a voice came from the heavens Thou art my
son ; this day have I begotten thee."?
The incident of the fire in Jordan is, of course, quite foreign
to our Gospels ; and, further, the words spoken by the heavenly
voice differ from those reported by them, for, instead of the passage
1 8<ms eVi TOV 'lopddvrjv iroTa/j,6i> Ka0e6tJ.ei>os, e/3<5a- K.T.\. Dial. 49.
2 tri O.VTOV Ka.6co^vov tirl TOV 'lopSdvov iroTa.fj.ov, K.T.\. Dial. 51.
3 'ludvrov yop KaOf^o^vov tirl TOV 'lopSdvov, K.T.\. Dial. 88.
4 Dial. 49. s xvii^ii. Many MSS. add TrpCrrov. 6 Sett rage, i., p. 219.
7 KO.Te\66vToi TOV 'Iijffov eirt TO votap, Kal irvp av/i<p6r) tv Ty'IopSdvy Kal
dvaSvtfTos avTov dir& TOV OJaroy, ws irfpiffTep&v TO &yiov wvevfw. dTriirTrjvai tw'
avrbv fypa\f/av ol direforoXot avrov TOVTOV TOV XptffTov ?';,uuu' Kal ffxavi} tK rCiv
ovparuiv fi/xo t\rj\v6fi "TWs pov el ffv- tya ff^epov yeytw-qKO. <rt."
Dial. 88. *
JUSTIN MARTYR
from Psalm ii. 7, the Gospels have : " Thou art my beloved son ;
in thee I am well pleased." 1 Justin repeats his version a second
time in the same chapter, and again elsewhere he says, regarding
the temptation : " For this devil also, at the time when he (Jesus)
went up from the river Jordan, when the voice declared to him :
' Thou art my son ; this day have I begotten thee,' it is written in
the Memoirs of the Apostles, came to him and tempted him," etc. 2
In both of these passages it will be perceived that Justin
directly refers to the Memoirs of the Apostles as the source of his
statements. Some have argued that Justin only appeals to them
for the fact of the descent of the Holy Ghost, and not for the rest
of the narrative. It has of course been felt that, if it can be shown
that Justin quotes from the Memoirs words and circumstances
which are not to be found in our canonical Gospels, the identity
of the two can no longer be maintained. It is, however, in the
highest degree arbitrary to affirm that Justin intends to limit his
appeal to the testimony of the apostles to one-half of his sentence.
To quote authority for one assertion, and to leave another in the
same sentence, closely connected with it and part indeed of the
very same narrative, not only unsupported, but weakened by
direct exclusion, would indeed be singular, for Justin affirms
with equal directness and confidence the fact of the fire in Jordan,
the descent of the Holy Ghost, and the words spoken by the
heavenly voice. If, in the strictest grammatical accuracy, there
be no absolute necessity to include in the quotation more than
the phrase immediately preceding, there is not, on the other hand,
anything which requires or warrants the exclusion of the former
part * of the sentence. The matter must therefore be decided
according to fair inference and reasonable probability ; and these,
as well as all the evidence concerning Justin's use of the Memoirs,
irresistibly point to the conclusion that the whole passage is derived
from one source. In the second extract given above it is per-
fectly clear that the words spoken by the heavenly voice, which
Justin again quotes, and which are not in our Gospels, were
recorded in the Memoirs, for Justin could not have referred to
them for an account of the temptation at the time when Jesus
went up from Jordan and the voice said to him, " Thou art my
son ; this day have I begotten thee," if these facts and words were
not recorded in them at all. 3 It is impossible to doubt, after
1 2i> el 6 vWj yttoi/ 6 ayairr)r6s, fv trot evSoKrjffa. Mark i. II, Luke iii. 22.
The first Gospel has a slight variation : " This is my son, etc., in whom, etc.,"
OCrds tffriv 6 vl6s fiov K.T.\ i> <$ eM&ojtret. Matt. iii. 17 ; cf. 2 Peter i.
17, which agrees with Matt.
2 Dial. 103.
3 Ib. 103. The quotations regarding the temptation do not agree with our
Gospels, but they will be referred to later.
202 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
impartial consideration, that the incident of the fire in Jordan, the
words spoken by the voice from heaven, and the temptation were
taken from the same source : they must collectively be referred to
the Memoirs.
Of one thing we may be sure : had Justin known the form of
words used by the voice from heaven according to our Gospels, he
would certainly have made use of it in preference to that which he
actually found in his Memoirs. He is arguing that Christ is pre-
existing God, become incarnate by God's will through the Virgin
Mary, and Trypho demands how he can be demonstrated to have
been pre-existent, who is said to be filled with the power of the
Holy Ghost, as though he had required this. Justin replies that
these powers of the Spirit have come upon him, not because he
had need of them, but because they would accomplish Scripture,
which declared that after him there should be no prophet. 1 The
proof of this, he continues, is that, as soon as the child was born,
the Magi from Arabia came to worship him, because even at his
birth he was in possession of his power, 2 and after he had grown
up like other men by the use of suitable means, he came to the
river Jordan, where John was baptising, and as he went into the
water a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and the Holy Ghost
descended like a dove. He did not go to the river because he had
any need of baptism or of the descent of the Spirit, but because of
the human race which had fallen under the power of death. Now
if, instead of the passage actually cited, Justin could have quoted
the words addressed to Jesus by the voice from heaven according
to the Gospels : " Thou art my beloved son ; in thee I am well
pleased," his argument would have been greatly strengthened by
such direct recognition of an already existing, and, as he affirmed,
pre-existent, divinity in Jesus. Not having these words in his
Memoirs of the Apostles, however, he was obliged to be content
with those which he found' there : " Thou art my son ; this day
have I begotten thee " words which, in fact, destroyed the
argument for pre-existence, and dated the divine begetting of
Jesus as the son of God that very day. The passage, indeed,
supported those who actually asserted that the Holy Ghost
first entered into Jesus at his baptism. These considerations, and
the repeated quotation of the same words in the same form, make
it clear that Justin quotes from a source different from our Gospel.
In the scanty fragments of the "Gospel according to the
Hebrews " which have been preserved, we find both the incident
of the fire kindled in Jordan and the words of the heavenly voice
as quoted by Justin. " And as he went up from the water the
heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit of God in the
1 Dial. 87. 2 Kai yap ytw-qOfls, Svva/J.lv TTJV avrou ^ff\ e - Dial. 88.
JUSTIN MARTYR 203
form of a dove which came down and entered into him. And a
voice came from heaven saying: 'Thou art my beloved son; in
thee I am well pleased '; and again : ' This day have I begotten
thee.' And immediately a great light shone round about the
place." 1 Epiphanius extracts this passage from the version in use
among the Ebionites, but it is well known that there were many
other varying forms of the same Gospel ; and Hilgenfeld, 2 with all
probability, conjectures that the version known to Epiphanius was
no longer in the same purity as that used by Justin, but represents
the transition stage to the canonical Gospels adopting the
words of the voice which they give without yet discarding the
older form. Jerome gives another form of the words from the
version in use amongst the Nazarenes : " Factum est autem cum
ascendisset Dominus de aqua, descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti
et requievit super eum, et dixit illi : Fili mi, in omnibus Prophetis
expectabam te ut venires et requiescerem in te, tu es enim requies
mea, tu es films meus primogenitus qui regnas in sempiternum." 3
This supports Justin's reading. Regarding the Gospel according
to the Hebrews more must be said hereafter, but when it is
remembered that Justin, a native of Samaria, probably first knew
Christianity through believers in Syria, to whose Jewish view of
Christianity he all his life adhered, and that these Christians
almost exclusively used this Gospel 4 under various forms and
names, it is reasonable to suppose that he also, like them, knew and
made use of it a supposition increased almost to Certainty when
it is found that Justin quotes words and facts foreign to the
canonical Gospels which are known to have been contained in it.
The argument of Justin, that Jesus did not need baptism, may also
be compared to another passage of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews preserved by Jerome, and which preceded the circum-
stances narrated above, in which the mother and brethren of Jesus
say to him that John the Baptist is baptising for the remission of
sins, and propose that they should go to be baptised by him.
Jesus replies : " In what way have I sinned that I should go and
be baptised by him?"s The most competent critics agree that
1 Kcu cos a.vrj\6ev airb rov vdaros, rjvoiyrjcrav oi ovpavol, Kal elSe TO trvevfj-a rov
Deov rb &yiov Iv eifSet irepiffrepas KaTeXdovffrjs /cat et'creXtfotfcr^s et's avr6v. Kal
<f)d}vri tyevero K TOV otipavov, \eyov<ra, Si/ /JLOV el 6 vibs 6 dyaTnjTbs, 4v <roi
f)v56KT)ffa,- Kal irdXiv, 'E7u> ffri/j-epov yeytvvrjKa (re. Kai evffiis irepif\a/j.ij/e rbv
rbtrov </>ws fieya. Epiphanius, fftBr., xxx. 13.
2 Die Evv. Justin's, p. 165 f. , anm. I. 3 Hieron., Comm. in Esaice, xi. 2.
4 Origen, Comment, in Ezech., xxiv. 7> Epiphanius, Hcer., xxx. 3;
Eusebius, H. ., iii. 27 ; Hieron., Adv. Pelag., Hi. I f.
s Ecce mater Domini et fralres ejus dicebant ei : Johannes Baptista
baptizat in remissionem peccatorum, eamus et baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem
eis : Quid peccavi ut vadam et baptizer ab eo ? Nisi forte hoc ipsum, quod
dixi, ignorantia est. Hieron., Adv. Pelag., iii. 2.
204 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Justin derived the incidents of the fire in Jordan and the words
spoken by the heavenly voice from the Gospel according to the
Hebrews or some kindred work, and there is every probability
that the numerous other quotations in his works differing from our
Gospels are taken from the same source.
The incident of the fire in Jordan likewise occurs in the ancient
work, Prcedicatio Pauli^ coupled with a context which forcibly
recalls the passage of the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
which has just been quoted, and apparent allusions to it are found
in the Sibylline Books and early Christian literature. 2 Credner
has pointed out that the marked use which was made of fire or
lights at Baptism by the Church, during early times, probably rose
out of this tradition regarding the fire which appeared in Jordan
at the baptism of Jesus. 3 The peculiar form of words used by the
heavenly voice according to Justin and to the (iospel according
to the Hebrews was also known to several of the Fathers. 4
Augustine mentions that some MSS. in his time contained that
reading in Luke iii. 22, although without the confirmation of more
ancient Greek codices. 5 It is still extant in the Codex Bezce. (D).
The Itala version adds to Matt. iii. 15: "and when he was
baptised a great light shone round from the water, so that all who
had come were afraid " (et cum baptizaretnr, lumen ingens circumfulsit
de aqua, ita ut timerent omnes qui advenerant) ; and again at Luke
iii. 22 it gives the words of the voice in a form agreeing, at least, in
sense with those which Justin found in his Memoirs of the Apostles.
These circumstances point with certainty to an earlier original
corresponding with Justin, in all probability the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, and to the subsequent gradual elimination of the
passage from the Gospels finally adopted by the Church for
dogmatic reasons, as various sects based on it doctrines which were
at variance with the ever-enlarging belief of the majority.
Then Justin states that the men of his time asserted that the
miracles of Jesus were performed by magical art
1 In quo libra contra omnes Scripturas et de peccato proprio confitenlem
invenies Christum, qui solus omnino nihil deliquit, et ad accipienduin Joannis
baptisma pane invitum a matre sua Maria esse compulsum; item, cum
baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum. Quod in Evangelic nullo est
scriptum. Auctor tract, de Rebaptismate ; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr., i., p. 800.
2 Sibyll Orafu/a, lib., vii., viii.
3 Credner, Beitrage, i., p. 237 ; cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 167 f. ;
Volkmar, Die Evangelien, p. 43.
4 Clemens Al., Ptrdag., i. 6; Methodius, Conviv. Virg., ix. Lactantius,
Instil. Div. , iv. 15 ; Augustine, Enchirid. ad Laurent. , 49.
5 Illud vero, quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc ilia voce
sonuisse, quod in Psalmo scriptum est : Filius meus es tu ; ego hodie genui te :
quamquam in antiquioribus codicibus grtecis non inveniri perhibeatur, etc.
De Conseniu Evang., ii. 14. *
JUSTIN MARTYR 205
(ai'T<xo-iu), " for they ventured to call him a magician and
deceiver of the people." 1 This cannot be accepted as a mere
version of the charge that Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub,
but must have been found by Justin in his Memoirs. In the
Gospel of Nicodemus or Acta Pilati the Jews accuse Jesus before
Pilate of being a magician, 2 coupled with the assertion that he
casts out demons through Beelzebub, the prince of the demons ;
and again they simply say : " Did we not tell thee that he is a
magician ?"3 We shall presently see that Justin actually refers to
certain acts of Pontius Pilate in justification of other assertions
regarding the trial of Jesus. 4 In the Clementine Recognitions,
moreover, the same charge is made by one of the Scribes, who
says that Jesus did not perform his miracles as a prophet, but as a
magician.s Celsus makes a similar charge, 6 and Lactantius refers
to such an opinion as prevalent amongst the Jews at the time of
Jesus, 7 which we find confirmed by many passages in Talmudic
literature. 8 There was, indeed, a book called Magia Jesu Christi,
of which Jesus himself, it was pretended, was the author.9
In speaking of the trial of Jesus, Justin says : " For also as
the prophet saith, reviling him ((Siacri^ovrts avrov), they set him
(eKa^tcrai/) upon a judgment seat (rt /^/ACITOS), and said: 'Judge
for us ' (Kplvov r/fuv')." 10 -a peculiarity which is not found in the
canonical Gospels. Justin had just quoted the words of Isaiah
(Ixv. 2, Iviii. 2) : " They now ask of me judgment, and dare to
draw nigh to God"; and then he cites Psalm xxii. 16, 22 : "They
pierced my hands and my feet, and upon my vesture they cast
lots." He says that this did not happen to David, but was fulfilled
in Christ, and the expression regarding the piercing the hands and
feet referred to the nails of the cross which were driven through
his hands and feet. And after he was crucified they cast lots
upon his vesture. "And that these things occurred," he continues,
" you may learn from the Acts drawn up under Pontius Pilate.""
1 Kal yap fjidyov flvai avrov lr6\tJ.<i)v \eyeiv Kal \aoir\dvov. Dial. 69.
2 \eyovffiv avTy yfa)s tarlv, K.T.\. Evang. Nicod. sive Gesta Pilati, Pars.
I. A. i. ; Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr. , p. 208 ; cf. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr.
N. T., i. ; Nicod. Evang. Lat., i., p. 239, xxvii., p. 296, cf. 417.
3 MTJ OVK fiira.ij.ev <rot 6rt y6r)s tffrlv ; K.T.\. c. ii. ; Tischendorf, Ev. Ap.,
p. 214 ; Fahricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i., p. 243. 4 Apol., i. 35, 48.
5 Et ecce quidam de Scribis de media populi exclamans ait : Jesus veste
signa et prodigia qua fecit, ut magus non ut propheta fecit., i. 58 ; cf. 40.
6 Origen, Contra Cels., ii. 50, 51. i Instit. Div., v. 3, et passim.
8 Lightfoot, Horce Hebraiccz, Works, xi., p. 195 ff.
9 Cf. August, de Consensu Evang., i. 9; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i.,
p. 305 ff.
10 Kal yap, u>s elirev 6 irpo(pT?iTr)s, 8iacnjpoi>Tes avrov, ticddurav dirt /J-^uaros, /cat
flirov Kplvov riiMv. Apol., i. 35.
11 Kat raura Sri yeyove, dijvacrde fj.a,Belv K r(av tiri Hovrlov IliXdVou yevofj.evu)v
&KTUV. Apol., i. 35.
206 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
He likewise upon another occasion refers to the same Acta for
confirmation of statements. 1 The Gospel of Nicodemus or Gesta
Pilati, now extant, does not contain the circumstance to which
we are referring, but, in contradiction to the statement in the
fourth Gospel (xviii. 28, 29), the Jews in this apocryphal work
freely go in to the very judgment seat of Pilate. 2 Tischendorf
maintains that the first part of the Gospel of Nicodemus, .or Acta
Pilati, still extant, is the work, with more or less of interpolation,
which, existing in the second century, is referred to by Justin. 3
A few reasons may here be given against such a conclusion. The
fact of Jesus being set upon the judgment seat is not contained
in the extant Acta Pilati at all, and therefore this work does not
correspond with Justin's statement. It seems most unreasonable
to suppose that Justin should seriously refer Roman Emperors to
a work of this description, so manifestly composed by a Christian,
and the Acta to which he directs them must have been a presumed
official document, to which they had access, as, of course, no other
evidence could be of any weight with them. The extant work
neither pretends to be, nor has in the slightest degree the form of,
an official report. Moreover, the prologue attached to it dis-
tinctly states that Ananias, a provincial warden in the reign of
Flavius Theodosius (towards the middle of the fifth century),
found these Acts written in Hebrew by Nicodemus, and that he
translated them into Greek.-* The work itself, therefore, only
pretends to be a private composition in Hebrew, and does not
claim any relation to Pontius Pilate. The Greek is very corrupt
and degraded, and considerations of style alone would assign it to
the fifth century, as would still more imperatively the anachronisms
with which it abounds. Tischendorf considers that Tertullian
refers to the same work as Justin ; but it is evident that he implies
an official report, for he says distinctly, after narrating the circum-
stances of the crucifixion' and resurrection : " All these facts
regarding Christ, Pilate reported to the reigning Emperor
Tiberius. "s It is extremely probable that in saying this Tertullian
merely extended the statement of Justin. He nowhere states that
he himself had seen this report, nor does Justin, and, as is the
case with the latter, some of the facts which Tertullian supposes
to be reported by Pilate are not contained in the apocryphal
work. There are still extant some apocryphal writings in
1 Apol., i. 48. Cf. Tertullian, Apol. xxi.
" Evang. Nicod. sive Gesta Pilati, Pars i. A. , i. ii. ; Tischendorf, Evang.
Apocr., p. 208 ff.
3 Evang. Apocr. Proleg., p. Ixiv. if. ; Wann wurden, u. s. w., pp. 82-89.
4 Evang. Nicod. Proleg. ; Tischendorf, Ev. Apocr. , p. 203 f.
s Ea omnia super Christo Pilatm Ctesari turn Tiberio nuntiavit.
Afpol. xxi. ,
JUSTIN MARTYR 207
the form of official reports made by Pilate of the trial, cruci-
fixion, and resurrection of Jesus, 1 but none are of very ancient
date. It is certain that, on the supposition that Pilate may have
made an official report of events so important in their estimation,
Christian writers, with greater zeal than conscience, composed
fictitious reports in his name, in the supposed interest of their
religion ; and there was in that day little or no critical sense to
detect and discredit such forgeries. There is absolutely no
evidence to show that Justin was acquainted with any official
report of Pilate to the Roman Emperor, nor, indeed, is it easy to
understand how he could possibly have been, even if such a
document existed ; and it is most probable, as Scholten con-
jectures, that Justin merely referred to documents which tradition
supposed to have been written, but of which he himself had no
personal knowledge. 2 Be this as it may, as he considered the
incident of the judgment seat a fulfilment of prophecy, there can
be little or no doubt that it was narrated in the Memoirs which
contained "everything relating to Jesus Christ," and, finding it
there, he all the more naturally assumed that it must have been
mentioned in some official report.
In the Akhmim fragment of the Gospel of Peter, published in
1893, we have a similar passage to that quoted by Justin. The
fragment states : " They said : ' Let us drag along (O-U/XO/ACV) the
son of God' and they sat him (fKadta-av CU'TOV) upon a seat of
judgment (xaOeSpav /cpio-ews), saying : ' Judge justly (AtKcuws Kpive),
King of Israel.' " This is not in our Gospels, but it has singular
points of agreement with the passage in Justin. The Septuagint
version of Isaiah, which Justin had previously cited, reads : " They
ask me for just judgment " (alrovo-iv /AC vvv KP'UTLV SiKcuav), and
doubtless the narrative, like that of all the Gospels regarding the
trial and crucifixion of Jesus, was compiled to show the fulfilment
of supposed prophecies like this.
We may here go on to quote more fully Justin's allusions to the
parting of the garments, which are also in close agreement with
the fragment of the Gospel of Peter. Justin says : "And those
who were crucifying him parted his garments (e/Jiepicrav TO. l^dria
O.VTOV) amongst themselves, casting lots (Aa^/Aov /^aAAovres), each
taking what pleased him, according to the cast of the lot " (TOV
KXypov).} This account, which differs materially from that of our
Gospels, may be compared with the words in the fragment.
" And they laid the clothes (TO, tvSu/xara) before him, and
distributed them (L(.p.e.pura.vTo\ and cast lots (Xa^/j.ov e/3aAov) for
1 Cf. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i., p. 298 ff.; Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T.,
p. 796 ff.; Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr., p. 411.
2 Scholten, Die Hit. Zeugnisse, p. 165 ff. 3 Dial, xcvii.
2 o8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
them." The use of the peculiar expression, "
both in the fragment and by Justin, is most striking, for its
employment in this connection is limited, so far as we know, to
the Gospel of Peter, Justin, and Cyril. 1 Justin, here, is not
making an exact quotation, but merely giving an account of what
he believes to have occurred, yet the peculiar words of his text
remained in his mind and confirm the idea that it was the Gospel
of Peter.
In narrating the agony in the Garden, there are further varia-
tions. Justin says : " And the passage, ' All my bones are
poured out and dispersed like water ; my heart has become like
wax melting in the midst of my belly,' was a prediction of that
which occurred to him that night when they came out against him
to the Mount of Olives to seize him. For in the Memoirs, com-
posed, I say, by his Apostles and their followers, it is recorded
that his sweat fell down like drops while he prayed, saying : ' If
possible, let this cup pass.' " 2 It will be observed that this is a
direct quotation from the Memoirs, but there is a material differ-
ence from our Gospels. Luke is the only Gospel which mentions
the bloody sweat, and there the account reads (xxii. 44), "as it
were drops of blood falling down to the ground."
LUKE. <j}<rel Op6/Jif3oi ai'yuaroj KarafialvovTes tiri rrjv yfjv.
JUSTIN. w<ret 8p6fj.^oi Karexfiro.
In addition to the other linguistic differences Justin omits the
emphatic ai'ju,aro9, which gives the whole point to Luke's account,
and which evidently could not have been in the text of the
Memoirs. Semisch argues that Opopftoi alone, especially in
medical phraseology, meant " drops of blood," without the addition
of ou/xTos;3 but the author of the third Gospel did not think so, and
undeniably makes use of both, and Justin does not. Moreover,
Luke introduces the expression Qpopfioi cuprros to show the
intensity of the agony, whereas Justin evidently did not mean to
express " drops of blood " at all, his intention in referring to the
sweat being to show that the prophecy, "All my bones are
poured out, etc., like water," had been fulfilled, with which the
reading in his Memoirs more closely corresponded. The prayer
also so directly quoted decidedly varies from Luke xxii. 42, which
reads : " Father, if thou be willing to remove this cup from me " :
LUKB. ll&rep, el /SotfXet wapfveyKflv TOVTO T& iroT-/ipiov dir' tpov-
JUSTIN. HapeXtferw, et dvvar6v, rb iror^piov TOVTO.
In Matt. xxvi. 39 this part of the prayer is more like the reading
1 This is also pointed out by Dr. Swete, The Akhmtm Fragment, 1893,
p. xxxiv. Mr. Rendel Harris says : " I regard it as certain that the reading
Xaxjuos implies connection between Justin and Peter, either directly or through
a third source accessible to both" (Contemp. fiev., August, 1893, p. 231).
- Dial. 103. 3 ). ap. Denkw. Just., p. 146.
JUSTIN MARTYR 209
of Justin : " Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
me " (Hare/a, el Svvarov ecrrif, TrapeXOard) O.TT' I/AOV TO Troriy/oiov
TOUTO-) ; but that Gospel has nothing of the sweat of agony,
which excludes it from consideration. In another place Justin
also quotes the prayer in the Garden as follows : " He prayed,
saying : ' Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me ' ; and
besides this, praying, he said : ' Not as I wish, but as thou
wiliest.'" The first phrase, 1 apart from some transposition of
words, agrees with Matthew ; but even if this reading be preferred,
the absence of the incident of the sweat of agony from the first
Gospel renders it impossible to regard it as the source ; and,
further, the second part of the prayer which is here given differs
materially both from the first and third Gospels.
MATT. Nevertheless not as I will but as thou.
LUKE. Nevertheless not my will but thine be done.
JUSTIN. Not as I wish but as thou wiliest.
MATT. ?rXV ovx. ws ^yw 0eXw dXX' u>s cry.
LUKE. w\7)v yU.rj TO 0e\r]fj.a /aoi> dXXci TO <rbv yivevOu.
JUSTIN. iitrj ws tyiii J3ov\ofj.ai, d\\' <is cri) 0eXets.
The two parts of this prayer, moreover, seem to have been
separate in the Memoirs, for not only does Justin not quote the
latter portion at all in Dial. 103, but here he markedly divides it
from the former. Justin knows nothing of the episode of the
Angel who strengthens Jesus, which is related in Luke xxii. 43.
There is, however, a still more important point to mention that
although verses 43, 44, with the incidents of the angel and the
bloody sweat, are certainly in a great number of MSS., they are
omitted by some of the oldest codices, as, for instance, by the
Alexandrian and Vatican MSS. 2 It is evident that in this part
Justin's Memoirs differed from our first and third Gospels much in
the same way that they do from each other.
In the same chapter Justin states that, when the Jews went out
to the Mount of Olives to take Jesus, " there was not even a
single man to run to his help as a guiltless person."3 This is in
direct contradiction to all the Gospels, and Justin not only com-
pletely ignores the episode of the ear of Malchus, but in this
passage excludes it, and his Gospel could not have contained it.
Luke is specially marked in generalising the resistance of those
1 Dial. 99.
2 In the Sinaitic Codex they are marked for omission by a later hand.
Lachmann brackets, and Drs. Westcott and Hort double-bracket them.
The MS. evidence maybe found in detail in Scrivener's Int. to Crit. N. T., 2nd
ed., p. 521, stated in the way which is most favourable for the authenticity.
3 Oi)5ets yap oud /aexpts evos avdpu-jrov ^orjOeiv atrip ws avafj.aprriT(f fioijffos
uwTJpxe. Dial. 103.
4 Matt. xxvi. 51 ff.; Mark xiv. 46 ff.; Luke xxii. 49 ff.; John xviii., 10 f.
P
210 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
about Jesus to his capture : " When they which were about him
saw what would follow, they said unto him : ' Lord, shall we smite
with the sword ?' And a certain one of them smote the servant
of the high priest and cut off his right ear." 1 As this episode
follows immediately after the incident of the bloody sweat and prayer
in the Garden, and the statement of Justin occurs in the very same
chapter in which he refers to them, this contradiction further tends
to confirm the conclusion that Justin employed a different Gospel.
It is quite in harmony with the same peculiar account that
Justin states that, "after he (Jesus) was crucified, all his friends
(the Apostles) stood aloof from him, having denied him 2 ......
(who, after he rose from the dead, and after they were convinced
by himself that before his passion he had told them that he must
suffer these things, and that they were foretold by the prophets,
repented of their flight from him when he was crucified), and
while remaining among them he sang praises to God, as is made
evident in the Memoirs of the Apostles"?* Justin, therefore,
repeatedly asserts that after the crucifixion all the Apostles forsook
him, and he extends the denial of Peter to the whole of the
twelve. It is impossible to consider this distinct and reiterated
affirmation a mere extension of the passage, " they all forsook
him and fled " (Trdvrfs dfavrcs avrbv l^vyov), 1 * when Jesus
was arrested, which proceeded mainly from momentary fear.
Justin seems to indicate that the disciples withdrew from and
denied Jesus when they saw him crucified, from doubts which
consequently arose as to his Messianic character. Now, on the
contrary, the canonical Gospels represent the disciples as being
together after the crucifixion.' Justin does not exhibit any
knowledge of the explanation given by the angels at the sepulchre
as to Christ having foretold all that had happened, 6 but makes this
proceed from Jesus himself. Indeed, he makes no mention of
these angels at all.
There are some traces elsewhere of the view that the disciples
were offended after the Crucifixion.? Hilgenfeld points out the
1 Luke xxii. 49, 50.
Mera otv TO ffTavpuOrjvai afiTOv, xal ol yvibpifj,oi avrov irdvTfs
O.VTOV. Apol., i. 50.
(otTives fitrd TO di>affT7Jva.i avrov e"/c veKp&v, Kal iffiffOrfvai uir' ai/roD, 8n Kal
vpo TOV -raOtlv t\tyev ai/rotj, OTI ravra. abrov Set TraBfiv, Kal diro r&v Trpo<pTjTu>v
STI xpofKtic/ipvKTO TaOra, fuerfv&^aov tvl T$ d<ptffTaff6ai avrov foe tffTavpu>6ri), icai
>J*T' avruv didyuv, O/ivTytre TOV Qe6v, wj Ka.1 tv TOIS dTTOfj.vr)fjLOVfv/j.atn TWV diroff-
T6\ur SrjXovTai ytyevij^vov, K.T.\. Dial. 106 ; cf. Apol. \. 50 ; Dial. 53 ; de
Resurr., 9. 4 Matt. xxvi. 56 ; Mark xiv. 50.
s Luke xxiv. 9-12, 33 ; Mark xvi. 10 ; John xx. 18, 19 ; cf. Luke xxiii. 49.
Luke xxiv. 4-8 ; Matt, xxviii. 5-7 ; Mark xvi. 5-7.
7 In the Ascensio Isaue, iii. 14, the following passage occurs : " Et duodecim,
gut cum eo, o/ensionem aecipient in eum, et custodes fonstituentur, qui
custodicnt sepulchrum." Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 246, anm. 2.
JUSTIN MARTYR
appearance of special Petrine tendency in this passage, in the
fact that it is not Peter alone, but all the Apostles, who are said
to deny their master ; and he suggests that an indication of the
source from which Justin quoted may be obtained from the
kindred quotation in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (iii.) by pseudo-
Ignatius : " For I know that also after his resurrection he was in
the flesh, and I believe that he is so now. And when he came to
those that were with Peter he said to them : Lay hold, handle me,
and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. And immediately
they touched him and believed, being convinced by his flesh and
spirit." Jerome, it will be remembered, found this in the Gospel
according to the Hebrews used by the Nazarenes, which he trans-
lated, 1 from which we have seen that Justin in all probability
derived other particulars differing from the canonical Gospels,
and with which we shall constantly meet, in a similar way, in
examining Justin's quotations. Origen also found it in a work
called the "Teaching of Peter" (AtSa^ Iler/Dov), 2 which must
have been akin to the " Preaching of Peter " (K^/avy/xa Iliy>ov).3
Hilgenfeld suggests that, in the absence of more certain informa-
tion, there is no more probable source from which Justin may have
derived his statement than the Gospel according to Peter, or the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is known to have con-
tained so much in the same spirit. *
It may well be expected that, at least in touching such serious
matters as the Crucifixion and last words of Jesus, Justin must
adhere with care to authentic records, and not fall into the faults
of loose quotation from memory, free handling of texts, and care-
less omissions and additions, by which those who maintain the
identity of the Memoirs with the canonical Gospels seek to explain
the systematic variations of Justin's quotations from the text of the
latter. It will, however, be found that here also marked discre-
pancies occur. Justin says, after referring to numerous prophecies
regarding the treatment of Christ: "And again, when he says:
' They spake with their lips, they wagged the head, saying : Let
him deliver himself.' That all these things happened to the Christ
from the Jews, you can ascertain. For when he was being crucified
they shot out the lips and wagged their heads, saying : ' Let him
who raised the dead deliver himself.' " s And in another place,
referring to the same Psalm (xxii.) as a prediction of what was to
happen to Jesus, Justin says : " For they who saw him crucified
1 De Vir. III., 16. 2 De Princip., proem. 3 Grabe, Spicil. Patr., i., p. 56.
4 Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 248 ff.
3 Kai irdXiv Srav \eyy 'EXdAijcrcH' tv x e ^ <r "'> ^Kivriffav Kf(f>a\T)v, Xeyovres-
'Pvff&ffBu favrov. "Anva irAvra <l>s yeyovtv viro rdv 'lovdalwv TCJJ X/H<7r4>, /xafletV
Svvacrdf. Sraiyjwtfej'TOS yap avrov, tfffTpf<f>oi> TO. X e ^*?> /cai ^/d/cow ras
\fyovres- '0 vfKpovs dveyetpas pvffdcr&d} eavrov. Apol. , i. 38.
212 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
also wagged their heads, each one of them, and distorted
(Stea-rpe^ov) their lips, and sneeringly and in scornful irony
repeated among themselves those words which are also written in
the Memoirs of his Apostles : He declared himself the Son of
God; (let him) come down, let him walk about; let God save
him." 1 In both of these passages Justin directly appeals to
written authority. The fiaOelv SvvacrOe may leave the source
of the first uncertain, 2 but the second is distinctly stated to contain
the actual words " written in the Memoirs of his Apostles," and it
seems reasonable to suppose that the former passage is also derived
from them. It is scarcely necessary to add that both differ very
materially from the canonical Gospels. 3 The taunt contained in
the first of these passages is altogether peculiar to Justin : " Let
him who raised the dead deliver himself" ('O vexpovs dveytlfms
pva-darOui eavrov) ;* and even if Justin did not indicate
a written source, it would not be reasonable to suppose that
he should himself for the first time record words to which he
refers as the fulfilment of prophecy. 5 It would be still more
ineffectual to endeavour to remove the difficulty presented by such
a variation by attributing the words to tradition, at the same time
that it is asserted that Justin's Memoirs were actually identical with
the Gospels. No aberration of memory could account for such a
variation, and it is impossible that Justin should prefer tradition
regarding a form of words, so liable to error and alteration, with
written Gospels within his reach. Besides, to argue that Justin
affirmed that the truth of his statement could be ascertained
(fjM0civ 8vvatr8f), whilst the words which he states to have been
spoken were not actually recorded, would be against all reason.
1 01 yap OeupovvTfs avrdv fffTavpufjLevov KCLI Ke^aXAs ^KCKTTOJ tKivovv, KO.I TO.
X^Xij difffTpt<f>ov, Kai TOIS fiv^UTrjpcrtv iv <J\\i7\ois difpivovvres i-Xeyov flpuvevo/jLevoi
TauTa & Kai v TOIJ dirofj,vrjfjLOVii/ia(n r&v diroffroXuv avrov yeypcnrTai' " Tiov
OeoO favTov HXeye- Kara/Sets rrepiirare/rw cruxrdrw aurov 6 Oeos. " Dial. 101.
2 Some writers consider that this is a reference to the Acta Pilati as in
Apol., i. 35.
3 Dr. Westcott admits that in the latter passage Justin does profess to give
the exact words which were recorded in the Memoirs, and that they are not
to be found in our Gospels ; " but," he apologetically adds, " we do find
these others so closely connected with them that few readers would feel the
difference"! This is a specimen of apologetic criticism. Dr. Westcott goes
on to say that as no MS. or Father known to him has preserved any reading
more closely resembling Justin's, "if it appear not to be deducible from our
Gospels, due allowance being made for the object which he had in view,
its source must remain concealed" (On the Canon, p. 114 f.). Cf. Matt, xxvii.
39-43 ; Mark xv. 29-32 ; Luke xxiii. 34-37.
4 The nearest parallel in our Gospels is in Luke xxiii. 35 : " He saved
others ; let him save himself if this man be the Christ of God, his chosen "
("AXXotj tffuffev, fftaffdru eavrov, K.T.\.).
5 Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 244 f.
JUSTIN
He declared himself the Son of
God ; (let him) come down, let him
walk about ; let God save him.
yiov #eoO eavrov ^Xe'ye' /caret/
rw ffwffdru airroV 6 0eds.
The second of the mocking speeches 1 of the lookers-on is
referred distinctly to the Memoirs of the Apostles ; but is also,
with the accompanying description, foreign to our Gospels. The
nearest approach to it occurs in our first Gospel, and we subjoin
both passages for comparison :
JUSTIN, DIAL. 101. MATT, xxvii. 40, AND 42, 43.
40. Thou that destroyest the temple,
and buildest it in three days, save
thyself ; if thou art the Son of God,
come down from the cross.
42. He saved others, himself he
cannot save. He is the King of
Israel ; let him now come down from
the cross, and we will believe in him.
43. He trusted in God ; let him
deliver him now, if he will have him,
for he said, I am the Son of God.
42 Kara/Sdrd) vvv diro rov
arravpov KO.I TriffTevffOfJi:v ('IT' avrf.
43. Treiroidev tiri rov 6f6v, pvffdffQw vvv
avrov 2 ei 6f\ei avrov elirev yap OTI
6eov el/Mi uZcij.
It is evident that Justin's version is quite distinct from this, and
cannot have been taken from our Gospels, although professedly
derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles,
Justin likewise mentions the cry of Jesus on the cross, " O God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" ('0 #eos, 6 6e6<s pov, Ivo. ri
eyKareXiTre? /xe ;),3 as a fulfilment of the words of the Psalm, which
he quotes here, and elsewhere, 4 with the peculiar addition of the
Septuagint version: "attend to me" (Trpocrxes ftot), which, how-
ever, he omits when giving the cry of Jesus, thereby showing that
he follows a written source which did not contain it, for the quota-
tion of the Psalm, and of the cry which is cited to show that it
refers to Christ, immediately follow each other. He apparently
knows nothing of the Chaldaic cry, " Eli, Eli, lama sabac-
thani," of the Gospels. s The first and second Gospels give
the words of the cry from the Chaldaic differently from Justin,
from the version of the LXX., and from each other. Matt,
xxvii. 46, 0ee fiov, $ee p.ov, iva ri' fj.e lyKareXiTres Mark xv. 34, 'O
1 Semisch argues that both forms are quotations of the same sentence, and
that there is consequently a contradiction in the very quotations themselves ;
but there can be no doubt that the two phrases are distinct parts of the
mockery, and the very same separation and variation occur in each of the
canonical Gospels. Die ap. Dsnkw. Mart. Just., p. 282 ; cf. Hilgenfeld,
Die Ew. Justin's, p. 244.
2 The Cod. Sin. omits CLVTOV. 3 Dial. 99.
4 Dial. 98. 5 Matt, xxvii. 46 ; Mark xv. 34.
2i 4 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
0eos, 6 6(6$ [JMV, eis ri eyKareXiires p-f ; the third Gospel makes no
mention at all of this cry, but, instead, has one altogether foreign
to the other Gospels : "And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and
said : Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit : and having
said this, he expired." 1 Justin has this cry also, and in the same
form as the third Gospel. He says : " For when he (Jesus) was
giving up his spirit on the cross, he said : ' Father, into thjt hands
I commend my spirit,' as I have also learned from the Memoirs." 2
Justin's Gospel, therefore, contained both cries, and as even the
first two Synoptics mention a second cry of Jesus 3 without, how-
ever, giving the words, it is not surprising that other Gospels
should have existed which included both. Even if we had no
trace of this cry in any other ancient work, there would be no
ground for asserting that Justin must have derived it from the
third Gospel, for, if there be any historical truth in the statement
that these words were actually spoken by Jesus, it follows, of
course, that they may have been, and probably were, reported in
a dozen Christian writings now no longer extant, and in all pro-
bability they existed in some of the many works referred to in the
prologue to the third Gospel. Both cries, however, are given in
the Gospel of Nicodemus, or Gesta Pilati, to which reference has
already so frequently been made. In the Greek versions edited
by Tischendorf we find only the form contained in Luke. In the
Codex A the passage reads : "And crying with a loud voice, Jesus
said : Father, Baddach ephkid rouchi\.\\a.\. is, interpreted : ' into
thy hands I commend my spirit ': and, having said this, he gave
up the ghost. "4 In the Codex B the text is : " Then Jesus, having
called out with a loud voice, 'Father, into thy hands will I
commend my spirit,' expired." 5 In the ancient Latin version,
however, both cries are given : "And about the ninth hour Jesus
cried with a loud voice,, saying, ffefy, Hely, lama zabacthani,
which, interpreted, is : ' My God, my God, why hast thou for-
saken me ?' And after this Jesus said : ' Father, into thy
Kat <(Hi}vriffa.s <puvri fAtydX-Q 6 'IijtroOj etirev, Hdrep, els \etpds ffov
TO TTvevnd pov. TOVTO oe eliruiv f^etrveixrev. Luke xxiii. 46.
Kal yip diro3i5oi>s TO irvevjj,a eirl r<j> ffravpy, efrre, ITdrep, els
irapaTi6eij.a.i ro irveupd fj.ov us Acai ex TU>V a.iro/j.i>r)/j.ovfvfj.drwv Kal TOVTO
Dial. 105.
3 Matt, xxvii. 50 ; Mark xv. 37.
4 Kai ^wj^ffaj <f>uvf neydXy 6 'IijtroDs fiirev Uar'/ip, fiaSdax t<j>Ki5 pove\, 6
tpfj.iji'fvfTai E/s \fipo.i <rov va.paTi6i)fjLi TO irvev/j,d (tov. Kal TOVTO fliruv TraptdwKt
Toirvfvua.. Evang. Nicod., Pars I. A. sive Gesta Pilati, xi.; Tischendorf,
Evang. Apocr., p. 233 ; cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 590 f.
5 "ETfira 6 'lyffovs Kpdfas ipuvrj fteydXy Ha.Ttp, els xM* ffov irapa0^ffo/j.ai
TO -irvtvud nov, dirfirvewe. Ev. Nicod., Pare I. B. sive Acta Pilati B., xi. ;
Tischendorf, Ev. Apocr., p. 287.
JUSTIN MARTYR 215
hands I commend my spirit'; and, saying this, he gave up the
ghost." 1
One of the Codices of the same apocryphal work likewise gives
the taunting speeches of the Jews in a form more nearly approaching
that of Justin's Memoirs than any found in our Gospels. " And
the Jews that stood and looked ridiculed him, and said : If thou
saidst truly that thou art the Son of God, come down from the
cross, and at once, that we may believe in thee. Others, ridicu-
ling, said : He saved others, he healed others, and restored the
sick, the paralytic, lepers, demoniacs, the blind, the lame, the
dead, and himself he cannot heal." 2 The fact that Justin actually
refers to certain Acta Pilati in connection with the Crucifixion
renders this coincidence all the more important. Other texts of
this Gospel read : " And the Chief Priests, and the rulers with
them, derided him, saying : He saved others, let him save him-
self; if he is the Son of God, let him come down from the
cross." 3
It is clear from the whole of Justin's treatment of the narrative
that he followed a Gospel adhering more closely than the canonical
to Psalm xxii., but yet with peculiar variations from it. Our
Gospels differ very much from each other ; Justin's Memoirs of
the Apostles in like manner differed from them. It had its
characteristic features clearly and sharply defined. In this way
his systematic variations are natural and perfectly intelligible,
but they become quite inexplicable if it be supposed that,
having our Gospels for his source, he thus persistently and in
so arbitrary a way ignored, modified, or contradicted their
statements.
Upon two occasions Justin distinctly states that the Jews sent
persons throughout the world to spread calumnies against Christians.
1 Et circa horam nonam exclamavit Jesus voce magntl dicens : Hely, ffely,
lama zabacthani, quod est interpretatum : Deus meus, Deus metis, tit quid
dereliquisti me ? Et post hczc dicit Jesus : Pater in mantis tuas commendo
spiritum meum. Et hac dicens emisit spiritum." Nicod. Ev., xi. ;
Fahricius, Cod. Ap. N. T., i., p. 261 ; cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T.,
P- S9i f-
2 01 Se 'lovdaioi ot iffT<i[J.evoi. /cat fiXeTrovres KareyeXtav O.VTOV /cat eXeyov 'Eav
dXijflws ^Xfyes on iuds et TOV Oeov, KardftrjOt. O.TTO TOV ffravpov, /cal irapevOvs 'iva.
iriffTevffU)/j.tv els ffe. erepoi ZXeyov Ka.TayeX&i>Tes"AXXovs Zewaev, d'XXous dOepd-
irevffev, /cat ia.ao.ro affOevels, irapaXeXvfjievovs, Xeirpovs, Sat/u.octfoyU.evoi'j, rv<(>Xovs,
XwXotij, veveKp<afj.evows, /cat eavrov ov di'varai 0epa.Trevffai. Evang. Nicod., Pars
I. B., sive Acta Pilati, B. x. ; Tischendorf, Ev. Apocr., p. 286.
3 E-v. Nicod., Pars I. A. x. ; Tischendorf, Ev. Apocr., p. 232; cf. Thilo.,
Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 584; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i., p. 259;
Tischendorf, ib., p. 340. There are differences between all these texts
indeed, there are scarcely two MSS. which agree clearly indicating that
we have now nothing but corrupt versions of a more ancient text.
2i6 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
" When you knew that he had risen from the dead, and ascended
into heaven, as the prophets had foretold, not only did you (the
Jews) not repent of the wickedness which you had committed,
but at that time you selected and sent forth from Jerusalem
throughout the land chosen men, saying that the atheistic heresy
of the Christians had arisen," etc. 1 "from a certain Jesus, a
Galilaean impostor, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him
by night from the tomb where he had been laid when he was
unloosed from the cross, and they now deceive men, saying that
he has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven." 2 This
circumstance is not mentioned by our Gospels, but, reiterated
twice by Justin in almost the same words, it was in all probability
contained in the Memoirs. Eusebius quotes the passage from
Justin without comment, evidently on account of the information
which it conveyed. The fragment of the Gospel of Peter describes
the elders as going to Pilate and asking for soldiers to watch the
grave for three days, " lest his disciples steal him, and the people
believe that he rose from the dead."
These instances, which, although far from complete, have
already occupied too much of our space, show that Justin quotes
from the Memoirs of the Apostles many statements and facts of
Gospel history which are not only foreign to our Gospels, but in
some cases contradictory to them, whilst the narrative of the most
solemn events in the life of Jesus presents distinct and systematic
variations from parallel passages in the Synoptic records. It will
now be necessary to compare his general quotations from the
same Memoirs with the Canonical Gospels, and here a very wide
field opens before us. As we have already stated, Justin's works
teem with these quotations, and to take them all in detail would
be impossible within the limits of this work. Such a course,
moreover, is unnecessary. It may be broadly stated that even
those who maintain the use of the Canonical Gospels can only
point out two or three passages out of this vast array which
verbally agree with them. 3 This extraordinary anomaly on the
supposition that Justin's Memoirs were in fact our Gospels is,
as we have mentioned, explained by the convenient hypothesis
that Justin quotes imperfectly from memory, interweaves and
1 Dial. 17.
3 Ib., 108. This passage commences with statements to the same effect as
the preceding.
sCredner, Beitrage, i., p. 229 ; Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 252 ff.,
p. 255 ; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 34 f., p. 89; Reuss, Hist, du Canon,
p. 56; Schwegler, Das Nachap. Zeit., i., p. 222 f.; Semisch, Die ap. Denkw.
M.Just., p. 140 f.; De Wette, Lehrb. Einl. N. T., p. 104 f.; Westcott, On
the Canon, p. 106 f.
JUSTIN MARTYR
modifies texts, and, in short, freely manipulates these Gospels
according to his argument. Even strained to the uttermost,
however, could this be accepted as a reasonable explanation of
such systematic variation, that only twice or thrice out of the vast
number of his quotations does he literally agree with passages in
them ? In order to illustrate the case with absolute impartiality
we shall first take the instances brought forward as showing
agreement with our Synoptic Gospels.
Tischendorf only cites two passages in support of his affirma-
tion that Justin makes use of our first Gospel. 1 It might be
supposed that, in selecting these, at least two might have been
produced literally agreeing ; but this is not the case, and this may
be taken as an illustration of the almost universal variation of
Justin's quotations. The first of Tischendorfs examples is the
supposed use of Matt. viii. n, 12 : "Many shall come from
the east and from the west, and shall sit down," etc. (IIoAXot
O.TTO o.va,To\S>v KOI Sixr^v i^ovcriv, K.T.A..) Now this passage
is repeated by Justin no less than three times in three very
distinct parts of his Dialogue with Trypho,' 2 - with a uniform
variation from the text of Matthew " They shall come from the
west and from the east," etc. ( n Howiv euro Sva-pwv /ecu
avaro/Xwv, K.r.A,.)3 That a historical saying of Jesus should be
reproduced in many Gospels, and that no particular work can have
any prescriptive right to it, must be admitted, so that even if the
passage in Justin agreed literally with our first Synoptic, it would
not afford any proof of the actual use of that Gospel ; but when,
on the contrary, Justin upon three several occasions, and at
distinct intervals of time, repeats the passage with the same
persistent variation from the reading in Matthew, not only can it
not be ascribed to that Gospel, but there is reason to conclude
that Justin derived it from another source. It may be added that
TroAAot is anything but a word uncommon in his vocabulary,
and that elsewhere, for instance, he twice quotes a passage
similar to one in Matthew, in which, amongst other variations, he
reads " Many shall come (troXXoi r^ovcriv)," instead of the phrase
found in that Gospel.*
The second example adduced by Tischendorf is the supposed
quotation of Matt. xii. 39 ; but in order fully to comprehend the
nature of the affirmation, we quote the context of the Gospel and
of Justin in parallel columns
1 Wann wurden, u. s. w. , p. 27, anm. 2.
2 Dial. 76, 1 20, 140.
3 In Dial. 76 the text reads " from the east and from the west."
4 Apol., i. 1 6, Dial. 35 ; cf. Matt. vii. 15.
2 i8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
JUSTIN. DIAL. 107.
And that he should rise again on
the third day after the crucifixion, it
is written in the Memoirs that some
of your neighbours questioning him
MATTHEW xn. 38, 39.
38. Then certain of the scribes and
Pharisees answered him, saying
said: "Show us a sign;" and he I Master, we would see a sign from
answered them : "An evil and I thee.
adulterous generation seeketh after j 39. But he answered and said unto
a sign, and there shall no sign be them : An evil and adulterous genera-
given to them (ai/rois) but the sign of tion seeketh after a sign, and there
Jonah ('luva)." shall no sign be given to it (afrrrj), but
Ecu STI TJ rpirri -hn-epq, tfj.e\\ei> i the sign of the prophet Jonah ('Iwva
dvaffTT^fffffOai fj.CTa TO ffravp^Brfvai, ' TOU irpo^TOv).
ytypaiTTai. fv rots dirofj.vri/jioi'ev/Miffiv, j Tore direKpldriffav avrtf Ttvts r(av
STI ol dvo TOV yevovs v/j.ui'
res cn>T<J5 tXeyov, OTL, "Afiov
<rr)fj.tTov." Kal AireKplvaToavrois,
irovrib. K.T. X.
ypa/j./j.a.Tfuv Kal Qapiffaluv \eyovTes,
0e\0fj.ev diro <rov crrjfj.et.ov
ISe'tv." 6 dt diroicpiOeh elirev airrois,
Tevftl irovrfpii, K.T.\.
Now it is clear that Justin here directly professes to quote from
the Memoirs, and consequently that accuracy may be expected ;
but passing over the preliminary substitution of " som of your
nation " for " certain of the scribes and Pharisees," although it
recalls the " some of them," and " others," by which the parallel
passage, otherwise so different, is introduced in Luke xi. 15, 16,
29 ff., 1 the question of the Jews, which should be literal, is quite
different from that of the first Gospel; whilst there are variations
in the reply of Jesus, which, if not so important, are still un-
deniable. We cannot compare with the first Gospel the parallel
passages in the second and third Gospels without recognising that
other works may have narrated the same episode with similar
variations, and whilst the distinct differences which exist totally
exclude the affirmation that Justin quotes from Matthew, every-
thing points to the conclusion that he makes use of another source.
This is confirmed by another important circumstance. After
enlarging during the remainder of the chapter upon the example of
the people of Nineveh, Justin commences the next by returning to
the answer of Jesus, and making the following statement : " And
though all of your nation were acquainted with these things which
occurred to Jonah, and Christ proclaimed among you that he
would give you the sign of Jonah, exhorting you, at least, after his
resurrection from the dead to repent of your evil deeds, and like
the Ninevites to supplicate God, that your nation and city might
not be captured and destroyed as it has been destroyed ; yet not
only have you not repented on learning his resurrection from the
dead, but, as I have already said, 2 you sent chosen^ and select
1 Cf. Mark viii. n.
" Dial. 17. The passage quoted above, p. 215 f.
3 \(ipoTovf)aaTts. Literally, " elected by a Ihow of hands "by vote.
JUSTIN MARTYR 219
men throughout all the world, proclaiming that an atheistic and
impious heresy had arisen from a certain Jesus, a Galilaean
impostor," etc. 1 Now, not only do our Gospels not mention this
mission, as we have already pointed out, but they do not contain
the exhortation to repent, at least, after the resurrection of Jesus
here referred to, and which evidently must have formed part of the
episode in the Memoirs.
Tischendorf does not produce any other instances of supposed
quotations of Justin from Matthew, but rests his case upon these.
As they are the best examples, apparently, which he can point
out, we may judge of the weakness of his argument. De Wette
divides the quotations of Justin, which may be compared with our
first and third Gospels, into several categories. Regarding the
first class, he says : "Some agree quite literally, which, however,
is seldom " ; 2 and under this head he can only collect three
passages of Matthew, and refer to one of Luke. Of the three
from Matthew, the first is that, viii. n, 12,3 also brought forward
by Tischendorf, of which we have already disposed. The second
is Matt. v. 20 : " For I say unto you, that except your righteous-
ness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not
enter into the kingdom of heaven." A parallel passage to this
exists in Dial. 105, a chapter in which there are several quotations
not found in our Gospels at all, with the exception that the first
words, " For I say unto you that," are not in Justin. We shall
speak of this passage presently. De Wette's third passage is
Matt. vii. 19 : "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is
hewn down and cast into the fire," which, with the exception of
one word, " but," at the commencement of the sentence in Justin,
also agrees with his quotation. < In these two short passages there
are no peculiarities specially pointing to the first Gospel as their
source, and it cannot be too often repeated that the mere
coincidence of short historical sayings in two works by no means
warrants the conclusion that the one is dependent on the other.
In order, however, to enable the reader to form a correct estimate
of the value of the similarity of the two passages above noted, and
also, at the same time, to examine a considerable body of evidence,
selected with evident impartiality, we propose to take all Justin's
readings of the Sermon on the Mount, from which the above
passages are taken, and compare them with our Gospels. This
should furnish a fair test of the composition of the Memoirs of the
Apostles.
Taking first, for the sake of continuity, the first Apology, we
find that chapters xv., xvi., xvii., are composed almost entirely of
1 Dial. 1 08. 2 De Wette, Lehrb. Einl. N.T., p. 104.
3 Dial. 76, 120, 140 ; cf. p. 347. 4 Apol., \. 16.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
examples of what Jesus himself taught, introduced by the remark
with which chapter xiv. closes, that " Brief and concise sentences
were uttered by him, for he was not a sophist, but his word was
the power of God." 1 It may broadly be affirmed that, with the
exception of the few words quoted above by De Wette, not a
single quotation of the words of Jesus in these three chapters
agrees with the canonical Gospels. We shall, however, confine
ourselves at present to the Sermon on the Mount. We must
mention that Justin's text is quite continuous, except where we
have inserted asterisks. We subjoin Justin's quotations, together
with the parallel passages in our Gospels, side by side, for greater
facility of comparison. 2
JUSTIN.
a. Apo/., i., 15. He (Jesus) spoke
thus of chastity : Whosoever may gaze
on a woman to lust after her hath
committed adultery already in the
heart before God.
/3. And, if thy right eye offend thee
cut it out,
for it is profitable for thee to enter
into the kingdom of heaven with one
eye (rather) than having two to be
thrust into the everlasting fire.
a. Hepl fjitv oftv fftiHppoffvvtis TOGOVTOV
flirev "Os &v e'/u./SXe'y/fl yvvaiKi Trpbs
TO diriBvfj.i)ffai. avrrjs rjori fnolxcwre rrj
KapSla irapa T Gey.
/3. Kai' 3 E/ 6 6(pOa\/JMS <rov 6 5eios
e, i-KKOif/ov O.VTOV
yap <roi fj.ov<j<p6a\/J.ov
flffe\6eii> els rty [3a<n\tlav ruv ovpa-
GOSPEL.
Matt. v. 28. But I say unto you,
that everyone that looketh on a
woman to lust "after her hath com-
mitted adultery with her already in
his heart.
29. But if thy right eye offend
thee, pluck it out and cast it from
thee : for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish,
and not that thy whole body should
be cast into hell.
'70) 5 \tyw viuv OTL iras 6 jiXtiruv. 4
yvvaiKa irpos TO ftndv/j.fjffai avrT}v -tjS-r]
Ifji.oLxfVfffv atTTjv tv T-TI KapSia avrov.
Ei 5e 6 600aXyU.ds <rov 6 Sextos
ffnavdaXlfei ere, ^e\e 5 O.VTOV Kai fia\f
dTro ffov- ffv(i<ptpei -ydp <roi tvo.
d.Tro\r)Tai v T&V yueXwv ffov, K.T.\. ; cf.
8e Kai (rvvrofjioi irap af/Tov \6yoi yeyovaffiv. Ov yap crofaffTjjs
i', a\\& SiVa/tiis Geou 6 Xo7oj avTov r/v. Apol., i. 14. This description
completely contradicts the representation in the fourth Gospel of the discourses
of Jesus. It seems clearly to indicate that Justin had no knowledge of that Gospel.
2 It need not be said that the variations between the quotations of Justin
and the text of our Gospels must be looked for only in the Greek. For the
sake of the reader unacquainted with Greek, however, we shall endeavour as
far as possible to indicate in translation where differences exist, although this
cannot of course be fully done, nor often without being more literal than is
desirable. Where it is not necessary to amend the authorised version of the
New Testament for the sake of more closely following the text, and marking
differences from Justin, we shall adopt it. We divide the quotations where
desirable by initial letters, in order to assist reference at the end of our quotations
from the Sermon on the Mount.
3 The " <reu " here forms no part of the quotation, and seems to separate the
two passages, which were, therefore, probably distinct in Justin's Memoirs,
although consecutive verses in Matthew.
4 Origen repeatedly uses 8s tav t/j.p\tyy, and only once iras 6
Griesbach, Symb. Critica, 1785, ii., p. 251.
5 Clem. Al. reads IKKO^OV like Justin. GriesDach, ib., ii., p. 252.
JUSTIN MARTYR
JUSTIN.
v&v T) /j.eTa T&V dvo Tre(j,<f>drjvai els TO
awviov Trup.
y. And, Whoever marrieth a
woman divorced from another man
committeth adultery.
Kal, "Os yafjifl aTro\e\v/j,tt>T)i> d<p'
{Tepov dv5p6s,
5. And regarding our affection for
all, he taught thus :
If ye love them which love you, what
new thing do ye ? for even the forni-
cators do this ; but I say unto you :
Pray for your enemies and love them
which hate you, and bless them which
curse you, and pray for them which
despitefully use you.
GOSPEL.
Matt, xviii. 9.' Ka\6i> <roi effTiv
/Aov6(pda\fjiov els rrjv fwrj>' elffe\6eiv, fj
Suo 6tpda\fJ.ovs UXOVTO, jUX-qdrjvai els T^V
y^evvav TOV irvpos.
Matt. v. 32. And whosoever shall
marry a woman divorced
committeth adultery.
Kal 6s edv dTro\e\v/j,^vijv
Matt. v. 46.
For if ye should love them which
love you, what reward have ye ? do
not even the publicans the same ?
v. 44.3 But I say unto you : Love
your enemies 4 (bless them which curse
you, do good to them which hate you),
and pray for them which (despitefully
use you and) persecute you. 5
1 Matt. v. 29, 30, it will be remembered, are repeated with some variation
and also reversed in order, and with a totally different context, Matt, xviii.
8, 9. The latter verse, the Greek of the concluding part of which we give
above, approximates more nearly in form to Justin's, but is still widely different.
" And if thine eye (' right' omitted) offend thee pluck it out and cast it from
thee ; it is good for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having
two eyes to be cast into hell fire." The sequence of Matt. v. 28, 29, points
specially to it. The double occurrence of this passage, however, with a
different context, and with the order reversed in Matthew, renders it almost
certain that the two passages a. and /3. were separate in the Memoirs. The
reading of Mark ix. 47 is equally distinct from Justin's : And if thine eye
offend thee cast it out (/c/3a\e avr6v) ; it is good for thee (/caXw evrlv <re) to
enter into the kingdom of God (TOV Oeou) with one eye, rather than having two
eyes to be cast into hell. (?) dvo 6(pda\/j.ovs ^xocra J3\7]0r)t>ai els yeevvav. )
2 Cf. Matt. xix. 9, Luke xvi. 18. The words a<j> erepou dvSpbs are
peculiar to Justin. The passage in Luke has airb dvdpbs, but differs in the rest.
3 It will be observed that here again Justin's Gospel reverses the order in
which the parallel passage is found in our Synoptics. It does so indeed
with a clearness of design which, even without the actual peculiarities of
diction and construction, would indicate a special and different source. The
passage varies throughout from our Gospels, but Justin repeats the same
phrases in the same order elsewhere. In Dial. 133 he says: "While we all
pray for you, and for all men as our Christ and Lord taught us to do, enjoining
us to pray even for our enemies, and to love them that hate us, and to bless
them that curse us " (eSxeff6ai Kal vTrep T&V exdpuv, Kal aya.irq.v TOVS fjuvovvTas,
Kal fuXoyew TOVS KaTapufttvovs). And again in ApoL, i. 14, he uses the expres-
sion that Christians pray for their enemies (virep T&V ex9p& v evx6/j.evoi)
according to the precepts of Christ. The variation is therefore not accidental,
but from a different text.
4 The two passages within brackets are not found in any of the oldest MSS.,
and are only supported by Codices D, E, and a few obscure texts. All modern
critics reject them. They are omitted from the revised version.
5 The parallel passage in Luke vi. 32, 27, 28, presents similar variations
from Matt., though not so great as those of Justin from them both.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
JUSTIN.
llfpl Si TOV ffT^pyeiv dVavros, ravra
eSlSa^ev El dyairaTe TOI)J dyair&VTas
vfnat. ri KO.IVOV iroiflre ; Aral yap ol iropvoi
TOVTO iroiovffii>. 'Eyw Si vfiiv \eyw
EOxtffOf virip TUV 4x9 P^v vptiv Kal
dya.ira.Te rot)s fuffovvras v/jias, Aral fv-
\oyeiTe roi>j Karapw/Jitvovs vfuv, Kal
fOxeffOe virip rwf ("irypeafovTuv v/uas.
e. And that we should communicate
to the needy and do nothing for praise,
he said thus :
Give ye to every one that asketh, and
from him that desireth to borrow turn
not ye away ; for if ye
lend to them from whom ye hope to
receive, what new thing do ye? for
even the publicans do this.
But ye, lay not up for yourselves upon
the earth, where moth and rust doth
corrupt and robbers break through,
but lay up for yourselves
in the heavens, where neither moth
nor rust doth corrupt.
For what is a man profited if he
shall gain the whole world, but destroy
his soul ? or what shall he give in
exchange for it ? Lay up, therefore,
in the heavens, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt. 2
Si TO Koivtavelv TOIS Seo/nevois, Kal
Trpds oofav iroteiv, raOra (<fyrj,
GOSPEL.
v. 46.
'Eav yap dyair^fftjTe TOI>J d
Te\wvai oOrws iroiovviv ;
v. 44. 'Eyw Si \eyw V/MV, dyairaTf
TOI)J txOpobs v/j.uv (e&\oyeiTe Tof/s
Acarapw/uecous vfuv, KaXiDs Trotetre rots
fj.urovcrit' V/J.3.S, ) Kal irpo<re^x e(r ^ e virep
Twv 3 (irr)pea6vTUi> Kal) SMKOVTUV ti^aj.
Matt. v. 42.
Give thou to him that asketh thee,
and from him that would borrow of
thee turn not thou away. 1
Cf. Luke vi. 34.
And if ye lend to them from whom
ye hope to receive, what thank have
ye ? for sinners lend, etc.
Matt. vi. 19.
Lay not up for yourselves treasures
upon the earth, where moth and rust
doth corrupt, and where thieves break
through and steal ;
vi. 20. But lay up for yourselves
treasures in heaven, where neither moth
nor rust doth corrupt, and where
thieves do not break through nor
steal.
Matt. xvi. 26. For what shall a
man be profited if he shall gain the
whole world, but lose his soul? or
what shall a man give in exchange
for his soul ?
Matt. v. 42.
T aiTovvTl ere 5os, Kal TOV OeXovTa
diro ffov SavetffaffOat, /U.T; diroffTpa<j>rjs.
Cf. Luke vi. 34.
Kal tav SavlfcTe Trap' &v 4\irl^eTe
\af$e1v, irola vfuv x^pis tffTiv ; Kal d/uap-
rwXoi d/iaprwXois 8ai>lovfftv, K.T. X.
Matt. vi. 19.
Mr) <f>i)ffavpl(Te Vfuv 0r)ffavpous e'irl
r^s "y^y, oirov o"js Kal )3pu><ns d<f>avL^ei,
Kal oirov K\firTOi Siopvffffovffiv Kal
K\f1TTOVffl.V
' In the first Gospel the subject breaks of at the end of v. 42. v. 46 may
be compared with Justin's continuation, but it is fundamentally different.
The parallel passages in Luke vi. 30, 34, present still greater variations. We
have given vi. 34 above, as nearer Justin than Matt. v. 46. It will be remarked
that to find a parallel for Justin's continuation, without break, of the subject, we
must jump from Matt. v. 42, 46, to vi. 19, 20. * 2 See next page, note i.
Ilat>Tl T(j5 alTovvTi SlSore, Kal TOV /3oi>-
\ofitvov Savelffaffffai, fir) diroffTpa(f>TJTe-
el -yap SavetfeTe rap' &v ATT/fere
Xa/Setv, rl KO.IVOV jroietre ; TOVTO Kal ol
> Si /jir}
y^s, flirou (T
tavrois tirl
cal fipwris d^avffei,
223
JUSTIN.
drjffavpi^ere Se eat/rots ev TOIS ovpa-
vois, oirov ovTf crr/s otfre jBpuxris d<pa-
vtfet,
Tt yap Jj(j)e\eiTO.i AvOpwiros, av rov
KOfffjujv 6\ov Kep5ijo"ri, rrfv de \f/vxTjv,
avTOv dtroXeari ; r) rl c&<r avrrjs dv-
rd.XXa'y/ua ;
Oijffavpi^ere ofiv ev rots ovpavols, oirov
ovre erijs oifre /3pcDcrts atf>avlei..*
f. And : Be ye kind and merciful
as your Father also is kind and merci-
ful, and maketh his sun to rise on
sinners, and just and evil. 2
But be not careful what ye shall
eat and what ye shall put on.
Are ye not better than the birds and
the beasts ? And God feedeth them.
Therefore be not careful
what ye shall eat, or what
ye shall put on,
for your heavenly Father knoweth
that ye have need of these things,
GOSPEL.
vi. 20. Orjaavpi^eTe de Vfuv Orjffav-
povs ev ovpavif, oirov oSre <rr)s oflre
/SjOtDcrts dfpavlfei, Kal oirov KXeirrai ov
oioputr&ovtTiv ovoe K\eirTO\}ffiv .
xvi. 26. T yap
AvdpUWOS, fav TOV KOfffJLOV 0\OV t
T))V Se \l/v^)v avrov fij/uiiuOfi ;
5w<r dvOpwiros dvTa\\ayfj,a rfj<r
Luke vi. 36.3 Be ye merciful even
as your F'ather also is merciful.
Matt. v. 45. 4 for he maketh his
sun to rise on evil and good and
sendeth rain on just and unjust.
Matt. vi. 25.
Therefore I say unto you, Be not
careful for your life what ye shall eat
and what ye shall drink, nor yet for
your body what ye shall put on
vi. 26. Behold the birds of the air
that they sow not, &c. , &c., yet your
heavenly Father feedeth them. Are
ye not much better than they ?
vi. 31.5 Therefore be not careful,
saying : what shall we eat ? or what
shall we drink, or with what shall we
be clothed ?
vi. 32. For after all these things do
the Gentiles seek : for your heavenly
Father knoweth that ye need all these
things.
1 This phrase, it will be observed, is also introduced higher up in the
passage, and its repetition in such a manner, with the same variations,
emphatically demonstrates the unity of the whole quotation.
3 This passage (f) is repeated with the peculiar xprjffrol KOA. olicr. twice
in Dial. 96, and in connection with the same concluding words, which are
quite separate in our Synoptics. In that place, however, in paraphrasing
and not quoting, he adds, "and sending rain on holy and evil." Critics
conjecture with much probability that the words Kal /3pe%et ewi offlovs have
been omitted above after SiKaiovs, by a mistake either of the transcriber or
of Justin. In the Clementine Homilies (iii. 57) a similar combination to
that of Justin's occurs together with a duplication recalling that of Justin,
although dyaOol is substituted for xpt]<rrol. TlvccrOe dyadol Kal olKTlp/j,oves
dj d waTTjp 6 ev TOIS ovpavols 85 ctvareXXei rbv TJ\LOV eir dyadots, K-T.\.
Epiphanius also twice makes use of a similar combination, although with
variations in language ; cf. Ilaer. Ixvi. 22, xxxiii. 10. Origen likewise com-
bines Matt. v. 48 and 45 ; cf. de Princip., ii. 4, i. These instances
confirm the indication of an ancient connection of the passage as quoted by Justin.
3 There is no parallel to this in the first Gospel. Matt. v. 48 is too remote
in sense as well as language.
4 The first part of v. 45 is quite different from the context in Justin : " That
ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven : for he maketh," etc.
5 There is a complete break here in the continuity of the parallel passage.
224
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
JUSTIN.
but seek ye the kingdom of the
heavens, and all these things shall
be added unto you,
for where the treasure is there is also
the mind of the man.
Kai, ViveffOe Si xpn<f ro l Kal olKrlp-
poves, ws Kal 6 irarrip vp.&v xP 1 J a " ro ^
fffTl Kal olKTlp/J-WV,
Kal rbv rj\iov avrov dcarAXei tirl
ovs Kal SiKalovs Kal Trovypovs.
MTJ fjLepi/j.v$.Tf di, rl ipdyijTe, $ rl
ovx v/j.fls TUV irereiv&v Kal TU>V
Oyptwv Sia<ptpeT ; Kal 6 6eos
avrd.
<pdyi)Te,
MTJ oftv
TJ rl v8vffi}<r6(.
olSe yap 6 irar^p V/JL&V 6 ovpdvtos, OTI
TOVTUV \pelav x ere '
farelrf Si TTJC /3ao~i\elav TUV ovpavwv,
Kal ravra iravra TrpoffTt6r)fffTai vfuv.
"OTTOV yap o 6i]<ravp6s tffTiv, IKSI Kal
6 vovs TOV avOpijyirov.
77. And : Do not these things to be
seen of men, otherwise ye have no
reward of your Father which is in
heaven.
Kal, MT) iroirfTf ravra irpbs rd ffeaffrjvat
vitb TUV avQp&irw el Si ^ ye, fiiffObv
OUK fx tTf irapa TOV irarpbs v/j.uv TOV ev
rots ovpavols.
Apol. i., 1 6.
6. And regarding our being patient
under injuries, and ready to help all,
GOSPEL.
vi. 33. But seek ye first the king-
dom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things shall be added
unto you.
vi. 2 1. 1 For where thy treasure is
there will thy heart be also.
Luke vi. 36. TlvtvOe ovv oiKTip-
Kal 6 iraTrjp vfj.&v oiKTip-
Matt. v. 45 ...... OTI TOV ij\iov avrov
arAXei tiri irovrjpovs Kal ayadovs Kal
tirl SiKalovs Kal aStKovs.
Matt. vi. 25.
Aid roOro \tyu v/tuv, /JLJ) /j.epi[j.vaTe
rjj ifsvxy VfjLwv rl <f>dyi)Te Kal Tt irirjTe,-
firjSi Ttf ffil)/j.aTi V/JL&V rl 4v8i>ff'r)ffO ......
vi. 26. 'E/u,/3X^are els rd Trerft^d
TOV ovpavov, K.T.X. Kal 6 iraTrip I'/xwc 6
ovpdvios Tpf(j
oia<j>tpTe avr&v ;
vi. 31. /j.rj o&v /
fL (pdyu/j.fv
r) T[ Trtpi^a\<j}/Jie6a ;
vi. 32. irdvTa yap raura rd ^^J'T;
fwifyTOvffiv oWev yap 6 iraTr/p \jfjn2v 6
ovpdvios, OTI xpri^fTf TOVTUV airdvTuv.
vi. 33. f>jretre 5^ vpiinov TT/V /Sacri-
\eiav TOV deov Kal TTJV SiKatoarvvyv
avrov, Kal TavTa irdvTa TrpoffTt0ri<TfTai
VfJUV.
vi. 21. "Oirov yap tffTiv 6 6i)<ravp6s
(rov, tKei IffTai Kal TJ KapSia ffov.
Matt. vi. i.
But take heed that ye do not your
righteousness before men to be seen of
them, otherwise ye have no reward
from your Father which is in heaven.
vi. I. Hpo<rtx Te 8& TTTJV SiKaioffLivrjv
ij/iwc H.TI TTOieiv ffj,irpoff6ev 3 r&v dvBpu-
iruv irpbs TO 6fa6r/vai avToir el Si
fj-Triyf, fu<rBov OVK ?x ere Ti/>A T V iraTpl
r^J fv rots ovpavois.
Matt. v. 39.
But I say unto you that ye resist
not evil, 4 but whosoever shall smite
1 Cf. Luke xii. 22-34, which, however, is equally distinct from Justin's text.
The difference of order will not have escaped notice.
* The Cod. Sinaiticus omits Kal rl irli\rt. Codices A, C, and D are
defective at the part. Cod. B and most other MSS. have the words.
3 A few MSS. read "alms," t\fi)/j.offvvt)v, here ; but the Cod. Sin. Vat., and
all the older Codices, have the reading of the text which is adopted by all
modern editors.
4 It is apparent that if Justin could have quoted this phrase it would have
suited him perfectly.
JUSTIN MARTYR
225
JUSTIN.
and free from anger, this is what he
said : Unto him striking thy cheek
offer the other also ;
and him who carrieth off thy cloak or
thy coat do not thou prevent.
But whosoever shall be angry
is in danger of the fire.
But every one who compelleth thee
to go a mile, follow twain.
And let your good works shine
before men so that, perceiving, they
may adore your Father which is in
heaven.
T<p T<uwTovrl ffov TTJV ffiayova,
Kal Trjv &\\riv
Kal rbv atpovTd ffov Tbv XLTUV
TO
"Os S'&v opyiffOrj, i-vo^ds effnv els TO
irvp.
ttavrt 8 dyyapetiovTl ffoi jj.i\iov,
a.KO\ovQr)ffov dvo.
Aa/ti/'drw 5e I'/xtoi' TO, /caXd Zpya 1
?fj.Trpo(r6ev TWV dvOpdnrdJv, 'ivo. /
Oavfjidfafft TOV TraT^pa I'/JLUV TOP ev
TO?S ovpavols.
* * * *
t. And regarding our not swearing
at all, but ever speaking the truth, he
thus taught :
GOSPEL.
thee on thy right cheek turn to him
the other also.
v. 40. And to him who would sue
thee at law and take away thy coat,
let him have thy cloak also.
v. 22. 2 But I say unto you that
every one who is angry with his
brother shall be in danger of the
judgment, etc.
v. 41. And whosoever shall com-
pel thee to go a mile, go with him
twain.
v. 1 6. Even so let your light shine
before men that they may see your
good works and glorify your Father
which is in heaven.
Matt. v. 39.3
'Eyta 5 \yw vfuv fj-irj dvTiffTijvai ry
Trovrjpf- d\\' Strrts ere pairiffei eiri njv
de^idv ffov ffiay6va, ffTpe\j/ov curry /cat
rr\v &\\7if
v. 40. /cat T(f 6 e \OVT[ <roi KpiOriva.1
Kal TOV xtraivd ffov \a(3elv, ct^es ai'/ry
Kal TO lfJLO.TI.OV
v. 22. 'E-yw 5 \tyu3 vfjuv OTI Tras
HffTai TTJ Kplffff K.T.\.
v. 41. Kai ScrTts ere dyyapefaei
fj.l\iov ev, VTrayf ytter' avTov Svo.
v. 1 6. OVTWS Xayai/'drw TO 0ws vfj.Giv
^fjiTTpoffOev T&V dvdpiaTrlav, 6'irws iSwiv
V/JLUIV TO. Ka\d tpya KOI do^dffwcriv Tbv
iraTfpa vfj.lav Tbv ev TO?S ovpavoTs.
Matt. v. 34.
But I say unto you, Swear not at
1 Clement of Alexandria has in one place Xa/xi/'. crou rd Zpya, and again rd
^d V/AUV Zpya Xayui/'drw. Cf. Griesbach, Synib. Crit., ii. , p. '250.
~ That part of Matt. v. 22 intrudes itself between parallels found in v. 40
and 41 will not have been overlooked.
3 The parallel passage, Luke vi. 29, is closer to Justin's, but still presents
distinct variations : " Unto him smiting thee on the cheek offer the other also,
and from him that carrieth off thy coat do not thou withhold (/J.TJ /cwXiScr^s) thy
cloak also." T<p TVWTOVT'I (re 4irl rrjv ffiay6va, Trapeze Kal rr\v a\\rjv, Kal diro
TOV atpovT6s ffov TO lfj.aTi.ov Kal TOV %iT<2va fj.rj KaiXvays. The whole context,
however, excludes Luke ; cf. Mayerhoff, Einl. petr. Schr., p. 272.
4 eiKrj being omitted from Cod. Sin. Vat., and other important MSS., we do
not insert it.
Q
226
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
JUSTIN.
Ye may not swear at all, but let
your yea be yea, and your nay nay,
for what is more than these (is) of the
evil one.
Htpl 6t TOV prj 6/Mvvvai 8\us,
8t \eyfiv det,
Mi; 6/j.offriTe o'Xws-
"E0TW 5 v(j.v TO val val- Kal TO oi)
00. * TO 5 trepiffffdv TOVTUV K TOV
irovtjpov.
* * # *
K. For not those who merely make
profession, but those who do the
works, as he said, shall be saved.
For he spake thus :
K I. Not every one that saith unto
me, Lord, Lord, shall, etc.
K 2. For whosoever heareth me and
doeth what I say, heareth him that
sent me.
K 3. But many will say to me :
Lord, Lord, did we not eat and drink
in thy name, and do wonders ?
K 4. And then will I say unto
them :
Depart from me, workers of iniquity.
K 5. There shall he weeping and
gnashing of teeth, when indeed the
righteous shall shine as the sun, but
GOSPEL.
all, neither by heaven, etc.
v. 37. But let your speech be yea
yea, nay nay, for what is more than
these is of the evil one.
Matt. v. 34.
'701 5 \eyw vfjuv /JLTJ 6/t6<rcu S\OK-
fJ.-f)T tv Ttf OVpaVtf), K.T.X.
v. 37. *E(TTw 5 6 \6yos vjjujjv val val,
oi) o0- TO 5t Trepiffo-bv TOI'VWV IK TOV
Trovrjpov iarlv.
Matt. vii. 21.
Not every one that saith unto me,
Lord, Lord, shall, etc.
Luke x. i6. 2 He hearing you
heareth me, and he despising you,
etc., and he that despiseth me, de-
spiseth him that sent me.
Matt. vii. 22.
Many will say to me in that day :
Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in
thy name ? and in thy name cast out
devils ? and in thy name do many
wonders ?
vii. 23. And then will I confess
unto them that : i never knew you :
Depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matt. xiii. 42
and shall cast them into the furnace
of fire : there shall be the weeping and
the gnashing of teeth.
1 This agrees with a passage which occurs twice in the Clementine Homilies.
The version in Ep. of James v. 12 is evidently a quotation from a source
different from Matthew, and supports Justin. Clement Al. twice uses a similar
expression, and Epiphanius does so once, though probably following the Ep.
of James. The Apostolic Constitutions also quotes in similar manner. The
context of the Clementine Homilies corresponds with that of Justin, but not so
the others. We contrast all these passages below :
James v. 1 2 TJTU d vftuv TO val val, Kal TO ov ov.
Clem. Hofn., iii. 55 faTia vfj.<jiv TO val val, TO ov otf.
Ib., xix. 2 IffTU vfj-uv TO val val, Kal TO ov ov.
Justin, Apol., i. 16 Icrrw 5 vpwv TO val val, Kal TO ov off.
Clem. Al., Strom., v. 14, 100 &TTW vpuv TO val val, Kal TO ov ov.
Epiph. , Har., xix. 6 ijru vfj,uv TO val val, Kal TO ov ov.
Constit. Ap., v. 12 efrcu W TO val val, Kal TO oO ov.
Cf. Matt. x. 40, Mark ix. 37, Luke ix. 48, which are still more remote.
In Matt. vii. 24 we find : " Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings
of mine and doeth them (Kal irotet avTovs), I will liken him unto," etc.
This, however, as the continuation of v. 21-23 quoted above immediately
before this passage, is very abrupt, but it seenjs to indicate the existence of
such a passage as we find in Justin's Memoirs.
JUSTIN MARTYR
227
JUSTIN.
the wicked are sent into everlasting
fire.
K 6. For many shall arrive in my
name, outwardly, indeed, clothed in
sheep's skins, but inwardly being
ravening wolves.
K 7. Ye shall know them from their
works.
K 8. And every tree that bringeth
not forth good fruit is hewn down and
cast into the fire.
K i. Ovxl TBS o Xef-ywv fj.oi, Ki^>ie,
Ki'ipif, K. r. \. '
K 2. "Os yap anovei /J-ov, Kal Troiel &
\^w aKovei TOV
K 3. FloXXoi 8 epovcrl fjioi'
K.vpie, Kvpie, ov Tig ff(g ovouaTi ecpd-
yofj.ev Kal ewiofifv, Kal dvvd/J.eis eT
cra.fj.ev ; ..'..-.
K 4. Kai roYe ep> avrois. ' Airoxi^p
aw' cfjiov epydrai rrjs dvofilas. 3
GOSPEL.
xiii. 43. Then shall the righteous
shine forth as the sun in the kingdom
of their Father.
Matt. vii. 15.
But beware of false prophets which
come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly are ravening wolves.
vii. 1 6. Ye shall know them by
their fruit. Do men gather grapes
from thorns, or figs from thistles ?
vii. 19. Every tree that bringeth
not forth good fruit is hewn down and
cast into the fire.
Matt. vii. 21.
Ov TTO.S 6 \tyuv fj.oi, Kvpie, Kijpie,
K.T.X.
Luke x. 1 6.
'0 aKovuv vfjiuv e'yiioO aKOuei, Kal 6
dOfruv I'lixas ffiedOerei- 6 d e/*, dOeruv
dOerei rov 'iroffTelXavrd /*e- 4
Matt. vii. 22.
IloXXoi (povfflv fj.oi ev eKeivri rrj r^^epa,
Kijpie, Kijpif, ov T$ cry 6v6/j.art eirpo-
<prirevcra.fj.ev , Kal rip crip 6v6/j,aTi dai/j.6via
et-e{3d\ofj.ev, Kal r<fi cr<p 6v6fj.an Swd/teiy
TroXXas iroir)crafj,ev ;
vii. 23. Ka T(5re 6/j.o\oyri(ru avrots
OTI ovdeirore Hyvuv vfj.as' aTro^wpetre
1 This is one of the passages quoted by De Wette (Einl. N. T., p. 105) as
agreeing except in a single word.
2 Justin repeats part of this passage, omitting "and doeth what I say,"
in Apol., i. 63:' "As our Lord himself also says: He that heareth me
heareth him that sent me." Justin, however, merely quotes the portion relative
to his subject. He is arguing that Jesus is the Word, and is called Angel and
Apostle, for he declares whatever we require to know, " as our Lord himself
also says," etc. ; and therefore the phrase omitted is a mere suspension of the
sense, and unnecessary.
3 In Dial. 76, Justin makes use of a similar passage. "And many will say
to me in that day : Lord, Lord, did we not eat and drink in thy name, and
prophesy and cast out devils. And I will say to them Depart from me." Kal'
IloXXoi epovffl fj.oi rrj i)/J.epa eKeivrj- Kvpie, Kvpie, ov T$ o" 6v6fian ^(pdyouev Kal
ewioiJ.ev Kal TrpoecpTjTevffa/Jiev Kal SaifJ-ovia e'^e/SdXo/j.ev ; Kai epdi avrolr 'Ai/axw^eTre
O.TT C/JLOV. This is followed by one which differs from our Gospels in agree-
ment with one in the Clementine Homilies, and by others varying also from
our Gospels. Although Justin may quote these passages freely, he is per-
sistent in his departure from our Synoptics, and the freedom of quotation is
towards his own peculiar source, for it is certain that neither form agrees with
the Gospels.
4 Cod. D. (Bezse) reads for the last phrase 6 5 efiov aKoiJuv, aVoi'et TOV
diroffTel\avT6s fj.e- but all the older MSS. have the above. A very few obscure
MSS. and some translations add : " He hearing me, heareth him that sent me."
Kal 6 euov O.KOVUV, aKovei TOV aTro<TTel\avT6s yue.
228
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
JUSTIN.
K 5. T<Jre K\av0fj.6s tffrai /ecu
T&V o86vT(av orav ol ptv SLKCLLOI
\6.n\l/<affiv ws 6 ^Xcos- oi St adiKoi
i ei'j TO aluviov irvp.
K 6. IloXXoi yap
6v6/j,arl //.OK, (i-wOfv ptv fv8eovp.tvoi
StpfjMTa irpopdTuv, effwOev, 82 6vres
\VKOI apirayer 1
K 7. fK TUV epytav tamer finyvwcreffOf
avTovs.
K 8. Ilav 5 otvopov /JLIJ iroiovv Kapirbv
/raXoV (KKdirrerai Kal els irvp /3d\\erat.
GOSPEL.
ol (pya6fj.tvot. TTJV dvofj.iav.-
Matt. xiii. 42.
...... Kal ($a\ovffi.v avrovs et'j rty
K6.fj.ivov TOV jrvp6r etceieffTai 6 K\av0/jws
43. fore ol Slxaioi e K\d./j.\f/ovcriv 3 wj
6 ^XiojeV rrj /3a<rt\dp TOV TTOT/JOJ avruv. 4
Matt. vii. 15.
II/9o<rex eTe 5^ OTTO rijjv \f/evooirpo<t>T)-
rwv, o'lnvfs epxovrai irpos i>/aaj ev
.Tu>v,
1 6. 'ATrd rCiv Kapir&v avr&v 4ifL-
ufffcrde avrotis, K.T.\.
19. Ilai' otvopov fj.Tj TTOIOVV Kapirbv
ai Kal els irvp
1 Justin makes use of this passage with the same variations from our
Gospel in Dial. c. Tr., 35. IloXXoi tXevffovrai firl r<$ 6v6fj.arl yuou, efaOev
tvSfSu/j.tvoi 5tp/j.ara irpofiaTtav, eawdev dt elffi \VKOI apwayes. With only a
separating Kal, Justin proceeds to quote a saying of Jesus not found in our
Gospels at all. " And : There shall be schisms and heresies," Kal- Ecrovrcu
ffx^MctTa Kal aipeffeis. And then, with merely another separating "And," he
quotes another passage similar to the above, but differing from Matt. " And :
Beware of false prophets who shall come to you outwardly clothed in sheep's
skins, but inwardly are ravening wolves," and with the usual separating
"And," he ends with another saying not found in our Gospels: "And:
Many false Christs and false Apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the
faithful, KaJ - ' AvaffT~/)ffovTat. TroXXoi \[/tv86xpiffToi Kal \//fv8oaTr6ffTo\oi, Kal
7ro\Xoi>s rCiv iriffTuv irXavrjcrovffiv. Both passages must have been in his
Memoirs, and both differ from our Gospels.
~ The parallel passage, Luke xiii. 26, 27, is still more remote. Origen in
four places, in Joh. xxxii. 7, 8, Contra Cels., ii. 49, de Principiis, quotes a
passage nominally from Matt., more nearly resembling Justin's : iroXXoi epovcri
fj.oi fv tKelvy rrj T)iJ.tpq- Kvpie, Kvpit, oil T(J5 6v6fj.arl crov f>dyofjifv, Kal rtp 6v6/j.arl
ffov firlo/j.ev, Kal T<p 6v6fj.ari <rov Saifj.6vta eef}d\onev, K.T.\. Cf. Griesbach,
Symb. Crit., ii., p. 61 f. ; Origen may have here confused the Gospel according
to the Hebrews with Matthew.
3 The Cod. D. (Bezae) has \d(ji.\j/<a<nv, and so also quotes Origen. Cf.
Griesbach, Symb. Crit., ii., p. 278.
4 The corresponding passage in Luke (xiii. 26-28) much more closely
follows the order which we find in Justin, but linguistically and otherwise it is
remote from his version, although in connection of ideas more similar than the
passage in the first Gospel. In Luke, the weeping and gnashing of teeth are
to be when the wicked see the righteous in heaven whilst they are excluded ;
whereas in Matt. xiii. 42, 43, the weeping, etc., are merely a characteristic of
the furnace of fire, and the shining forth of the righteous is mentioned as a
separate circumstance. Matt. xiii. 42, 43, has a different context, and is
entirely separated from the parallel passage in Justin, which precedes, and
naturally introduces this quotation.
5 This passage occurs in Matt. Hi. 10 and Luke iii. 9, literally, as a
saying of John the Baptist, so that in Matt. vii. 19 it is a mere quota-
tion. *
JUSTIN MARTYR
229
JUSTIN.
Apol., i. 17.
X. As Christ declared saying : To
whom God gave more, of him shall
more also be demanded again.
...... ws 6 Xpttrros ifiipwrev eiiruv
2i ir\eov eduKev 6 0eos, w\eov /cat
Ta.i Trap aurov. 1
Dial. c. Tr., 105.
/ji. Except your righteousness shall
exceed, etc.
GOSPEL.
48 (not found in
Luke xii.
Matthew).
For unto whom much is given,
of him shall much be required : and
to whom men have committed much,
of him they will demand a greater
amount.
Luke xii. 48.
Ilaprt 5 y ^Sddyj TroXi', TroXi)
f>?T?7077<reTcu irapavrov, Kai (j> iraptOevro
TroXi), TrepiffcroTepov airricrovffiv 2 o.fir6v,
Matt. v. 20.
For I say unto you 3 that except
your righteousness shall exceed,
We have taken the whole of Justin's quotations from the
Sermon on the Mount not only because, adopting so large a test,
there can be no suspicion that we select passages for any special
purpose, but also because, on the contrary, amongst these quota-
' tions are more of the passages claimed as showing the use of our
Gospels than any series which could have been selected. It will
have been observed that most of the passages follow each other
in unbroken sequence in Justin, for with the exception of a short
break between y and 8 the whole extract down to the end of
is continuous, as indeed, after another brief interruption at the end
of t, it is again to the close of the very long and remarkable
passage K. With two exceptions, therefore, the whole of these
quotations from the Sermon on the Mount occur consecutively in
two succeeding chapters of Justin's first apology, and one passage
follows in the next chapter. Only a single passage comes from a
distant part of the dialogue with Trypho. These passages are
bound together by clear unity of idea and context, and as, where
there is a separation of sentences in his Gospel, Justin clearly
marks it by KCU, there is every reason to decide that those quota-
tions which are continuous in form and in argument were likewise
consecutive in the Memoirs. Now, the hypothesis that these
1 Clement of Alexandria (S(romata, ii. 23, 146) has this passage as
follows : y TrpXetW ed6drj, euros KCU dTratr^^^o-erat. Cf. Griesbach, Symb.
Crit., ii., p. 380. This version more nearly approximates to Justin's, though
still distinct from it.
2 The Codex D. (Bezae) reads ir\tov aTrairriffovcriv instead of jrepi<r(r6Tepov
3 Xe-yw vfuv 8n are wanting in Justin.
4 This passage, quoted by De Wette, was referred to p. 219, and led to
this examination.
23 o SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
quotations are from the canonical Gospels requires the assump-
tion that Justin, with singular care, collected from distant and
scattered portions of those Gospels a series of passages in close
sequence to each other, forming a whole unknown to them, but
complete in itself; and yet, although this is carefully performed,
he at the same time, with the most systematic carelessness, mis-
quoted and materially altered almost every precept he professes to
cite. The order of the canonical Gospels is as entirely set at
naught as their language is disregarded. As Hilgenfeld has
pointed out, throughout the whole of this portion of his quotations
the undeniable endeavour after accuracy, on the one hand, is in the
most glaring contradiction with the monstrous carelessness on the
other, if it be supposed that our Gospels are the source from which
Justin quotes. Nothing is more improbable than the conjecture
that he made use of the canonical Gospels, and we must accept
the conclusion that Justin quotes with substantial correctness the
expressions in the order in which he found them in his peculiar
Gospel. 1
It is a most arbitrary proceeding to dissect a passage, quoted by
Justin as a consecutive and harmonious whole, and finding
parallels more or less approximate to its various phrases scattered 4
up and down distant parts of our Gospels, scarcely one of which
is not materially different from the reading of Justin, to assert that
he is quoting these Gospels freely from memory, altering, excising,
combining, and interweaving texts, and introverting their order,
but nevertheless making use of them and not of others. It is per-
fectly obvious that such an assertion is nothing but the merest
assumption. Our synoptic Gospels themselves condemn it utterly,
for precisely similar differences of order and language exist in them
and distinguish between them. Not only the language but the
order of a quotation must have its due weight, and we have no
right to dismember a passage and, discovering fragmentary
parallels in various parts of the Gospels, to assert that it is com-
piled from them, and not derived, as it stands, from another
source. 2
It must have been apparent to all that, throughout his quotations
from the Sermon on the Mount, Justin follows an order which is
quite different from that in our synoptic Gospels ; and, as might
' Cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. Justitts, p. 129 f. ; Credner, Beitrage, i., p.
259-
For the arguments of apologetic criticism the reader may be referred to
Dr. Westcott's work On the Canon, pp. 112-139. Dr. Westcott does not, of
course, deny the fact that Justin's quotations are different from the text of our
Gospels, but he accounts for his variations on grounds which seem to us purely
imaginary. It is evident that, so long as there are such variations to be
explained away, at least no proof of identity is possible.
JUSTIN MARTYR 231
have been expected, the inference of a different source, which is
naturally suggested by this variation in order, is more than
confirmed by persistent and continuous variations in language.
If it be true that examples of confusion of quotation are to be
found in the works of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and other
Fathers, it must at the same time be remembered that these
are quite exceptional, and we are scarcely in a position to judge
how far confusion of memory may not have arisen from
reminiscences of other forms of evangelical expressions occurring
in apocryphal works, with which we know the Fathers to have
been well acquainted. The most vehement asserter of the
identity of the Memoirs with our Gospels, however, must
absolutely admit as a fact, explain it as he may, that variation
from our Gospel readings is the general rule in Justin's quotations,
and agreement with them the very rare exception. Now, such a
phenomenon is elsewhere unparalleled in those times, when
memory was more cultivated than with us in these days of cheap
printed books ; and it is unreasonable to charge Justin with such
universal want of memory and carelessness about matters which
he held so sacred, merely to support a foregone conclusion, when
the recognition of a difference of source, indicated in every
direction, is so much more simple, natural, and justifiable. It is
argued that Justin's quotations from the Old Testament likewise
present constant variation from the text. This is true to a
considerable extent, but they are not so persistently inaccurate as
the quotations we are examining, supposing them to be derived
from our Gospels. This plea, however, is of no avail, for it is
obvious that the employment of the Old Testament is not
established merely by inaccurate citations ; and it is quite un-
deniable that the use of certain historical documents out of many
of closely similar, and in many parts probably identical, character
cannot be proved by anonymous quotations differing from any-
thing actually in these documents.
There are very many of the quotations of Justin which bear
unmistakable marks of exactness and verbal accuracy, but which
yet differ materially from our Gospels, and most of his quotations
from the Sermon on the Mount are of this kind. For instance,
Justin introduces the passages which we have marked a, /?, y, with
the words : " He (Jesus) spoke thus of Chastity " j 1 and, after
giving the quotations, a, p, and y, the first two of which, although
finding a parallel in two consecutive verses (Matt. v. 28, 29), are
divided by the separating KOI, and therefore do not appear to have
been united in his Gospel, Justin continues : " Just as even those
who, with the sanction of human law, contract a second marriage
1 P. 220 f.
232 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
are sinners in the eye of our Master, so also are those who look
upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who actually
commits adultery is rejected by him, but also he who desires to
commit adultery, since not our acts alone are open before God,
but also our thoughts." 1 Now, it is perfectly clear that Justin
here professes to give the actual words of Jesus, and then
moralises upon them ; and both the quotation and his own
subsequent paraphrase of it lose all their significance if we sup-
pose that Justin did not correctly quote in the first instance, but
actually commences by altering the text. These passages a, [3, and
y, however, have all marked and characteristic variations from the
Gospel text ; but, as we have already shown, there is no reason
for asserting that they are not accurate verbal quotations from
another Gospel.
The' passage 8 is likewise a professed quotation, 2 but not only
does it differ in language, but it presents deliberate transpositions
in order, which clearly indicate that Justin's source was not our
Gospels. The nearest parallels in our Gospels are found in
Matt. v. 46, followed by 44. The same remarks apply to the
next passage e, which is introduced as a distinct quotation, 3 but
which, like the rest, differs materially, linguistically and in order,
from the canonical Gospels. The whole of the passage is consecu-
tive, and excludes the explanation of a mere patchwork of passages
loosely put together, and very imperfectly quoted from memory.
Justin states that Jesus taught that we should communicate to
those who need, and do nothing for vain glory, and he then gives
the very words of Jesus in an unbroken and clearly continuous
discourse. Christians are to give to all who ask, and not merely
to those from whom they hope to receive again, which would be
no new thing even the publicans do that ; but Christians must
do more. They are not to lay up riches on earth, but in heaven,
for it would not profit a mari to gain the whole world, and lose his
soul ; therefore, the teacher a second time repeats the injunction
that Christians should lay up treasures in heaven. If the unity of
thought which binds this passage so closely together were not suffi-
cient to prove that it stood in Justin's Gospel in the form and
order in which he quotes it, the requisite evidence would be
supplied by the repetition at its close of the injunction : " Lay up,
therefore, in the heavens," etc. It is impossible that Justin should,
through defect of memory, quote a second time in so short a
passage the same injunction if the passage were not thus appro-
priately terminated in his Gospel. The common sense of the
' Apol., i. 15. After the passages a, /3, y, and before the above, there is
another quotation compared with Matt. xix. 12, but distinctly different from it.
* P. 221. % 3 p. 222.
JUSTIN MARTYR 233
reader must at once perceive that it is impossible that Justin, pro-
fessedly quoting words of Jesus, should thus deliberately fabricate
a discourse rounded off by the repetition of one of its opening
admonitions, with the addition of an argumentative " therefore."
He must have found it so in the Gospel from which he quotes.
Nothing indeed but the difficulty of explaining the marked
variations presented by this passage, on the supposition that Justin
must quote from our Gospels, could lead apologists to insinuate
such a process of compilation, or question the- consecutive
character of this passage. The nearest parallels to the dismembered
parts of the quotation, presenting everywhere serious variations,
however, can only be found in the following passages in the order
in which we cite them : Matt. v. 42, Luke vi. 34, Matt. vi.
19, 20, xvi. 26, and a repetition of part of vi. 20, with variations.
Moreover, the expression, " What new thing do ye ?" is quite
peculiar to Justin. We have already met with it in the preceding
section 6. " If ye love them which love you, what new thing do
ye ? for even," etc. Here, in the same verse, we have : " If ye lend
to them from whom ye hope to receive, what new thing do ye ? for
even," etc. It is evident, both from its repetition and its distinct
dogmatic view of Christianity as a new teaching in contrast to the
old, that this variation cannot have been the result of defec-
tive memory, but must have been the reading of the
Memoirs, and, in all probability, it was the original form of the
teaching. Such antithetical treatment is clearly indicated in many
parts of the Sermon on the Mount : for instance, Matt. v. 21,
"Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old but /
say unto you," etc., cf. v. 33, 38, 43. It is certain that the whole
of the quotation e differs very materially from our Gospels, and
there is every reason to believe that not only was the passage not
derived from them, but that it was contained in the Memoirs of
the Apostles substantially in the form and order in which Justin
quotes it.
The next passage ()* is separated from the preceding merely by
the usual KCU, and it moves on to its close with the same continuity
of thought and the same peculiarities of construction which
characterise that which we have just considered. Christians are
to be kind and merciful (x/"/oroi /ecu oiKTt/op>ves) to all as their
Father is, who makes his sun to shine alike on the good and
evil, and they need not be anxious about their own temporal
necessities : what they shall eat and what put on ; are they not
better than the birds and beasts whom God feedeth ? Therefore,
they are not to be careful about what they are to eat and what
put on, for their heavenly Father knows they have need of these
1 P. 223.
234 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
things ; but they are to seek the kingdom of heaven, and all
these things shall be added : for where the treasure is the thing
he seeks and is careful about there will also be the mind of the
man. In fact, the passage is a suitable continuation of e, inculca-
ting, like it, abstraction from worldly cares and thoughts in reliance
on the heavenly Father ; and the mere fact that a separation is
made where it is between the two passages e and shows further
that each of those passages was complete in itself. There is
absolutely no- reason for the separating KCU if these passages were
a mere combination of scattered verses. This quotation, however,
which is so consecutive in Justin, can only find distant parallels
in passages widely divided throughout the synoptic Gospels, which
have to be arranged in the following order : Luke vi. 36, Matt. v.
45, vi. 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, vi. 21, the whole of which present
striking differences from Justin's quotation. The repetition of the
injunction " be not careful " again with the illative " therefore " is
quite in the spirit of e. This admonition, "Therefore, be not
careful," etc., is reiterated no less than three times in the first
Gospel (vi. 25, 31, 34), and confirms the characteristic repetition
of Justin's Gospel, which seems to have held a middle course
between Matthew and Luke, the latter of which does not repeat
the phrase, although the injunction is made a second time in more
direct terms. The repetition of the passage, " Be ye kind and
merciful," etc., in Dial. 96, with the same context and peculiarities,
is a remarkable confirmation of the natural conclusion that Justin
quotes the passage from a Gospel different from ours. The
expression X/O^O-TOI /ecu oiWi^/Aoves, thrice repeated by Justin
himself, and supported by a similar duplication in the Clementine
Homilies (iii. 57),' cannot possibly be an accidental departure from
our Gospels. 2 For the rest, it is undeniable that the whole passage
differs materially, both in order and language, from our Gospels,
from which it cannot, without unwarrantable assumption, be main-
tained to have been taken either collectively or in detail, and
strong internal reasons lead us to conclude that it is quoted
substantially as it stands from Justin's Gospel, which must have
been different from our Synoptics.
In 6, again, we have an express quotation introduced by the
words : "And regarding our being patient under injuries and
ready to help all, and free from anger, this is what he said "; and
1 See p. 223, note 4.
1 Delitzsch admits the very striking nature of this triple quotation, and of
another (in our passage K 3 and 4), although he does not accept them as neces-
sarily from a different surce. "Auffallig, aber allerdings sehr auffcillig sind
nur folgende 2 citate ylffffOf xp^ffrol K.T.\." Apol., \. 15 ; Dial. 96, und
Kupie, Kvpit, K.T.X. Apol., i. 1 6 ; Dial. 76; fitters, u. d. Entst. d. Matth,
Evang., 1853, p. 34.
JUSTIN MARTYR 235
then he proceeds to give the actual words. 1 At the close of the
quotation he continues : " For we ought not to strive, neither
would he have us be imitators of the wicked, but he has exhorted
us by patience and gentleness to lead men from shame and the
love of evil," etc. 2 It is evident that these observations, which
are a mere paraphrase of the text, indicate that the quotation
itself is deliberate and precise. Justin professes first to quote the
actual teaching of Jesus, and then makes his own comments ;
but if it be assumed that he began by concocting out of stray
texts, altered to suit his purpose, a continuous discourse, the
subsequent observations seem singularly useless and out of place.
Although the passage forms a consecutive and harmonious dis-
course, the nearest parallels in our Gospels can only be found by
uniting parts of the following scattered verses : Matt. v. 39, 40,
22, 41, 1 6. The Christian who is struck on one cheek is to turn
the other, and not to resist those who would take away his cloak
or coat ; but if, on the contrary, he be angry, he is in danger of
fire ; if, then, he be compelled to go one mile, let him show his
gentleness by going two, and thus let his good works shine before
men that, seeing them, they may adore his Father which is in
heaven. It is evident that the last two sentences, which find
their parallels in Matt, by putting v. 16 after 41, the former verse
having quite a different context in the Gospel, must have so
followed each other in Justin's text. His purpose is to quote the
teaching of Jesus, "regarding our being patient under injuries,
and ready to help all and free from anger " ; but his
quotation of " Let your good works shine before men," etc., has
no direct reference to his subject, and it cannot reasonably be
supposed that Justin would have selected it from a separate part
of the Gospel. Coming as it no doubt did in his Memoirs in the
order in which he quotes it, it is quite appropriate to his purpose.
It is difficult, for instance, to imagine why Justin further omitted
the injunction in the parallel passage, Matt. v. 39, "that ye
resist not evil," when supposed to quote the rest of the verse, since
his express object is to show that " we ought not to strive," etc.
The whole quotation presents the same characteristics as those
which we have already examined, and in its continuity of thought
and wide variation from the parallels in our Gospels, both in
order and language, we must recognise a different and peculiar
source.
The passage i, again, is professedly a literal quotation, for
Justin prefaces it with the words : " And regarding our not
swearing at all, but ever speaking the truth, he taught thus " ; and
having in these words actually stated what Jesus did teach, he
1 F, 224 f, - Apol,, i. id.
236 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
proceeds to quote his very words. 1 In the quotation there is a
clear departure from our Gospel, arising, not from accidental
failure of memory, but from difference of source. The parallel
passages in our Gospels, so far as they exist at all, can only be
found by taking part of Matt. v. 34 and joining it to v. 37,
omitting the intermediate verses. The quotation in the Epistle of
James v. 12, which is evidently derived from a source different
from Matthew, supports the reading of Justin. This, with the
passage twice repeated in the Clementine Homilies in agreement
with Justin, and, it may be added, the peculiar version found in
early ecclesiastical writings, 2 all tend to confirm the belief that
there existed a more ancient form of the injunction which Justin
no doubt found in his Memoirs. The precept, terse, simple, and
direct, as it is here, is much more in accordance with Justin's own
description of the teaching of Jesus, as he evidently found it in
his Gospel, than the diffused version contained in the first Gospel,
v- 33-37-
Another remarkable and characteristic illustration of the
peculiarity of Justin's Memoirs is presented by the long passage K,
which is also throughout consecutive and bound together by clear
unity of thought. 3 It is presented with the context: "For not those
who merely make professions, but those who do the works, as he
(Jesus) said, shall be saved. For he spake thus." 4 It does not,
therefore, seem possible to indicate more clearly the deliberate
intention to quote the exact expressions of Jesus, and yet not only
do we find material difference from the language in the parallel
passages in our Gospels, but those parallels, such as they are, can
only be made by patching together the following verses in the
order in which we give them : Matt. vii. 21, Luke x. 16, Matt. vii.
22, 23, xiii. 42, 43, vii. 15, part of 16, 19. It will be remarked
that the passage (K 2), Luke x. 16, is thrust in between two
consecutive verses in Matthew, and taken from a totally different
context as the nearest parallel to K 2 of Justin, although it is
widely different from it, omitting altogether the most important
words : " and doeth what I say." The repetition of the same
phrase, " He that heareth me heareth him that sent me," in
Apol., i. 63,5 makes it certain that Justin accurately quotes his
1 P. 225 f. p. 226, note i.
3 Dr. Westcott considers that "the coincidence between Justin and the
Clementine Gospel illustrates still more clearly the existence of a traditional as
well as of an evangelical form of Christ's words " (On the Canon, p. 132).
But why merely a " traditional," if by that he means oral tradition ? Luke i.
I shows how many written versions there may have been ; cf. Tischendorf,
IVann wurden, u. s. w., p. 28 f., and anm. 1, p. 29.
4 P. 226 ff. s See p. 227, note 2.
JUSTIN MARTYR 237
Gospel, whilst the omission of the words in that place, "and
doeth what I say," evidently proceeds from the fact that they are
an interruption of the phrase for which Justin makes the quotation
namely, to prove that Jesus is sent forth to reveal the Father. It
may be well to compare Justin's passage, K 1-4, with one occurring
in the so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, iv.
" Let us not, therefore, only call him Lord, for that will not save
us. For he saith : ' Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord,
shall be saved, but he that worketh righteousness.' the Lord
said : ' If ye be with me gathered together in my bosom, and do
not my commandments, I will cast you off and say to you :
Depart from me ; I know you not whence you are, workers of
iniquity.' " The expression epydrai avopas here strongly recalls the
reading of Justin. This passage, which is foreign to our Gospels,
at least shows the existence of others containing parallel discourses
with distinct variations. Some of the quotations in this spurious
Epistle are stated to be taken from the " Gospel according to the
Egyptians," 1 which was in all probability a version of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews. 2 The variations which occur in
Justin's repetition, in Dial. 76, of his quotation K 3 are not
important, because the more weighty departure from the Gospel
in the words, " did we not eat and drink in thy name " (ov TW
(raj 6v6fjMTL !<ayo/zev KO.I firiopev), is deliberately repeated ; 3 and
if, therefore, there be freedom of quotation, it is free quotation
not from the canonical, but from a different Gospel. Origen's
quotation* does not affect this conclusion, for the repetition of the
phrase (ot>) TOJ 6v6p.a.ri a-ov has the form of the Gospel, and
besides, which is much more important, we know that Origen was
well acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews and
other apocryphal works from which this may have been a reminis-
cence. We must add, moreover, that the passage in Dial. 76
appears in connection with others widely differing from our
Gospels. The passage K 5 not only materially varies from
the parallel in Matt. xiii. 42, 43, in language, but in con-
nection of ideas. 5 Here also, upon examination, we must
conclude that Justin quotes from a source different from our
Gospels, and, moreover, that his Gospel gives with greater cor-
rectness the original form of the passage. The weeping and
1 Cf. Clemens Al., Strom,, iii. 9, 63 ; 13, 93.
2 Compare the quotation, Clem, n ad Corinth., \\. g, with the quota-
tions from the Gospel according to the Hebrews in Epiphanius, Hcer.,
xxx. 14.
3 Delitzsch admits the very striking character of this repetition. Unters.
Entst..Matth. Ev., p. 34, see back, p. 373, note 2.
4 Cf. p. 228, note I. 5 P. 228, cf. note 3.
238 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
gnashing of teeth are distinctly represented as the consequence
when the wicked see the bliss of the righteous while they are sent
into everlasting fire, and not as the mere characteristics of hell. It
will be observed that the preceding passages, K 3 and 4, find
parallels to a certain extent in Matt. vii. 22, 23, although Luke
xiii. 26, 27, is, in some respects, closer to the reading of
Justin. K 5 finds no continuation of parallel in Matt, vii., from
which the context comes, but we have to seek it in xiii. 42, 43.
K 5, however, does find its continuing parallel in the next verse,
in Luke xiii. 28, where we have "There shall be (the) weeping
and (the) gnashing of teeth when ye shall see Abraham," etc.
There is here, it is evident, the connection of ideas which is
totally lacking in Matt. xiii. 42, 43, where the verses in question
occur as the conclusion to the exposition of the Parable of the
Tares. Now, although it is manifest that Luke xiii. 28 cannot
possibly have been the source from which Justin quotes, still the
opening words and the sequence of ideas demonstrate the great
probability that other Gospels must have given, after K 4, a con-
tinuation which is wanting after Matt. vii. 23, but which is
indicated in the parallel Luke xiii. (26, 27) 28, and is somewhat
closely followed in Matt. xiii. 42, 43. When such a sequence is
found in an avowed quotation from Justin's Gospel, it is certain
that he must have found it there substantially as he quotes it.
The passage K 6, 1 "For many shall arrive," etc., is a very
important one, and it departs emphatically from the parallel in
our first Gospel. Instead of being, like the latter, a warning
against false prophets, it is merely the announcement that many
deceivers shall come. This passage is rendered more weighty by
the fact that Justin repeats it with little variation in Dial. 35, and
immediately after quotes a saying of Jesus of only five words
which is not found in our Gospels ; and then he repeats a quota-
tion to the same effect in the shape of a warning : " Beware of
false prophets," etc., like that in Matt. vii. 15, but still distinctly
differing from it. 2 It is perfectly clear that Justin quotes two
separate passages. It is impossible that he could intend to repeat
the same quotation at an interval of only five words ; it is equally
impossible that, having quoted it in the one form, he could so
immediately quote it in the other through error of memory. The
simple, and very natural, conclusion is that he found both passages
in his Gospel. The object for which he quotes would more than
justify the quotation of both passages ; the one referring to the
many false Christians, and the other to the false prophets of whom
he is speaking. That two passages so closely related should be
found in the same Gospel is not in the least singular. There are
1 P. 228. * Cf p. 228, note i.
JUSTIN MARTYR 239
numerous instances of the same in our Synoptics. 1 The actual
facts of the case, then, are these : Justin quotes in the Dialogue,
with the same marked deviations from the parallel in the
Gospel, a passage quoted by him in the Apology, and after an
interval of only five words he quotes a second passage to the
same effect, though with very palpable difference in its character,
which likewise differs from the Gospel, in company with other
texts which still less find any parallels in the canonical Gospels.
The two passages, by their differences, distinguish each other as
separate, whilst, by their agreement in common variations from
the parallel in Matthew, they declare their common origin from a
special Gospel, a result still further made manifest by the agree-
ment between the first passage in the Dialogue and the quotations
in the Apology. In K y 2 Justin's Gospel substitutes e/oywv
for KapTrwv, and is quite in the spirit of the passage 6. " Ye
shall know them from their works " is the natural reading. The
Gospel version clearly introduces "fruit" prematurely, and weakens
the force of the, contrast which follows. It will be observed,
moreover, that, in order to find a parallel to Justin's passage K 7, 8,
only the first part of Matt. vii. 16 is taken, and the thread is
only caught again at vii. 19, K 8 being one of the two passages
indicated by de Wette which we are considering, and it agrees
with Matt. vii. 19, with the exception of the single word 8e. We
must again point out, however, that this passage in Matt. vii. 19 is
repeated no less than three times in our Gospels, a second time in
Matt. iii. 10, and once in Luke iii. 19. Upon two occasions it is
placed in the mouth of John the Baptist, and forms the second
portion of a sentence, the whole of which is found in literal
agreement both in Matt. iii. 10 and Luke iii. 9, " But now the axe
is laid unto the root of the trees, therefore every tree," etc. The
passage pointed out by de Wette as the parallel to Justin's anony-
mous quotation, Matt. vii. 19 a selection which is, of course,
obligatory from the context is itself a mere quotation by Jesus of
part of the saying of the Baptist, presenting, therefore, double
probability of being well known ; and as we have three instances
of its literal reproduction in the Synoptics, it would, indeed, be
arbitrary to affirm that it was not likewise given literally in other
Gospels.
The passage A.3 is very emphatically given as a literal quotation
1 Cf. Matt. v. 29, 30, with xviii. 8, 9.
xix. 30 with xx. 1 6.
xiii. 12 ,, xxv. 29.
iii. IO ,, vii. 19.
xx. 16 ,, xxii. 14 ; and viii. 12, xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 5I>
and xxv. 30, together ; Luke xiv. n with xviii. 14, etc.
2 P. 228. 3 p. 229.
240 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
of the words of Jesus, for Justin cites it directly to authenticate
his own statements of Christian belief. He says : " But if you
disregard us both when we entreat, and when we set all things
openly before you, we shall not suffer loss, believing, or rather
being fully persuaded, that everyone will be punished by eternal
fire, according to the desert of his deeds, and in proportion to
the faculties which he received from God will his account be
required, as Christ declared when he said : ' To whom God gave
more, of him shall more also be demanded again.' " This quota-
tion has no parallel in the first Gospel, but we add it here as part
of the Sermon on the Mount. The passage in Luke xii. 48, it
will be perceived, presents distinct variation from it, and that
Gospel cannot for a moment be maintained as the source of
Justin's quotation.
The last passage, p., 1 is one of those advanced by de Wette
which led to this examination. 2 It is, likewise, clearly a quotation ;
but, as we have already shown, its agreement with Matt. v. 20 is
no evidence that it was actually derived from thai Gospel. Occur-
ring, as it does, as one of numerous quotations from the Sermon
on the Mount, whose general variation, both in order and language,
from the parallels in our Gospel points to the inevitable conclusion
that Justin derived them from a different source, there is no reason
for supposing that this sentence also did not come from the same
Gospel.
No one who has attentively considered the whole of these
passages from the Sermon on the Mount, and still less those who
are aware of the general rule of variation in his mass of quota-
tions as compared with parallels in our Gospels, can fail to be
struck by the systematic departure from the order and language of
the Synoptics. The hypothesis that they are quotations from our
Gospels involves the accusation against Justin of an amount of
carelessness and negligence 'which is quite unparalleled in literature.
Justin's character and training, however, by no means warrant any
such aspersion, 3 and there are no grounds for it. Indeed, but for
the attempt arbitrarily to establish the identity of the Memoirs of
the Apostles with our Gospels, such a charge would never have
been thought of. It is unreasonable to suppose that avowed and
deliberate quotations of sayings of Jesus, made for the express
purpose of furnishing' authentic written proof of Justin's state-
ments regarding Christianity, can, as an almost invariable rule, be
so singularly incorrect, more especially when it is considered that
these quotations occur in an elaborate apology for Christianity
addressed to the Roman emperors, and in a careful and studied
1 P. 229. => Cf. p. 219.
3 Cf. Eusebius, H. ., iv.ii-i8.
JUSTIN MARTYR 241
controversy with a Jew in defence of the new faith. The simple
and natural conclusion, supported by many strong reasons, is that
Justin derived his quotations from a Gospel which was different
from ours, although naturally, by subject and design, it must have
been related to them. His Gospel, in fact, differs from our
Synoptics as they differ from each other.
We now return to Tischendorf's statements with regard to
Justin's acquaintance with our Gospels. Having examined the
supposed references to the first Gospel, we find that Tischendorf
speaks much less positively with regard to his knowledge of the
other two Synoptics. He says: "There is the greatest proba-
bility that in several passages he also follows Mark and Luke." 1
First taking Mark, we find that the only example which Tischendorf
gives is the following. He says: "Twice (Dial. 76 and 100) he
quotes as an expression of the Lord : ' The Son of Man must
suffer many things, and be rejected by the Scribes and Pharisees
(ch. 100, by the 'Pharisees and Scribes'), and be crucified, and
the third day rise again.' 2 This agrees better with Mark viii. 31
and Luke ix. 22 than with Matt. xvi. 21, only in Justin the
' Pharisees ' are put instead of the ' Elders and Chief Priests ' (so
Matthew, Mark, and Luke), likewise ' be crucified ' instead of ' be
killed.' "3 This is the only instance of similarity with Mark that
Tischendorf can produce, and we have given his own remarks to
show how weak his case is. The passage in Mark viii. 31
reads : "And he began to teach them that the Son of Man
must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Elders and
the Chief Priests (y-rro TWV Trpecr/^vrepcov KOU TWV ap^iepecov) and the
Scribes, and be killed (KOU aTroKTavO^vat), and after three days
(/cat yuera rpets yjpepas} rise again." And the following is the
reading of Luke ix. 22 : " Saying that the Son of man must suffer
many things, and be rejected by the Elders and Chief Priests
(airo TMV Trpea-fivTepwv Kal ap^tcpewv) and Scribes, and be killed
(KOL o.TroKrav9r)vai\ and the third day rise again." It will be
perceived that, different as it also is, the passage in Luke is nearer
than that of Mark, which cannot in any case have been the source
of Justin's quotation. Tischendorf, however, does not point out
that Justin, elsewhere, a third time refers to this very passage in
the very same terms. He says: "And Christ having come
and himself also preached, saying that he must suffer
many things from the Scribes and Pharisees and be crucified, and
1 Wann Wurden, n. s. TV., p. 28.
2 Aet rbv vlbv TOU avOp'Jiirov iro\\a iraOelv, Kal dTrodoKi/j.acr6rji>ai vwo T(av
I 1 pa/JL/j-arewv Kal ^aptcratcoj', Kal ffTavpwdrjvai, Kal TTJ rpLrr) rj/j-tpa avacrr^vai.
Dial. 76 (c. IOO, $>ap<.<Tai<ijv Kal Fpa/jL/AaTtuv).
3 Wann wiirden, u. s. w., p. 28, anm. I.
R
242 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the third day rise again." 1 Although this omits the words " and
be rejected," it gives the whole of the passage literally as before.
And thus there is the very remarkable testimony of a quotation
three times repeated, with the same marked variations from our
Gospels, to show that Justin found those very words in his
Memoirs. The persistent variation clearly indicates a different
source from our Synoptics. We may, in reference to this reading,
compare Luke xxiv. 6 : " He is not here, but is risen : remember
how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee (v. 7), saying
that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful
men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." This reference
to words of Jesus, in which the words KCU o-rav/aw^vai occurred,
as in Justin, indicates that, although our Gospels do not contain
it, some others may well have done so. In one place Justin
introduces the saying with the following words : " For he exclaimed
before the crucifixion, the Son of Man," etc., 2 both indicating a
time for the discourse and also quoting a distinct and definite
saying in contradistinction to this report of the matter of his
teaching, which is the form in which the parallel passage occurs
in the Gospels. In Justin's Memoirs it no doubt existed as an
actual discourse of Jesus, which he verbally and accurately quoted.
With regard to the third Gospel, Tischendorf says : " It is in
reference to Luke (xxii. 44) that Justin recalls in the Dialogue
(103) the falling drops of the sweat of agony on the Mjount of
Olives, and certainly with an express appeal to the ' Memoirs
composed by his Apostles and their followers.' " 3 Now we have
already seen* that Justin, in the passage referred to, does not
make use of the peculiar expression which gives the whole of its
character to the account in Luke, and that there is no ground for
affirming that Justin derived his information from that Gospel.
The only other reference to passages proving the " probability " of
Justin's use of Luke or Mark is that which we have just discussed
"The Son of Man must," etc. From this the character of
TischendorPs assumptions may be inferred. De Wette does not
advance any instances of verbal agreement either with Mark or
Luke. s He says, moreover : " The historical references are much
freer still (than quotations), and combine in part the accounts of
Matthew and Luke ; some of the kind, however, are not found at
1 Sri Set avrbv TroXXA iraOetv dirb TWV TpafifJiarfuv Kal ^apiffalciiv, Kai ffravpu-
ffrjvai, Kal ry rpirri wtpq. dvaffTrjvai. Dial. 51. 3 Dial. 76.
3 Wann warden, u. s. w., p. 28, anm. I. 4 I'. 208 f.
5 We may point out, however, that he says : " Andere -wortliche Ueber-
einstimmungen kommen mitten tmter Abweichungen vor, wie Apol., ii., p. 75,
vgl. Matt. i. 21, wo Luc. i. 35, damit combinirt is/." Einl., N. T.. p. 105 ;
hut a single phrase combined with a passage veryjike one in a different Gospel
is a very poor argument.
JUSTIN MARTYR 243
all in our canonical Gospels." 1 This we have already sufficiently
demonstrated.
We might now well terminate the examination of Justin's
quotations, which has already taken up too much of our space ;
but before doing so it may be very advisable briefly to refer to
another point. In his work, On the Canon, Dr. Westcott adopts
a somewhat singular course. He evidently feels the very great
difficulty in which any one who asserts the identity of the source
of Justin's quotations with our Gospels is placed by the fact that,
as a rule, these quotations differ from parallel passages in our
Gospels ; and whilst on the one hand maintaining that the
quotations generally are from the canonical Gospels, he on the
other endeavours to reduce the number of those which profess
to be quotations at all. He says : " To examine in detail the
whole of Justin's quotations would be tedious and unnecessary.
It will be enough to examine (i) those which are alleged by him
as quotations, and (2) those also which, though anonymous, are
yet found repeated with the same variations either in Justin's
own writings or (3) in heretical works. It is evidently on these
quotations that the decision hangs." 2 Now under the first
category Dr. Westcott finds very few. He says : In seven
passages only, as far as I can discover, does Justin profess to
give the exact words recorded in the Memoirs ; and in these, if
there be no reason to the contrary, it is natural to expect that
he will preserve the exact language of the Gospels which he used,
just as in anonymous quotations we may conclude that he is
trusting to memory."3 Before proceeding further, we may point
out the straits to which an apologist is reduced who starts with
a foregone conclusion. We have already seen a number of
Justin's professed quotations ; but here, after reducing the
number to seven only, our critic prepares a way of escape
even out of these. It is difficult to understand what " reason
to the contrary" can possibly justify a man "who professes
to give the exact words recorded in the Memoirs " for not
doing what he professes ; and, further, it passes our compre-
hension to understand why, in anonymous quotations, " we
may conclude that he is trusting to memory." The cautious
exception is as untenable as the gratuitous assumption. Dr.
Westcott continues, as follows, the passage which we have just
interrupted : " The result of a first view of the passages is striking.
Of the seven, five agree verbally with the text of St. Matthew or
St. Luke, exhibiting indeed three slight various readings not
elsewhere found, but such as are easily explicable ; the sixth is a
compound summary of words related by St. Matthew ; the seventh
1 Einl., N. T., p. in. 2 On the Canon, p. 112 f. * Ib., 114.
244 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
alone presents an important variation in the text of a verse, which is,
however, otherwise very uncertain." 1 The italics of course are ours.
The " first view " of the passages and of the above statement is
indeed striking. It is remarkable how easily difficulties are
overcome under such an apologetic system. The striking result,
to summarise Dr. Westcott's own words, is this : out of seven
professed quotations from the Memoirs, in which he admits we
may expect to find the exact language preserved, five present
three variations; one is a compressed summary, and does not agree
verbally at all ; and the seventh presents an important variation.
Dr. Westcott, on the same easy system, continues : " Our inquiry
is thus confined to the two last instances, and it must be seen
whether their disagreement from the synoptic Gospel is such as to
outweigh the agreement of the remaining five." 2 Before proceeding
to consider these seven passages admitted by Dr. Westcott, we
must point out that, in a note to the statement of the number, he
mentions that he excludes other two passages as "not merely
quotations of words, but concise narratives." 3 But surely this is
a most extraordinary reason for omitting them, and one the
validity of which cannot be admitted. As Justin introduces
them deliberately as quotations, why should they be excluded
simply because they are combined with a historical statement?
We shall produce them. The first is in Apol., i. 66 : " For the
Apostles, in the Memoirs composed by them which are called
Gospels, * handed down that it was thus enjoined on them that
Jesus, having taken bread and given thanks, said : ' This do in
remembrance of me. This is my body.' And similarly, having
taken the cup and given thanks, he said : ' This is my blood,' and
delivered it to them alone." 5 This passage, it will be remembered,
occurs in an elaborate apology for Christianity addressed to the
Roman emperors, and Justin is giving an account of the most
solemn sacrament of his religion. Here, if ever, we might
reasonably expect accuracy and care ; and Justin, in fact, carefully
indicates the source of the quotation he is going to make. It is
difficult to understand any ground upon which so direct a quota-
tion from the Memoirs of the Apostles could be set aside by Dr.
Westcott. Justin distinctly states that the Apostles in these
Memoirs have " thus " (otmos) transmitted what was enjoined
on us by Jesus, and then gives the precise quotation. Had the
quotation agreed with our Gospels, would it not have been claimed
as a professedly accurate quotation from them ? Surely no one
can reasonably pretend, for instance, that when Justin, after this
preamble, states that, having taken bread, etc., Jesus said : "This
' On the Cation, p. 113 f. 2 lb., p. 114. 3 Jb., p . n3 . no te I.
4 We have already discussed these words, p. 185 f. s Apol., i. 66.
JUSTIN MARTYR 245
do in remembrance of me : this is my body "; or, having taken
the cup, etc., he said: "This is my blood" Justin does not
deliberately mean to quote what Jesus actually did say ? Now, the
account of the episode in Luke is as follows (xxii. 17) : " And he
took a cup, gave thanks, and said: "Take this and divide it
among yourselves. 18. For I say unto you, I will not drink of
the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God shall come. 19.
And he took bread, gave thanks, brake it, and gave it unto them,
saying : This is my body which is given for you : this do in
remembrance of me. 20. And in like manner the cup after
supper, saying : This is the new covenant in my blood, which is
shed for you." 1 Dr. Westcott, of course, only compares this
passage of Justin with Luke, to which, and the parallel in
i Cor. xi. 24, wide as the difference is, it is closer than to the
accounts in the other two Gospels. That Justin professedly
quoted literally from the Memoirs is evident, and is rendered
still more clear by the serious context with which the quota-
tion is introduced, the intention being to authenticate his
explanations by actual written testimony. His dogmatic
views, moreover, are distinctly drawn from a Gospel, which,
in a more direct way than our Synoptics do, gave the
expressions: "This is my body," and "This is my blood," and
it must have been observed that Luke, with which Justin's
reading alone is compared, not only has not : TOUT' n-t rb afyA
[iov, at all, but makes use of a totally different expression :
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for
you."
The second quotation from the Memoirs which Dr. Westcott
passes over is that in Dial. 103, compared with Luke xxii. 42, 43, 2
on the Agony in the Garden, which we have already examined 3
and found at variance with our Gospel, and without the peculiar
and distinctive expressions of the latter.
We now come to the seven passages which Dr. Westcott admits
to be professed quotations from the Memoirs, and in which " it
is natural to expect that he will preserve the exact words of the
Gospels which he used." The first of these is a passage in the
Dialogue, part of which has already been discussed in connection
with the fire in Jordan and the voice at the Baptism, and found to
be from a source different from our Synoptics. 4 Justin says: "For
even he, the devil, at the time when he also (Jesus) went up from
the river Jordan when the voice said to Him : ' Thou art my Son,
this day have I begotten thee,' is recorded in the Memoirs of the
Apostles to have come to him and tempted him even so far as
1 Luke xxii. 17-20; cf. Matt. xxvi. 26 ff. ; Mark xiv. 22 ff.
2 On the Canon, p. 113, note i. 3 P. 208 f. 4 P. 200 ff.
246 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
saying to him : ' Worship me ' ; and Christ answered him (/ecu
diroKpivaa-Bat atV<j> rbv X/awrrbv), ' Get thee behind me,
Satan' ("YTraye 6iri<r<a p>u, 2aTav<r), ' thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.'" 1 This
passage is compared with the account of the temptation in
Matt. iv. 9, 10 : " And he said unto him, All these things will I
give thee, if thou will fall down and worship me. 10. Then saith
Jesus unto him (rore Aeyet avro> 6 'Irjo-ous), Get thee hence,
Satan ("YTraye 2arava') : // is written, Thou shalt worship,"
etc. All the oldest Codices, it should be stated, omit the OTTIO-W
fjiov, as we have done, but Cod. D. (Bezae) and a few others of
infirm authority insert these two words. Dr. Westcott, however,
justly admits them to be " probably only a very early interpola-
tion." 2 We have no reason for supposing that they existed
in Matthew during Justin's time. The oldest Codices omit the
whole phrase from the parallel passage, Luke iv. 8, but Cod. A.
is an exception, and reads : "YTraye orrwrw p>u, Sarava. The
best modern editions, however, reject this as a mere recent
addition to Luke. A comparison of the first and third Gospels
with Justin clearly shows that the Gospel which he used followed
the former more closely than Luke. Matthew makes the climax of
the temptation the view of all the kingdoms of the world, and the
offer to give them to Jesus if he will fall down and worship Satan.
Luke, on the contrary, makes the final temptation the suggestion
to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. Justin's
Gospel, as the words, " so far as saying to him " (px/ 31 T0 ^ " r l/
awry), etc., clearly indicate, had the same climax as Matthew.
Now, the following points must be observed. Justin makes the
words of Satan, " Worship me " (HpocrKvvrjcrov pu), a distinct
quotation ; the Gospel makes Satan offer all that he had shown
" if thou wilt fall down and worship me " (av TTCO-WV Trpoo-Kwr/o-^s
P"). Then Justin's quotation proceeds : " And Christ answered
him " (/cat diroKpivao-Qai a.vru> TOV X/awrrov) ; whilst Matthew
has : " Then Jesus saith to him " (TOT Xeyet avrw 6 'lrj<rov<s),
which is a marked variation.3 The OTTH p>i> of Justin,
as we have already said, is not found in any of the older
Codices of Matthew. Then the words, " it is written," which form
part of the reply of Jesus in our Gospels, are omitted in Justin's ;
but we must add that in Dial. 125, in again referring to the
temptation, he has, "it is written." Still, in that passage he
also inserts the whole phrase, " Get thee behind me, Satan," and
commences : "For he answered him: It is written, Thou shalt
worship," etc.
1 Dial. 103. 2 On the Canon, p. 113, note 2, i.
3 Luke iv. 12 reads, Kal diroKpiBtls avrip elTreVo 'Ii/croOs.
JUSTIN MARTYR 247
We must, however, again point out the most important fact that
this account of the temptation is directly connected with another
which is foreign to our Gospels. The Devil is said to come at the
time Jesus went up out of the Jordan and the voice said to him :
" Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee " words which
do not occur at all in our Gospels, and which are again bound up
with the incident of the fire in Jordan. It is altogether unreason-
able to assert that Justin could have referred the fact which he
proceeds to quote from the Memoirs to the time those words
were uttered, if they were not to be found in the same Memoirs.
The one incident was most certainly not derived from our Gospels,
inasmuch as they do not contain it, and there are the very strongest
reasons for asserting that Justin derived the account of the temp-
tation from a source which contained the other. Under these
circumstances every variation is an indication, and those which
we have pointed out are not accidental, but clearly exclude the
assertion that the quotation is from our Gospels.
The second of the seven passages of Dr. Westcott is one of
those from the Sermon on the Mount, Dial. 105, compared with
Matt. v. 20, adduced by de Wette, which we have already con-
sidered. 1 With the exception of the opening words, Xeyw yap
fyuv art, the two sentences agree, but this is no proof that Justin
derived the passage from Matthew ; while, on the contrary, the
persistent variation of the rest of his quotations from the Sermon
on the Mount, both in order and language, forces upon us the
conviction that he derived the whole from a source different from
our Gospels.
The third passage of Dr. Westcott is that regarding the sign of
Jonas the prophet, Matt. xii. 39, compared with Dial. 107, which
was the second instance adduced by Tischendorf. We have
already examined it, 2 and found that it presents distinct variations
from our first Synoptic, both linguistically and otherwise, and that
many reasons lead to the conclusion that it was quoted from a
Gospel different from ours.
The fourth of Dr. Westcott's quotations is the following, to part
of which we have already had occasion to refer : 3 " For which
reason our Christ declared on earth to those who asserted that
Elias must come before Christ : Elias indeed shall come ('HAias
jaev eXeuo-erou), and shall restore all things : but I say unto you
that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto
him (aura)) whatsoever they listed. And it is written that then
the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the
Baptist." 4 The " express quotation " in this passage, which is
compared with Matt. xvii. 11-13, ls limited by Dr. Westcott to
1 Cf. pp. 219, 240 f. 2 P. 217 f. 3 p. 200. * Dial. 49.
248 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the last short sentence 1 corresponding with Matt. xvii. 13, and he
points out that Credner admits that it must have been taken from
Matthew. It is quite true that Credner considers that if any
passage of Justin's quotations proves a necessary connection
between Justin's Gospels and the Gospel according to Matthew, it
is this sentence : " And it is written that then the disciples," etc.
He explains his reason for this opinion as follows : " These words
can only be derived from our Matthew, with which they literally
agree ; for it is thoroughly improbable that a remark of so special
a description could have been made by two different and inde-
pendent individuals so completely in the same way." 2 We totally
differ from this argument, which is singularly opposed to Credner's
usual clear and thoughtful mode of reasoning. No doubt, if such
Gospels could be considered to be absolutely distinct and inde-
pendent works, deriving all their matter from individual and
separate observation of the occurrences narrated by their authors
and personal report of the discourses given, there might be greater
force in the argument, although even in that case it would have
been far from conclusive here, inasmuch as the observation we
are considering is the mere simple statement of a fact necessary to
complete the episode, and it might well have been made in the
same terms by separate reporters. Now, such an expression as
Matt. xvii. 13 in some early record of the discourse might have
been transferred to a dozen of other Christian writings. Ewald
assigns the passage to the oldest Gospel, Matthew, in its present
form, being fifth in descent. 3
Our three canonical Gospels are filled with instances in which
expressions still more individual are repeated, and these show that
such phrases cannot be limited to one Gospel ; but, if confined in
the first instance to one original source, may have been transferred
to many subsequent evangelical works. Take, for instance, a
passage in Matt. vii. 28, 29': " the multitudes were astonished
at his teaching : for he taught them as having authority, and not
as their scribes."-* Mark i. 22 has the very same passage, 5 with
the mere omission of "the multitude" (01 o^Aci), which does
not in the least affect the argument ; and Luke iv. 32 : "And they
were astonished at his teaching : for his word was power." 6
1 On the Canon, p. 114, note 4. 2 Credner, Beitrage, i., p. 237.
3 Die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 34, cf. p. I ; Jahrb. bibL Wiss., 1849, p.
190 ff.
4 feir\'tl<TvovTo oi 6x\oi eVi ry diSaxy avrov- ty yap dioacricuv avrovs uis
efrvfflav (X uv , xa.1 ovx ws ol y pap par els avrwv. Matt. vii. 28, 29.
5 The final avruv is omitted from the end of the passage in Matthew in
many MSS., and added by others in Mark.
6 nal e^ftrX^ffffovro evl rfj SiSaxfj avrov, Sri eV f&vala fy o \6yos avrov.
Luke iv. 32.
JUSTIN MARTYR 249
Although the author of the third Gospel somewhat alters the
language, it is clear that he follows the same original, and retains
it in the same context as the second Gospel. Now the occurrence
of such a passage as this in one of the Fathers, if either the first
or second. Gospels were lost, would, on Credner's grounds, be
attributed undoubtedly to the survivor, although in reality derived
from the Gospel no longer extant, which likewise contained it.
Another example may be pointed out in Matt. xiii. 34 : "All these
things spake Jesus unto the multitudes in parables ; and without
a parable spake he not unto them" compared with Mark iv. 33, 34,
" And with many such parables spake he the word unto them
and without a parable spake he not unto them." The part of this
very individual remark which we have italicised is literally the
same in both Gospels, as a personal comment at the end of the
parable of the grain of mustard seed. Then, for instance, in the
account of the sleep of the three disciples during the Agony in
the Garden (Matt. xxvi. 43, Mark xiv. 40), the expression, "and he
found them asleep, for their eyes were heavy" which is equally
individual, is literally the same in the first two Gospels. Another
special remark of a similar kind regarding the rich young man,
" He went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions," is found
both in Matt. xix. 22 and Mark x. 22. Such examples 1 might be
multiplied, and they show that the occurrence of passages of the
most individual character cannot, in Justin's time, be limited to
any single Gospel.
Now, the verse we are discussing, Matt. xvii. 13, in all proba-
bility, as Ewald supposes, occurred in one or more of the older
forms of the Gospel from which our Synoptics, and many other
similar works, derived their matter, and nothing is more likely
than that the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which in many
respects was nearly related to Matthew, may have contained it. At
any rate, we have shown that such sayings cannot, however appa-
rently individual, be considered evidence of the use of a particular
Gospel simply because it happens to be the only one now extant
which contains it. Credner, however, whilst expressing the opinion
which we have quoted, likewise adds his belief that by the expres-
sion, /cut yeypaTTTou, Justin seems expressly to indicate that this
sentence is taken from a different work from what precedes it,
and he has proved that the preceding part of the quotation was
not derived from our Gospels. 2 We cannot, however, coincide
with this opinion either. It seems to us that the expression, "and
1 Cf. Matt. iii. 3, Mark i. 2, 3, Luke Hi. 4 ; Matt. iii. 5, 6, Mark i. 5 ;
Matt. xiv. 3, 4, Mark vi. 17, 18 ; Matt. xiv. 9, Mark vi. 26 ; Matt, xxviii.
14, Mark xv. 5 ; Matt, xxvii. 39, Mark xv. 29, etc.
2 Credner, Beitriige, i., p. 237.
250 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
it is written," simply was made use of by Justin to show that the
identification of Elias with John the Baptist is not his, but was
the impression conveyed at the time by Jesus to his disciples.
Now, the whole narrative of the baptism of John in Justin bears
characteristic marks of being from a Gospel different from ours, 1
and in the first part of this very quotation we find distinct variation.
Justin first affirms that Jesus in his teaching had proclaimed that
Elias should also come (KOU 'HXiav eA.i'o-r#cu), and then
further on he gives the actual words of Jesus : 'HAtas /xev
eA.vcrTai, K.r.X., which we have before us, whilst in Matthew the
words are : 'HXias fitv l/s^erou, and there is no MS. which
reads IXeiWrat for I/D^CTOU ; and yet, as Credner remarks, the
whole force of the quotation rests upon the word, and Justin is
persistent in his variation from the text of our first Synoptic. It
is unreasonable to say that Justin quotes loosely the important
part of his passage, and then about a few words at the close
pretends to be so particularly careful. Considering all the facts of
the case, we must conclude that this quotation also is from a source
different from our Gospels.
Another point, however, must be noted. Dr. Westcott claims
this passage as an express quotation, from the Memoirs, apparently
for no other reason than that the few words happen to agree with
Matt. xvii. 13, and that he wishes to identify the Memoirs with
our Gospels. Justin, however, does not once mention the Memoirs
in this chapter ; it follows, therefore, that Dr. Westcott, who is so
exceedingly strict in his limitation of express quotations, assumes
that all quotations of Christian history and words of Jesus in
Justin are to be considered as derived from the Memoirs, whether
they be mentioned by name or not. We have already seen that
amongst these there are not only quotations differing from the
Gospels, and contradicting them, but others which have no
parallels at all in them.
The fifth of Dr. Westcott's express quotations occurs in Dial.
105, where Justin says : "For when he (Jesus) was giving up his
spirit on the cross he said : ' Father, into thy hands I commend
my spirit,' as I have also learned from the Memoirs." This short
sentence agrees with Luke xxiii. 46, it is true ; but, as we have
already shown, 2 Justin's whole account of the Crucifixion differs
so materially from that in our Gospels that it cannot have been
derived from them.
We see this forcibly in examining the sixth of Dr. Westcott's
quotations, which is likewise connected with the Crucifixion. " For
they who saw him crucified also wagged their heads, each one of
them, and distorted their lips, and sneeringly, and in scornful
1 P. 200 flF. ' 2 P. 213 f.
JUSTIN MARTYR 251
irony, repeated among themselves those words which are also
written in the Memoirs of his Apostles : He declared himself the
son of God : (let him) come down, let him walk about : let God
save him." 1 We have ourselves already quoted and discussed this
passage, 2 and need not further examine it here. Dr. Westcott has
nothing better to say regarding this quotation, in an examination
of the accuracy of parallel passages, than this : " These exact
words do not occur in our Gospels, but we do find there others so
closely connected with them that few readers would feel the differ-
ence "! 3 When criticism descends to language like this, the case
is, indeed, desperate. It is clear that, as Dr. Westcott admits,
the words are expressly declared to be a quotation from the
Memoirs of the Apostles, but they do not exist in our Gospels,
and consequently our Gospels are not identical with the Memoirs.
Dr. Westcott refers to the taunts in Matthew, and then, with com-
mendable candour, he concludes his examination of the quotation
with the following words : " No manuscript or Father (so far as we
know) has preserved any reading of the passage more closely
resembling Justin's quotation ; and if it appear not to be deducible
from our Gospels, due allowance being made for the object which
he had in view, its source must remain concealed." 4 We need
only add that it is futile to talk of making " due allowance " for
the object which Justin had in view. His immediate object was
accurate quotation, and no allowance can account for such variation
in language and thought as is presented in this passage. That this
passage, though a professed quotation from the Memoirs, is not
taken from our Gospels is certain, both from its own variations and
the differences in other parts of Justin's account of the Crucifixion,
an event whose solemnity and importance might well be expected
to secure reverential accuracy. It is impossible to avoid the con-
clusion that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles were not identical
with our Gospels, and the systematic variation of his quotations
thus receives its natural and reasonable explanation.
The seventh and last of Dr. Westcott's express quotations is,
as he states, " more remarkable." We subjoin the passage in
contrast with the parallel texts of the first and third Gospels :
JUSTIN, DIAL. 100.
And in the Gospel
it is written that he
said :
All things have been
delivered to me by the
MATT. xi. 27.
All things were de-
livered to me by the 5
LUKE x. 22.
All things were de-
livered to me by my
1 Dial. 101. * P. 211 f.
3 On the Canon, p. H4f. 4 76., p. 115.
5 Most Codices read " my," but the Cod. Sin. having "the," we give it as
more favourable.
252
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
JUSTIN, DIAL. 100.
Father, and no one
knoweth (yivwicei) the
Father but the Son, nor
the Son but the Father
and
those to whomsoever
the Son shall reveal
him.
Kai ev rip fvayyf\lij>
d ytypaiTTai flir&v
\\dvra, /xoi irapaStdorai
virb TOV trarpds Kai ou'Seiy
yivwffKti rbv irarepa el
(ifl 6 i'Z6j- ovdt rbv vlbv
ft /j,ri 6 irairrjp Kai of? av
6 t'idj diroKa\v\j/r).
MATT. xi. 27.
Father, and no one
knoweth (eiriyirwffKei)
the Son but the Father,
nor knoweth (eiriyivw-
ffKfi) anyone the Father
but the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son
is minded to reveal
him.
lldvra (i.oi tr
viro TOV waTp6s, I Kai ovdfls
firiyiv<j)ffK{<. rbv vlbv el
/J.TJ 6 trar^p, ovSt TOV
irarepa rts eiriyivuffKfi
el ,7; 6 vlt>s Kai tf> iaf
(3ov\r)Tai. 6 vlbs diroKa-
\v\fai.
LUKE x. 22.
Father, and no one
knoweth (yivwffKfi)
who the Son is but the
Father, and who the
Father is but the Son,
and he to whomsoever
the Son is minded to
reveal him.
lldvra fj.oi
virb TOV iraTp6s ftov, Kai
ou'Sets yivuffKei Tis tffnv
6 vtts ft /JLTJ 6 iraT-rip,
Kai T/J fffTtv 6
fl /iir] 6 iu6s Kai
j3ov\r)Tai 6 vlbs
\v\//ai..
tai>
It is apparent that Justin's quotation differs very materially
from our Gospels in language, in construction, and in meaning.
These variations, however, acquire very remarkable confirmation
and significance from the fact that Justin in two other places 2
quotes the latter and larger part of the passage from orSei's in
precisely the same way, with the sole exception that, in both of
these quotations, he used the aorist efyvw instead of ytvwo-Ka.
This threefold repetition in the same peculiar form clearly stamps
the passage as being a literal quotation from his Gospel, and
the one exception to the verbal agreement of the three passages,
in the substitution of the present for the aorist in the Dialogue,
does not remove or lessen the fundamental variation of the
passage from our Gospel. As the yvw is twice repeated, it
was probably the reading of his text. Now it is well known
that the peculiar form of the quotation in Justin occurred in
what came to be considered heretical Gospels, and constituted
the basis of important Gnostic doctrines.3 Dr. Westcott speaks
of the use of this passage by the Fathers in agreement with
Justin in a manner which, unintentionally we have no doubt,
absolutely misrepresents important facts. He says : " The trans-
position of the words still remains ; and how little weight can be
attached to that will appear upon an examination of the various
forms in which the text is quoted by Fathers like Origen, Irenaeus,
and Epiphanius, who admitted our Gospels exclusively. It occurs
1 See last note. a Apol., i. 63.
3 Dr. Westcott merely alludes to this in the briefest way in a note (On the
Canon, p. 115, note 2).
JUSTIN MARTYR 253
in them as will be seen from the table of readings 1 with almost
every possible variation. Irenaeus in the course of one chapter
quotes the verse first as it stands in the canonical text ; then in
the same order, but with the last clause like Justin's ; and once
again altogether as he has given it. Epiphanius likewise quotes
the text seven times in the same order as Justin, and four times
as it stands in the Gospels." 2 Now in the chapter to which
reference is made in this sentence Irenseus commences by stating
that the Lord had declared: "Nemo cognoscit Filium nisi Pater ;
neque Patrem quis cognoscit nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius revelare"*
as he says, " Thus Matthew has set it down and Luke similarly,
and Mark the very same." 4 He goes on to state, however, that
those who would be wiser than the Apostles write this verse as
follows : ''''Nemo cognovit Patrem nisi Filius ; nee Filium nisi Pater,
et cui voluerit Filius revelare." And he explains: "They interpret
it as though the true God was known to no man before the coming
of our Lord ; and that God who was announced by the Prophets
they affirm not to be the Father of Christ."s Now in this passage
we have the eyvw of Justin in the "cognovit" in contradistinction
to the " cognoscit " of the Gospel, and his transposition of order as
not by any possibility an accidental thing, but as the distinct basis
of doctrines. Irenseus goes on to argue that no one can know the
Father unless through the Word of God, that is through the Son,
and this is why he said : " ' Nemo cognoscit Patrem nisi Filius ;
neque Filium nisi Pater, et quibuscunque Filius revelaverit? Thus
teaching that he himself also is the Father, as indeed he is, in
order that we may not receive any other Father except him who is
revealed by the Son." 6 In this third quotation Irenaeus alters the
eyvw into ytvwo-Ket, but retains the form, for the rest, of the
Gnostics and of Justin, and his aim apparently is to show that,
adopting his present tense instead of the aorist, the transposition
of words is of no importance. A fourth time, however, in the same
chapter, which in fact is wholly dedicated to this passage and to
the doctrines based upon it, Irenaeus quotes the saying : "Nemo
cognoscit Filium nisi Pater ; neque Patrem nisi Filius, et quibus-
cunque Filius revelaverit.'^ Here the language and order of the
1 In the few readings given in this table, Dr. Westcott does not distinguish
the writers at all. Cf. On the Canon, p. 116, note 3.
- On the Canon, p. 116. 3 Adv. Hcer,, iv. 6, i.
4 Sic et Mathceus posuit, et Lucas similiter, et Marctis idem ipsum. We
need not point out that this is a misstatement, for our Mark has not got the
passage at all.
5 " Et interpretanttir, quasi a nullo cognitus sit vents Deus ante Domini
nostri adventum : et eum Deum, qui a prophetis sit anmintiatus, dicnnt non
esse Patrem Chris ti." Adv. ffffr., iv. 6, I.
6 Docens semetipsum et Patrem, sicut est, ut alterum non recipiamus Patrem,
nisi eum qui a Filio revelatur. //>., iv. 6, 3. 7 Adv. Har., iv. 6, 7.
254 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Gospel are followed with the exception that "cui voluerit revelare"
is altered to the " quibuscunque revelaverit " of Justin; and that this
is intentional is made clear by the continuation: "Yor revelaverit
was said not with reference to the future alone," 1 etc.
Now, in this chapter we learn very clearly that, although the
canonical Gospels, by the express declaration of Irengeus, had
their present reading of the passage before us, other Gospels of
considerable authority even in his time had the form of Justin, for
again, in a fifth passage, he quotes the opening words : " He who
was known, therefore, was not different from him who declared :
' No one knoweth the Father,' but one and the same." 2 With the
usual alteration of the verb to the present tense, Irenseus, in this
and in one of the other quotations of this passage just cited, gives
some authority to the transposition of the words " Father " and
" Son," although the reading was opposed to the Gospels ; but he
invariably adheres to ytvwovcei and condemns ?yvo>, the reading
maintained by those who, in the estimation of Irengeus, " would
be wiser than the Apostles." Elsewhere, descanting on the pas-
sages of Scripture by which heretics attempt to prove that the
Father was unknown before the advent of Christ, Irenseus, after
accusing them of garbling passages of Scripture, 3 goes on to say
of the Marcosians and others : " Besides these, they adduce a
countless number of apocryphal and spurious works which they
themselves have forged to the bewilderment of the foolish, and
of those who are not versed in the Scriptures of truth. "* He
also points out passages occurring in our Gospels to which they
give a peculiar interpretation, and, among these, that quoted by
Justin. He says : " But they adduce as the highest testimony,
and, as it were, the crown of their system, the following passage.
...... ' All things were delivered to me by my Father, and no one
knew (eyvw) the Father but the Son, and the Son but the Father,
and he to whomsoever (<a av) the Son shall reveal
1 Revelaverit enim, non soluni in futurum dictum est, etc. ; Ib., iv. 6, "].
3 Non ergo alius erat qui cogn oscebatur, et alius qui dicebat : "Nemo
(ogtwscit Patrem : " sed unus et id em, etc. ; Ib., iv. 6, 7. In another place
Irenseus again quotes the passage in the same order, with the same careful
adherence to the present tense. Adv. H<er., ii. 6, I.
3 Adv. Hcer., i. 19, i.
4 IIpos 5 TOUT-CMS dfJivOffrov TrXrjOos diroKpvtptav /ecu voOuv ypa<pwv, &$ ai/Vot
eirXaffav, trapfiff<ppovffiv efc Kardw\r)^iv raw dvo^Tuv /cat TO. TTJS dXydtLas /J.TJ
tiriffTa/jLfvwv ypd/j./j.ara. Adv. Hcer., i. 2O, "l.
5 Adv. ffeer., i. 20, 3. And again, referring to Valentinus and his
followers, and endeavouring to show the inconsistency of their views, he says :
" Salvalor ergo, secundurn eos, erit tnentitus, duetts: ' Nemo cognovit Patrem
nisi Ft/ius.' Si enim cognitus est vel a niatre, vel a semine ejus ; solutum
est illud, quod, ' nenu ognovit Patrem nisi Filius.'' " Adv. Hcer., ii. 14,
7. Irenaeus then endeavours out of their owr? form of the text to confute
their doctrines,
JUSTIN MARTYR 255
In these words they assert that he clearly demonstrated that the
Father of truth whom they have invented was known to no one
before his coming ; and they desire to interpret the words as
though the Maker and Creator had been known to all, and the
Lord spoke these words regarding the Father unknown to all,
whom they proclaim." 1 Here we have the exact quotation twice
made by Justin, with the eyvw and the same order, set forth as the
reading of the Gospels of the Marcosians and other sects, and
the highest testimony to their system. It is almost impossible
that Justin could have altered the passage by an error of memory
to this precise form, and it must be regarded as the reading of his
Memoirs. The evidence of Irenaeus is clear : The Gospels had
the reading which we now find in them, but apocryphal Gospels,
on the other hand, had that which we find twice quoted by Justin,
and the passage was, as it were, the text upon which a large sect
of the early Church based its most fundamental doctrine. The
e'yvw is invariably repudiated, but the transposition of the words
"Father" and "Son" was apparently admitted to a certain extent,
although the authority for this was not derived from the Gospels
recognised by the Church, which contained the contrary order.
We must briefly refer to the use of this passage by Clement of
Alexandria. He quotes portions of the text eight times, and,
although with some variation of terms, he invariably follows the
order of the Gospels. Six times he makes use of the aorist eyvw, 2
once of yivoxrKi,3 and once of 67riy(.vwo-Ki.4 He only once
quotes the whole passage ; 5 but on this occasion, as well as six
others in which he only quotes the latter part of the sentence, 6 he
omits (BovXrjTat, and reads "and he to whom the Son shall reveal,"
thus supporting the d-n-oKaXvil/y of Justin. Twice he has "God"
instead of " Father,"? and once he substitutes p/Set's for owSs. 8
It is evident, from the loose and fragmentary way in which Clement
interweaves the passage with his text, that he is more concerned
with the sense than the verbal accuracy of the quotation ; but
the result of his evidence is that he never departs from the Gospel
order of " Father" and " Son," although he frequently makes use
of eyvw and also employs diroKaXv^y in agreement with Justin,
and, therefore, he shows the prevalence of forms approximating to,
though always presenting material difference from, the reading
of Justin.
1 Adv. H<zr., i. 20, 3.
2 Peed., i. 9, 88 ; i. 5, 20 ; Strom., i. 28, 178 ; v. 13, 95 ; vii. 10,
58 ; Cohort*, i. 10. 3 Strom., vii. 18, 109.
4 Quis Div. Salv., 9. s Strom., i. 28, 178.
6 Coh., i., 10 ; Peed., i. 5, 20; Strom., v 13, 85 ; vii. 10, 58; vi.
1 8, 109; Quis Div. Salv., 8.
7 Coh., i., 10 ; Peed., i. 5, 20. 8 Strom., v. 13, 85.
256 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Epiphanius refers to this passage no less than ten times, 1
but he only quotes it fully five times, and upon each of these
occasions with variations. Of the five times to which we refer, he
thrice follows the order of the Gospels, 2 as he does likewise in
another place where he does not complete the sentence. 3 On the
remaining two occasions he adopts the same order as Justin, with
variations from his readings, however, to which we shall presently
refer ; 4 and where he only partially quotes he follows the same
order on other three occasions, 5 and in one other place the
quotation is too fragmentary to allow us to distinguish the order. 6
Now, in all of these ten quotations, with one exception, Epiphanius
substitutes otSe for eTrtytvwo-Ket at the commencement of the
passage in Matthew, and only thrice does he repeat the verb in
the second clause as in that Gospel, and on these occasions he
twice makes use of oiSe? and once of eym. 8 He once uses
eyvw with the same order as Justin, but does not complete the
sentence.9 Each time he completes the quotation he uses
$ eav with the Gospel, and dbronoX^g with Justin ; 10 but only
once out of the five complete quotations does he insert 6 inb?
in the concluding phrase. It is evident from this examination,
which we must not carry further, that Epiphanius never verbally
agrees with the Gospel in his quotation of this passage, and never
verbally with Justin, but mainly follows a version different from
both. It must be remembered, however, that he is writing against
various heresies, and it does not seem to us improbable that he
reproduces forms of the passage current amongst those sects.
In his work against Marcion, Tertullian says : " With regard to
the Father, however, that he was never seen, the Gospel which is
common to us will testify, as it was said by Christ : Nemo cognovit
patrem nisi jftlius," but elsewhere he translates "Nemo sat," 12
evidently not fully appreciating the difference of eyvw.'s The
passage in Marcion's Gospel reads like Justin's : ov8d<s eyvw rbv
jrarepa, el /AT) 6 vibs, ov8c rbv vlov Tts yivtixr/cei, ei p.rj 6
The use of eyi/w as applied to the Father and
as regards the Son in this passage is suggestive. Origen almost
1 ffter., liv. 4, ed. Petav., p. 466 ; Ixiv. 9, p. 532 ; xlv. 6, p. 613 ; Ixix. 43,
p. 766; Ixxiv. 4, p. 891, 10, p. 898 ; Ixxvi. 7, p. 943, 29, p. 977, 32, p. 981.
2 Hizr., Ixxvi. 7, p. 943 ; liv. 4, p. 466 ; Ixv. 6, p. 613.
3 Har., Ixvi. 9, p. 532. 4 Har., Ixxiv. 4, p. 891 ; Ixxvi. 29, p. 977.
5 Har., Ixix. 43, p. 766; Ixxiv. 10, p. 898 ; Ixxvi. 32, p. 981.
6 H<er., Ixxvi. 32, p. 981. ? Har., liv. 4, p. 466 ; Ixix. 43, p. 766.
8 Hter., Ixv. 6, p. 613. Har., Ixxiv. 10, p. 898.
10 Except once when he has diroKaMirTti. Hcer., Ixxiv. 4, p. 891.
" Adv. Marc., ii. 27. " /., iv. 25, cf. 6.
13 Cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 202 f.
14 Dial, de recta in Deutn fide, I ; Origen, O/>. , i., p. 817 n ; Thilo, Cod.
Apocr, N. T., p. 433 ; Hahn, Das Evang. Afcfrcions, p. 160.
JUSTIN MARTYR 257
invariably uses eyvw, sometimes adopting the order of the Gospels
and sometimes that of Justin, and always employing diroKa\.v\ls>j. 1
The Clementine Homilies always read eyvw, and always follow
the same order as Justin, presenting other and persistent variations
from the form in the Gospels. OvSets eyvw rov -rrarepa ei p)
o t'tbs, ws ovSe rov vlov Tts etSev 2 i p) o Tra-n}/), /cat of? av fiovX^Tdi
6 t>tos dTroKa\v\J/<u.3 This reading occurs four times. The
Clementine Recognitions have the aorist with the order of the
Gospels.*
There only remain a few more lines to add to those already
quoted to complete the whole of Dr. Westcott's argument
regarding this passage. He continues and concludes thus : " If,
indeed, Justin's quotations were made from memory, no transposi-
tion could be more natural ; and if we suppose that he copied the
passage directly from a manuscript, there is no difficulty in
believing that he found it so written in a manuscript of the
canonical St. Matthew, since the variation is excluded by no
internal improbability, while it is found elsewhere, and its origin
is easily explicable." 5 It will be observed that Dr. Westcott does
not attempt any argument, but simply confines himself to supposi-
tions. If such explanations were only valid, there could be no
difficulty in believing anything, and every embarrassing circumstance
would be easily explicable.
The facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows :
Justin deliberately and expressly quotes from his Gospel, himself
calling it " Gospel," be it observed, a passage whose nearest
parallel in our Gospels is Matt. xi. 27. This quotation presents
material variations from our canonical Gospel, both in form and
language. The larger part of the passage he quotes twice in a
different work, written years before, in precisely the same words as
the third quotation, with the sole exception that he uses the aorist
instead of the present tense of the verb. No MS. of our Gospel
extant approximates to the reading in Justin, and we are expressly
told by Irenaeus that the present reading of our Matthew was that
existing in his day. On the other hand, Irenaeus states with equal
distinctness that Gospels used by Gnostic sects had the reading of
Justin, and that the passage was " the crown of their system," and
one upon whose testimony they based their leading doctrines.
Here, then, is the clear statement that Justin's quotation disagrees
with the form in the Gospels, and agrees with that of other
Gospels. The variations occurring in the numerous quotations of
1 Cf. Griesbach, Symb. Crit., ii., pp. 271, 373-
- Credner, Beitriige, i. , p. 250.
3 Clem. Horn., xvii. 4 ; xviii. 4, 13, 20 ; xviii. II.
4 Clem. Recog., ii. 47. 5 On the Canon, p. 117.
258 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the same passage by the Fathers, which we have analysed, show
that they handled it very loosely, but also indicate that there must
have been various readings of considerable authority then current.
It has been conjectured with much probability that the form in
which Justin quotes the passage twice in his Apology may have
been the reading of older Gospels, and that it was gradually
altered by the Church to the form in which we now have it for
dogmatic reasons, when Gnostic sects began to base doctrines
upon it inconsistent with the prevailing interpretation. 1 Be this as
it may, Justin's Gospel clearly had a reading different from ours,
but in unison with that known to exist in other Gospels, and this
express quotation only adds additional proof to the mass of
evidence already adduced that the Memoirs of tJie Apostles were
not our canonical Gospels.
We have already occupied so much space even with this cursory
examination of Justin's quotations that we must pass over in
silence passages which he quotes from the Memoirs with variations
from the parallels in our Gospels, which are also found in the
Clementine Homilies and other works emanating from circles in
which other Gospels than ours were used. We shall now only
briefly refer to a few sayings of Jesus, expressly quoted by Justin,
which are altogether unknown to our Gospels. Justin says : " For
the things which he foretold would take place in his name, these
we see actually coming to pass in our sight. For he said : ' Many
shall come," etc., 2 and ' There shall be schisms and heresies,'3 and
' Beware of false prophets,^ etc., and ' Many false Christs and
false Apostles shall arise and shall deceive many of the faithful.' " 5
Neither of the two prophecies here quoted is to be found any-
where in our Gospels, and to the second of them Justin repeatedly
refers. He says in one place that Jesus " foretold that in the
interval of his coming, as I previously said, 6 heresies and false
prophets would arise in his name."? It is admitted that these
prophecies are foreign to our Gospels. It is very probable that
the Apostle Paul refers to the prophecy, "There shall be schisms
and heresies" in i Cor. xi. 18-19, where it is said, " I hear
that schisms exist amongst you; and I partly believe it. For there
1 Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit. , i. , p. 254 ff. Cf. Credner, Beitrcige, \. ,
p. 250 f. Delitzsch, N. Unters. Kan. Ew., p. 35 f. Scholten, Het Paitlin.
Evangelic, 1870, p. 103 f.
2 Cf. p. 228, note 4, p. 238 f.
3 fixe ydp "Effovrai ffxiff/jLara /cai ai/^ffeu. Dial. 35.
4 Cf. 228, note 4, p. 238 f.
5 AvaffTTiffoitTai iroXXoJ \ftevS6xpiffTOi, Kal \j/ev8a.ir6ffTo\o(. /cai TroAXoi)* ruv
Trio-rail' irXav^ffovffii'. Dial. 35. ; cf. Apol., i. 12. 6 Dial. 35.
i ^ Kal ev ^r(f /xerai> rrjs irapovfflas avrov \p6vif, (is trpo(.<frrii>, yev/ifffffOai
alpefffit Kal ^euSoirpo^ras eirl T<? 6v6p.ari avVbO irpoe/j.rivvfff, /c.r.X. Dial. 51 ;
cf. 82.
JUSTIN MARTYR 259
must also be heresies amongst you," etc. (aKovw
kv vfuv iVap^eii', Kal /xepos rt TricrTei'O). Set yap K<U aipecreis tv
vjuv efvai, K.T.A.) We find also, elsewhere, traces both of
this saying and that which accompanies it. In the Clementine
Homilies, Peter is represented as stating, " For there shall be, as
the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets, heresies, desires for
supremacy," etc. (ecrovrai yap, a>s o Ki'pios tTrrev, ^evSaTroo-ToAoi,
^euoas TrpocjyrJTai, aipecret?, <f>iXap-^iai, K.r.A. 1 We are likewise
reminded of the passage in the Epistle attributed to the
Roman Clement, xliv. : " Our Apostles knew through our Lord
Jesus Christ that there would be contention regarding the dignity
of the episcopate." 2 In our Gospel there is no reference
anywhere to schisms and heresies, nor are false Apostles once
mentioned, the reference being solely to "false Christs" and
"false prophets." The recurrence here and elsewhere of the peculiar
expression " false apostles" is very striking, 3 and the evidence for
the passage as a saying of Jesus is important. Hegesippus, after
enumerating a vast number of heretical sects and teachers,
continues : " From these sprang the false Christs, false prophets,
false apostles, who divided the union of the Church by corrupting
doctrines concerning God and concerning his Christ."* It will be
remembered that Hegesippus made use of the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, and the Clementine literature points to the same
source. In the Apostolic Constitutions we read : " For these are
false Christs and false prophets, and false apostles, deceivers, and
corrupters," etc., 5 and in the Clementine Recognitions the Apostle
Peter is represented as saying that the Devil, after the temptation,
terrified by the final answer of Jesus, " hastened immediately to
send forth into this world false prophets, and false apostles, and
false teachers, who should speak in the name of Christ indeed,
but should perform the will of the demon." 6 Justin's whole
system forbids our recognising in these two passages mere tradition,
and we must hold that we have here quotations from a Gospel
different from ours.
Elsewhere, Justin says : "Out of which (affliction and fiery trial of
the Devil) again Jesus, the Son of God, promised to deliver us,
and to put on us prepared garments, if we do his commandments,
and he is proclaimed as having provided an eternal kingdom for
us. "7 This promise is nowhere found in our Gospel.
Immediately following the passage (* 3 and 4) which we have
discussed 8 as repeated in the Dialogue : " Many shall say to me,
1 Horn., xvi. 21. 2 xliv. See Greek passage quoted, p. 136, note 3.
3 Semisch, Die Ap. Denkw. d. Mart. Just., p. 391, anm. 2.
4 Eusebius, H. ., iv. 22. s Constit. Apost., vi. 13; cf. vi. 18.
6 Recog., iv. 34. i Dial. 116. 8 P. 227, note 4.
26o
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
etc., and I will say to them, ' Depart from me,' " Justin continues :
" And in other words by which he will condemn those who are
unworthy to be saved, he said that he will say : Begone into the
darkness without, which the Father hath prepared for Satan and
his angels." 1 The nearest parallel to this is in Matt. xxv. 41 :
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand : Depart
from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the
devil and his angels."
JUSTIN, DIAL. 76.
Kat ev &\\ois \6yois oh
Tobs uvaj-lovs JJLT) ffufevdai /j.e\\ei, f<f>t]
fpeiv 'Tirdyere els TO (TKoYos TO e^Tepov,
5 rjToifj.aaev 6 irarr/p T(J5 ~Za.Ta.vo. Kal rots
dyye\ois WTOV.
MATT. xxv. 41.
T(4re epef. Kal roTs e evuvvfj.uv Hopev-
effffe air' e/J.ov oi Ka.rrjpa.iJ.fvoL fls rb wiip
TO atuviov TO ifToi/jiaff/j.evov T<# 5ta/3<5\<f>
/cat rots dyye\OLs O.VTOV.
It is apparent that Justin's quotation differs very widely from the
reading of our Gospel. The same reading, with the exception of
a single word, is found in the Clementine Homilies (xix. 2); that is
to say, that " Devil " is substituted for " Satan," and this variation
is not important. The agreement of the rest, on the other hand,
seems to establish the conclusion that the quotation is from a
written Gospel different from ours, and here we have further strong
indications of Justin's use of the Ebionite Gospel.
Another of the sayings of Jesus which are foreign to our
Gospels is one in reference to the man who falls away from
righteousness into sin, of whom Justin says : " Wherefore also our
Lord Jesus Christ said : In whatsoever things I may find you, in
these I shall also judge you." 2 (Aio Kal 6 ^/wre/ios Kvpios
Xpto-ros eTirev " 'Ev o?s av vju,a$ KaraAa/Jw, ev TOVTOLS
A similar expression is used by some of
the Fathers, and, in some cases, is ascribed to the prophets. 3
Clement of Alexandria has quoted a phrase closely resembling
this without indicating the source. 'E<' oi? yap av evpta ryms,
<f>rj(rlv, 7ri TOVTOIS Kal K/3ivc3.4 Grabe was of opinion that
Justin derived the passage from the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, 5 an opinion shared by the greater number of modern
critics, and which we are prepared to accept from many previous
instances of agreement. Even the warmest asserters of the theory
that the Memoirs are identical with our Gospels are obliged to
admit that this saying of Jesus is not contained in them, and that
it must have been derived from an extra-canonical source.
Other passages of a similar kind might have been pointed out,
1 Dial. 76. a Ib. 47.
3 Grabe, Spicil. pair., i., p. 327 ; Fabricius, Cod. Aptcr. N. T., i., p.
333 f., ii., p. 524.
4 Quis Div. Salv., 40. 5 Spicil. Pair., i., p. 14, p. 327.
JUSTIN MARTYR 261
but we have already devoted too much space to Justin's quotations,
and must hasten to a conclusion. There is one point, however,
to which we must refer. We have more than once alluded to the
fact that, unless in one place, Justin never mentions an author's
name in connection with the Memoirs of the Apostles. The
exception to which we referred is the following : Justin says :
"The statement also that he (Jesus) changed the name of Peter,
one of the Apostles, and that this is also written in his Memoirs
as having been done, together with the fact that he also changed
the name of other two brothers, who were sons of Zebedee, to
Boanerges ; that is, sons of Thunder," etc. 1 According to the
usual language of Justin, and upon strictly critical grounds, the
O.VTOV in this passage must be referred to Peter; and Justin,
therefore, seems to ascribe the Memoirs to that Apostle, and to
speak of a Gospel of Peter. 2 Some critics maintain that the
avrov does not refer to Peter, but to Jesus, or, more probable
still, that it should be amended to aiVrwi/, and apply to the
Apostles. The great majority, however, are forced to admit the
reference of the Memoirs to Peter, although they explain it, as we
shall see, in different ways. It is argued by some that this expres-
sion is used when Justin is alluding to the change of name, not
only of Peter, but of the sons of Zebedee, the narrative of which
is only found in the Gospel according to Mark. Now, Mark was
held by many of the Fathers to have been the mere mouthpiece
of Peter, and to have written at his dictation ;3 so that, in fact, in
calling the second Gospel by the name of the Apostle Peter, they
argue, Justin merely adopted the tradition current in the early
Church, and referred to the Gospel now known as the Gospel
according to Mark. It must be evident, however, that, after
admitting that Justin speaks of the Memoirs " of Peter," it is
hasty in the extreme to conclude from the fact that the
1 Kat TO eiwfiv /uerwvoyua/cej'cu avTov \\erpov eva r(av ctTrocrroXtoP, KO.I ytypii<f>-
Ocu fv TOIS a,Tro/j.vr}tJ.ovev/j.a<n.v CLVTOV yeyevrjfjievov K<U TOVTO, fiera TOV Kai dX\oi/s
8vo dSe\(povs viotis Ze/3e5cuou 6vras /j.erwvofiaKi>ai ovo/nan TOV TSoavepyts, 8 'VTIV
viol PPOVTTJS, K.T.\. Dial. 106.
3 In the course of explorations in Egypt in 1886-87 tne fragment of a
Gospel was discovered at Akhmim, the peculiarities of which leave little
doubt that it is part of a " Gospel according to Peter,'' and bears singular
analogies to Justin's Memoirs, for it is written in the first person : " I, Simon
Peter," etc. The fragment is too short to permit any considerable comparison
with Justin's quotations, but some remarkable coincidences exist, and many
critics, amongst whom may be mentioned Harnack, Hilgenfeld, J. Rendel
Harris, Lods, and Van Manen, consider that this Gospel was used by Justin.
For full particulars see The Gospel According to Peter, which we separately
published 1894 (Longmans, Green, & Co.).
3 Eusebius, H. E., ii. 15, iii. 39, v. 8, vi. 14, 25 ; Irenseus, Adv. ffar.,
iii. I. i ; Tertullian, Adv. Marc.,\v. 5; Hieron. De Vir. III., \. Cf.
Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i., p. 375.
262 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
mention of the sons of Zebedee being surnamed Boanerges is only
recorded in Mark iii. 17, and not in the other canonical Gospels,
that, therefore, the Memoirs of Peter and our Gospel according to
Mark are one and the same. We shall, hereafter, in examining
the testimony of Papias, see that the Gospel according to Mark,
of which the Bishop of Hierapolis speaks, was not our canonical
Mark at all. It would be very singular indeed, on this hypothesis,
that Justin should not have quoted a single passage from the only
Gospel whose author he names, and the number of times he seems
to quote from a Petrine Gospel, which was quite different from
Mark, confirms the inference that he cannot possibly here refer to
our second Gospel. It is maintained, therefore, by numerous
other critics that Justin refers to a Gospel according to Peter or
according to the Hebrews, and not to Mark.
We learn from Eusebius that Serapion, who became Bishop of
Antioch about A.D. 190, composed a book on the Gospel,
called "according to Peter" (ir^pi rov A-eyo/Aeyon Kara Tlerpov
i'ayyeA.iov), which he found in circulation in his diocese. At
first Serapion had permitted the use of this Gospel, as it evidently
was much prized, but he subsequently condemned it as a work
favouring Docetic views, and containing many things superadded
to the Doctrine of the Saviour. 1 Origen likewise makes mention
of the Gospel according to Peter (rov riyey/Da^/xvov Kara
HCT/OOV euoyyeXtov) as agreeing with the tradition of the
Hebrews. 2 But its relationship to the Gospel according to the
Hebrews becomes more clear when Theodoret states that the
Nazarenes made use of the Gospel according to Peter, 3 for we
know by the testimony of the Fathers generally that the Nazarene
Gospel was that commonly called the Gospel according to the
Hebrews (Ei'ayyeAtov Ka.0' 'E/fycuous). The same Gospel was in
use amongst the Ebionites, and in fact, as almost all critics
are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under various
names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the
Apostles, the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, &c., with modi-
fications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated
very widely throughout the early Church.-* A quotation occurs
in the so-called Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, to which
1 Eusebius, H. E., vi. 12 ; cf. Hieron., De Vir. ///., 41.
3 Ad. Matt. xiii. 54-56. He couples it with the Book of James, or the
Protevangelium Jacobi.
3 Haret. Fab., ii. 2 ; cf. Hieron. lib. vi. Comment, in Ezech. xviii., in Matt,
xii. 13 ; De Vir. ///., 2. The Marcosians also used this Gospel, and we have
seen them in agreement with Justin's quotation ; cf. p. 254 ff.
4 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 25; Epiphanius, Har., xxx. 13; Hieron., Adv.
Pelag., iii. i, ad Matt. vi. n, xii. 13, xxiii. 35 ^ Theodoret, Haret. Fab.,\\. 2;
Ambrose, Proem. Ev. Luca.
JUSTIN MARTYR 263
we have already referred, which is said by Origen to be in the
work called the Teaching of Peter 1 (AiSo,^ Uer/Dov), but Jerome
states that it is taken from the Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes. 2
Delitzsch finds traces of the Gospel according to the Hebrews
before A.D. 130 in the Talmud. 3 Eusebius* informs us that
Papias narrated a story regarding a woman accused before the
Lord of many sins which was contained in the Gospel according
to the Hebrews. 5 The same writer likewise states that Hegesippus,
who came to Rome and commenced his public career under
Anicetus, quoted from the same Gospel. 6 The evidence of this
" ancient and apostolic " man is very important, for, although he
evidently attaches great value to tradition, does not seem to
know of any canonical Scriptures of the New Testament, and, like
Justin, apparently rejected the Apostle Paul, he still regarded the
Gospel according to the Hebrews with respect, and probably
made exclusive use of it. The best critics consider that this
Gospel was the evangelical work used by the author of the
Clementine Homilies. Cerinthus and Carpocrates made use of
a form of it, 7 and there is good reason to suppose that Tatian,
like his master Justin, used the same Gospel ; indeed, his Diates-
saron, we are told, was by some called the Gospel according to
the Hebrews. 8 Clement of Alexandria quotes it as an authority,
with quite the same respect as the other Gospels. He says : " So
also in the Gospel according to the Hebrews : ' He who wonders
shall reign,' it is written, 'and he who reigns shall rest.'"9 A form
of this Gospel, "according to the Egyptians," is quoted in the
second Epistle of pseudo-Clement of Rome, as we are informed
by the Alexandrian Clement, who likewise quotes the same
passage. 10 Origen frequently made use of the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, 11 and that it long enjoyed great consideration in
1 De Princip. Prof., 8.
2 Hieron. , Proem, in Esaia, xviii. , De Vir. III., 16 ; cf. Fabricius, Cod,
Apocr. N. T., i. , p. 359 f. A similar passage was in the K^pvy/ua Ilerpov.
cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Evv. fustirfs, p. 249. Credner, Beitrcige, i. , p, 407 f.
3 Tract. Sabbath, f. 116; Delitzsch, N. Unters. Enst. kan. Ew., p. 18.
4 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 39.
5 This is generally believed to be the episode inserted in the fourth Gospel,
viii. l-il, but not originally belonging to it,
6 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 22.
7 Epiphanius, Hcer., xxvii. 5, cf. xxx. 26, xxx. 14. Cf. De Wette, Einl,
N. T., p. 116 f., 119; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit., i., p. 204.
8 Epiphanius, Hcer., xlvi. I.
' 77 Kav T(p Ko.0' 'E/3/3cUoi<s evayyeXlip "6 0cu</udcras /3cwtXeiWt," ytypairrai,
"/cat d /3a<nXei!<7as dvairavdrj<reTai." Clem. Al., Strom., ii. 9, 45.
10 2 Ep. ad Corinth., xii. ; cf. Clem. AT., Strom., iii. 9, 13.
11 Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebrceos quo et
Origenes scepe utitur. Hieron. De Vir. III., 2 ; Origen, in Joh., vol. iv., 63,
Matt. xix. 19, vol. iii., p. 771, etc.
264 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the Church is proved by the fact that Theodoret found it in
circulation not only amongst heretics, but also amongst orthodox
Christian communities ;' and even in the fourth century Eusebius
records doubts as to the rank of this Gospel amongst Christian
books, speaking of it under the second class in which some
reckoned the Apocalypse of John. 2 Later still Jerome translated
it ;3 whilst Nicephorus inserts it, in his Stichometry, not amongst
the Apocrypha, but amongst the Antilegomena, or merely doubtful
books of the New Testament, along with the Apocalypse of John.
In such repute was this Gospel amongst the earliest Christian
communities that it was generally believed to be the original of
the Greek Gospel of Matthew. Irenaeus states that the Ebionites
used solely the Gospel according to Matthew and reject the
Apostle Paul, asserting that he was an apostate from the law/
We know from statements regarding the Ebionites 5 that this
Gospel could not have been our Gospel according to Matthew,
and besides both Clement 6 of Alexandria and Origen? call it the
Gospel according to the Hebrews. Eusebius, however, still more
clearly identifies it, as we have seen above. Repeating the
statements of Irenseus, he says: "These indeed [the Ebionites]
thought that all the Epistles of the Apostle [Paul] should be
rejected, calling him an apostate from the law; making use only
of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, they took little
account of the rest." 8 Epiphanius calls both the Gospel of the
Ebionites and of the Nazarenes the " Gospel according to the
Hebrews," and also the Gospel according to Matthew,^ as does
also Theodoret. 10 Jerome translated the Gospel according to the
Hebrews both into Greek and Latin, 11 and it is clear that his
belief was that this Gospel, a copy of which he found in the
library collected at Caesarea by the Martyr Pamphilus (1309), was
the Hebrew original of Matthew ; and in support of this view he
points out that it did not follow the version of the LXX. in its
quotations from the Old Testament, but quoted directly from the
1 fab. Hter. , i. 20 ; cf. Epiphanius, ffa-r. , xlvi. i .
- Eusebius, H.E., iii. 25. It is very doubtful indeed whether he does not say
lhat some class it amongst the 6/j.o\oyovfjieva, whilst himself placing it in the
second class. Cf. Guericke, Gesammtgesch. N. 71, p. 219; Schwegler, Das
not hap. Zeitalter, i., p. 211, anm. I.
3 De Vir. III., 2. 4 Adv. Hter., i. 26, 2 ; cf. iii. 12, 7.
5 Origen, Contra Ce/s., v. 6 1 ; Eusebius, H. ., iii. 27.
6 Strom., ii. 9, 45.
7 \njoh. t. ii. 6 (Op. iv., p. 63 f.), Horn, in Jerem., xv. 4; cf. Hieron., in
Mich. vii. 6 ; in Es. xl. 12, De Vir. III., 2. 8 H. E., iii. 27.
9 Har., xxx. 3 ; cf. Har. xxix. 9, xxx. 14. 10 Heer. Fab., ii. i.
1 ' Evangelium quoque, </uod appellatur secundnm Hebraos, et a me nuper in
greecum latinumque sermonem translatum est, qtio et Origenes soepe utitur, etc.
Hieron. , De Vir. III. 2 ; cf. Adv. Pelag., \.
JUSTIN MARTYR 265
Hebrew. 1 An attempt has been made to argue that,, later, Jerome
became doubtful of this view, but it seems to us that this is not
the case, and certainly Jerome in his subsequent writings states
that it was generally held to be the original of Matthew. 2 That
this Gospel was not identical with the Greek Matthew is evident
both from the quotations of Jerome and others, and also from the
fact that Jerome considered it worth while to translate it twice.
If the Greek Gospel had been an accurate translation of it, of
course there could not have been inducement to make another.
As we shall hereafter see, the belief was universal in the early
Church that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Attempts
have been made to argue that the Gospel according to the
Hebrews was first written in Greek and then translated into
Hebrew, but the reasons advanced seem quite insufficient and
arbitrary, and it is contradicted by the whole tradition of the
Fathers.
It is not necessary for our purpose to enter fully here into the
question of the exact relation of our canonical Gospel according
to Matthew to the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is
sufficient for us to point out that we meet with the latter before
Matthew's Gospel, and that the general opinion of the early
Church was that it was the original of the canonical Gospel. This
opinion, as Schwegler3 remarks, is supported by the fact that
tradition assigns the origin of both Gospels to Palestine, and that
both were intended for Jewish Christians, and exclusively used by
them. That the two works, however originally related, had by
subsequent manipulation become distinct, although still amidst
much variation preserving some substantial affinity, cannot be
doubted ; and, in addition to the evidence already cited, we may
point out that in the Stichometry of Nicephorus the Gospel
according to Matthew is said to have 2,500 cm'xot, whilst that
according to the Hebrews has only 2,200.
Whether this Gospel formed one of the writings of the TroAAot
of Luke it is not our purpose to inquire ; but enough has been
1 Porro ipsum hebraiciuu (Mattkcei) habetur usque hodie in Casariensi
lubliotheca fjiiain Pamphilus martyr studiosissitne confecit, inihi quoque
a Nazarais qui in Bercea, urbe Syrite hoc vohimine utuntur, describendi
facultas fuit, in quo animadvertendum, quod ubicunque Evangelista sive
ex persona Domini Salvatoris veteris Scrip tur<c testimoniis tititur, non
sequatur LXX translatorum auctoritatem sed hebraicam, etc. De Vir.
III., 3.
2 In Evangeho juxta Hebraos quod Chaldaico qitidem Syroque sermone sed
hebraicis literis scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni secundum
Apostolos, sive tit plerique autumant juxta Mattlueum quod et in Casariensi
habetur Bibliotheca, narrat historia, etc. Hieron., Adv. Pelag., iii. 2 ; cf.
Comment, in Esaice, xi. 2, ad. Matt. xii. 13.
3 Das nachap. Zeitalter, i., p. 241.
266 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
said to prove that it was one of the most ancient and most valued
evangelical works, and to show the probability that Justin Martyr,
a Jewish Christian living amongst those who are known to have
made exclusive use of this Gospel, may well, like his contemporary
Hegesippus, have used the Gospel according to the Hebrews ;
and this probability is, as we have seen, greatly strengthened by
the fact that many of his quotations agree with passages which we
know to have been contained in it ; whilst, on the other hand,
almost all differ from our Gospels, presenting generally, however, a
greater affinity to the Gospel according to Matthew, as we might
expect, than to the other two. It is clear that the title " Gospel
according to the Hebrews " cannot have been its actual super-
scription, but merely was a name descriptive of the readers for
whom it was prepared, or amongst whom it chiefly circulated, and
it is most probable that it originally bore no other title than " The
Gospel " (TO ei'ayyeAtov), to which were added the different
designations under which we find it known amongst different com-
munities. 1 We have already seen that Justin speaks of "The
Gospel," and seems to refer to the Memoirs of Peter, both
distinguishing appellations of this Gospel ; but there is another of
the names borne by the " Gospel according to the Hebrews,"
which singularly recalls the Memoirs of the Apostles, by which
Justin prefers to call his evangelical work. It was called the Gospel
according to the Apostles (ei'ayyeAiov Kara TOVS aTrocrroAovs),
and, in short, comparing Justin's Memoirs with this Gospel, we find
at once similarity of contents, and even of name. 2
It is not necessary, however, for the purposes of this examina-
tion to dwell more fully upon the question as to what specific
Gospel, now no longer extant, Justin employed. We have shown
that there is no evidence that he made use of any of our Gospels,
and he cannot, therefore, be cited even to prove their existence,
and much less to attest the authenticity and character of records
whose authors he does not once name. On the other hand, it has
been made evident that there were other Gospels, now lost, but
which then enjoyed the highest consideration, from which his
quotations might have been, and probably were, taken. We have
seen that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles contained facts of Gospel
history unknown to our Gospels, which were contained in apocry-
phal works, and notably in the Gospel according to the Hebrews ;
1 Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeitalter, i., p. 202 ; Baur, Unters, kan. w.,
P- 573-
2 Schwegler rightly remarks that if it can be shown that Justin even once
made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or any other uncanonical
source, there is no ground for asserting that he may not always have done so.
Das nachap. Zeit, i., p. 229 f. ; Credner, Beitrage, i., p. 229 ; Hilgenfeld, Die
Ew. Justin's, p. 256 f.
JUSTIN MARTYR 267
that they further contained matter contradictory to our Gospels,
and sayings of Jesus not contained in them ; and that his quota-
tions, although so numerous, systematically vary from similar
passages in our Gospels. No theory of quotation from memory
can satisfactorily account for these phenomena, and the reasonable
conclusion is that Justin did not make use of our Gospels, but
quoted from another source. In no case can the testimony of
Justin afford the requisite support to the Gospels as records of
miracles and of a Divine Revelation.
CHAPTER IV.
HEGESIPPUS PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS
WE now turn to Hegesippus, one of the contemporaries of Justin,
and, like him, a Palestinian Jewish Christian. Most of our
information regarding him is derived from Eusebius, who fortu-
nately gives rather copious extracts from his writings. Hegesippus
was born in Palestine, of Jewish parents, 1 and in all probability
belonged to the primitive community of Jerusalem. In order to
make himself thoroughly acquainted with the state of the Church,
he travelled widely and came to Rome when Anicetus was Bishop.
Subsequently he wrote a work of historical Memoirs, iVo/iirypmi,
in five books, and thus became the first ecclesiastical historian of
Christianity. This work is lost, but portions have been preserved
to us by Eusebius, and one other fragment is also extant. It must
have been, in part at least, written after the succession of
Eleutherus to the Roman bishopric (A.D. 177-193), as that event
is mentioned in the book itself, and his testimony is allowed by all
critics to date from an advanced period of the second half of the
second century.
The testimony of Hegesippus is of great value, not only as that
of a man born near the primitive Christian tradition, but also as
that of an intelligent traveller amongst many Christian com-
munities. Eusebius evidently held him in high estimation as
recording the unerring tradition of the Apostolic preaching in the
most simple style of composition, 2 and as a writer of authority who
was " contemporary with the first successors of the Apostles "3
(fTTl T^S TTpWT^S TWV a7TO(rToXwV yl/6/AVOS StttSo^^s). Any
indications, therefore, which we may derive from information
regarding him, and from the fragments of his writings which
survive, must be of peculiar importance for our inquiry.
As might have been expected from a convert from Judaism-*
(7re7rrm>Kw? e 'E/3/jcuW), we find in Hegesippus manifest
evidences of general tendency to the Jewish side of Christianity.
For him, " James, the brother of the Lord," was the chief of the
1 Eusebius, H. ., iv. 22.
3 TTJV dirXavrj irapddoffiv TOV diroffToXiKOV xypvyfjiaTos airXovffrdrri ffvvrd^ei
a<j>fy virofju>r)/j,a.Ti<rd/j.evos, K.T.\. Eusebius, H. ., iv. 8.
3 Eusebius, H. ., ii. 23 : cf. Hieron. De Vir, III., 22.
4 Eusebius, H. ., iv. 22.
268
HEGESIPPUS 269
Apostles, and he states that he had received the government of
the Church after the death of Jesus. 1 The account which he gives
of him is remarkable. " He was holy from his mother's womb.
He drank neither wine nor strong drink, nor ate he any living
thing. A razor never went upon his head, he anointed not
himself with oil, and did not use a bath. He alone was allowed
to enter into the Holies. For he did not wear woollen garments,
but linen. And he alone entered into the Sanctuary, and was
wont to be found upon his knees seeking forgiveness on behalf of
the people ; so that his knees became hard like a camel's, through
his constant kneeling in supplication to God, and asking for
forgiveness for the people. In consequence of his exceeding
great righteousness he was called Righteous and ' Oblias,' that is,
Protector of the people and Righteousness, as the prophets
declare concerning him," 2 and so on. Throughout the whole of
his account of James, Hegesippus describes him as a mere Jew,
and as frequenting the temple, and even entering the Holy of
Holies as a Jewish High Priest. Whether the account be
apocryphal or not is of little consequence here ; it is clear that
Hegesippus sees no incongruity in it, and that the difference
between the Jew and the Christian was extremely small. The
head of the Christian community could assume all the duties of
the Jewish High Priest,3 and his Christian doctrines did not offend
more than a small party amongst the Jews.
We are not, therefore, surprised to find that his rule (xavwi/)
of orthodoxy in the Christian communities which he visited was
" the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord." Speaking of the result
of his observations during his travels, and of the succession of
Bishops in Rome, he says: "The Corinthian Church has
continued in the true faith until Primus, now Bishop of Corinth.
I conversed with him on my voyage to Rome, and stayed many days
with the Corinthians, during which time we were refreshed together
with true doctrine. Arrived in Rome, I composed the succession
until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. After Anicetus
succeeded Soter, and afterwards Eleutherus. But with every
succession, and in every city, that prevails which the Law, and
the Prophets, and the Lord enjoin."* The test of true doctrine
(6p9os Xoyos) with Hegesippus, as with Justin, therefore, is no
New Testament Canon, which does not yet exist for him, but the
Old Testament, the only Holy Scriptures which he acknowledges,
and the words of the Lord himself, which, as in the case of
1 Eusebius, H. E., ii. 23. 2 Euseb., H. E., ii. 23.
3 Epiphanius also has the tradition that James alone, as High Priest, once a
year went into the Holy of Holies, ffter., Ixxviii. 13 ; cf. 14 ; xxix. 4.
4 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 22.
270 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Jewish Christians like Justin, were held to be established
by, and in direct conformity with, the Old Testament. He
carefully transmits the unerring tradition of apostolic preaching
(TIJV uTrAttv/J TrapaSotriv TOV a.Troo-To\iKov KT/jpvyfuiTo^, but he
apparently knows nothing of any canonical series even of apostolic
epistles.
The care with which Eusebius searches for information regard-
ing the books of the New Testament in early writers, and his
anxiety to produce any evidence concerning their composition
and authenticity, render his silence upon the subject almost as
important as his distinct utterance when speaking of such a man
as Hegesippus. Now, while Eusebius does not mention that
Hegesippus refers to any of our canonical Gospels or Epistles, he
very distinctly states that he made use in his writings of the
" Gospel according to the Hebrews " (e* T TOV KaO' 'E(Bpa.iovs
fvayyeXiov TLVO. rid^cnv). It may be well, however, to
give his remarks in a consecutive form. " He sets forth some
matters from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Syriac,
and particularly from the Hebrew language, showing that he was a
convert from among the Hebrews, and other things he records
as from unwritten Jewish tradition. And not only he, but also
Irenaeus, and the whole body of the ancients, called the Proverbs
of Solomon : all-virtuous Wisdom. And regarding the so-called
Apocrypha, he states that some of them had been forged in his
own time by certain heretics." 1
It is clear that Eusebius, who quotes with so much care the
testimony of Papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly,
regarding the composition of the first two Gospels, would not have
neglected to have availed himself of the evidence of Hegesippus,
for whom he has so much respect, had that writer furnished him
with any opportunity, and there can be no doubt that he found no
facts concerning the origin and authorship of our Gospels in his
writings. It is, on the other hand, reasonable to infer that
Hegesippus exclusively made use of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, together with unwritten tradition. In the passage
regarding the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as even Lardner 2
conjectures, the text of Eusebius is in all probability confused, and
he doubtless said what Jerome later found to be the fact, that
" the Gospel according to the Hebrews is written in the Chaldaic
and Syriac (or Syro-Chaldaic) language, but with Hebrew
characters." 3 It is in this sense that Rufinus translates it. It
1 H. E., iv. 22.
* Credibility, etc., Works, ii., p. 144.
3 In Evangelio juxta Hebraos quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sennone sed
hebraicis literis scriptum est, etc. Adv. Pelag. , ii?. J .
HEGESIPPUS 271
may not be inappropriate to point out that fragments of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews which have been preserved
show the same tendency to give some pre-eminence to James
amongst the Apostles which we observe in Hegesippus. 1 It has
been argued by a few that the words, " and regarding the so-called
Apocrypha, he states that some of them had been forged in his
own times by certain heretics," are contradictory to his attributing
authority to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or at least that
they indicate some distinction amongst Christians between recog-
nised and apocryphal works. The apocryphal works referred to,
however, are clearly Old Testament Apocrypha. 2 The words are
introduced by the statemeut that Hegesippus records matters " as
from unwritten Jewish tradition," and then proceeds, "and not
only he, but also Irenseus and the whole body of the ancients,
called the Proverbs of Solomon : all-virtuous wisdom." Then
follow the words, " And with regard to the so-called Apocrypha,"
etc., evidently passing from the work just mentioned to the Old
Testament Apocrypha, several of which stand also in the name of
Solomon, and it is not improbable that amongst these were
included the Ascensio Esaice. and the Apocalypsis Elice, to which is
referred a passage which Hegesippus, in a fragment preserved by
Photius, 3 strongly repudiates. As Hegesippus does not, so far as
we know, mention any canonical work of the New Testament, but
takes as his rule of faith the Law, the Prophets, and the words of
the Lord, probably as he finds them in the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, quotes also Jewish tradition and discusses the
Proverbs of Solomon, the only possible conclusion at which we
can reasonably arrive is that he spoke of Old Testament Apocrypha.
There cannot be a doubt that Eusebius would have recorded
his repudiation of New Testament " Apocrypha," regarding which
he so carefully collects information, and his consequent recognition
of New Testament canonical works implied in such a distinction.
We must now see how far in the fragments of the works of
Hegesippus which have been preserved to us there are references
to assist our inquiry. In his account of certain surviving members
of the family of Jesus who were brought before Domitian,
Hegesippus says : " For Domitian feared the appearing of the
Christ as much as Herod." 4 It has been argued that this may be
an allusion to the massacre of the children by Herod related in
1 Cf. Hieron. De Vir. III., 2.
2 Even Dr. Westcott admits : " There is indeed nothing to show distinctly
that he refers to the apocryphal books of the New Testament, but there is
nothing to limit his words to the Old" (On the Canon, p. 184).
3 Bibl., 232 ; cf. Routh, Reliq. Sacra, 1846, i., p. 281 f.
4 ftyofieiTO yap rrjv Trapovcriav TOV \piaTo\i, ws /ecu 'HpwSijs. Euseb., H. .,
iii. 2O.
272 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Matt, ii., more especially as it is doubtful whether the parallel
account to that contained in the first two chapters of the first
Gospel existed in the oldest forms of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews. 1 But the tradition which has been preserved in our
first Synoptic may have formed part of many other evangelical
works, in one shape or another, and certainly cannot be claimed
with reason exclusively for that Gospel. This argument, there-
fore, has no weight, and it obviously rests upon the vaguest
conjecture.
The principal passages which apologists 2 adduce as references
to our Gospels occur in the account which Hegesippus gives of
the martyrdom of James the Just. The first of these is the reply
which James is said to have made to the Scribes and Pharisees :
"Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He sits
in heaven on the right hand of great power, and is about to come
on the clouds of heaven." 3 This is compared with Matt. xxvi. 64 :
" From this time ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right
hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven. "4 It is not
necessary to point out the variations between these two passages,
which are obvious. If we had not the direct intimation that
Hegesippus made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
which no doubt contained this passage, it would be apparent
that a man who valued tradition so highly might well have
derived it from that source. This is precisely one of those
sayings which were most current in the early Church, whose
hope and courage were sustained amid persecution and suffer-
ing by such Chiliastic expectations, with which, according to
the apostolic injunction, they comforted each other, s In any case,
the words do not agree with the passage in the first Gospel ; and
with such discrepancy, without any evidence that Hegesippus
knew anything of our Gospels, but, on the contrary, with
the knowledge that he made use of the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, we must decide that any such quotations must rather
be derived from it than from our Gospels.
It is scarcely necessary to say anything regarding the phrase,
"for we and all the people testify to thee that thou art just, and
that thou respectest not persons." 6 Dr. Westcott points out
1 Cf. Epiphanius, H<er., xxix. 9; Hieron., De Vir. 7//.,8, Comm. ad Malt.
ii. 6, xii. 13, ad Es. xi. I ; ad Habac. t iii. 3.
2 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 182, note 4.
3 fi fif ^irepuTaTe irepl 'lyo-ov TOV vlov TOV dvOpilnrov ; Kal ai/rds KaQyTat fv r<f>
aupavtp etc Sfi-iwv rijs fieyd\ris Swa/jews, Kal yueXXei ep'xtffOa.i eirl r(av ve<f>e\ui> TOV
ovpavov. Euseb., H. ., ii. 23.
4 aw' apTi 6\(/fffBe TOV vl6v TOV dvOpwirov KaOyuevov CK Sel-iuv rijs 8vvdfJ.fM Kal
firl TWV vfifieXuv TOV ovpavov. Matt. xvi. 64.
i Thess. iv. 18. 6 Euseb., ff. ., ii 23.
HEGESIPPUS 273
that Kal ov X.a/j,pdvis Trpoo-anrov only occurs in Luke xx. 21,
and Galatians ii. 6 ; T but the similarity of this single phrase, which
is not given as a quotation, but in a historical form put into the
mouth of those who are addressing James, cannot be accepted
as evidence of a knowledge of Luke. The episode of the
tribute money is generally ascribed to the oldest form of
the Gospel history, and, although the other two Synoptics 2 read
/3A.7re<.? eis for Aa|u,/2avets, there is no ground for asserting
that some of the TroAAoi who preceded Luke did not use the
latter form, and as little for asserting that it did not so stand, for
instance, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The employ-
ment of the same expression in the Epistle, moreover, at once
deprives the Gospel of any individuality in its use.
Hegesippus represents the dying James as kneeling down and
praying for those who were stoning him : " I beseech (thee), Lord
God Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do "
(IlapaKaXoj, Kvpie 0ee Trare/o, a<es avTois' ov fQ-p oi8ao~i
TI 7Totof>rriv).3 This is compared with the prayer which Luke 4
puts into the mouth of Jesus on the cross : "Father, forgive
them, for they know not what they do " (TLdrep, a(s avrois-
ov yap oi'oWtv ri irot.ov(riv\ and it is assumed from this
partial coincidence that Hegesippus was acquainted with the third
of our canonical Gospels. We are surprised to see an able and
accomplished critic like Hilgenfeld adopting such a conclusion
without either examination or argument of any kind. 5 Such a
deduction is totally unwarranted by the facts of the case, and if
the partial agreement of a passage in such a Father with a
historical expression in a Gospel which, alone out of many
previously existent, has come down to us can be considered evi-
dence of the acquaintance of the Father with that particular
Gospel, the function of criticism is at an end.
It may here be observed that the above passage of Luke xxiii.
34 is omitted altogether from the Vatican MS. and Codex D
(Bezae), and in the Codex Sinaiticus its position is of a very
doubtful character. 6 The Codex Alexandrinus which contains it
1 On the Cahon, p. 182, note 4. 2 Matt. xxii. 16 ; Mark xii. 14.
3 Euseb., H. E., ii. 23. 4 xxiii. 34.
s Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1863, p. 354, p. 360, anm. I ; Die Ew. Justin's,
p. 369 ; Der Kanon, p. 28. In each of these places the bare assertion is
made, and the reader is referred to the other passages. In fact, there is
merely a circle of references to mere unargued assumptions. Bunsen (fiihrl-
werk, viii., p. 543) repeats the assertion of Hilgenfeld, and refers to the
passages above, where, however, as we have stated, no attempt whatever is
made to establish the truth of the assumption. Cf. Scholten, Die alt. Zeug-
nisse, p. 19 ; Het Paulin. Evangelic, p. 3.
6 The passage is put within brackets by Lachmann, and within double
brackets by Westcott and Hort.
T
274 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
omits the word Trdrcp. 1 Luke's Gospel was avowedly composed
after many other similar works were already in existence, and we
know from our Synoptics how closely such writings often followed
each other, and drew from the same sources. 2 If any historical
character is conceded to this prayer of Jesus, it is natural to
suppose that it must have been given in at least some of these
numerous Gospels which have unfortunately perished. No one
could reasonably assert that our third Gospel is the only one
which ever contained the passage. It would be unwarrantable to
affirm, for instance, that it did not exist in the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, which Hegesippus employed. On the supposition
that the passage is historical, which apologists at least will not
dispute, what could be more natural or probable than that such a
prayer, "emanating from the innermost soul of Jesus, "3 should
have been adopted under similar circumstances by James his
brother and successor, who certainly could not have derived it
from Luke. The tradition of such words, expressing so much of
the original spirit of Christianity, setting aside for the moment
written Gospels, could scarcely fail to have remained fresh in the
mind of the early Church, and more especially in the primitive
community among whom they were uttered, and of which Hege-
sippus was himself a later member; and they would certainly
have been treasured by one who was so careful a collector and
transmitter of " the unerring tradition of the apostolic preaching."
No saying is more likely to have been preserved by tradition, both
from its own character, brevity, and origin, and from the circum-
stances under which it was uttered, and there can be no reason
for limiting it amongst written records to Luke's Gospel. The
omission of the prayer from very important codices of Luke
further weakens the claim of that Gospel to the passage. Beyond
these general considerations, however, there is the important and
undoubted fact that the prayer which Hegesippus represents
James as uttering does not actually agree with the prayer of Jesus in
the third Gospel. So far from proving the use of Luke, therefore, this
merely fragmentary and partial agreement, on the contrary, rather
proves that he did not know that Gospel, for on the supposition of
his making use of the third Synoptic at all for such a purpose, and not
simply giving the prayer which James may in reality have uttered,
why did he not quote the prayer as he actually found it in Luke?
1 The Clementine Homilies give the prayer of Jesus : Ildrep, &<j>es avrois
T&S anaprias avrwv, K.T.\. Horn., xi. 2O.
3 The passage we are considering was certainly not an original addition by
the author of our present third gospel, but was derived from earlier sources.
Cf. Ewald, Die drei ersten Eirv., p. 150.
3 "Gam ans dem innersten Geiste Jesus' geschopft." Ewald, Die drei erst.
w., p. 361.
HEGESIPPUS 275
We have still to consider a fragment of Hegesippus preserved to
us by Stephanus Gobarus, a learned monophysite of the sixth
century, which reads as follows : " That the good things prepared
for the righteous neither eye saw, nor ear heard, nor entered they
into the heart of man. Hegesippus, however, an ancient and
apostolic man, how moved I know not, says in the fifth book of
his Memoirs that these words are vainly spoken, and that those
who say these things give the lie to the divine writings and to the
Lord, saying : ' Blessed are your eyes that see, and your ears that
hear,' " etc. (Maxapioi oi 6<f)OaX[j.ol vjuwv 01 /^AeTrovTes, KOI TO. wra
V/AWV TO. aKovovra., Ko.1 TO, I^Tjs). 1 We believe that we have here an
expression of the strong prejudice against the Apostle Paul and
his teaching, which continued for so long to prevail amongst
Jewish Christians, and which is apparent in many writings of that
period. The quotation of Paul, i Cor. ii. 9, differs materially
from the Septuagint version of the passage in Isaiah Ixiv. 4, and,
as we have seen, the same passage quoted by Clement of Rome, 2
differs both from the version of the LXX. and from the epistle,
although closer to the former. Jerome, however, found the
passage in the apocryphal work called Ascensio Esaice^ and
Origen, Jerome, and others, likewise ascribe it to the Apocalypsis
Eli<z.*< This, however, does not concern us here, and we have
merely to examine the " saying of the Lord," which Hegesippus
opposes to the passage : " Blessed are your eyes that see and your
ears that hear." This is compared with Matt. xiii. 16, "But
blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear "
8e f^aKcipcoi ol 6<f)OaX,/jiol on (3X.eirov(riv, Kal TO. Sira vpwv ore.
], and also with Luke x. 23, "Blessed are the eyes which
see the things that ye see," etc. We need not point out that the
saying referred to by Hegesippus, whilst conveying the same sense
as that in the two Gospels, differs from them both as they do from
each other, and as we might expect a quotation taken from a different
though kindred source, like the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
to do. The whole of the passages which we have examined,
indeed, exhibit the same natural variation.
We have already referred to the expressions of Hegesippus
regarding the heresies in the early Church : " From these sprang
the false Christs, and false prophets, a.r\dfa/se apostles, who divided
the unity of the Church by corrupting doctrines concerning God
and his Christ."s We have shown how this recalls quotations in
Justin of sayings of Jesus foreign to our Gospels, in common
with similar expressions in the Clementine Homilies^ Apostolic
1 Photius, Bibl. Cod., 232, col. 893.
2 Ep. ad Corinth, xxxiv. 3 Comm. Es., Ixiv. 4.
4 Cf. Cotelerius, Patr. Apost., innotisad. Constit. Apost., vi. 16.
5 Euseb., H. E., iv. 22. 6 xvi. 21.
276 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Constitutions^ and Clementine Recognitions* and we need not
discuss the matter further. This community of reference, in a
circle known to have made use of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, to matters foreign to our Synoptics, furnishes collateral
illustration of the influence of that Gospel.
Tischendorf, who so eagerly searches for every trace, real or
imaginary, of the use of our Gospels and of the existence of a New
Testament Canon, passes over hi silence, with the exception of a
short note 3 devoted to the denial that Hegesippus was opposed to
Paul, this first writer of Christian Church history, whose evidence,
could it have been adduced, would have been so valuable. He
does not pretend that Hegesippus made use of the canonical
Gospels, or knew of any other Holy Scriptures than those of the
Old Testament ; but, on the other hand, he does not mention that
he*possessed, and quoted from, the Gospel according to the
Hebrews. There is no reason for supposing that Hegesippus
found a New Testament Canon in any of the Christian commu-
nities which he visited, and such a rule of faith certainly did not
yet exist in Rome in A.D. 160-170. There is no evidence
to show that Hegesippus recognised any other evangelical
work than the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as the written
source of his knowledge of the words of the Lord.
The testimony of Papias is of great interest and importance in
connection with our inquiry, inasmuch as he is the first ecclesi-
astical writer who mentions the tradition that Matthew and Mark
composed written records of the life and teaching of Jesus ; but
no question has been more continuously contested than that of
the identity of the works to which he refers with our actual
canonical Gospels. Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygian
in the first half of the second century, and is said to have suffered
martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius about A.D. 164-167.5 About
the middle of the second century he wrote a work in five books,
entitled " Exposition of the Lord's Oracles " 6 (Aoyiwv Kvpianwv
^ryyr;o-ts), which, with the exception of a few fragments pre-
served to us chiefly by Eusebius and Iremeus, is, unfortunately,
no longer extant. In the preface to his book he stated : " But I
shall not hesitate also to set beside my interpretations all that I
rightly learnt from the Presbyters, and rightly remembered,
earnestly testifying to their truth ; for I was not, like the multitude,
taking pleasure in those who speak much, but in those who teach
1 vi. 18 ; cf. 18. - iv. 34.
3 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 19.
4 Eusebius, H, E,, iii. 36, 39; Hieron.,/?* Vir. III., 18.
s Chron. Pasch., i. 481. 6 E*seb., H. E., iii. 39.
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS 277
the truth ; nor in those who relate alien commandments, but in
those who record those delivered by the Lord to the faith, and
which come from the truth itself. If it happened that anyone
came who had followed the Presbyters, I inquired minutely after
the words of the Presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter said, or
what Philip or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew,
or what any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion
and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say ; for I held
that what was to be derived from books did not so profit me as
that from the living and abiding voice " l (Ow yap TO. IK TWV
TocroirroV /xe UK^eAeii' vTT6\dfj,/3avov, otrov TO. Trapa {oxr^s
U fjievova-r)^. It is clear from this that Papias preferred
tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted,
that he attached little or no value to any Gospels with
which he had met, 2 and that he knew nothing of canonical
Scriptures of the New Testament. His work was evidently
intended to furnish a collection of the discourses of Jesus
completed from oral tradition, with his own expositions; and
this is plainly indicated, both by his own words and by the state-
ments of Eusebius, who, amongst other things, mentions that
Papias sets forth strange parables of the Saviour, and teachings
of his from unwritten tradition (I* Tra/aaSoo-ews dy/oa^ov)^ It
is not, however, necessary to discuss more closely the nature of
the work, for there is no doubt that written collections of discourses
of Jesus existed before it was composed, of which it is probable
he made use.
The most interesting part of the work of Papias which is pre-
served to us is that relating to Matthew and Mark. After stating
that Papias had inserted in his book accounts of Jesus given by
Aristion, of whom nothing is known, and by the Presbyter John,
Eusebius proceeds to extract a tradition regarding Mark communi-
cated by the latter. There has been much controversy as to the
identity of the Presbyter John, some affirming him to have been
1 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 39.
2 With reference to the last sentence of Papias, Tischendorf asks : ' ' What
hooks does he refer to here, perhaps our Gospels? According to the
expression this is not impossible, but from the whole character of the book in
the highest degree improbable" (Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 109). We
know little or nothing of the "whole character" of the book, and what we
do know is contradictory to our Gospels. The natural and only reasonable
course is to believe the express declaration of Papias, more especially as it is
made, in this instance, as a prefatory statement of his belief.
3 H. E., iii. 39. Bleek (EinL N. T., 1866, p. 94), Credner (Beitrdge, i.,
p. 23 f. ; Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 27 f. ), aniothers, consider that Papias used
oral tradition solely or mainly in his work. Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. w. TheoL,
1875, p. 238 f. ; EinL N. T., 1875, P- 53 #) an< ^ others suppose that the
Hebrew \6yia of Matthew were the basis of his Exposition, together with
tradition, but that he did not use any of our Gospels.
278 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the Apostle, but the great majority of critics deciding that he vras
a totally different person. Irenaeus, who, sharing the Chiliastic
opinions of Papias, held him in high respect, boldly calls him
" the hearer of John " (meaning the Apostle) " and a companion
of Polycarp " (6 'Iwavvou ju,ev a/covcrn)s, TloXvKdpTrov 8e eratpos
yeyovws) ;' but this is expressly contradicted by Eusebius,
who points out that, in the preface to his book, Papias by no
means asserts that he was himself a hearer of the Apostles, but
merely that he received their doctrines from those who had
personally known them ; 2 and, after making the quotation from
Papias which we have given above, he goes on to point out that
the name of John is twice mentioned once together with Peter,
James, and Matthew and the other Apostles, "evidently the Evan-
gelist," and the other John he mentions separately, ranking him
amongst those who are not Apostles, and placing Aristion before
him, distinguishing him clearly by the name of Presbyter. 3 He
further refers to the statement of the great Bishop of Alexandria,
Dionysius,-* that at Ephesus there were two tombs, each bearing
the name of John, thereby leading to the inference that there were
two men of the name. 5 There can be no doubt that Papias
himself, in the passage quoted, mentions two persons of the name
of John, distinguishing the one from the other, and classing the
one amongst the Apostles and the other after Aristion, an unknown
" disciple of the Lord," and, but for the phrase of Irenaeus, so
characteristically uncritical and assumptive, there probably never
would have been any doubt raised as to the meaning of the
passage. The question is not of importance to us, and we may
leave it with the remark that a writer who suffered martyrdom
under Marcus Aurelius, c. A.D. 165, can scarcely have been a hearer
of the Apostles. 6
The account which the Presbyter John is said to have given of
Mark's Gospel is as follows : " ' This also the Presbyter said :
Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately
whatever he remembered, though he did not arrange in order the
1 Adv. Hter., v. 33, 4. 2 "Eusebius, H. E., iii. 39.
3 Euseb., H. ., iii. 39. Cf. Hieron. De Vir. ///., 18.
4 16., H. E., vii. Proem.
s Ib., vii. 25. Cf. Hieron. De Vir. III., 9.
6 Ewald, Gesck. Volkes Isr., vii., p. 226, anm. I ; Tischendorf, Wann
wurden, u. s. w., p. 105. Dr. Lightfoot argues that the Chronicon Paschale,
from which this date is derived, has inserted the name of Papias in mistake
for Papylus, which stands in the History of Eusebhts (iv. 15), from which, he
contends, the author of the Chronicle derived his information. He, there-
fore, concludes that the above date may henceforth be dismissed, and at once
proceeds in a singularly arbitrary manner to fix dates for the career of Papias
which he considers more acceptable. The matter does not require elalwrate
argument here. Cf. Lightfoot, Contemp. Rev., 1875, P- 381 ff
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS 279
things which were either said or done by Christ. For he neither
heard the Lord, nor followed him ; but afterwards, as I said, 1
accompanied Peter, who adapted his teaching to the occasion, and
not as making a consecutive record of the Lord's oracles. Mark,
therefore, committed no error in thus writing down some things as
he remembered them. For of one point he was careful, to omit
none of the things which he heard, and not to narrate any of
them falsely.' These facts Papias relates concerning Mark." 2
The question to decide is, whether the work here described is our
canonical Gospel or not.
The first point in this account is the statement that Mark was
the interpreter of Peter (l/opjveimfc Ilei-pou). Was he merely
the secretary of the Apostle, writing in a manner from his dictation,
or does the passage mean that he translated the Aramaic narrative
of Peter into Greek ? The former is the more probable supposi-
tion, and that which is most generally adopted ; but the question
is not material here. The connection of Peter with the Gospel
according to Mark was generally affirmed in the early Church, as
was also that of Paul with the third Gospel, 3 with" the evident
purpose of claiming apostolic origin for all the canonical Gospels. 4
Irenaeus says : "After their (Peter and Paul) decease, Mark, the
disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing that
which had been preached by Peter." 5 Eusebius quotes a similar
tradition from Clement of Alexandria, embellished, however, with
further particulars. He says: " The cause for which the
Gospel according to Mark was written was this : When Peter had
1 Dr. Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., 1875, p. 842), in the course of a highly
fanciful argument, says, in reference to this " as I said " : " It is quite clear
that Papias had already said something of the relations existing between St.
Peter and St. Mark previously to the extract which gives an account of the
Second Gospel, for he there refers back to a preceding notice." It is quite
clear that he refers back, but only to the preceding sentence, in which he " had
already said something of the relations " in stating the fact that " Mark,
having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote, etc."
2 " Kat TOV0 6 wpefffiiJTepos e\eye. M</>KOS ft.v epfjnjvevTTrjs YLtrpov yevo/j-tvos
o/ra tfj.vr)fj.6vev<rev, aKpifi&s Hypaij/fv, ov fjitv rot raei Td virb rov Xpiffrov f)
Aex^JTa. r) Trpaxdfvra. Odre yap iJKOua-e rov Kvplov, otfre irapriKoXotjd-rjffev avrf-
vfrepov 5, cus (f>i^v, Ilerpy, 3$ Trpos ras xpa'as eiroielro rots didaffKaXlas, a\\' ovx
ilxnrep ffuvra^iv rdiv KvpiaKuv TTOLOv/mevos \6yiav, wyre ovdtv i^fj-apre MapKoj, oifrws
(via. ypdtf/as cl)s direfj.vij/j.6vev(rei'. 'Evos yap eVoi^o-aro irpfooiav, rov /J,rj8v &v
iJKOvcfe TrapaXiireZj', ?) if/evcracrOaL TL ev auVoZs." Tayra fttv otv iffTdprjrai rf
Ilair/a irepi TOV Ma/wcoi;. Euseb. , H. E., iii. 39.
3 Irenseus, Adv. Jfar., iii. i ; cf. Eusebius, H. E., v. 8 ; Tertullian, Adv.
Marc., iv. 5; Origen, ap. Euseb., H. E., vi. 25; Eusebius, H. E., iii. 4;
Hieron. De Vir. III., 7.
4 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iv. 5.
5 Mero. 5 rrjv TOVTWV eo8ot>, Ma/>Kos 6 /u.a.driT'rjs KO.I tp/jLtivevTris Utrpov, Kal
ai'ris ra inrb llerpov Kt)pv<r<r6/ji.fva. eyypd<pws rifuv TrapadfduKf. Adv. Hcer., iii.
I, i ; Euseb., H. E., v. 8.
28o SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
publicly preached the word at Rome, and proclaimed the Gospel
by the Spirit, those who were present, being many, requested
Mark, as he had followed him from afar, and remembered what
he had said, to write down what he had spoken ; and, when he
had composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had asked it
of him ; which, when Peter knew, he neither absolutely hindered
nor encouraged it." 1 Tertullian repeats the same tradition. He
says : "And the Gospel which Mark published may be affirmed to
be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was for it may rightly appear
that works which disciples publish are of their masters." 2 We
have it again from Origen : " The second (Gospel) is according to
Mark, written as Peter directed him. "3 Eusebius gives a more
detailed and advanced version of the same tradition. " So much,
however, did the effulgence of piety illuminate the minds of those
(Romans) who heard Peter that it did not content them to hear
but once, nor to receive only the unwritten doctrine of the divine
teaching ; but, with reiterated entreaties, they besought Mark, to
whom the Gospel is ascribed, as the companion of Peter, that he
should leave them a written record of the doctrine thus orally
conveyed. Nor did they cease their entreaties until they had
persuaded the man, and thus became the cause of the writing of
the Gospel called according to Mark. They say, moreover, that
the Apostle (Peter), having become aware, through revelation to
him of the Spirit, of what had been done, was delighted with the
ardour of the men, and ratified the work, in order that it might
be read in the churches. This narrative is given by Clement in
the sixth book of his Institutions, whose testimony is supported
by that of Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis."* The account given
by Clement, however, by no means contained these details, as we
have seen. In his Demonstration of the Gospel, Eusebius, referring
to the same tradition, affirms that it was the modesty of Peter
which prevented his writing a Gospel himself. 5 Jerome almost
repeats the preceding account of Eusebius : " Mark, the disciple
and interpreter of Peter, being entreated by the brethren
of Rome, wrote a short Gospel according to what he had
1 Ti S Kara MctpKoc TavTrjv fffxijKfvai rrjt> olKovofilav. Tot" Ile'r/w Sijfjiofflg. eV
'Pibfiri KfipvfavTos rbv \6yov, Kal Ilvev/Man rb evayyeXiov eenr6vTos, roi's irap6vTas
a.s ira.pa.Ka\fffcu rbv Map/cov, ws &v d,KO\ov0^iTavTa auY< ir6ppwOft> /cat
TUV Xex^f^^w, dvaypd\f/ai ra elprjfj.fva- iroiriiTavra 5 rb fvayytXiov,
Tols Seojaeyois aurov. "Qirep twiyvtivra. rbv Tlerpov, TrporpfTrTiKus
yUTJTe KuXvffai pyre irporpeif'acr&a.i. Euseb. , H. E., vi. 14.
2 Licet et Marcus quod edidit Petri affirmetur, cujus interpret Marcus
Capit majistrorum videri, quie disnptili promulgarint . Adv. Marc.,
iv. 5.
3 dffrrepov dt rb Kara Map/cop, cis Il^rpoj v(fnjyr)ffaro au'rip, TronjtravTa. Com-
ment, in Matt. Euseb., H. E., vi. 25.
4 Euseb., H. E., ii. 15. s Demonstr. Evang., iii. 5.
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS 281
received from Peter, which, when Peter heard, he approved,
and gave his authority for its being read in the churches, as
Clement writes in the sixth book of his Institutions"^ etc.
Jerome, moreover, says that Peter had Mark for an interpreter,
" whose Gospel was composed : Peter narrating and he writing "
(cujus evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum esf). 2
It is evident that all these writers merely repeat with variations
the tradition regarding the first two Gospels which Papias origi-
nated. Irenaeus dates the writing of Mark after the death of
Peter and Paul in Rome. Clement describes Mark as writing
during Peter's life, the Apostle preserving absolute neutrality. By the
time of Eusebius, however, the tradition has acquired new and
miraculous elements, and a more decided character ; Peter is
made aware of the undertaking of Mark through a revelation of
the Spirit, and, instead of being neutral, is delighted, and lends
the work the weight of his authority. Eusebius refers to Clement
and Papias as giving the same account, which they do not, how-
ever, and Jerome merely repeats the story of Eusebius without
naming him ; and the tradition which he had embellished thus
becomes endorsed and perpetuated. Such is the growth of
tradition ; 3 it is impossible to overlook the mythical character of
the information we possess as to the origin of the second canonical
Gospel.
In a Gospel so completely inspired by Peter as the tradition of
Papias and of the early Church indicates we may reasonably
expect to find unmistakeable traces of Petrine influence ; but, on
examination, it will be seen that these are totally wanting. Some
of the early Church did not fail to remark this singular discrepancy
between the Gospel and the tradition of its dependence on Peter,
and, in reply, Eusebius adopts an apologetic tone.* For instance,
in the brief account of the calling of Simon in Mark, the dis-
tinguishing addition, "called Peter," of the first Gospel is omitted, 5
and, still more notably, the whole narrative of the miraculous
draught of fishes which gives the event such prominence in the
third Gospel. 5 In Matthew, Jesus goes into the house of " Peter"
to cure his wife's mother of a fever, whilst in Mark it is " into the
1 De Vir. III., 8. 2 Ad Hedib., c. 2.
3 A similar discrepancy of tradition is to be observed as to the place in
which the Gospel was written, Irenams and others dating it from Rome, and
others (as Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil.,\.} assigning it to Egypt. Indeed,
some MSS. of the second Gospel have the words eypatft-q ev AlyvirTif! in
accordance with this tradition as to its origin. Cf. Scholz, Einl. N. T., i.,
p. 201. Various critics have argued for its composition at Rome, Alexandria,
and Antioch. We do not go into the discussion as to whether Peter ever was
in Rome.
4 Dem. Ev., iii. 3.
5 Cf. Mark i. 16, 17 ; Matt. iv. 18. 6 Luke v. i-ii.
282 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
house of Simon and Andrew," the less honourable name being
still continued. 1 Matthew commences the catalogue of the twelve
by the pointed indication : " The first, Simon, who is called Peter," 2
thus giving him precedence, whilst Mark merely says, "And Simon
he surnamed Peter. "3 The important episode of Peter's walking
on the sea, of the first Gospel, 4 is altogether ignored by Mark. The
enthusiastic declaration of Peter, " Thou art the Christ, "s is only
followed by the chilling injunction to tell no one, in the second
Gospel, 6 whilst Matthew not only gives greater prominence to the
declaration of Peter, but gives the reply of Jesus, " Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar-jona," &c. of which Mark apparently knows
nothing and then proceeds to the most important episode in the
history of the Apostle, the celebrated words by which the surname
of Peter was conferred upon him : " And I say unto thee, that
thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church," etc. 7
The Gospel supposed to have been inspired by Peter, however,
totally omits this most important passage, as it also does the
miracle of the finding the tribute money in the fish's mouth,
narrated by the first Gospel. 8 Luke states that " Peter and John "
are sent to prepare the Passover, whilst Mark has only "two
disciples ";9 and in the account of the last Supper, Luke gives the
address of Jesus to Peter : " Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath
desired to have you (all) that he may sift you as wheat ; but I
have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not ; and when thou art
converted, strengthen thy brethren." 10 Of this Mark does not say
a word. Again, after the denial, Luke reads : " And the Lord
turned and looked upon Peter, and Peter remembered the word
of the Lord, etc., and Peter went out and wept bitterly "; IZ whereas
Mark omits the reproachful look of Jesus, and makes the penitence
of Peter depend merely on the second crowing of the cock, and
further modifies the penitence by the omission of " bitterly "-
" And when he thought thereon, he wept." 12 There are other
instances to which we need not refer. Not only are some of the
most important episodes in which Peter is represented by the other
Gospels as a principal actor altogether omitted, but throughout the
Gospel there is a total absence of anything which is specially
characteristic of Petrine influence and teaching. The argument
that these omissions are due to the modesty of Peter is quite
untenable, for not only does Irenaeus, the most ancient authority
1 Mark i. 29. 2 Matt. x. 2.
3 Mark iii. 16. 4 Matt. xiv. 22-33.
3 Matt, adds, " the son of the living God," xvi. 16.
6 Mark viii. 27-30; cf. Baur, Das Markus v., p. 133.
7 Matt. xvi. 16-19. 8 Matt. xvii. 24-27.
9 Luke xxii. 8 ; Mark xiv. 13. I0 Luke xxii. 31, 32.
" //>., 61, 62 ; cf. Matt. xxvi. 75. " Mark xiv. 27.
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS 283
on the point, state that this Gospel was only written after the death
of Peter, 1 but also there is no modesty in omitting passages of
importance in the history of Jesus, simply because Peter himself
was in some way concerned in them, or, for instance, in decreasing
his penitence for such a denial of his master, which could not
but have filled a sad place in the Apostle's memory. On the other
hand, there is no adequate record of special matter, which the
intimate knowledge of the doings and sayings of Jesus possessed
by Peter might have supplied, to counterbalance the singular
omissions. There is much more of the spirit of Peter in the
first Gospel than there is in the second. The whole internal evi-
dence, therefore, shows that this part of the tradition of the
Presbyter John transmitted by Papias does not apply to our
Gospel.
The discrepancy is still more marked when we compare
with our actual second Gospel the account of the work of
Mark which Papias received from the Presbyter. Mark wrote
down from memory some parts (Ivia) of the teaching of Peter
regarding the life of Jesus, but as Peter adapted his instructions
to the actual circumstances (n-pos ras x/ 3t/as )5 an d did not give
a consecutive report (cri-vra^is) of the sayings or doings of
Jesus, Mark was only careful -to be accurate, and did not trouble
himself to arrange in historical order (rais) his narrative of the
things which were said and done by Jesus, but merely wrote down
facts as he remembered them. This description would lead us
to expect a work composed of fragmentary reminiscences of the
teaching of Peter, without regular sequence ^or connection. The
absence of orderly arrangement is the most prominent feature in
the description, and forms the burden of the whole. Mark writes
" what he remembered " ; "he did not arrange in order the things
that were either said or done by Christ." And then follow the
apologetic expressions of explanation -he was not himself a hearer
or follower of the Lord, but derived his information from the
occasional preaching of Peter, who did not attempt to give a con-
secutive narrative. Now, it is impossible in the work of Mark,
here described, to recognise our present second Gospel, which
does not depart in any important degree from the order of the
other two Synoptics, and which throughout has the most evident
character of orderly arrangement. Each of the Synoptics com-
pared with the other two would present a similar degree of
variation, but none of them could justly be described as not
arranged in order, or as not being consecutive. The second
Gospel opens formally, and, after presenting John the Baptist as
the messenger sent to prepare the way of the Lord, proceeds to
1 Adv. ffisr., iii. i, i ; Euseb., H. E., v. 8. See quot., p. 279, note 5.
284 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the baptism of Jesus, his temptation, his entry upon public life,
and his calling of the disciples. Then, after a consecutive narra-
tive, of his teaching and works, the history ends with a full
account of the last events in the life of Jesus, his trial,
crucifixion, and resurrection. There is in the Gospel every
characteristic of artistic and orderly arrangement, from the striking
introduction by the prophetic voice crying in the wilderness to the
solemn close of the marvellous history. 1 The great majority of
critics, therefore, are agreed in concluding that the account of the
Presbyter John recorded by Papias does not apply to our second
canonical Gospel at all. Many of those who affirm that the
description of Papias may apply to our second Gospel do so with
hesitation, and few maintain that we now possess the original
work without considerable subsequent alteration. Some of these
critics, however, feeling the difficulty of identifying our second
Gospel with the work here described, endeavour to reconcile the
discrepancy by a fanciful interpretation of the account of Papias.
They suggest that the first part, in which the want of chronological
order is pointed out, refers to the rough notes which Mark made
during the actual preaching and lifetime of Peter, and that the
latter part applies to our present Gospel, which he later remodelled
into its present shape. This most unreasonable and arbitrary
application of the words of Papias is denounced even by
apologists.
It has been well argued that the work here described as pro-
duced by Mark in the character of l/o/A^veimys Ylerpov is much
more one of the same family as the Clementine Homilies than of
our Gospels. The work was no systematic narrative of the history
of Jesus, nor report of his teaching, but the dogmatic preaching
of the Apostle, illustrated and interspersed with passages from the
discourses of Jesus, or facts from his life. Of this character
seems actually to have been 'that ancient work, The Preaching of
Peter (Krypuypx Her/Don), which was used by Heracleon, 2 and
by Clement 3 of Alexandria, as an authentic canonical work, 4
denounced by Origen 5 on account of the consideration in which it
was held by many, but still quoted with respect by Gregory of
Nazianzum. 6 There can be no doubt that the K'/ypity/xa Tltrpov,
although it failed to obtain a permanent place in the canon, was
1 Augustine calls Mark the follower and abbreviator of Matthew. "Tan-
quam pedisequus et breviator Matthai '." De Comensu Evang., i. 2.
- Origen, Comment, in Joan., xiii. 17.
3 Strom., i. 29, 182, vi. 5, 39, 6, 48, 15, 128.
4 The work is generally quoted by the latter with the introduction, "Peter
in the Preaching says :" RtV/joj ev -np K^pvy/j.a.Ti \fyet, K.T.\.
s De Princip. Prof., 8.
Ep. xvi. (ad Ciesar., i.). Cf. Fabricius, Cod* Apocr. N. T., i., p. 8 1 2.
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS 285
one of the most ancient works of the Christian Church, dating
probably from the first century, and, like the work described
by Papias, it also was held to have been composed in Rome
in connection with the preaching there of Peter and Paul.
It must be noted, moreover, that Papias does not call the work
ascribed to Mark a Gospel, but merely a record of the preaching
of Peter.
It is not necessary for us to account for the manner in which
the work referred to by the Presbyter John disappeared, and the
present Gospel according to Mark became substituted for it. The
merely negative evidence that our actual Gospel is not the work
described by Papias is sufficient for our purpose. Any one
acquainted with the thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers,
and with the literary history of the early Christian Church, will
readily conceive the facility with which this can have been
accomplished. The great mass of intelligent critics are agreed
that our Synoptic Gospels have assumed their present form only
after repeated modifications by various editors of earlier evangelical
works. These changes have not been effected without traces
being left by which the various materials may be separated and
distinguished ; but the more primitive Gospels have entirely
disappeared, naturally supplanted by the later and amplified
versions. The critic, however, who distinguishes between the
earlier and later matter is not bound to perform the now im-
possible feat of producing the originals, or accounting in
any but a general way for the disappearance of the primitive
Gospel.
Tischendorf asks : "How then has neither Eusebius nor any
other theologian of Christian antiquity thought that the expressions
of Papias were in contradiction with the two Gospels (Mt. and
Mk.)?" 1 The absolute credulity with which those theologians
accepted any fiction, however childish, which had a pious tendency,
and the frivolous character of the only criticism in which they
indulged, render their unquestioning application of the tradition
of Papias to our Gospels anything but singular, and it is only
surprising to find their silent acquiescence elevated into an
argument. We have already, in the course of these pages, seen
something of the singularly credulous and uncritical character of
the Fathers, and we cannot afford space to give instances of the
absurdities with which their writings abound. No fable could be
too gross, no invention too transparent, for their unsuspicious
acceptance, if it assumed a pious form or tended to edification.
No period in the history of the world ever produced so many
spurious works as the first two or three centuries of our era. The
1 Wann wurden, it. s. w. , p. 107.
286 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
name of every Apostle, or Christian teacher, not excepting that of
the great Master himself, was freely attached to every description
of religious forgery. False gospels, epistles, acts, martyrologies,
were unscrupulously circulated, and such pious falsification was
not even intended, or regarded, as a crime, but perpetrated for the
sake of edification. It was only slowly and after some centuries
that many of these works, once, as we have seen, regarded with
pious veneration, were excluded from the canon; and that genuine
works shared this fate, while spurious ones usurped their places, is
one of the surest results of criticism. The Fathers omitted to
inquire critically when such investigation might have been of
value, and mere tradition credulously accepted and transmitted is
of no critical value. 1 In an age when the multiplication of copies
of any work was a slow process, and their dissemination a matter
of difficulty and even danger, it is easy to understand with what
facility the more complete and artistic Gospel could take the place
of the original notes as the work of Mark.
The account given by Papias of the work ascribed to Matthew
is as follows : " Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew
dialect, and every one interpreted them as he was able." 2 Critics
are divided in opinion as to whether this tradition was, like that
regarding Mark, derived from the Presbyter John, or is given
merely on the authority of Papias himself. Eusebius joins the
account of Mark to that given by Matthew merely by the following
words : " These facts Papias relates concerning Mark ; but
regarding Matthew he has said as follows : " 3 Eusebius distinctly
states that the account regarding Mark is derived from the
Presbyter, and the only reason for ascribing to him also that
concerning Matthew is that it is not excluded by the phraseology of
Eusebius ; and, the two passages being given by him consecutively
however they may have stood in the work of Papias it is
reasonable enough to suppose that the information was derived
from the same source. The point is not of much importance, but
it is clear that there is no absolute right to trace this statement
to the Presbyter John, as there is in the case of the tradition
about Mark.
This passage has excited even more controversy than that
regarding Mark, and its interpretation and application are still
1 Dr. Westcott himself admits that "the proof of the Canon is rendered
more difficult by the uncritical character of the first two centuries." He says :
" The spirit of the ancient world was essentially uncritical " (On the Canon,
p. 7 f.).
Marflafoj fitv oftv 'E^paiSi diaXeKry TO \<J-yta ffweypd^aro. 'Hpfji-qpevffe
SWrA wj ty Swards ^/ccwros. Euseb. , If. ., iii. 39.
3 TOUTO, fj,fi> oZv iffT6pT)Tat. rcj; llaTriq. wepl TOV Md/>KOi>. llepi 8 TOV JAarOaiov
TO.VT el/Mjrat. Euseb., ff. ., iii. 39. * .
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS 287
keenly debated. The intricacy and difficulty of the questions
which it raises are freely admitted by some of the most earnest
defenders of the canonical Gospels, but the problem, so far as our
examination is concerned, can be solved without much trouble.
The dilemma in which apologists find themselves when they
attempt closely to apply the description of this work given by
Papias to our canonical Gospel is the great difficulty which
complicates the matter and prevents a clear and distinct solution
of the question. We shall avoid minute discussion of details,
contenting ourselves with the broader features of the argument,
and seeking only to arrive at a just conclusion as to the bearing of
the evidence of Papias upon the claim to authenticity of our
canonical Gospel.
The first point which we have to consider is the nature of the
work which is here described. Matthew is said to have composed
the Aoyia or Oracles, and there can be little doubt from the
title of his own book, Exposition of the Lord's Oracles (AoytW
KvpLaKwv e>/y?/o-ts,), that these oracles referred to by Papias
were the Discourses of Jesus. Does the word Aoyta, however,
mean strictly oracles or discourses alone, or does it include within
its fair signification also historical narrative ? Were the " Aoyta "
here referred to a simple collection of the discourses of Jesus, or
a complete Gospel like that in our canon bearing the name of
Matthew ? That the natural interpretation of the word is merely
"oracles" is indirectly admitted, even by the most thorough
apologists, when they confess the obscurity of the expression
obscurity, however, which simply appears to exist from the diffi-
culty of straining the word to make it apply to the Gospel. " In
these sentences," says Tischendorf, referring to the passage about
Matthew, " there is much obscurity ; for instance, it is doubtful
whether we have rightly translated ' Discourses of the Lord,' " x
and he can only extend the meaning to include historical narrative
by leaving the real meaning of the word, and interpreting it by
supposed analogy.
There can be no doubt that the direct meaning of the word
Xoyta anciently and at the time of Papias was simply words
or oracles of a sacred character, and, however much the signification
became afterwards extended, that it was not then at all applied to
doings as well as sayings. There are many instances of this
original and limited signification in the New Testament; 2 and
1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 1 06 f.
2 " They were entrusted with the oracles of God," ra \6yia rov Qeov,
Rom. iii. 2. "The first principles of the oracles of God," rwv \oyiuv rov
Qeov, Heb. v. 12. " Let him speak as the oracles of God," ws \6yia Qeov,
I Pet. iv. II. Cf. Suicer, Thes. Eccles., ii. , p. 247 f. Dr. Lightfoot (Con-
temp. Rev,, 1875, p. 400 f.) argues that in the first of the above passages
288 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
there is no linguistic precedent for straining the expression used
at that period to mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of
Jesus which were estimated as oracular or divine, nor is there any
reason for thinking that TO. Xoyia was here used in any other
sense. It is argued, on the other hand, that in the preceding
passage upon Mark a more extended meaning of the word is
indicated. The Presbyter John says that Mark, as the interpreter
of Peter, wrote, without order, " the things which were either said
or done by Christ " (ra VTTO rov Xpwrrou f/ Xe^devra f/ Trpa^^evra),
and then, apologising for him, he goes on to say that
Peter, whom he followed, adapted his teaching to the occasion,
"and not as making a consecutive record of the oracles
(Aoyuov) of the Lord." Here, it is said, the word AoytW is
used in reference both to sayings and doings, and, therefore, in
the passage on Matthew TO. Aoytu must not be understood to
mean only Xe^dfvra, but also includes, as in the former case,
the 7iy>ax#evra. For these and similar reasons in very many
cases largely influenced by the desire to see in these Ao'ywi our
actual Gospel according to Matthew many critics have maintained
that TO. Aoyta in this place may be understood to include historical
narrative as well as discourses. The arguments by which they
arrive at this conclusion, however, seem to us to be based upon
thorough misconception of the direct meaning of the passage.
Few, or none, of these critics would deny that the simple inter-
Paul's expression, " the oracles of God," can mean nothing else than the O. T.
Scriptures, and, therefore, includes the historical books of Genesis, Joshua,
Samuel, etc. We must maintain that Paul certainly does not refer to a col-
lection of writings, but to the communications or revelations of God, and, as
the context shows, probably more immediately to the Messianic prophecies.
The advantage of the Jews, in fact, according to Paul here, was that to them
were first communicated the divine oracles : that they were made the medium
of God's utterances to mankind. There seems almost an echo of the
expression in Acts vii. 38, where Stephen is represented as saying to the Jews
of their fathers on Mount Sinai: " who received living oracles (\6yia 'fuivTa.)
to give unto us." Of this nature were "the oracles of God" entrusted to
the Jews. Further, the phrase, " the first principles of the oracles of God"
(Heb. v. 12), is no application of the term to narrative, as is argued, how-
ever much the author may illustrate his own teaching by O. T. history ; but the
writer of the Epistle clearly explains his own meaning in the first and second
verses of his letter, when he says : " God having spoken to the fathers in time past
in the prophets, at the end of these days spake unto us in his Son." Dr.
Lightfoot also urges that Philo applies the term "oracle" (\6yiov) to the
narrative in Gen. iv. 15, etc. The fact is, however, that Philo considered
almost every part of the O. T. as allegorical, and held that narrative or
descriptive phrases frequently veiled divine oracles. When he applies the
term "oracle" to any of these, it is not to the narrative, but to the divine
utterance which he believes to be mystically contained in it, and which
he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagant manner of Alexandrian
typologists.
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS 289
pretation of TO. Aoyia, at that period, was oracular sayings. 1
Papias shows his preference for discourses in the very title of his
lost book, Exposition of the Aoyitov of the Lord, and in the
account which he gives of the works attributed to Mark and
Matthew the discourses evidently attracted his chief interest.
Now, in the passage regarding Mark, instead of AoyiW being
made the equivalent of Ac^^evTa and Trpa-^d^vra, the very
reverse is the fact. The Presbyter says Mark wrote what he
remembered of the things which were said or done by Christ,
although not in order, and he apologises for his doing this on the
ground that he had not himself been a hearer of the Lord, but
merely reported what he had heard from Peter, who adapted his
teaching to the occasion, and did not attempt to give a consecutive
record of the oracles (AoyiW) of the Lord. Mark, therefore,
could not do so either. Matthew, on the contrary, he states, did
compose the oracles (TO. Adyta). There is an evident contrast
made Mark wrote r] Aex^vra r / ^pa-xdevra because he had not
the means of writing the oracles ; but Matthew composed the
Adyta. Papias clearly distinguishes the work of Mark, who
had written reminiscences of what Jesus had said and done
from that of Matthew, who had made a collection of hi
discourses.
It is impossible upon any but arbitrary grounds, and from a
foregone conclusion, to maintain that a work commencing with a
detailed history of the birth and infancy of Jesus, his genealogy,
and the preaching of John the Baptist, and concluding with an
equally minute history of his betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and
resurrection ; which relates all the miracles, and has for its
evident aim throughout the demonstration that Messianic prophecy
was fulfilled in Jesus, could be entitled TO. Adyta : the oracles or
discourses of the Lord.
Partly for these, but also for other important reasons, some of
which shall presently be referred to, the great majority of critics
deny that the work described by Papias can be the same as the
Gospel in our canon bearing the name of Matthew. Whilst of
those who suppose that the (Aramaic) original of which Papias
speaks may have been substantially similar to it in construction,
very few affirm that the work did not receive much subsequent
1 Tischendorf himself, in a note, says : " Rufinus translates the word \6yia,
according to the old linguistic usage, by oracula. It is in the highest degree
probable that in fact the book of Papias, according to the Millenarian
standing-point of the man, was dedicated specially to prophecies of the Lord.
Christian linguistic usage, however, gave the word a wider signification, so
that the sayings of the Lord and of the Apostles, even when they had not the
particular character of prophecy, were so called, and Holy Scripture was
designated 0eta \6yia" (Wann tuurdett, u. s. w., p. 102, note l).
U
290 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
manipulation, addition, and alteration, necessarily including
translation, before it assumed the form in which the Gospel now
lies before us; and many of them altogether deny its actual
apostolic origin.
The next most important and obvious point is that the work
described in this passage was written by Matthew in the Hebrew
or Aramaic dialect, and each one who did not understand that
dialect was obliged to translate as best he could. Our Gospel
according to Matthew, however, is in Greek. Tischendorf, who is
obliged to acknowledge the Greek originality of our actual Gospel,
and that it is not a translation from another language, recognises
the inevitable dilemma in which this fact places apologists, and
has, with a few other critics, no better argument with which to
meet it than the simple suggestion that Papias must have been
mistaken in saying that Matthew wrote in Hebrew. 1 Just as much
of the testimony as is convenient or favourable is eagerly claimed
by such apologists, and the rest, which destroys its applicability to
our Gospel, is set aside as a mistake. Tischendorf perceives the
difficulty, but, not having arguments to meet it, he takes refuge in
feeling. " In this," he says, " there lies before us one of the most
complicated questions, whose detailed treatment would here not be
in place. For our part, we are fully at rest concerning it, in the
conviction that the assumption by Papias of a Hebrew original
text of* Matthew, which already in his time cannot have been
limited to himself and was soon repeated by other men, arises
only from a misunderstanding." 2 It is difficult to comprehend
why it should be considered out of place, in a work specially
written to establish the authenticity of the Gospels, to discuss fully
so vital a point ; and its deliberate evasion in such a manner alone
can be deemed out of place. 3
We may here briefly remark that Tischendorf and others 4
repeat with approval the disparaging expressions against Papias
which Eusebius, for dogmatic reasons, did not scruple to use, and
in this way they seek somewhat to depreciate his testimony, or at
least indirectly to warrant their free handling of it. It is true that
Eusebius says that Papias was a man of very limited comprehen-
sion 5 (<r<j>6&pa yap rot (r/ii/cpo? wv TOV vouv), but this is
1 Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 107 f.
* Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 107 f.
3 Dr. Westcott scarcely refers to the subject at all, and indeed on other
points which are inconvenient in the evidence of Papias regarding Matthew's
work he preserves almost complete silence, and assumes, with hardly a hint of
doubt or uncertainty, the orthodox conclusions (On the Canon, pp. 1:0-62 ;
4 thed.,p. 68 ff.).
4 Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., pp. 106-111.
5 ff. E. t iii. 39. The passage (iii. 36) in which, on the contrary, Papias
is called " a man in all respects most learned" (dvrjp ra iravra OTI
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS 291
acknowledged to be on account of his Millenarian opinions, to
which Eusebius was vehemently opposed. It must be borne in
mind, however, that the Chiliastic passage from Papias quoted by
Irenaeus, and in which he certainly saw nothing foolish, is given on
the authority of the Presbyter John, to whom, and not to Papias,
any criticism upon it must be referred. If the passage be not of a
very elevated character, it is quite in the spirit of that age. The
main point, however, is that in regard to the testimony of Papias
we have little to do with his general ability, for all that was
requisite was the power to see, hear, and accurately state very
simple facts. He repeats what is told him by the Presbyter, and,
in such matters, we presume that the Bishop of Hierapolis must
be admitted to have been competent.
There is no point, however, on which the testimony of the
Fathers is more invariable and complete than that the work of
Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The first mention
of any work ascribed to Matthew occurs in the account communi-
cated by Papias, in which, as we have seen, it is distinctly said
that Matthew wrote " in the Hebrew dialect." Irenseus, the next
writer who refers to the point, says : " Matthew also produced a
written Gospel amongst the Hebrews in their own dialect," and
that he did not derive his information solely from Papias may be
inferred from his going on to state the epoch of Matthew's
writings : " when Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the
Church in Rome." 1 The evidence furnished by Pantaenus is
certainly independent of Papias. Eusebius states, with regard to
him : " Of these Pantaenus is said to have been one, and to have
penetrated as far as India (Southern Arabia), where it is reported
that he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been
delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of
Christ, to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, as it is said,
had preached, and left them that writing of Matthew in Hebrew
letters" (ai'rois re 'E/Jpauov ypafj-iMtfri T7)f TOV Mar^atou KuraAeti/'cu
y/ja</>r/v). 2 Jerome gives a still more circumstantial account
of this : " Panttenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve
Apostles, had there (in India) preached the advent of our Lord
Jesus Christ according to the Gospel of Matthew, which was
written in Hebrew letters (quod Hebraicis literis scriptum), and
Xo7tc6raros) is doubtful, as it is not found in the St. Petersburg Syriac
edition, nor in several other old Greek MSS.; but, treated even as an ancient
note by some one acquainted with the writings of Papias, it may be mentioned
here.
1 '0 /uec drj Ma.T6a.tos ev rots 'E/3pcuots ry ISiq. avrwv SiaXeKTU /cat ypa.(j>rj>>
e^r/veyKev fvayye\iov, TOV HfTpov /ecu TOV Ilai/Xou ev 'Pa>/z?7 evayye\i^o/J,vui' /cat
Oefj.e\iovvT<jjv TT\V fKK\rjalav. Adv. Hcer., iii. I, I ; Euseb. , H. ., v. 8.
- Euseb., H. E., v. 10.
292 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
which, on returning to Alexandria, he brought with him." 1 It is
quite clear that this was no version specially made by Bartholomew,
for had he translated the Gospel according to Matthew from the
Greek, for the use of persons in Arabia, he certainly would not
have done so into Hebrew. Origen, according to Eusebius,
" following the ecclesiastical canon," states what he has under-
stood from tradition (fv TrapaSoo-ei) of the Gospels, and says :
" The first written was that according to Matthew, once a publican,
but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the
Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language." 2 Eusebius,
in another place, makes a similar statement in his own name:
" Matthew, having first preached to the Hebrews, when he was
about to go also to others delivered to them his Gospel written in
their native language, and thus compensated those from whom he
was departing for the want of his presence by the writing."3 Cyril
of Jerusalem says : " Matthew, who wrote the Gospel, wrote it in
the Hebrew language." 1 * Epiphanius, referring to the fact that the
Nazarenes called the only Gospel which they recognised the
" Gospel according to the Hebrews," continues : " As in very
truth we can affirm that Matthew alone, in the New Testament,
set forth and proclaimed the Gospel in the Hebrew language and
in Hebrew characters "; s and elsewhere he states that " Matthew
wrote the Gospel in Hebrew." 6 The same tradition is repeated
by ChrysostonV Augustine, 8 and others.
Whilst the testimony of the Fathers was thus unanimous as to
the fact that the Gospel ascribed to Matthew was originally written
in Hebrew, no question ever seems to have arisen in their minds as
to the character of the Greek version ; much less was any examina-
tion made with the view of testing the accuracy of the translation.
" Such inquiries were not in the spirit of Christian learned men
generally of that time,"9 as Tischendorf remarks in connection
with the belief current in the early Church, and afterwards shared
by Jerome, that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the
original of the Greek Gospel according to Matthew. The first
who directly refers to the point, frankly confessing the total
ignorance which generally prevailed, was Jerome. He states :
" Matthew, who was also called Levi, who, from a publican,
1 De Vir. III., 36. 2 Euseb., H. ., vi. 25. 3 Euseb., H. ., iii. 24.
4 MaT0otos d ypd\jsas rb evayyeXiov, 'Efipatdi yXuffffy TOVTO eypa.\f/ev. Cat. 14.
5 u5$ T& <i\j)0ri fffriv flirflv Hn MaT0atoj /j.6vos 'E/Jpai'oTi /cai 'Ej3paiKois ypd/j.-
HOffiv ev rjj Ka.iv'fi diadijicri (iroirfffaro ryv rov euayyeXlov fKdtfflv re xai Kijpvy/J.a.
Har., xxx. 3 : ed. Petav., p. 127.
6 <5 Marflaioj 'E/3/>ai>co?s ypdupcuTi ypd<f>ei rb evayye\iov, K.T.\. ffcer.,
li. 5 ; ed. Pet. , p. 426.
7 Horn, in Matth., i. 8 De Consensu Evang., i. 2.
9 Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 108.
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS 293
became an Apostle, was the first who wrote a Gospel of Christ in
Judasa in Hebrew language and letters, on account of those from
amongst the circumcision who had believed ; but who afterwards
translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain." 1 It was only
at a much later period, when doubt began to arise, that the
translation was wildly ascribed to the Apostles John, James, and
others. 2
The expression in Papias that "everyone interpreted them (the
Xoyta) as he was able " (r/pir^veva-f. 8'avTa ws fjv 8vva.TO<$ eKacrros)
has been variously understood by different critics, like the rest of
the account. Schleiermacher explained the r/p^jveva-e as trans-
lation by enlargement Matthew merely collected the Aoyta,
and everyone added the explanatory circumstances of time and
occasion as best he could. 3 This view, however, has not been
largely adopted. Others consider that the expression refers to the
interpretation which was given on reading it at the public meetings
of Christians for worship ; but there can be no doubt that, coming
after the statement that the work was written in the Hebrew
dialect, epp/vei'eiv can only mean simple translation. Some main-
tain that the passage implies the existence of many written trans-
lations, amongst which very probably was ours ; whilst others
affirm that the phrase merely signifies that, as there was no recognised
translation, each one who had but an imperfect knowledge of the
language, yet wished to read the work, translated the Hebrew for
himself as best he could. Some consider that Papias or
the Presbyter uses the verb in the past tense, r/pp/vevcre, as con-
trasting the time when it was necessary for each to interpret as
best he could with the period when, from the existence of a
recognised translation, it was no longer necessary for them to do
so, whilst others deny that any written translation of an authentic
character was known to Papias at all. Now, the words in Papias
are merely : " Matthew composed the Aoyta in the Hebrew
dialect, 4 and everyone interpreted them as he was able." The
statement is perfectly simple and direct, and it is, at least, quite clear
that it conveys the fact that when the work was composed transla-
1 Matthceus, qui et Levi, ex publicano apostolus, prittms in [udcea, propter
eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant, evangelium Christi Hebraicis litteris
verbisque composuit : quod quis postea in Grcecum transtulerit, non satis
cerium est. Hieron. De Vir. III., 3.
2 Cf. Theophylact, Com. in Matth. , Prcem. ; Auctor Synops. Script. Sacr.;
Athanasius, Opp. Paris., ii., p. 155 ; Evang. sec. Matth. ed. Matthcei, p. 10.
3 Th. Studien u. Krit., 1832, p. 735 f.
4 In connection with this it may be of interest to remember that, in the
account of his conversion and the vision which he saw on his way to
Damascus which Paul gives to King Agrippa in the Acts of the Apostles, he
states that Jesus spoke to him " in the Hebrew dialect "( 'E/3/>a/Si -
Acts xxvi. 14.
294 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
tion was requisite, and, as each one translated " as he was able,"
that no recognised translation existed to which all might have
recourse. There is no contrast either necessarily or probably
implied in the use of the past tense. The composition of the
Xcym being, of course, referred to in the past tense, the same
tense is simply continued in completing the sentence. The pur-
pose is obviously to convey the fact that the work was composed
in the Hebrew language. But even if it be taken that Papias
intentionally uses the past tense in reference to the time when
translations did not exist, nothing is gained. Papias may have
known of many translations, but there is absolutely not a syllable
which warrants the conclusion that he was acquainted with an
authentic Greek version, although it is possible that he may have
known of the existence of some Greek translations of no authority.
The words used, however, imply that, if he did, he had no respect
for any of them.
Thus the account of Papias, supported by the perfectly unani-
mous testimony of the Fathers, declares that the work composed
by Matthew was written in the Hebrew or Aramaic dialect. The
only evidence which asserts that Matthew wrote any work at all
distinctly asserts that he wrote it in Hebrew. It is quite impossible
to separate the statement of the authorship from that regarding the
language. The two points are so indissolubly united that they
stand or fall together. If it be denied that Matthew wrote in
Hebrew, it cannot be asserted that he wrote at all. It is therefore
perfectly certain from this testimony that Matthew cannot be
declared the direct author of the Greek canonical Gospel bearing
his name. At the very best it can only be a translation, by an
unknown hand, of a work the original of which was early lost.
None of the earlier Fathers ever ventured a conjecture as to how,
when, or by whom the translation was effected. Jerome explicitly
states that the translator of the. work was unknown. The deduction
is clear : our Greek Gospel, in so far as it is associated with
Matthew at all, cannot at the utmost be more than a translation,
but as the work of an unknown translator there cannot, in the
absence of the original, or of satisfactory testimony of its accuracy,
be any assurance that the translation faithfully renders the work of
Matthew, or accurately conveys the sense of the original. All its
Apostolical authority is gone. Even Michaelis long ago recog-
nised this : " If the original text of Matthew be lost, and we have
nothing but a Greek translation, then, frankly, we cannot ascribe
any divine inspiration to the words; yea, it is possible that in various
places the true meaning of the Apostle has been missed by the
translator." 1 This was felt and argued by the Manicheans in the
1 Einl. N. 7\, ii., p. 997, cf. p. ,1,003.
PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS 295
fourth century, 1 and by the Anabaptists at the time of the
Reformation. 2 A wide argument might be opened out as to the
dependence of the other two Gospels on this unauthenticated
work.
The dilemma, however, is not yet complete. It was early
remarked that our first canonical Gospel bears no real marks of
being a translation at all, but is evidently an original, independent
Greek work. Even men like Erasmus, Calvin, Cajetan, and
CEcolampadius began to deny the statement that our Gospels
showed any traces of Hebrew origin, and the researches of later
scholars have so fully confirmed their doubts that few now
maintain the primitive belief in a translation. We do not propose
here to enter fully into this argument. It is sufficient to say that
the great majority of competent critics declare that our first
canonical Gospel is no translation, but an original Greek text ;
whilst of those who consider that they find in it traces of translation
and of Hebrew origin, some barely deny the independent originality
of the Greek Gospel, and few assert more than substantial agreement
with the original, with more or less variation and addition often of
a very decided character. The case, therefore, stands thus : The
whole of the evidence which warrants our believing that Matthew
wrote any work at all, distinctly, invariably, and emphatically
asserts that he wrote that work in Hebrew or Aramaic ; a Greek
Gospel, therefore, as connected with Matthew, can only be a
translation by an unknown hand, whose accuracy we have not, and
never have had, the means of verifying. Our Greek Gospel,
however, being an independent original Greek text, there is no
ground whatever for ascribing it even indirectly to Matthew at all,
the whole evidence of antiquity being emphatically opposed, and
the Gospel itself laying no claim, to such authorship.
One or other of these alternatives must be adopted for our first
Gospel, and either is absolutely fatal to its direct Apostolic origin.
Neither as a translation from the Hebrew nor as an original Greek
text can it claim Apostolic authority. This has been so well
recognised, if not admitted, that some writers, with greater zeal
than discretion, have devised fanciful theories to obviate the
difficulty. These maintain that Matthew himself wrote both in
Hebrew and in Greek, or at least that the translation was made
during his own lifetime and under his own eye, and so on. There
is not, however, a particle of evidence for any of these assertions,
which are merely the arbitrary and groundless conjectures of
embarrassed apologists.
It is manifest that upon this evidence both those who assert the
1 Augustine, Contra Faust., 32, 2 ; 33, 3.
" Sixtus Senensis, Ribl. Sancta, vii. 2, p. 924.
$96 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Hebrew original of Matthew's work and those who maintain that
our Gospel is not a translation, but an original Greek composition,
should logically deny its apostolicity. We need not say that this
is not done, and that for dogmatic and other foregone conclusions
many profess belief in the Apostolic authorship of the Gospel,
although in doing so they wilfully ignore the facts, and in many
cases merely claim a substantial, but not absolute, Apostolic origin
for the work. A much greater number of the most able and
learned critics, however, both from external and internal evidence,
deny the Apostolic origin of our first canonical Gospel.
There is another fact to which we may briefly refer, which, from
another side, shows that the work of Matthew, with which Papias
was acquainted, was different from our Gospel. In a fragment
from the fourth book of his lost work, which is preserved to us by
CEcumenius and Theophylact, Papias relates the circumstances of
the death of Judas Iscariot in a manner which is in contradiction
to the account in the first Gospel. In Matthew xxvii. 5 the death
of the traitor is thus related : " And he cast down the pieces of
silver in the temple, and departed and went and hanged himself." 1
The narrative in Papias is as follows : " Judas walked about in
this world a great example of impiety ; for his body having
swollen so that, on an occasion when a waggon was moving on
its way he could not pass it, he was crushed by the waggon, and
his bowels gushed out." 2 Theophylact, in connection with this
passage, adds other details, also apparently taken from the work
of Papias ; as, for instance, that, from his excessive corpulency,
the eyes of Judas were so swollen that they could not see, and so
sunk in his head that they could not be perceived even by the
aid of the optical instruments of physicians; and that the
rest of his body was covered with running sores and maggots, and
so on in the manner of the early Christian ages, whose imagination
conjured up the wildest " special providences " to punish the
enemies of the faith. As Papias expressly states that he eagerly
inquired what the Apostles and, amongst them, what Matthew
said, we may conclude that he would not have deliberately contra-
dicted the account given by that Apostle had he been acquainted
with any work attributed to him which contained it.
It has been argued, from some very remote and imaginary
resemblance between the passage from the preface to the work of
Papias quoted by Eusebius with the prologue to Luke, that
Papias was acquainted with that Gospel ; but nothing could be
more groundless than such a conclusion based upon such
1 In Acts i. 1 8 f. an account is given which again contradicts both Matthew
and the version of Papias.
2 CEcumenius, Comm. in Acta Apost., cap. ii. ,
CAPIAS OF H1ERAPOLIS 297
evidence, and there is not a word in our fragments of Papias
which warrants such an assertion. Eusebius does not mention
that Papias knew either the third or fourth Gospel. Is it
possible to suppose that if Papias had been acquainted with
those Gospels he would not have asked for information about
them from the Presbyters, or that Eusebius would not have
recorded it as he did that regarding the works ascribed to Matthew
and Mark ? Eusebius states, however, that Papias " made use of
testimonies from the first Epistle of John and, likewise, from that
of Peter." 1 As Eusebius, however, does not quote the passages
from Papias, we must remain in doubt whether he did not, as else-
where, assume from some similarity of wording that the passages
were quotations from these Epistles, whilst in reality they might
not be. Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop of the fifth century,
mentions that Papias, amongst others of the Fathers, con-
sidered the Apocalypse inspired. 2 No reference is made to this
by Eusebius, but, although from his Millenarian tendencies it is
very probable that Papias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar
veneration as a prophetic book, this evidence is too vague and
isolated to be of much value.
We find, however, that Papias, like Hegesippus and others of
the Fathers, was acquainted with the Gospel according to the
Hebrews. Eusebius says : " He (Papias) has likewise related
another history of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord,
which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."3
This is generally believed to be the episode inserted in the later
MSS. of the fourth Gospel, viii. i-u.
Whatever books Papias knew, however, it is certain, from his
own express declaration, that he ascribed little importance to
them, and preferred tradition as a more beneficial source of
information regarding evangelical history. " For I held that what
was to be derived from books," he says, " did not so profit me as
that from the living and abiding voice." 4 If, therefore, it could even
have been shown that Papias was acquainted with any of our
canonical Gospels, it must, at the same time, have been admitted
that he did not recognise them as authoritative documents. It is
manifest from the evidence adduced, however, that Papias did not
know our Gospels. It is not possible that he could have found it
better to inquire "what John or Matthew, or what any other of
the disciples of the Lord say" if he had known of Gospels
such as ours, and believed them to have been actually written by
those Apostles, deliberately telling him what they had to say.
1 Euseb., H. E., iii. 39.
2 Proleg. Comment, in Apocalypsin ; Routh, Reliq. Sacra, 1846, i., p- 15-
3 H. E., iii. 39. 4 Euseb., H. E., iii. 39.
298 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
The work of Matthew, which he mentions, being, however, a mere
collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what
the Apostle 1 himself said of the history and teaching of the
Master. The evidence of Papias is, in every respect, most im-
portant. He is the first writer who mentions that Matthew and
Mark were believed to have written any works at all ; but, whilst
he shows that he does not accord any canonical authority even to
the works attributed to them, his description of those works and
his general testimony come with crushing force against the pre-
tensions made on behalf of our Gospels to Apostolic origin and
authenticity.
1 We may merely remark that Papias does not call the Matthew who
wrote the \6yia an Apostle. In this sentence he speaks of the Apostle,
but he does not distinctly identify him with the Matthew of the other
passage.
CHAPTER V.
THE CLEMENTINES THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS
WE must now as briefly as possible examine the evidence furnished
by the apocryphal religious romance generally known by the name
of " The Clementines," and assuming, falsely of course, to be the
composition of the Roman Clement. The Clementines are
composed of three principal works, the Homilies, Recognitions,
and a so-called Epitome. The Homilies, again, are prefaced by a
pretended epistle addressed by the Apostle Peter to James, and
another from Clement. These Homilies were only known in an
imperfect form till 1853, when Dressel 1 published a complete
Greek text. Of the Recognitions we only possess a Latin trans-
lation by Rufinus (A.D. 402). Although there is much difference
of opinion regarding the claims to priority of the Homilies and
Recognitions, many critics assigning that place to the Homilies,
whilst others assert the earlier origin of the Recognitions, all are
agreed that the one is merely a version of the other, the former
being embodied almost word for word in the latter, whilst the
Epitome is a blending of the other two, probably intended to
purge them from heretical doctrine. These works, which are
generally admitted to have emanated from the Ebionitic party of
the early Church, are supposed to be based upon older Petrine
writings, such as the " Preaching of Peter " (K^pvy/jM IleT/aov), and
the "Travels of Peter" (IleptoSoi IleT/ocxu). It is not necessary
for our purpose to go into any analysis of the character of
the Clementines. It will suffice to say that they mainly
consist of discussions between the Apostle Peter and Simon the
Magician regarding the identity of the true Mosaic and Christian
religions. Peter follows the Magician from city to city for the
purpose of exposing and refuting him, the one, in fact, representing
Apostolic doctrine and the other heresy ; and in the course of
these discussions occur the very numerous quotations of sayings of
Jesus and of Christian history which we have to examine.
The Clementine Recognitions, as we have already remarked,
are only known to us through the Latin translation of Rufinus ;
and, from a comparison of the evangelical quotations occurring in
1 dementis R. quit feruntur Homilia xx. mine pritnum integrte. Ed.
A. R. M. Dressel.
299
300 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
that work with the same in the Homilies, it is evident that Rufinus
has assimilated them, in the course of translation, to the parallel
passages of our Gospels. It is admitted, therefore, that no
argument regarding the source of the quotations can rightly be
based upon the Recognitions, and that work may, consequently,
be entirely set aside, and the Clementine Homilies alone occupy
our attention.
We need scarcely remark that, unless the date at which these
Homilies were composed can be ascertained, their value as
testimony for the existence of our Synoptic Gospels is seriously
affected. The difficulty of arriving at a correct conclusion
regarding this point, great under almost any circumstances, is
increased by the fact that the work is altogether apocryphal, and
most certainly not held by any one to have been written by the person
whose name it bears. There is, in fact, nothing but internal
evidence by which to fix the date, and that evidence is of a
character which admits of very wide extension down the course
of time, although a sharp limit is set beyond which it cannot
mount upwards. Of external evidence there is almost none, and
what little exists does not warrant an early date. Origen, it is true,
mentions IlepioSoi KAvj/xevros, 1 which, it is conjectured, may
either be the same work as the 'Avayvw/HoyAos, or Recognitions,
translated by Rufinus, or related to it, and Epiphanius and others
refer to He/atoSot ITer/aou ; 2 but our Clementine Homilies are not
mentioned by any writer before pseudo-Athanasius. 3 The work,
therefore, can at the best afford no substantial testimony to the
antiquity and apostolic origin of our Gospels. Hilgenfeld, following
in the steps of Baur, arrives at the conclusion that the Homilies
are directed against the Gnosticism of Marcion (and also, as we
shall hereafter see, against the Apostle Paul), and he, therefore,
necessarily assigns to them a date subsequent to A.D. 160. As
Reuss, however, inquires : 'upon this ground, why should a still
later date not be named, since even Tertullian wrote vehemently
against the same Gnosis ? There can be little doubt that the
author was a representative of Ebionitic Gnosticism, which had
once been the purest form of primitive Christianity; but later,
through its own development, though still more through the rapid
growth around it of Paulinian doctrine, had assumed a position
closely verging upon heresy. It is not necessary for us, however,
to enter upon any exhaustive discussion of the date at which the
1 Comment, in Genesin Philoc., 22.
2 Hilgenfeld considers Recog. iv.-vi., Horn, vii.-xi., a version of the
Iltplodoi lUrpov Die ap.yater, p. 291 ff. ; Ritschl does not consider that this
can be decidedly proved, Entst. Altk. Kirche, p. 204 f.; so also Uhlhorn,
Die Horn. u. Recog., p. 71 ff.
3 Synops. Sacr. Script., subfinem. V Gesch. N. 7\, p. 254.
THE CLEMENTINES 301
Clementines were written ; it is sufficient to show that there is no
certain ground upon which a decision can be based, and that even
an approximate conjecture can scarcely be reasonably advanced.
Critics variously date the composition of the original Recognitions
from about the middle of the second century to the end of the
third, though the majority are agreed in placing them at least in
the latter century. They assign to the Homilies an origin at
different dates within a period commencing about the middle of
the second century, and extending to one or two centuries later.
In the Homilies there are very numerous quotations of sayings
of Jesus and of Gospel history, which are generally placed in the
mouth of Peter, or introduced with such formulae as : " The
teacher said," "Jesus said," "He said," "The prophet said"; but
in no case does the author name the source from which these
sayings and quotations are derived. That he does, however,
quote from a written source, and not from tradition, is clear from
the use of such expressions as " in another place (a^y Trou) 1
he has said," which refer not to other localities or circumstances,
but another part of a written history. There are in the Clementine
Homilies upwards of a hundred quotations of sayings of Jesus
or references to his history, too many for us to examine in
detail here ; but, notwithstanding the number of these passages, so
systematically do they vary, more or less, from the parallels in our
canonical Gospels that, as in the case of Justin, apologists are
obliged to have recourse to the elastic explanation, already worn
so threadbare, of " free quotation from memory" and "blending
of passages " to account for the remarkable phenomena presented.
It must be evident that the necessity for such an apology
shows the insufficiency of the evidence furnished by these
quotations. I)e Wette says: "The quotations of evangelical
works and histories in the pseudo-Clementine writings, from their
nature free and inaccurate, permit only an uncertain conclusion to
be drawn as to their written source." 2 Critics have maintained
very different and conflicting views regarding that source. Apolo-
gists, of course, assert that the quotations in the Homilies are taken
from our Gospels only. Others ascribe them to our Gospels, with
a supplementary apocryphal work : the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, or the Gospel according to Peter. Some, whilst
admitting a subsidiary use of some of our Gospels, assert
that the author of the Homilies employs, in preference,
the Gospel according to Peter ; whilst others, recognising
also the similarity of the features presented by these quota-
tions with those of Justin's, conclude that the author does
not quote our Gospels at all, but makes use of the Gospel
1 See several instances, Horn. xix. 2. " Einl. N. T., p. 115.
3 o2 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
according to Peter, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 1
Evidence permitting of such divergent conclusions manifestly
cannot be of a decided character. We may affirm that few
of those who are willing to admit the use of our Synoptics
by the author of the Homilies, along with other sources,
make that concession on the strength of the isolated evidence
of the Homilies themselves, but they are generally moved by
antecedent views on the point. In an inquiry like that which
we have undertaken, however, such easy and indifferent judgment
would obviously be out of place, and the point we have to
determine is not whether an author may have been acquainted
with our Gospels, but whether he furnishes testimony that he
actually was in possession of our present Gospels and regarded
them as authoritative.
We have already mentioned that the author of the Clementine
Homilies never names the source from which his quotations are
derived. Of these very numerous quotations we must again
distinctly state that only two or three, of a very brief and fragmen-
tary character, literally agree with our Synoptics, whilst all the rest
differ more or less widely from the parallel passages in those
Gospels. Some of these quotations are repeated more than once
with the same persistent and characteristic variations, and in
several cases, as we have already stated, they agree more or less
closely with quotations of Justin from the Memoirs of the Apostles.
Others, again, have no parallels at all in our Gospels, and even
apologists are consequently compelled to admit the collateral use
of an apocryphal Gospel. As in the case of Justin, therefore,
the singular phenomenon is presented of a vast number of
quotations of which only one or two brief phrases, too fragmentary
to avail as evidence, perfectly agree with our Gospels ; whilst of
the rest, which all vary more or less, some merely rese'Vnble
combined passages of two Gospels, others only contain the sense,
some present variations likewise found in other writers or in various
parts of the Homilies, and are repeatedly quoted with the same
variations, and others are not found in our Gospels at all. Such
characteristics cannot be fairly accounted for by any mere theory of
imperfect memory or negligence. The systematic variation from
our Synoptics, variation proved by repetition not to be accidental,
coupled with quotations which have no parallels at all in our
Gospels, more naturally point to the use of a different Gospel. In
no case can the Homilies be accepted as furnishing evidence even
of the existence of our Gospels.
As it is impossible here to examine in detail all of the quotations
1 Credner, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, teller, and others, consider that
the author uses the same Gospel as Justin.
THE CLEMENTINES 303
in the Clementine Homilies, we must content ourselves with
this distinct statement of their character, and merely illustrate
the different classes of quotations, exhausting, however, those
which literally agree with passages in the Gospels. The most
determined of recent apologists do not afford us an opportunity
of testing the passages upon which they base their assertion of the
use of our Synoptics, for they simply assume that the author used
them without producing instances. 1
The first quotation agreeing with a passage in our Synoptics
occurs in Horn. iii. 52: "And he cried, saying: Come unto me
all ye that are weary," which agrees with the opening words of
Matt. xi. 28 ; but the phrase does not continue, and is followed
by the explanation, " that is, who are seeking the truth and not
finding it." 2 It is evident that so short and fragmentary a phrase
cannot prove anything.
The next passage occurs in Horn, xviii. 15 : "For Isaiah said :
I will open my mouth in parables, and I will utter things that
have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." 3
This passage, with a slightly different order of words, is found in
Matt. xiii. 35. After giving a series of parables, the author of the
Gospel says (v. 34) : " All these things spake Jesus unto the
multitudes in parables ; and without a parable spake he not unto
them ; (v. 35) That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophet (Isaiah), saying : I will open my mouth in parables, &c."
There are two peculiarities which must be pointed out in this
passage. It is not found in Isaiah, but in Psalm Ixxviii. 2,4 and
it presents a variation from the version of the Ixx. Both the
variation and the erroneous reference to Isaiah, therefore, occur
also in the Homily, and it is upon this similarity of mistake that
the apologetic argument mainly rests. The first part of the
sentence agrees with, but the latter part is quite different from,
the Greek of the Ixx., which reads : " I will utter problems from
the beginning," (#eyo/Acu Trpo/BX^fjiara cur' dpxrjs.s
The Psalm from which the quotation is really taken is, by its
superscription, ascribed to Asaph, who, in the Septuagint version
1 Tischendorf only devotes a dozen lines, with a note, to the Clementines,
and only in connection with our fourth Gospel, which shall hereafter have our
attention (IVann wurden u. s. w., p. 90). In the same way Dr. Westcott
passes them over in a short paragraph, merely asserting the allusions to our
Gospels to be "generally admitted," and only directly referring to one supposed
quotation from Mark which we shall presently examine, and one which he
affirms to be from the fourth Gospel (On the Canon, p. 251 f. In the 4th
edition he has enlarged his remarks, p. 282 ff. ).
2 Horn. iii. 52. 3 Horn, xviii. 15.
4 The Vulgate reads : aperiam in parabolis os meum : loquar propositions
ab initio. Ps. Ixxvii. 2.
5 Ps. Ixxvii. 2.
304 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
of 2 Chronicles xxix. 30, is called a prophet. It was, therefore,
early asserted that the original reading of Matthew was " Asaph,"
instead of " Isaiah." Porphyry, in the third century, twitted
Christians with this erroneous ascription by their inspired evange-
list to Isaiah of a passage from a Psalm, and reduced the Fathers
to great straits. Eusebius, in his commentary on this verse of the
Psalm, attributes the insertion of the words, " by the prophet
Isaiah," to unintelligent copyists, and asserts that in accurate
MSS. the name is not added to the word prophet. Jerome
likewise ascribes the insertion of the name Isaiah for that of
Asaph, which was originally written, to an ignorant scribe, 1 and
in the commentary on the Psalms, generally, though probably
falsely, ascribed to him, the remark is made that many copies of
the Gospel to that day had the name " Isaiah," for which Porphyry-
had reproached Christians, 2 and the writer of the same commentary
actually allows himself to make the assertion that Asaph was found
in all the old codices, but ignorant men had removed it. 3 The
fact is, that the reading "Asaph" for "Isaiah" is not found in
any extant MS., and, although " Isaiah " has disappeared from all
but a few obscure codices, it cannot be denied that the name
anciently stood in the text. In the Sinaitic Codex, which is
probably the earliest MS. extant, and which is assigned to the
fourth century, " the prophet Isaiah " stands in the text by the
first hand, but is erased by the second (B).
The quotation in the Homily, however, is clearly not from our
Gospel. It is introduced by the words " For Isaiah says "; and
the context is so different from that in Matthew that it seems
most improbable that the author of the Homily could have had
the passage suggested to him by the Gospel. It occurs in a
discussion between Simon the Magician and Peter. The former
undertakes to prove that the Maker of the world is not the
highest God, and amongst other arguments he advances the
passage, " No man knew the Father," etc., to show that the
Father had remained concealed from the Patriarchs, etc., until
revealed by the Son ; and in reply to Peter he retorts, that if the
supposition that the Patriarchs were not deemed worthy to know
the Father was unjust, the Christian teacher himself was to blame
who said, " I thank thee, Lord of heaven and earth, that what
was concealed from the wise thou hast revealed to suckling babes."
' Comment. Matt., xiii. 35.
2 Multa evangelia ttsque hodie ita habent : Ut impleretur, quod scriptum est
per Isaiam prophetam, etc. Hieron., Opp., vii., p. 270 f.
3 Asaph invenitur in omnibus veteribus codicibus, sed homines ignorantes
tulenmt illud. To this Credner pertinently remarks : "Die Noth, in welche
die guten Kirchenvdter durch Porphyrius gekomtnen waren, erlaubte auch eine
Luge. Sie geschah ja : in majorem Dei gloriam " \Beitrage, i. , p. 304).
THE CLEMENTINES 305
Peter argues that in the statement of Jesus, " No man knew the
Father," etc., he cannot be considered to indicate another God
and Father from him who made the world, and he continues :
" For the concealed things of which he spoke may be those of
the Creator himself; for Isaiah says, 'I will open my mouth,' etc.
Do you admit, therefore, that the prophet was not ignorant of the
things concealed P" 1 and so on. There is absolutely nothing in
this argument to indicate that the passage was suggested by the
Gospel, but, on the contrary, it is used in a totally different way,
and is quoted not as an evangelical text, but as a saying from the
Old Testament, and treated in connection with the prophet him-
self, and not with its supposed fulfilment in Jesus. It may be
remarked that in the corresponding part of the Recognitions,
whether that work be of older or more recent date, the passage
does not occur at all. Now, although it is impossible to say how
and where this erroneous reference to a passage of the Old
Testament first occurred, there is no reason for affirming that it
originated in our first Synoptic, and as little for asserting that its
occurrence in the Clementine Homilies, with so different a context
and object, involves the conclusion that their author derived it
from the Gospel, and not from the Old Testament or some other
source. On the contrary, the peculiar argument based upon it in
the Homilies suggests a different origin, and it is very probable
that the passage, with its erroneous reference, was derived by both
from another and common source.
Another passage is a phrase from the " Lord's Prayer," which
occurs in Horn. xix. 2 : " But also in the prayer which he com-
mended to -us we have it said : Deliver us from the evil one "
('Pvo-ai r)p,as (XTTO rov Trovr/pov). It need scarcely be said that
few Gospels can have been composed without including this
prayer, and the occurrence of this short phrase demonstrates
nothing more than the mere fact that the author of the Homilies
was acquainted with one of the most universally known lessons
of Jesus, or made use of a Gospel which contained it. There
would have been cause for wonder had he been ignorant of it.
The only other passage which agrees literally with our Gospels
is also a mere fragment from the parable of the Talents, and when
the other references to the same parable are added, it is evident
that the quotation is not from our Gospels. In Horn. iii. 65 the
address to the good servant is introduced, " Well done, good and
faithful servant " (E5, SouXe o.ya.61 KO! Trio-re), which agrees
with the words in Matt. xxv. 21. The allusion to the parable of
the talents in the context is perfectly clear, and the passage
occurs in an address of the Apostle Peter to overcome the
1 Horn, xviii. 1-15.
306
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
modest scruples of Zaccheus, the former publican, who has been
selected by Peter as his successor in the Church of Caesarea when
he is about to leave in pursuit of Simon the Magician. Anticipa-
ting the possibility of his hesitating to accept the office, Peter, in
an earlier part of his address, however, makes fuller allusions to
the same parable of the talents, which we must contrast with the
parallel in the first Synoptic. " But if any of those present,
having the ability to instruct the ignorance of men, shrink back
from it, considering only his own ease, then let him expect to
hear :"
MATT. xxv. 26-30.
v. 26. Thou wicked and slothful
servant, thou knewest that I reap
where I sowed not, and gather from
where I strawed not.
v. 27. Thou oughtest therefore to
have put my money to the exchangers,
and at my coming I should have
received mine own with usury.
v. 28, 29. Take therefore, etc.
v. 30. And cast ye the unprofit-
able servant into the darkness with-
out ; there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth.
v. 26. \\ov-ript 5ovXf Kal 6Kvrjp^,
rjSfis OTI Oepifa, K.T.X.
v. 27. I5et ffe oP? (3aXelv TO dpyvpibv
fj,ov TOIS TpaireflTais, Kal IXDuv y&
KO[i,iffd/Mi}v l av TO tp.bv avv TOK<J>.
v. 28, 29. apaTe o$v, K.T.X.
v. 30. Kal Tbv dxpelov SovXov tKJid-
XeTf eis Tb (TAc6roj Tb t^&Tfpov 4Ket
The Homily does not end here, however, but continues in
words not found in our Gospels at all : "And reasonably : ' For,'
he says, "it is thine, O man, to put my words as silver with
exchangers, and to prove them as money.'" 2 This passage is
very analogous to another saying of Jesus, frequently quoted from
an apocryphal Gospel, by the author of the Homilies, to which we
shall hereafter more particularly refer, but here merely point out :
"Be ye approved money-changers " (yivta-Oe TpaTrefirai 8oKt/xot).3
The variations from the parallel passages in the first and third
Gospels, the peculiar application of the parable to the words of
Jesus, and the addition of a saying not found in our Gospels,
warrant us in denying that the quotations we are considering can
HOM. in. 61.
Thou wicked and slothful servant
thou oughtest to have put out my
money with the exchangers, and at
my coming I should have exacted
mine own.
Cast ye the unprofitable servant into
the darkness without.
AoOXe irovrjpt Kal OKv-rjpt,
tdei ffe TO dpyiL>pi6v fj.ov irpo-
fia\e1v firl TUV Tpaire^iTtav, Kal tyw av
Atfuw Hirpafa TO e/j.6v
rbv d^pflov dovXov e/s
Luke xix. 23 substitutes tirpafr
KaJ fv\6yti>s. ZoiJ yap, <j>rjfflt>, avOpuirf, TOI>J \6yovs fiov
v /3a\eiv, Kal wj xprmaTa So/ci/tdcrai. Hftn. iii. 6l.
3 Horn. iii. 50; ii. 51, etc.
dpytipiov tiri
THE CLEMENTINES 307
be appropriated by our canonical Gospels, and, on the contrary,
give good reason for the conclusion that the author derived his
knowledge of the parable from another source.
There is no other quotation in the Clementine Homilies which
literally agrees with our Gospels, and it is difficult, without incur-
ring the charge of partial selection, to illustrate the systematic
variation in such very numerous passages as occur in these writings.
It would be tedious and unnecessary to repeat the test applied to
the quotations of Justin, and give in detail the passages from the
Sermon on the Mount which are found in the Homilies. Some of
these will come before us presently ; but with regard to the whole,
which are not less than fifty, we may broadly and positively state
that they all more or less differ from our Gospels. To take the
severest test, however, we shall compare those further passages
which are specially adduced as most closely following our Gospels,'
and neglect the vast majority which widely differ from them.
In addition to the passages which we have already examined,
Credner 1 points out the following. The first is from Horn. xix. 2 2 :
" If Satan cast out Satan he is divided against himself: how then
can his kingdom stand ?" In the first part of this sentence the
Homily reads, e/c^aAA?; for the eK^JaXAet of the first Gospel, and the
last phrase in each is as follows :
Horn. TT&S o$v avrov (rrij/cr; ^ /3a<riXea ;
Matt. TTWS oZv ffradriffeTai TJ &a.<ri\eia. avrov ;
The third Gospel differs from the first as the Homily does from
both. The next passage is from Horn. xix. 73 : " For thus, said
our Father, who was without deceit : out of abundance of heart
mouth speaketh." The Greek compared with that of Matt. xii. 34.
Horn. 'EK irepia'ffeiifj.aTos Kapdias ffr6fj.a XctXet
Matt. 'E/c yap TOV irepiffffetj/j-aTos TTJS KapdLas TO ffr6fj.a XaXei.
The form of the Homily is much more proverbial. The next
passage occurs in Horn. iii. 52 : " Every plant which the heavenly
Father did not plant shall be rooted up." This agrees with the
parallel in Matt. xv. 13, with the important exception, that
although in the mouth of Jesus, " the heavenly Father " is substi-
tuted for the "my heavenly Father" of the Gospel. The last
passage pointed out by Credner is from Horn. viii. 4 : "But 'also
'many,' he said, 'called, but few chosen'"; which may be com-
pared with Matt. xx. 16, etc.
Horn. AXXa /cai, TroXXoi, <f>tj<rlv, K\r}rol, oXiyot 5 ^/cXe/croL
Matt. iroXXoi ydp fiaiv K\T)TOI, oXlyoi 5 ditXeKTol.
We have already fully discussed this passage of the Gospel in
connection with the " Epistle of Barnabas,"* and need not say
more here.
1 Credner, Beitrcige, i. , p. 285 ; cf. p. 302. 2 Cf. Matt. xii. 26.
3 Cf. Matt. xii. 34. *' P. 139 ff.
308 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
The variations in these passages, it may be argued, are not very
important. Certainly, if they were the exceptional variations
amongst a mass of quotations perfectly agreeing with parallels in
our Gospels, it might be exaggeration to base upon such diver-
gences a conclusion that they were derived from a different source.
When it is considered, however, that the very reverse is the case,
and that these are passages selected for their closer agreement out
of a multitude of others, either more decidedly differing from our
Gospels or not found in them at all, the case entirely changes ;
and, variations being the rule instead of the exception, these,
however slight, become evidence of the use of a Gospel different
from ours.
As an illustration of the importance of slight variations in
connection with the question as to the source from which
quotations are derived, the following may, at random, be pointed
out : The passage, " See thou say nothing to any man, but go thy
way, show thyself to the priest " ("Opa. p/Sevt cnr^s, dXXa v-n-ayc
a-eavTov Sel^ov TW t/o), occurring in a work like the Homilies
would, supposing our second Gospel no longer extant, be referred to
Matt. viii. 4, with which it entirely agrees. It is, however, actually
taken from Mark i. 44, and not from the first Gospel. Then,
again, supposing that our first Gospel had shared the fate of so
many others of the TroAAot of Luke, and in some early work the
following passage was found : "A prophet is not without honour,
except in his own country and in his own house " (Qwi mv irpo-
<^>^T^S (LTlfJ-OS fl pr) fV TTj TTttT/aiSl OLVTOV KO.I (V TQ OlKtq. CU>TOv),
this passage would, undoubtedly, be claimed by apologists as a
quotation from Mark vi. 4, and as proving the existence and use
of that Gospel. The omission of the words "and among his own
kin " (KUI ev rots vvyyevecriv O.VTOV) would at first be explained as
mere abbreviation, or defect of memory ; but on the discovery
that part or all of these words are omitted from some MSS., that,
for instance, the phrase is erased from the oldest manuscript
known the Cod. Sinaiticus the derivation from the second
Gospel would be considered as established. The author, notwith-
standing, might never have seen that Gospel, for the quotation is
taken from Matt. xiii. 57.'
We have already quoted the opinion of De Wette as to the incon-
clusive nature of the deductions to be drawn from the quotations
in the pseudo-Clementine writings regarding their source, but in
pursuance of the plan we have adopted we shall now examine the
passages which he cites as most nearly agreeing with our Gospels. 2
The first of these occurs in Horn. iii. 18 : " The Scribes and the
1 Cf. Matt. viii. 19-22 ; Luke ix. 57-60, etc.
a Einl. N. T., p. 115..
THE CLEMENTINES 309
Pharisees sit upon Moses' seat ; all things, therefore, whatsoever
they speak to you, hear them," which is compared with Matt.
xxiii. 2, 3 : " The Scribes and the Pharisees sit upon Moses'
seats ; all things, therefore, whatsoever they say to you, do and
observe." We subjoin the Greek of the latter half of these
passages :
Hoi. iravra ovv offa \ty<a<nv V/MV, aKovere avr&v.
Matt. wdvra ovv ticra iav etiruffiv v/juv Troi^o-crre nai TTrjpeire. 1
That the variation in the Homily is deliberate and derived from
the Gospel used by the author is clear from the continuation :
" Hear them (avnov), he said, as entrusted with the key of the
kingdom, which is knowledge, which alone is able to open
the gate of life, through which alone is the entrance to
eternal life. But verily, he says : They possess the key
indeed, but to those who wish to enter in they do not grant
it." 2 The aurwv is here emphatically repeated, and the further
quotation and reference to the denunciation of the Scribes and
Pharisees continue to differ distinctly from the account both in
our first and third Gospels. The passage in Matt, xxiii. 13 reads:
" But woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye
shut the kingdom of heaven against men ; for ye go not in your-
selves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." 3 The
parallel in Luke xi. 52 is not closer. There tl\e passage regarding
Moses' seat is altogether wanting, and in verse 52, where the
greater similarity exists, the " lawyers," instead of the " Scribes
and Pharisees," are addressed. The verse reads : " Woe unto you,
Lawyers ! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge : ye
entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye
hindered." 4 The first Gospel has not the direct image of the key
at all : the Scribes and Pharisees "shut the kingdom of heaven";
the third has " the key of knowledge " (xXetSa TV^S yvwo-ews)
taken away by the lawyers, and not by the Scribes and Pharisees,
whilst the Gospel of the Homilies has the key of the kingdom
rr/s /3acriAeias), and explains that this key is knowledge
. It is apparent that the first Gospel uses an
1 It is unnecessary to point out the various readings of the three last words
in various MSS. Whether shortened or inverted, the difference from the
Homily remains the same.
2 Avruv d, elirev, ws rr\v K\a5a TTJS /focrtXet'as ireTTiffrev^vuv, TJTIS ivri
yv&cris, )) /j.6vtj TT]v irv\riv r??s fwrjs avol^ai Suvarai, 5i' ^s /m6vrjs els TJJV aiwviav
faty L<T\0fiv fffriv 'A\\a cat, (pyuiv, Kparouai [iv TTJV K\SW, rots 5e /JovXo-
/j.evois direXde'iv oi> Tra.p^x.ovcnv. Hoin. iii. 18 ; cf. Horn. iii. 70, xviii. 15, 16.
3 Oval, K.T.\ ....... 8n tcXflere TT\V /ScunXeiav TWV ovpavGiv ^irpo/rffev ru>v
avOpwiruv v/j.eis yap OVK etff^pxfffde, ov5 TOI>S dfffpx<>/Ji.<?vovs a.<j>lfre eicrfXOe'lv.
Matt, xxiii. 13.
4 Oval vfuv rots von-iKols, 6n rfparf rr)v K\elSa Trjs yvuffew avroi OVK flff-/i\6aTe
Kal roi)s el<repxo/J.evovs ^KuXvffare. Luke xi. 52.
3 io SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
expression more direct than the others, whilst the third Gospel
explains it ; but the Gospel of the Homilies has in all probability
the simpler original words, the "key of the kingdom," which both
of the others have altered for the purpose of more immediate
clearness. In any case, it is certain that the passage does not
agree with our Gospel.
The next quotation referred to by De Wette is in Horn. iii. 5 1 :
"And also that he said : ' I am not come to destroy the law
the heaven and the earth will pass away, but one jot or one tittle
shall in nowise pass from the law.' " This is compared with Matt,
v. 17, 1 8 : J "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the
prophets : I am not come to destroy but to fulfil, (v. 18) For
verily I say unto you : Till heaven and earth pass away one jot or
one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
The Greek of both passages reads as follows :
MATT. v. 17, 18.
Mrj vo/j.iffT}Tf OTI f/XOov KaTaXvffai
TOV v6fj.ov ?) TOI)S Trpo^Tjras' OVK 7}\6ov
KaraXwrai dXXd ir\r)pwffaa..
v. 1 8. apty yap \iy<i) vfuv, ?ws &v
ira,pt\0ri 6 ovpavbs Kal i] yfj, ICrra tv ^
fjila KepaLa oti fi^i ira.pt\6ri diro TOV
HOM. in. 51.
Td 5^ Kal elireiv avrov
OVK ?j\dov KaTa\vffai TOV v6[iov.
* * * *
'0 ovpavbs Kal TJ yij irap\fi><rovTai iwra
5 Iv T) ula Kf.pa.ia. ov fty irapt\6ri airo
TOV v6fiov.
That the omissions, and variations in this passage are not acci-
dental is proved by the fact that the same quotation occurs again
literally in the Epistle from Peter 2 which is prefixed to the
Homilies in which the irapeXtva-ovrat is repeated, and the
sentence closes at the same point. The author in that place
adds : " This he said that all might be fulfilled " (TOVTO 8e eipr/Kfv,
iva TO. TroLvra ytVi/rcu). Hilgenfeld considers the Epistle of much
more early date than the Homilies, and that this agreement
bespeaks a particular text. 3 The quotation does not agree with
our (k>spels, and must be assigned to another source.
The next passage pointed out by De Wette is the erroneous
quotation from Isaiah which we have already examined. 4 That
which follows is found in Horn. viii. 7 : " For on this account our
Jesus himself said to one who frequently called him Lord, yet did
nothing which he commanded : Why dost thou say to me Lord,
Lord, and doest not the things which I say ?" This is compared
with Luke vi. 465 : " But why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not
the things which I say ?"
HOM. vin. 7.
Tt ytte Xe'yeu, Kvpic, xvpie, Kal 01;
Toteis & Xe"y ;
LUKE vi. 46.
Ti Sf fj.e /caXetre Kvpif, Kvptt, Kal ov
oieire & Xeyw ',
1 Cf. Luke xvi. 17. 2 ii. 3 Die Ew. Justin's, p. 340.
4 P. 303 f. ; cf. Horn, xviii. 15, Matt. xiii. 35. 5 Cf. Matt. vii. 21.
THE CLEMENTINES
311
This passage differs from our Gospels in having the second
person singular instead of the plural, and in substituting Aeyeis
for KaX.iT in the first phrase. The Homily, moreover, in accor-
dance with the use of the second person singular, distinctly
states that the saying was addressed to a person who frequently
called Jesus " Lord," whereas in the Gospels it forms part of the
Sermon on the Mount, with a totally impersonal application to the
multitude.
The next passage referred to by De Wette is in Horn. xix. 2 :
" And he declared that he saw the evil one as lightning fall from
heaven." This is compared with Luke x. 18, which has no
parallel in the other Gospels : " And he said to them, I beheld
Satan as lightning fall from heaven."
HOM. xix. 2. LUKE x. 18.
Kai STL edpaice TOV Trovrjpbv
ws a.(TTpa.irr]v ireffovra K TOV ovpavov
Et7re' 5 atfrots 'J&Oe&povv TOV <ra.Ta.vav
o5s dffrpa.iT'rjv K TOV ovpavov ireabvTO..
The substitution of TOV Trovtjpbv for rbv craravav, had he found the
latter in his Gospel, would be all the more remarkable from the
fact that the author of the Homilies has just before quoted the
saying, " If Satan cast out Satan," 1 etc. ; and he continues in the
above words to show that Satan had been cast out, so that the
evidence would have been strengthened by the retention of the
word in Luke, had he quoted that Gospel. The variations
indicate that he quoted from another source.
The next passage pointed out by De Wette likewise finds a
parallel only in the third Gospel. It occurs in Horn. ix. 22 :
" Nevertheless, though all demons with all the diseases flee before
you, in this only is not to be your rejoicing, but in that, through
grace, your names, as of the ever-living, are recorded in heaven,"
This is compared with Luke x. 20 : " Notwithstanding, in this
rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you, but rejoice that
your names are written in the heavens."
HOM. ix. 22. LUKE x. 20.
'A\X' ofj.<i)s KCLV TrdvTes da.ifji.oves /nerd IIAip v TOVTIJI /arj
wdvTuv T&V iraOw was devytixnv. OVK
Zffnv Iv TovTtj} fj.6i><{} -xaipeiv,
Tig 5t' eJapecrTi'ai' TO. dcd/tara
ovpavtp cbs det favTuv
d\\'
ev
on TO. ocd/A
rots ovpavols.
eyytypairrai
The differences between these two passages are too great, and the
peculiarities of the Homily too marked, to require any argument to
demonstrate that the quotation cannot be successfully claimed by
our third Gospel. On the contrary, as one of so many other
passages systematically varying from the canonical Gospels, it
must be assigned to another source.
See p. 307.
3 I2 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
De Wette says : " A few others (quotations) presuppose
(voraussetzeri) the Gospel of Mark," 1 and he gives them. The
first occurs in Horn. ii. 19 : "There is a certain Justa 2 amongst us,
a Syrophcenician, a Canaanite by race, whose daughter was affected
by a sore disease, and who came to our Lord crying out and
supplicating that he would heal her daughter. But he, being also
asked by us, said : ' It is not meet to heal the Gentiles who are
like dogs from their using different meats and practices, whilst the
table in the kingdom has been granted to the sons of Israel.' But
she, hearing this and exchanging her former manner of life for that
of the sons of the kingdom, in order that she might, like a dog,
partake of the crumbs falling from the same table, obtained, as she
desired, healing for her daughter. "3 This is compared with
Mark vii. 24-30,* as it is the only Gospel which calls the woman
a Syrophcenician. The Homily, however, not only calls her so,
but gives her name as "Justa." If, therefore, it be argued
that the mention of her nationality supposes that the author
found the fact in his Gospel, and because we know no
other but Mark 5 which gives that information, that he therefore
derived it from our second Gospel, the additional mention of the
name of " Justa " on the same grounds necessarily points to the
use of a Gospel which likewise contained it, which our Gospel
does not. Nothing can be more decided than the variation in
language throughout this whole passage from the account in Mark,
and the reply of Jesus is quite foreign to our Gospels. In Mark
(vii. 25) the daughter has "an unclean spirit " (irvf^pM. aKaOaprov) ;
in Matthew (xv. 22) she is "grievously possessed by a devil"
(KO.KWS 8aipweTat), but in the Homily she is "affected by a
sore disease " (VTTO xoAerrJJs voo-ou o-wei'xero). The second
Gospel knows nothing of any intercession on the part of the
disciples, but Matthew has : " And the disciples came and
besought him (^/DWTWV aurov), saying : ' Send her away, for she
crieth after us,'" 6 whilst the Homily has merely " being also asked
by us" (aio>#es), in the sense of intercession in her favour. The
second Gospel gives the reply of Jesus as follows : " Let the
children first be filled ; for it is not meet to take the bread of the
children, and to cast it to the dogs. And she answered and said
unto him : ' Yea, Lord, for the dogs also eat under the table of the
crumbs of the children.' And he said unto her : ' For this saying
1 Einl. N. T., p. 115. a Cf. Horn. iii. 73 ; xiii. 7.
3 Horn. ii. 19. 4 Cf. Matt. xv. 21-28.
" The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nation." (TJ 5t yvvr) fy
ijHs, ZvpoQoii'lKiffo-a T ytvti). Mark vii. 26. "A woman of Canaan"
ij Xavavaia). Matt. xv. 22.
Matt. xv. 23. ,
THE CLEMENTINES 313
go thy way ; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.' " l The
nature of the reply of the woman is, in the Gospels, the reason
given for granting her request ; but in the Homily the woman's
conversion to Judaism, 2 that is to say Judeo-Christianity, is
prominently advanced as the cause of her successful pleading. It
is certain from the whole character of this passage, the variation
of the language, and the reply of Jesus which is not in our Gospels
at all, that the narrative cannot rightly be assigned to them ; but
the more reasonable inference is that it was derived from another
source.
The last of De Wette's3 passages is from Horn. iii. 57 : " Hear,
O Israel ; the Lord thy* God is one Lord." This is a quotation
from Deuteronomy vi. 4, which is likewise quoted in the second
Gospel, xii. 29, in reply to the question, " Which is the first
Commandment of all ? Jesus answered : The first is, Hear, O
Israel ; the Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the
Lord thy God," etc. In the Homily, however, the quotation
is made in a totally different connection, for there is no question
of commandments at all, but a clear statement of the circumstances
under which the passage was used, which excludes the idea that
this quotation was derived from Mark xii. 29. The context in the
Homily is as follows : " But to those who were beguiled to imagine
many Gods as the Scriptures say, he said : Hear, O Israel,"
etc. 5 There is no hint of the assertion of many gods in the
Gospels : but, on the contrary, the question is put by one of the
scribes in Mark to whom Jesus says : " Thou art not far from the
Kingdom of God." 6 The quotation, therefore, cannot be legiti-
mately appropriated by the second Synoptic, but may with much
greater probability be assigned to a different Gospel.
We may here refer to the passage, the only one pointed out by
him in connection with the Synoptics, the discovery of which, Dr.
Westcott affirms, "has removed the doubts which had long been
raised about those (allusions) to St. Mark."? The discovery
referred to is that of the Codex Ottobonianus by Dressel, which
contains the concluding part of the Homilies, and which was first
published by him in 1853. Dr. Westcott says: "Though St.
Mark has few peculiar phrases, one of these is repeated verbally in
the concluding part of the igth Homily." 8 The passage is as
follows : Horn. xix. 20 : " Wherefore also he explained to his
disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens."
1 Mark vii. 27-29. 2 Cf. Horn. xiii. 7. 3 Einl. N. T., p. 115.
4 Although most MSS. have <rov in this place, some, as, for instance, that
edited by Cotelerius, read V/JL&V.
5 Horn. iii. 57. 6 Mark xii. 34.
7 On the Canon, p. 251. 8 Cf. Ib., p. 252.
3 i4 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
This is compared with Mark iv. 34 "and privately, to his own
disciples, he explained all things."
HOM. XIX. 20.
Ai6 /cat rots avrou (JLaOyTais KO.T' Idiav
(treXve TT)S rdov o{ipavuv /3c
MARK iv. 34.
T' idiav 8t rots t'5/ou
We have only a few words to add to complete the whole of Dr-
Westcott's remarks upon the subject. He adds after the quotation :
"This is the only place where eTriXvw occurs in the Gospels." 2
We may, however, point out that it occurs also in Acts xix. 39
and 2 Peter i. 20. It is upon the coincidence of this word that
Dr. Westcott rests his argument that this passage is a reference to
Mark. Nothing, however, could be more untenable than such a
conclusion from such an indication. The phrase in the Homily
presents a very marked variation from the passage in Mark. The
" all things " (Travra) of the Gospel reads : " The mysteries of the
kingdom of the heavens " (T^S rwv ovpavtav jSao-iXeias ra pvo-Tripia.}
in the Homily. The passage in Mark iv. 1 1, to which Dr. West-
cott does not refer, reads TO (jLva-r^piov rr}s /JcuriAeias TOD deov.
There is one very important matter, however, which our apologist
has omitted to point out, and which, it seems to us, decides the
case the context in the Homily. The chapter commences thus :
" And Peter said : We remember that our Lord and Teacher, as
commanding, said to us : ' Guard the mysteries for me, and the
sons of my house.' Wherefore, also he explained to his disciples
privately," etc. 3 ; and then comes our passage. Now, here is a
command of Jesus, in immediate connection with which the
phrase before us is quoted, which does not appear in our Gospels,
and which clearly establishes the use of a different source.
The phrase itself, which differs from Mark, as we have seen, may,
with all right, be referred to the same unknown Gospel.
It must be borne in mind that all the quotations which we have
hitherto examined are those which have been selected as most
closely approximating to passages in our Gospels. Space forbids
our giving illustrations of the vast number which so much more
widely differ from parallel texts in the Synoptics. We shall confine
ourselves to pointing out, in the briefest possible manner, some of
the passages which are persistent in their variations, or recall
similar passages in the Memoirs of Justin. The first of these is
the injunction in Horn. iii. 55 : " Let your yea be yea, your nay
1 Dr. Westcott quotes this reading, which is supported by the Codices B, C,
Sinaiticus, and others. The Codex Alexandrinus and a majority of other
MSS. read for rois Wt'ois /na^T/rats, " roty /xatfT/reus ai'roO," which is closer to the
passage in the Homily. It is fair that this should be pointed out.
3 On the Canon, p. 252, note I. ".3 Horn. xix. 20.
THE CLEMENTINES 315
nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of the evil one."
The same saying is repeated in Horn. xix. with the sole addition
of "and." We subjoin the Greek of these, together with that of
the Gospel and Justin with which the Homilies agree :
Hoin. iii. 55. "E<rrw vfj.wv rb val val rb oO otf-
Hoin. xix. 2. "EcrTw v/j.wv rb val vat Kal rb oi) otf.
Apol., i. 1 6. "Ecrrw 5 vft&v rb val val Kal rb ov of>.
Matt. v. 37. "EITTW 5 6 X6"yos vft&v val val oi) ofi.
As we have already discussed this passage, 1 we need not repeat our
remarks here. That it comes from a source different from
our Gospels is rendered still more probable by the quotation
in Horn. xix. 2 being preceded by another which has no parallel
in our Gospels. " And elsewhere he said : ' He who sowed
the bad seed is the devil ' ('O 8e TO KO.KOV cnrepfJM cnrei,pa<$ etrrlv 6
; and again : ' Give no pretext to the evil one ' (M>)
unv T<J) Trovrfpi^). But in exhorting he prescribes : ' Let
your yea be yea,' " etc. The first of these phrases differs markedly
from our Gospels ; the second is not in them at all ; the third,
which we are considering, differs likewise in an important degree
in common with Justin's quotation, and there is every reason for
supposing that the whole were derived from the same unknown
source.
In the same Homily (xix. 2) there occurs also a passage
which exhibits variations likewise found in Justin, which we have
already examined, 3 and now merely point out : " Begone into the
darkness without, which the Father hath prepared for the devil
and his angels." 4 The quotation in Justin (Dial. 76) agrees
exactly with this, with the exception that Justin has Sarava instead
of 8ia/3oA(), which is not important, whilst the agreement in the
marked variation from the parallel in the first Gospel establishes
the probability of a common source different from ours.
We have also already 5 referred to the passage in Horn. xvii. 4:
" No one knew (lyvw) the Father but the Son, even as no one
knoweth the son but the Father and those to whom the Son is
minded to reveal him." This quotation differs from Matt. xi. 27
in form, in language, and in meaning ; but agrees with Justin's
reading of the same text, and, as we have shown, the use of the
aorist here, and the transposition of the order, were characteristics
of the Gospels used by Gnostics and other parties in the early
Church ; and the passage, with these variations, was regarded by
them as the basis of some of their leading doctrines. 6 That the
1 P. 226, n. i, p. 235 f. 2 Cf. Matt. xiii. 39.
3 P. 226, n. 4, p. 235 f. 4 Horn. xix. 2 ; cf. Matt. xxv. 41.
s P. 252 ff.
6 Irenaeus, Adv. Har., iv. 6, I, 3, 7 ; cf. p. 254 f.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
variation is not accidental, but a deliberate quotation from a
written source, is proved by this, and by the circumstance that the
author of the Homilies repeatedly quotes it elsewhere in the same
form. 1 It is unreasonable to suppose that the quotations in these
Homilies are so systematically and consistently erroneous, and not
only can they not, from their actual variations, be legitimately
referred to the Synoptics exclusively, but, considering all the
circumstances, the only natural conclusion is that they are derived
from a source different from our Gospels.
Another passage occurs in Horn. iii. 50 : " Wherefore ye do err,
not knowing the true things of the Scriptures ; and on this account
ye are ignorant of the power of God." This is compared with
Mark xii. 24 : 2 " Do ye not therefore err, not knowing the
Scriptures nor the power of God ?"
HOM. in. 50.
Aid. TOVTO Tr\avdcrdf, /LCTJ ei5<5res TO.
iv ypa<f>&v, o5 eiveKev ayvoeire
j.iv TOV 0eoO.
MARK xn. 24.
Ot) dia TOVTO ir\ava(r6f fj-r) ei'Sores
rds ypa<f>as /j.i)5e TJ}V SVVOLJJ.IV TOV
9eoO ;
The very same quotation is made both in Horn. ii. 51 and
xviii. 20, and in each case in which the passage is introduced it is
in connection with the assertion that there are true and false
Scriptures, and that, as there are in the Scriptures some true sayings
and some false, Jesus, by these words, showed to those who erred
by reason of the false the cause of their error. There can scarcely
be a doubt that the author of the Homilies quotes this passage from
a Gospel different from ours, and this is demonstrated by the
important variation from our text, by its consistent repetition,
and by the context in which it stands.
Upon each occasion, also, that the author of the Homilies
quotes the foregoing passage he likewise quotes another saying of
Jesus which is foreign to oar Gospels : " Be ye approved money-
changers," yiv(T0f. TpaTTf^irat 8oKip,oi.3 The sentence is thrice
quoted without variation, and each time, together with the prer
ceding passage, it refers to the necessity of discrimination between
true and false sayings in the Scriptures, as, for instance : " And
Peter said : If, therefore, of the Scriptures some are true and some
are false, our Teacher rightly said : ' Be ye approved money-
changers,' as in the Scriptures there are some approved sayings and
some spurious. "4 This is one of the best known of the apocryphal
sayings of Jesus, and it is quoted by nearly all the Fathers, 5 by
1 Horn, xviii. 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 20.
2 Cf. Matt. xxii. 29, which is still more remote.
3 Horn. ii. 51, iii. 50, xviii. 20. * Horn. ii. 51.
5 Apost. Constit., ii. 36 ; cf. 37 ; Clem. Al., Stfom., i. 28, 177 ; cf. ii. 4,
15, vi. 10, 81, vii. 15, 90; Origen, in Joatt. T. xix., vol. iv.,p. 289;
THE CLEMENTINES 317
many as from Holy Scripture, and by some ascribed to the Gospel
of the Nazarenes, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There
can be no question here that the author quotes an apocryphal
Gospel.
There is, in immediate connection with both the preceding
passages, another saying of Jesus quoted which is not found in
our Gospels : " Why do ye not discern the good reason of the
Scriptures?" ''Ata TI ov voetre TO euAoyov TWV ypa<j>wv." 1 This
passage also comes from a Gospel different from ours, and the
connection and sequence of these quotations is very significant.
One further illustration and we have done. We find the
following in Horn. iii. 55 : "And to those who think that God
tempts, as the Scriptures say, he said : ' The evil one is the
tempter,' who also tempted himself." 2 This short saying is not
found in our Gospels ; it probably occurred in the Gospel of the
Homilies in connection with the temptation of Jesus. It is not
improbable that the writer of the Epistle of James, who shows
acquaintance with a Gospel different from ours, 3 also knew this
saying. * We are here again directed to the Ebionite Gospel.
Certainly the quotation is derived from a source different from
our Gospels.
These illustrations of the evangelical quotations in the Clementine
Homilies give but an imperfect impression of the character of the
extremely numerous passages which occur in the work. We
have selected for our examination the quotations which have
been specially cited by critics as closest to parallels in our Gospels,
and have thus submitted the question to the test which is most
favourable to the claims of our Synoptics. Space forbids our
adequately showing the much wider divergence which exists in
the great majority of cases between them and the quotations in
the Homilies. To sum up the case : Out of more than a hundred
of these quotations only four brief and fragmentary phrases
really agree with parallels in our Synoptics, and these are
either not used in the same context as in our Gospels, or are
of a nature far from special to them. Of the rest, all
without exception vary more or less from our Gospels, and
many in their variations agree with similar quotations in other
writers, or on repeated quotation always present the same
peculiarities, whilst others, professed to be direct quotations of
Epiphanius, Hcer., xliv. 2, p. 382 ; Hieron., Ep. ad Minerv. et Alex., 119 (al.
152); Comm. in Ep. ad Ephes., iv. ; Grabe, Spicil. Patr.,i., p. 13 f., 326;
Cotelerius, Pair. Ap. , i. , p. 249 f. ; Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T. , ii. , p. 524.
1 Horn. iii. 50.
- Tots olo/j.tvois STL 6 0eds iretpdfet, u>s al Ypatfrnl \fyovcriv ^<prf '0 Trovr)p6s
Iffnv o ireiptifav, 6 KCU avrbv ireipdffas. Hom. iii. 55-
3 Cf. v. 12. > Cf. i. 13.
3 i8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
sayings of Jesus, have no parallels in our Gospels at all. Upon
the hypothesis that the author made use of our Gospels, such
systematic divergence would be perfectly unintelligible and
astounding. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the
agreement of a few passages with parallels in our Gospels cannot
prove anything. The only extraordinary circumstance is that,
even using a totally different source, there should not have been
a greater agreement with our Synoptics. But for the universal
inaccuracy of the human mind, every important historical saying,
having obviously only one distinct original form, would in all
truthful histories have been reported in that one unvarying form.
The nature of the quotations in the Clementine Homilies leads to
the inevitable conclusion that their author derived them from a
Gospel different from ours ; at least, since the source of these quota-
tions is never named throughout the work, and there is not the
faintest direct indication of our Gospels, the Clementine Homilies
cannot be considered witnesses of any value as to the origin and
authenticity of the canonical Gospels. That this can be said of
a work written at least a century and a half after the establish-
ment of Christianity, and abounding with quotations of the
discourses of Jesus, is in itself singularly suggestive.
It is scarcely necessary to add that the author of the Homilies
has no idea of any canonical writings but those of the Old
Testament, though, even with regard to these, some of our
quotations have shown that he held peculiar views, and believed
that they contained spurious elements. There is no reference in
the Homilies to any of the Epistles of the New Testament.
One of the most striking points in this work, on the other
hand, is its determined animosity against the Apostle Paul. We
have seen that a strong anti-Pauline tendency was exhibited by
many of the Fathers, who, like the author of the Homilies, made
use of Judeo-Christian Gospels different from ours. In this work,
however, the antagonism against the " Apostle of the Gentiles "
assumes a tone of peculiar virulence. There cannot be a doubt
that the Apostle Paul is attacked in it, as the great enemy of the
true faith, under the hated name of Simon the Magician, whom
Peter follows everywhere for the purpose of unmasking and con-
futing him. He is robbed of his title of "Apostle of the Gentiles,"
which, together with the honour of founding the Church of
Antioch, of Laodicaea, and of Rome, is ascribed to Peter. All
that opposition to Paul which is implied in the Epistle to the
Galatians and elsewhere 1 is here realised and exaggerated, and the
personal difference with Peter to which Paul refers 2 is widened
1 I Cor. i. ii, 12; 2 Cor. xi. 13, 2O/. ; Philip, i. 15, 16.
3 Gal. ii. n ; cf. I Cor. i. u, 12.
THE CLEMENTINES 319
into the most bitter animosity. In the Epistle of Peter to James,
which is prefixed to the Homilies, Peter says, in allusion to Paul:
" For some among the Gentiles have* rejected my lawful preaching
and accepted certain lawless and foolish teaching of the hostile
man." 1 First expounding a doctrine of duality, as heaven and
earth, day and night, life and death, 2 Peter asserts that in Nature
the greater things come first ; but amongst men the opposite is
the case, and the first is worse, and the second better.3 He then
says to Clement that it is easy, according to this order, to discern
to what class Simon (Paul) belongs, " who came before me to the
Gentiles ; and to which I belong who have come after him, and
have followed him as light upon darkness, as knowledge upon
ignorance, as health upon disease." 4 He continues : " If he had
been known he would not have been believed ; but now, not
being known, he is wrongly believed ; and though by his acts
he is a hater, he has been loved ; and, although an enemy, he
has been welcomed as a friend ; and, tho'ugh he is death,
he has been desired as a saviour; and, though fire, esteemed
as light ; and, though a deceiver, he is listened to as speaking the
truth." 5 There is much more of this acrimonious abuse put into
the mouth of Peter. 6 The indications that it is Paul who is really
attacked under the name of Simon are much too clear to admit
of doubt. In Horn. xi. 35, Peter, warning the Church against
false teachers, says : " He who hath sent us, our Lord and
Prophet, declared to us that the evil one announced that he
would send, from amongst his followers, apostles 7 to deceive.
Therefore, above all, remember to avoid every apostle, or
teacher, or prophet, who first does not accurately compare his
teaching with that of James, called the brother of my Lord, and
to whom was confided the ordering of the Church of the Hebrews
in Jerusalem," etc., lest this evil one should send a false preacher
to them, "as he has sent to us Simon preaching a counterfeit of
truth in the name of our Lord and disseminating error." 8 Further
on he speaks more plainly still. Simon maintains that he has a
truer appreciation of the doctrines and teaching of Jesus, because
he has recieved his inspiration by supernatural vision, and not
merely by the common experience of the senses, 9 and Peter
replies : " If, therefore, our Jesus, indeed, was seen in a vision,
was known by thee, and conversed with thee, it was only as one
1 Epist. Petri ad Jacoburn, 2. Dr. Westcott quotes this passage with the
observation, "There can be no doubt that St. Paul is referred to as 'the
enemy'" (On the Canon, p. 252, note 2).
2 Horn. ii. 15. 3 ib. t ii. jg. //>., ii. 17.
5 lb., ii. 18. 6 Cf. Horn. iii. 59; vii. 2, 4, 10, n.
7 We have already pointed out that this declaration is not in our Gospels.
8 Horn. xi. 35 ; cf. Galat. i. 7 ff. Ib., xvii. 13 ff.
320 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
angry with an adversary But can anyone, through a vision, be
made wise to teach ? And if thou sayest ' It is possible,' then,
wherefore did the Teacher remain and discourse for a whole year
to us who were awake ? And how can we believe thy story that
he was seen by thee ? And how could he have been seen by thee
when thy thoughts are contrary to his teaching ? But if seen and
taught by him for a single hour, thou becamest an apostle 1 preach
his words, interpret his sayings, love his apostles, oppose not me
who consorted with him. For thou hast directly withstood me
who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church. If thou hadst
hot been an adversary, thou wouldst not have calumniated me, thou
wouldst not have reviled my teaching, in order that, when declaring
what I have myself heard from the Lord, I might not be believed,
as though I were condemned But if thou callest me condemned,
thou speakest against God, who revealed Christ to me,' " 2 etc. This
last phrase, "If thou callest me condemned " (*H el KaTeyvoxr/xevoi'
p.e Aeyets), is an evident allusion to Galat. ii. n : "I withstood him
to the face, because he was condemned " (on Kareyi/woytei/os fjv).
We have digressed to a greater extent than we intended, but it
is not unimportant to show the general character and tendency of
the work we have been examining. The Clementine Homilies
written certainly not earlier than the end of the second century ;
which never name nor indicate any Gospel as the source of the
author's knowledge of evangelical history ; whose quotations of
sayings of Jesus, numerous as they are, systematically differ from the
parallel passages of our Synoptics, or are altogether foreign to them ;
which denounce the Apostle Paul as an impostor, enemy of the
faith, and disseminator of false doctrine, and therefore repudiate
his Epistles, at the same time equally ignoring all the other writings
of the New Testament can scarcely be considered as giving
much support to any theory of the early formation of the New
Testament Canon, or as affording evidence even of the existence
of its separate books.
Among the writings which used formally to be ascribed to Justin
Martyr, and to be published along with his genuine works, is the
short composition commonly known as the "Epistle to Diognetus."
The ascription of this composition to Justin arose solely from the
fact that in the only known MS. of the letter there is an inscription,
Tov avrov 7T/30S Atdyi/TjTov, which, from its connection, was referred
to Justin. 3 The style and contents of the work, however, soon
1 Cf. I Cor. ix. I ff. "Am I not an Apostle? have I not seen Jesus our
Lord?" Cf. Galat. i. I ; i. 12, "For neither did I myself receive it by man,
nor was I taught it but by revelation of Jesus Christ."
3 Horn. xvii. 19.
3 Otto, Ep. ad Diognetum, etc., 1852, p. II f.*
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS. 321
convinced critics that it could not possibly have been written by
Justin, and although it has been ascribed by various isolated writers
to Apollos, Clement, Marcion, Quadratus, and others, none of these
guesses have been seriously supported, and critics are almost
universally agreed in confessing that the author of the Epistle is
entirely unknown.
Such being the case, the difficulty of assigning a date to the work
with any degree of certainty is extreme, if it be not absolutely impos-
sible to do so. This difficulty is increased by several circumstances.
The first and most important of these is the fact that the Epistle to
Diognetus is neither quoted nor mentioned by any ancient writer,
and consequently there is no external evidence to indicate the
period of its composition. Moreover, it is not only anonymous
but incomplete, or, at least, as we have it, not the work of a single
writer. At the end of chap. x. a break is indicated, and the two
concluding chapters are unmistakably by a different and later
hand. It is not singular, therefore, that there exists a wide
difference of opinion as to the date of the first ten chapters,
although all agree regarding the later composition of the
concluding portion. It is assigned by critics to various
periods ranging from about the end of the first quarter
of the second century to the end of the third century or later,
whilst many denounce it as a mere modern forgery. Nothing can
be more insecure in one direction than the date of a writing derived
alone from internal evidence. Allusions to actual occurrences
may with certainty prove that a work could only have been
written after they had taken place. The mere absence of later
indications in an anonymous Epistle only found in a single MS. of
the thirteenth or fourteenth century, however, and which may have
been, and probably was, written expressly in imitation of early
Christian feeling, cannot furnish any solid basis for an early date.
It must be evident that the determination of the date of this
Epistle cannot, therefore, be regarded as otherwise than doubtful
and arbitrary. It is certain that the purity of its Greek and the
elegance of its style distinguish it from all other Christian works
of the period to which so many assign it.
The Epistle to Diognetus does not furnish any evidence
even of the existence of our Synoptics, for it is admitted
that it does not contain a single direct quotation from any
evangelical work. We shall hereafter have to refer to this Epistle
in connection with the fourth Gospel, but in the meantime it may
be well to add that in chap, xii., one of those, it will be remem-
bered, which are admitted to be of later date, a brief quotation is
made from i Cor. viii. i, introduced merely by the words,
Aeyec.
CHAPTER VI.
BASILIDES VALENTINUS.
WE must now turn back to an earlier period, and consider any
evidence regarding the synoptic Gospels which may be furnished
by the so-called heretical writers of the second century. The first
of these who claims our attention is Basilides, the founder of a
system of Gnosticism, who lived in Alexandria about the year 125
of our era. 1 With the exception of a very few brief fragments, 2
none of the writings of this Gnostic have been preserved, and all
our information regarding them is, therefore, derived at second-
hand from ecclesiastical writers opposed to him and his doctrines ;
and their statements, especially where acquaintance with, and the
use of, the New Testament Scriptures are assumed, must be
received with very great caution. The uncritical and inaccurate
character of the Fathers rendered them peculiarly liable to be
misled by foregone devout conclusions.
Eusebius states that Agrippa Castor, who had written a refutation
of the doctrines of Basilides, " says that he had composed twenty-
four books upon the Gospel." 3 This is interpreted by Tischendorf,
without argument, and in a most arbitrary and erroneous manner,
to imply that the work was a commentary upon our four canonical
Gospels ; 4 a conclusion the audacity of which can scarcely be
exceeded. This is, however, almost surpassed by the treatment
of Dr. Westcott, who writes regarding Basilides : " It appears,
moreover, that he himself published a Gospel a ' Life of Christ,'
as it would perhaps be called in our days, or ' The Philosophy
of Christianity 's but he admitted the historic truth of all the
facts contained in the canonical Gospels, and used them as
Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony of
Basilides to our ' acknowledged ' books is comprehensive and
clear. In the few pages of his writings which remain there are
certain references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and
St. John," 6 etc. Now, such representations as these, made in
1 Eusebius, H. ., iv. 7, 8, 9.
a Grabe, Spicil. Pair., ii., p. 39 ff., 65 ff.
3 H. ., iv. 7- 4 Wann ivurden, u. s. w., p. 51 f.
5 These names are, of course, pure inventions of Dr. Westcott's fancy.
6 On the Canon, p. 255 f. [Since these remarks were first made, Dr.
Westcott has somewhat enlarged his account of Basilides, but we still consider
that his treatment of the subject is deceptive and incomplete.]
322
BASILIDES 323
the absence of any explanation of the facts, or any statement of
the reasons for such unqualified assertions, and totally ignoring
the whole of the discussion with regard to the supposed quota-
tions of Basilides in the work commonly ascribed to Hippolytus,
and the adverse results of learned criticism, must be condemned
as only calculated to mislead readers unacquainted with the
facts of the case.
We know from the evidence of antiquity that Basilides made
use of a Gospel, written by himself, it is said, but certainly called
after his own name. 1 An attempt has been made to explain this
by suggesting that perhaps the work mentioned by Agrippa Castor
may have been mistaken for a Gospel ; but the fragments of that
work which are still extant 2 are of a character which precludes the
possibility that any writing of which they formed a part could have
been considered a Gospel. Various opinions have been expressed
as to the exact nature of the Gospel of Basilides. Neander affirmed
it to be the Gospel according to the Hebrews which he brought
from Syria to Egypt ; 3 whilst Schneckenburger held it to be the
Gospel according to the Egyptians. 4 Others believe it to have at
least been based upon one or other of these Gospels. There
seems most reason for the hypothesis that it was a form of
the Gospel according to the Hebrews which was so generally
in use.
Returning to the passage already quoted, in which Eusebius
states, on the authority of Aggrippa Castor, whose works are no
longer extant, that Basilides had composed a work in twenty -four
books on the Gospel (TO emyyeAiov), and to the unwarrantable
inference that this must have been a work on our four Gospels,
we must add that, so far from deriving his doctrines from our
Gospels or other New Testament writings, or acknowledging their
authority, Basilides professed that he received his knowledge of
the truth from Glaucias, " the interpreter of Peter," whose disciple
he claimed to be, 5 and thus practically sets Gospels aside and
prefers tradition. Basilides also claimed to have received from a
certain Matthias the report of private discourses which he had
heard from the Saviour for his special instruction. 6 Agrippa
Castor further stated, according to Eusebius, that in his
1 Ausus fuit et Basilides scribere Evangelium et suo illud nomine titulare.
Origen, Horn. i. in Liicam. Ausus est etiam Basilides Evangelium scribere
quod dicitur secundum Basilidem. Ambros. , Comment, in Luc. Proem.
Hieron., Pnef. in Matt.
2 Grabe, Spicil. Patr., ii., p. 39 ff. , 65 ff. ; Clemens Al. , Strom., iv. 12.
3 Gnost. Syst., p. 84 ; cf. K. G., 1843, ii., p. 709, anm. 2.
* Ueb. d. Ev. d. SEgypt., 1834.
5 Clem. Al., Strom., vii. 17, 106.
6 Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. H<zr., vii. 20; ed. Duncker et Schneidewin,
1859.
324 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Basilides named for himself, as prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph
(Parchor 1 ), as well as invented others who never existed, and
claimed their authority for his doctrines. 2 With regard to all
this Dr. Westcott writes : " Since Basilides lived on the verge of
the apostolic times, it is not surprising that he made use of other
sources of Christian doctrine besides the canonical books. The
belief in Divine Inspiration was still fresh and real," 3 etc. It is
apparent, however, that Basilides, in basing his doctrines upon
tradition and upon these apocryphal books as inspired, and in
having a special Gospel called after his own name, which, there-
fore, he clearly adopts as the exponent of his ideas of Christian
truth, completely ignores the canonical Gospels, and not only
does not offer any evidence for their existence, but proves, on the
contrary, that he did not recognise any such works as of authority.
There is no ground, therefore, for Tischendorf s assumption that
the commentary of Basilides " on the Gospel " was written upon
our Gospels, but that idea is negatived in the strongest way by all
the facts of the case. The perfectly simple interpretation of the
statement is that long ago suggested by Valesius, 4 that the Com-
mentary of Basilides was composed upon his own Gospel, whether
it was the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Egyptians.
Moreover, it must be borne in mind that Basilides used the
word " Gospel " in a peculiar sense. Hippolytus, in the work
usually ascribed to him, writing of the Basilidians and describing
their doctrines, says : " When therefore it was necessary, he (?)
says, that we, the children of God, should be revealed, in
expectation of whose revelation, he says, the creation groaned and
travailed, the Gospel came into the world, and passed through
every principality and power and dominion, and every name that is
named," etc. " The Gospel, therefore, came first from the Sonship,
he says, through the Son, sitting by the Archon, to the Archon,
and the Archon learnt that he was not the God of all things, but
begotten," 5 etc. " The Gospel, according to them, is the know-
ledge of supramundane matters," 6 etc. This may not be very
intelligible, but it is sufficient to show that " the Gospel " in a
technical sense? formed a very important part of the system of
Basilides. Now, there is nothing whatever to show that the
twenty-four books which he composed " on the Gospel " were not
1 Isidorus, his son and disciple, wrote a commentary on the prophecy of
Parchor (Clem. Al., Strom., vi. 6, 53), in which he further refers to the
" prophecy of Cham."
2 Euseb., H. E., iv. 7. 3 On the Canon, p. 255.
4 Cf. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i., p. 343, not. m.
5 Ib., vii. 26 ; cf. 27, etc. 6 Ib., vii. 27.
7 Dr. Westcott admits this technical use of fche word, of course (On the
Canon, p. 255 f., note 4).
BASILIDES 325
in elucidation of the Gospel as technically understood by him,
illustrated by extracts from his own special Gospel and from the
tradition handed down to him by Glaucias and Matthias.
The emphatic assertion of Dr. Westcott, that Basilides " admitted
the historic truth of all the facts contained in the canonical
Gospels," is based solely upon the following sentence of the work
attributed to Hippolytus : " Jesus, however, was generated
according to these (followers of Basilides), as we have already said. 1
But when the generation which has already been declared had
taken place, all things regarding the Saviour, according to them,
occurred in like manner as they have been written in the
Gospel." 2 There are, however, several important points to be
borne in mind in reference to this passage. The statement in
question is not made in connection with Basilides himself, but
distinctly in reference to his followers, of whom there were many
in the time of Hippolytus and long after him. It is, moreover, a
general observation, the accuracy of which we have no means of
testing, and upon the correctness of which there is no special
reason to rely. The remark, made at the beginning of the
third century, that the followers of Basilides believed that the
actual events of the life of Jesus occurred in the way in which
they have been written in the Gospels, is no proof that
either they or Basilides used or admitted the authority of our
Gospels. The exclusive use by any one of the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, for instance, would be perfectly consistent with
the statement. No one who considers what is known of that
Gospel, or who thinks of the use made of it in the first half of the
second century by perfectly orthodox Fathers, can doubt this.
The passage is, therefore, of no weight as evidence for the use of
our Gospels. Dr. Westcott himself admits that in the extant
fragments of Isidorus, the son and disciple of Basilides, who
" maintained the doctrines of his father," he has " noticed nothing
bearing on the books of the New Testament."3 On the supposi-
tion that Basilides actually wrote a Commentary on our Gospels,
and used them as Scripture, it is indeed passing strange that we
have so little evidence on the point.
We must now examine in detail all of the quotations, and
they are few, alleged to show the use of our Gospels ; and we
shall commence with those of Tischendorf. The first passage
which he points out is found in the Stromata of Clement of
Alexandria. Tischendorf guards himself, in reference to these
quotations, by merely speaking of them as " Basilidian " (Basil! -
1 He refers to a mystical account of the incarnation.
- Hippolytus, Kef. Ornn. Hcer., vii. 27.
3 On the Canon, p. 257.
326
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
dianisch), 1 but it might have been more frank to have stated
clearly that Clement distinctly assigns the quotation to the
followers of Basilides (ot Se ajro BacriA.eto'ov), 2 and not to Basilides
himself. 3 The supposed quotation, therefore, even if traced
to our Gospels, could not prove anything in regard to Basilides.
The passage itself, compared with the parallel in Matt. xix.
ii, 12, is as follows :
STROM, in. i, i.
They say the Lord answered : All
men cannot receive this saying.
For there are some who are eunuchs
from birth, others by constraint.
Ov irdvres
eicrt yap eiVo
TOV \6yoi> rovrov,
MATT. xix. 11, 12.
v. ii. But he said unto them : All
men cannot receive this saying, but
only they to whom it is given.
v. 12. For there are eunuchs which
were so born from their mother's womb:
and there are eunuchs which were made
eunuchs by men, etc.
Ov Tcdvres %wpoO(ri rbv \6yov TOVTOV,
(ot, oi fikv IK yfveTrjs, oi dXX' ols dtdorai' flfflv yap
| o'tTivfs K KOiXias yuijrpos ytvv/)0rjcrav
. otfrws, Kal elffiv evvovxoi o'lrivft evvov-
I yi(Tdt\<so.v virb rCiv avOpuiiruv, /c.r.X.
Now, this passage, in its affinity to, and material variation from, our
first Gospel, might be quoted as evidence for the use of another
Gospel, but it cannot reasonably be cited as evidence for the use
of Matthew. Apologists, in their anxiety to grasp at the faintest
analogies as testimony, seem altogether to ignore the history of the
creation of written Gospels, and to forget the existence of the
TroAXoi of Luke.
The next passage referred to by Tischendorf* is one quoted by
Epiphanius, 5 which we subjoin in contrast with the parallel in
Matt. vii. 6 :
H>ER., xxiv. 5.
And therefore he said :
Cast not ye pearls before swine,
neither give that which is holy unto
dogs.
Mr;
KVffl.
roi)s fj.apyaplras t/jLirpoff-
d6re T& ayiov rots
MATT. vn. 6.
Give not that which is holy unto
dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under
their feet, and turn again and rend
you.
Mt) 5wre rb ayiov raits KVfflv,
j3d\Tr)T roi)s fj.apyaplras v/j.
Oev TUV x o Lp uv > K.T.\.
Here, again, the variation in order is just what one might have
expected from the use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews or
a similar work, and there is no indication that the passage did
1 Wann IVurden, u. s. w., p. 51. 2 Strom, iii. I, I.
3 Dr. Westcott does not refer to this quotation at all.
4 \Vann Wunlen, u. s. w., p. 51. 5 Hcer., xxiv. 5, p. 72.
BASILIDES 327
not end here, without the continuation of our first Synoptic. What
is still more important, although Tischendorf does not mention
the fact, nor otherwise hint a doubt than by introducing this
quotation also as " Basilidianisch," instead of directly ascribing it
to Basilides himself, this passage is not attributed by Epiphanius
to that heretic. It is introduced into the section of his work
directed against the Basilidians, but he uses, like Clement, the
indefinite t^rja-i ; and as, in dealing with all these heresies, there is
continual interchange of reference to the head and the later
followers, there is no certainty who is referred to in these quota-
tions, and, in this instance, nothing to indicate that this passage
is ascribed to Basilides himself. His name is mentioned in the
first line of the first chapter of this " heresy," but not again before
this <J>rj<ri occurs in chapter v. Tischendorf does not claim any other
quotations.
Dr. Westcott states : " In the few pages of his (Basilides')
writings which remain there are certain references to the Gospels
of St. Matthew, St. Luke," 1 etc. One might suppose from this
that the " certain " references occurred in actual extracts made
from his works, and that the quotations, therefore, appeared set in a
context of his own words. This jmpression is strengthened when
we read as an introduction to the instances: "The following
examples will be sufficient to show his method of quotation." 2
The fact is, however, that these examples are found in the work of
Hippolytus, in an epitome of the views of the school by that
writer himself, with nothing more definite than a subjectless (frrpri
to indicate who is referred to. The only examples Dr. Westcott
can give of these " certain references " to our first and third
Synoptics do not show his " method of quotation " to much
advantage. The first is not a quotation at all, but a mere reference
to the Magi and the Star. " But that everything, he says (<farf),
has its own seasons, the Saviour sufficiently teaches when he says :
and the Magi having seen the star, "3 etc. This, of course,
Dr. Westcott considers a reference to Matt. ii. i, 2, but we need
scarcely point out that this falls to the ground instantly if it be
admitted, as it must be, that the Star and the Magi may have
been mentioned in other Gospels than the first Synoptic. We
have already seen, when examining the evidence of Justin, that
this is the case. The only quotation asserted to be taken from
Luke is the phrase : " The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and
the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee," 4 which agrees
with Luke i. 35. This again is introduced by Hippolytus with
another subjectless " he says," and, apart from the uncertainty as
1 On the Canon, p. 256. 2 Ib. , p. 256, note 3.
3 Hippolytus, Ref. Own. H<er., %'ii. 27. 4 Ib. , vii. 26.
328 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
to who "he" is, this is very unsatisfactory evidence as to the form
of the quotation in the original text, for it may easily have been
corrected by Hippolytus, consciously or unconsciously, in the
course of transfer to his pages. We have already met with this
passage as quoted by Justin from a Gospel different from ours.
As we have stated, however, none of the quotations which
we have considered are directly referred to Basilides himself,
but they are all introduced by the utterly vague expression, " he
says " (tfnjari), without any subject accompanying the verb. Now,
it is admitted that writers of the time of Hippolytus, and notably
Hippolytus himself, made use of the name of the founder of a
sect to represent the whole of his school, and applied to him,
apparently, quotations taken from unknown and later followers.
The passages which he cites, therefore, and which appear to
indicate the use of Gospels, instead of being extracted from the
works of the founder himself, in all probability were taken
from writings of Gnostics of his own time. Dr. Westcott
admits the possibility of this, in writing of other early heretics.
He says: "The evidence that has been collected from the
documents of these primitive sects is necessarily somewhat vague.
It would be more satisfactory to know the exact position of their
authors, and the precise date of their being composed. It is just
possible that Hippolytus made use of writings which were current
in his own time without further examination, and transferred to
the apostolic age forms of thought and expression which had been
the growth of two, or even of three, generations." 1 So much as
to the reliance to be placed on the work ascribed to Hippolytus.
It is certain, for instance, that, in writing of the sect of Naaseni
and Ophites, Hippolytus perpetually quotes passages from the
writings of the school, with the indefinite <f>rj<ri, 2 as he likewise
does in dealing with the Peratici,3 and Docetae, 4 no individual
author being named ; yet he evidently quotes various writers,
passing from one to another without explanation, and making use
of the same unvarying </n/(ri. In one place, 5 where he has "the
Greeks say" (facrlv ol "EAA^ves), he gives, without further
indication, a quotation from Pindar. 6 A still more apt instance
of his method is that pointed out by Volkmar,? where Hippolytus,
writing of " Marcion, or some one of his hounds," uses, without
further explanation, the subjectless <f>rj(ri to introduce matter from
the later followers of Marcion. 8 Now, with regard to Basilides,
1 On the Canon, p. 252. 2 Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Hcer., v. 6 ff.
3 Ib., v. 16, 17. Ib., viii. 9, 10. s Ib., v. 7.
6 Hippol., Ref. Omn. ffcer. ed Duncker et Schneidewin not. in loc.,
P- 134-
i Theol.Jahrb., 1854, p. 108 ff. ; Der Ursprung, p. 70.
8 Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Har.-, vii. 30.
BASILIDES 329
Hippolytus directly refers not only to the heretic chief, but also
to his disciple Isidorus and all their followers 1 (KCU 'lo-i'Swpos KOL
was o TOUTWV x/ s )> an d tnen proceeds to use the indefinite
"he says," interspersed with references in the plural to these
heretics, exhibiting the same careless method of quotation, and
leaving complete uncertainty as to the speaker's identity.
On the other hand, it has been demonstrated by Hilgenfeld
that the gnosticism ascribed to Basilides by Hippolytus, in
connection with these quotations, is of a much later and
more developed type than that which Basilides himself held, 2
as shown in the actual fragments of his own writings which
are still extant, and as reported by Irenaeus, 3 Clement of
Alexandria, 4 and the work Adversus omnes ffcereses, annexed to
the Prascripto ffcereticorum of Tertullian, which is considered to
be the epitome of an earlier work of Hippolytus. The fact
probably is that Hippolytus derived his views of the doctrines of
Basilides from the writings of his later followers, and from them
made the quotations which are attributed to the founder of the
school. In any case there is no ground for referring these
quotations with an indefinite <->?o-i to Basilides himself.
Of all this there is not a word from Dr. Westcott, 5 but he
ventures to speak of " the testimony of Basilides to our ' acknow-
ledged ' books," as " comprehensive and clear." 6 We have seen,
however, that the passages referred to have no weight whatever as
evidence for the use of our Synoptics. The formulae (as TO
ei/377/Aevov to that compared with Luke i. 35, and ws yeypaTrrcu,
17 ypa^rfi with references compared with some of the Epistles)
which accompany these quotations, and to which Dr. Westcott
points as an indication that the New Testament writings were
already recognised as Holy Scripture, 7 need no special attention,
because, as it cannot be shown that the expressions were used by
Basilides himself, they do not come into question. If any-
thing were required to complete the evidence that these quota-
tions are not from the works of Basilides himself, but from
later writings by his followers, it would be the use of such formulae,
for, as the writings of pseudo-Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr,
Papias, Hegesippus, and others of the Fathers, in several ways
positively demonstrate, the New Testament writings were not
1 Hippolytus, ib., vii. 20; cf. 22.
2 Hilgenfeld, Theol. Jahrb., 1856, p. 86 ff., 786 ff.; Die jud. Apok., 1857,
p. 287 ff.; Zeitschr. wisy. Theol., 1862, p. 452 ff. ; 1878, p. 228 ff.
3 Adv. Har., i. 24. 4 Stromata, vi. 3.
5 And very little from Tischendorf. [In the 4th ed. of his work, Dr. West-
cott has added some observations regarding these subjectless quotations, but
still most inadequately states the case.]
6 On the Canon, p. 256. ^ Ib. , p. 256.
330 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
admitted, even amongst orthodox Fathers, to the rank of Holy
Scripture until a very much later period.
Much of what has been said with regard to the claim which is
laid to Basilides by some apologists as a witness for the Gospels
and the existence of a New Testament Canon, and the manner in
which that claim is advanced, likewise applies to Valentinus,
another Gnostic leader, who, about the year 140, came from
Alexandria to Rome, and flourished till about A.D. I60. 1 Very
little remains of the writings of this Gnostic, and we gain our
only knowledge of them from a few short quotations in the works
of Clement of Alexandria, and some doubtful fragments pre-
served by others. We shall presently have occasion to refer
directly to these, and need not here more particularly mention
them.
Tischendorf, the self-constituted modern Defensor fidei* asserts,
with an assurance which can scarcely be characterised otherwise
than as an unpardonable calculation upon the ignorance of his
readers, that Valentinus used the whole of our four canonical
Gospels. To do him full justice, we shall, as much as possible,
give his own words ; and, although we set aside systematically all
discussion regarding the fourth Gospel for separate treatment
hereafter, we must, in order to convey the full sense of Dr.
Tischendorfs proceeding, commence with a sentence regarding
that Gospel. Referring to a statement of Irenseus, that the
followers of Valentinus made use of the fourth Gospel, Tischen-
dorf continues : " Hippolytus confirms and completes the state-
ment of Irenaeus, for he quotes several expressions of John, which
Valentinus employed. This most clearly occurs in the case of
John x. 8 ; for Hippolytus writes : ' Because the prophets and the
law, according to the doctine of Valentinus, were only filled
with a subordinate and foolish spirit, Valentinus says : On
account of this, the Saviour says : All who came before
me were thieves and robbers.' " 3 Now this, to begin with,
is a practical falsification of the text of the Philosophumena,
which reads : " Therefore, all the Prophets and the Law spoke
under the influence of the Demiurge, a foolish God, he says, (they
1 Irenes, Adv. Har., iii. 4, 3 ; Eusebius, H. E., iv. n.
2 Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1865, p. 329.
"Die Angabe des Ireniius bestdrkt und vervollstiindigt Hippolytus, denn er
fiihrt einzelne Johanneische Ausspriiche an, welche Valentin bentttzt hat. Am
deutlichsten geschieht dies mit Joh. x. 8 ; denn Hippolytus schreibt : Weil die
Propheten und das Gesetz, nach Valentins Lehre, nur von einem untergeord-
neten und thorichten Geiste erftillt waren, so sagt Valentin: Eben deshalb
spricht der Erlciser : Alle die vor mir gekommen\sind, sind Diebe und Af order
gewesen." Wann wurden, u. s. iv., p. 44.
VALENTINUS 331
themselves being) foolish, knowing nothing. On this account, he
says, the Saviour saith : All who came before me," etc. 1 There is
no mention of the name of Valentinus in the passage, and,
as we shall presently show, there is no direct reference in the
whole chapter to Valentinus himself. The introduction of his
name in this manner into the text, without a word of explanation,
is highly reprehensible. It is true that in a note Tischendorf
gives a closer translation of the passage, without, however, any
explanation ; and here again he adds, in parenthesis to the " says
he," " namely, Valentinus." Such a note, however, which would
probably be unread by a majority of readers, does not rectify the
impression conveyed by so positive and emphatic an assertion as is
conveyed by the alteration in the text.
Tischendorf continues : " And as the Gospel of John, so also
were the other Gospels used by Valentinus. According to the
statement of Irenaeus (I. 7, 4), he found the said subordinate
spirit which he calls Demiurge, Masterworker, emblematically
represented by the Centurion of Capernaum (Matt. viii. 9,
Luke vii. 8) ; in the dead and resuscitated daughter of Jairus,
when twelve years old (Luke viii. 41), he recognised a symbol of
his ' Wisdom ' (Achamoth), the mother of the Masterworker
(I. 8, 2) ; in like manner, he saw represented in the history of
the woman who had suffered twelve years from the bloody issue,
and was cured by the Lord (Matt. ix. 20), the sufferings and
salvation of his twelfth primitive spirit (Aeon) (I. 3, 3) ; the
expression of the Lord (Matt. v. 18) on the numerical value of the
iota (' the smallest letter ') he applied to his ten aeons in repose." 2
Now, in every instance where Tischendorf here speaks of Valentinus
by the singular " he," Irenaeus uses the plural " they," referring
not to the original founder of the sect, but to his followers in his
own day ; and the text is thus again in every instance falsified by
the pious zeal of the apologist. In the case of the Centurion :
" they say " (Aeyowi) that he is the Demiurge ;3 " they declare "
(Sirfjovvrai} that the daughter of Jairus is the type of Achamoth ; 4
"they say" (Aeyovo-t) that the apostasy of Judas points to the
passion in connection with the twelfth aeon, and also the fact that
Jesus suffered in the twelfth month after his baptism ; for they
will have it (/JouAovrou) that he only preached for one year. The
case of the woman with the bloody issue for twelve years, and the
power which went forth from the Son to heal her, " they will have
to be Horos " (etWu 8e TO.VTI]V TOV "Opov #eA.owii/).s In like manner
they assert that the ten aeons are indicated (o-Tj/xmVccrtfat \eyova-i)
1 Hippolytus, Kef. Omn. Hcer., vi. 35. 2 Wann warden, u. s. w., p. 44.
3 Irenaeus, Adv. Har., \. 7, 4. 4 Ib., Adv. Har., i. 8, 2.
5 /<*, i- 3, 3-
332 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
by the letter " iota," mentioned in the Saviour's expres-
sion, Matt. v. iS. 1 At the end of these and numerous other
similar references to this chapter to New Testament expres-
sions and passages, Irenaeus says : " Thus they interpret," etc.
(e/a/it/veuowtv tlpijcrOai). 2 The plural " They " is employed
throughout.
Tischendorf proceeds to give the answer to his statemeut which
is supposed to be made by objectors. " They say : all that has
reference to the Gospel of John was not advanced by Valentinus
himself, but by his disciples. And in fact, in Irenaeus, 'they the
Valentinians say,' occurs much oftener than ' he Valentinus
says.' But who is there so sapient as to draw the line between
what the master alone says, and that which the disciples state
without in the least repeating the master?" 3 Tischendorf solves
the difficulty by referring everything indiscriminately to the
master. Now, in reply to these observations, we must remark, in
the first place, that the admission here made by Tischendorf, that
Irenaeus much more often uses " they say " than " he says " is
still quite disingenuous, inasmuch as invariably, and without
exception, Irenaeus uses the plural in connection with the texts
in question. Secondly, it is quite obvious that a Gnostic writing
about A.D. 185-195 was likely to use arguments which were
never thought of by a Gnostic writing at the middle of the
century. At the end of the century the writings of the New
Testament had acquired consideration and authority, and Gnostic
writers had therefore a reason to refer to them, and to endeavour
to show that they supported their peculiar views, which did not
exist at all at the time when Valentinus propounded his system.
Tischendorf, however, cannot be allowed the benefit even of such
a doubt as he insinuates, as to what belongs to the master and
what to the followers. Such doubtful testimony could not
establish anything, but it is in point of fact also totally excluded
by the statements of Irenaeus himself.
In the preface to the first book of his great work, Irenaeus
clearly states the motives and objects for which he writes. He
says : " I considered it necessary, having read the commentaries
(vTj-o/xvrj/Aao-i) of the disciples of Valentinus, as they call them-
selves, and having had personal intercourse with some of them
and acquired full knowledge of their opinions, to unfold to thee,"
etc., and he goes on to say that he intends to set forth " the
opinions of those who are now teaching heresy; I speak particu-
larly of the followers of Ptolemaeus, whose system is an offshoot
of the school of Valentinus."* Nothing could be more explicit
1 Ib,, i. 3, 2. " Ib., i. 3, 4. 3 Wann wurden, n. s. w., p. 45.
4 Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer. Praf., i., 2.
VALENTINUS 333
than this statement that Irenaeus neither intended nor pretended
to write upon the works of Valentinus himself, but upon the
commentaries of his followers of his own time, with some of whom
he had had personal intercourse, and that the system which he
intended to attack was that actually being taught in his day by
Ptolemaeus and his school, the offshoot from Valentinus. All the
quotations to which Tischendorf refers are made within a few
pages of this explicit declaration. Immediately after the passage
about the Centurion, he says, " such is their system " (roiaur^s
Se rrjs vTroOeo-eias aurwv ow-???), and three lines below he states
that they derive their views from unwritten sources (e dypdffrwv
dvaytvojo-Kovres). 1 The first direct reference to Valentinus does
not occur until after these quotations, and is for the purpose of
showing the variation of opinion of his followers. He says : " Let
us now see the uncertain opinions of these heretics, for there are
two or three of them, how they do not speak alike of the same
things, but contradict one another in facts and names." Then
he continues : " For the first of them, Valentinus, having derived
his principles from the so-called Gnostic heresy, and adapted them
to the peculiar character of his school, declared this," etc. 2 And
after a brief description of his system, in which no Scripture
allusion occurs, he goes on to compare the views of the rest, and
in chap. xii. he returns to Ptolemaeus and his followers ( e O
riroA-eynaio?, /cat ol <rvv avTW, K.T.X.).
In the preface to Book II., he again says that he has been
exposing the falsity of the followers of Valentinus (qui sunt a
Valentino), and will proceed to establish what he has advanced ;
and everywhere he uses the plural " they," with occasional direct
references to the followers of Valentinus (qui sunt a Valentino) J>
The same course is adopted in Book III., the plural being
systematically used, and the same distinct definition introduced at
intervals. 4 And again, in the preface to Book IV., he recapitulates
that the preceding books had been written against these, '''qui sunt
a Valentino" ( 2). In fact, it would almost be impossible for any
writer more frequently and emphatically to show that he is not,
as he began by declaring, dealing with the founder of the school
himself, but with his followers living and teaching at the time at
which he wrote.
Dr. Westcott, with whose system of positively enunciating
unsupported and controverted statements we are already acquainted,
is only slightly outstripped by the German apologist in his
1 Irenseus, Adv. Flar., i. 8, I. 2 Ib., i. u, I. .
3 As, for instance, ii. 16, 4.
4 For instance, " Secundum autein eos qui sunt a Valentino" iii. u, 2.
" Secundum autein illos" 3 ; " ab omnibus illos" 3. " Hi autem qui sunt
a Valentino" etc., 7, ib., 9, etc.
334 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
misrepresentation of the evidence of Valentinus. It must be stated,
however, that, acknowledging, as no doubt he does, that Irenseus
never refers to Valentinus himself, Dr. Westcott passes over in
complete silence the supposed references upon which Tischendorf
relies as his only evidence for the use of the Synoptics by that
Gnostic. He, however, makes the following extraordinary state-
ment regarding Valentinus : " The fragments of his writings which
remain show the same natural and trustful use of Scripture as
other Christian works of the same period; and there is no
diversity of character in this respect between the quotations given
in Hippolytus and those found in Clement of Alexandria. He
cites the Epistle to the Ephesians as ' Scripture,' and refers clearly
to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, to the
Epistles to the Romans," 1 etc.
We shall now give the passages which he points out in support
of these assertions. 2 The first two are said to occur in the Strornata
of the Alexandrian Clement, who professes to quote the very
words of a letter of Valentinus to certain people regarding the
passions, which are called by the followers of Basilides " the
appendages of the soul." The passage is as follows : " But one
only is good, whose presence is the manifestation through the
Son, and through Him alone will the heart be enabled to become
pure, by the expulsion of every evil spirit from the heart. For
many spirits dwelling in it do not allow it to be pure, but each of
them, while in diverse parts they riot there in unseemly lusts,
performs its own works. And, it seems to me, the heart is
somewhat like an inn. For that, also, is both bored and dug into,
and often filled with the ordure of men, who abide there in revelry,
and bestow not one single thought upon the place, seeing it is the
property of another. And in such wise is it with the heart, so
long as no thought is given to it, being impure, and the dwelling-
place of many demons, but as soon as the alone good Father has
visited it, it is sanctified and shines through with light, and the
1 On the Canon, p. 259 f. [In the 4th ed. of his work, published since the
above remarks were made, Dr. Westcott has modified or withdrawn his asser-
tions regarding Valentinus. As we cannot well omit the above passage, it is
right to state that the lines quoted now read : ' ' The few unquestionable
fragments of Valentinus contain but little which points to passages of Scripture.
If it were clear that the anonymous quotations in Hippolytus were derived
from Valentinus himself, the list would be much enlarged, and include a citation
of the Epistle to the Ephesians as ' Scripture,' and clear references to the Gos-
pels of St. Luke and St. John, to I Corinthians, perhaps also to the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and the first Epistle of St. John " (p. 295 f.). In a note he adds :
' ' But a fresh and careful examination of the whole section of Hippolytus makes
me feel that the evidence is so uncertain that I cannot be sure in this case, as
in the case of Basilides, that Hippolytus is quoting the words of the Founder "
(p. 295, n. 5). Under these circumstances, the statements even in the amended
edition present many curious features. * Ib. , p. 260, note 2.
VALENTINUS 335
possessor of such a heart becomes so blessed that he shall see
God." 1 According to Dr. Westcott, this passage contains two of
the " clear references " to our Gospels upon which he bases his
statement namely, to Matt. v. 8 and to Matt. xix. 17.
Now, it is clear that there is no actual quotation from any
evangelical work in this passage from the Epistle of Valentinus,
and the utmost for which the most zealous apologist could contend
is that there is a slight similarity with some words in the Gospel,
and Dr. Westcott himself does not venture to call them more
than " references." That such distant coincidences should be
quoted as evidence for the use of the first Gospel shows how weak
is his case. At best such vague allusions could not prove any-
thing ; but when the passages to which reference is supposed to
be made are examined, it will be apparent that nothing could be
more unfounded or arbitrary than the claim of reference specially
to our Gospel, to the exclusion of other Gospels then existing,
which, to our knowledge, contained both passages. We may,
indeed, go still further, and affirm that, if these coincidences are
references to any Gospel at all, that Gospel is not the canonical,
but one different from it.
The first reference alluded to consists of the following two
phrases: "But one only is good ( Se eWiv dya#os) the
alone good Father " (6 /AOVOS dya$bs iraTi/jp). This is compared
with Matt. xix. i; 2 : "Why askest thou me concerning good?
there is one that is good " (eis eo-riv 6 dya#ds).3 Now, the
passage in the epistle, if a reference to any parallel episode, such
as Matt. xix. 17, indicates, with certainty, the reading: "One is
good, the Father " (ei? ecrrtv dya#os 6 iraTr/p). There is no such
reading in any of our Gospels. But, although this reading does
not exist in any of the canonical Gospels, it is well known that it
did exist in uncanonical Gospels no longer extant, and that the
passage was one upon which various sects of so-called heretics
laid great stress. Irenaeus quotes it as one of the texts to which
the Marcosians, who made use of apocryphal Gospels, 4 and
notably of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, gave a different
colouring : e?j ecrnv dyatfos, 6 Tra-n^s. Epiphanius also quotes
this reading as one of the variations of the Marcionites : cfs
mv dya$bs, 6 fobs, 6 Trarrfp. 6 Origen likewise remarks that
this passage is misused by some heretics : " Velut proprie sibi
1 Clem., Al. Strom., ii. 20, 114.
2 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 260, note 2.
3 Mark x. 18 and Luke xviii. 18 are linguistically more distant. " Why
callest thou me good ? There is none good but God only." ot)5ds dyaObs el
/AT] els 6 6f6s.
4 Adv. Har., i. 20, I. s Ib., i. 20, 2.
6 Epiphanius, Hizr., xlii. ; Schol. L. ed. Pet,, p. 339.
336 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
datum scutum putant (fuzretici) quod dixit Dominus in Evangelio :
Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus pater." 1 Justin Martyr quotes the
same reading from a source different from our Gospels, ?s eo-rtv
dyo,0os 6 Tra-njp pov, K.r.A., 2 and in agreement with the repeated
similar readings of the Clementine Homilies, which likewise derived
it from an extra canonical source, o yap dyaflos ei? ecn-tv, 6 Trar^p.3
The use of a similar expression by Clement of Alexandria,* as well
as by Origen, only serves to prove the existence of the reading in
extinct Gospels, although it is not found in any MS. of any of
our Gospels.
The second of the supposed references is more diffuse : " One
is good, and through him alone will the heart be enabled to
become pure (17 KapSfa Kadapa, yevecr&u) but when the
alone good Father has visited it, it is sanctified and shines through
with light, and the possessor of such a heart becomes so blessed
that he shall see God " (KG! OVTW //.a/cap^erou 6 2;(<oj/ r)v
ToiavTffv Kapoiav, on o^ercu TOV $eov). This is compared 5
with Matt. v. 8 : " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall
see God " (fiaKaptoi ol KaOapol rfj KapSiy., OTI avTol TOV Oebv o^ovrcu).
It might be argued that this is quite as much a reference to
Psalm xxiv. 3-6 as to Matt. v. 8 ; but even if treated as a reference
to the Sermon on the Mount, nothing is more certain than the fact
that this discourse had its place in much older forms of the
Gospel than our present canonical Gospels, and that it formed
part of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other evangelical
writings in circulation in the early Church. Such a reference as
this is absolutely worthless as evidence of special acquaintance
with our first Synoptic. 6
Tischendorf does not appeal at all to these supposed references
contained in the passages preserved by Clement, but both the
German and the English apologist join in relying upon the
testimony of Hippolytus,? with regard to the use of the Gospels
1 De Principiis, i. 2, 13 ; cf. de Orat., 15 ; Exhort, ad Mart., 7 ; Contra
Cels., v. ii ; cf. Griesbach, Symb. Crit., ii., pp. 305, 349, 388.
2 Apol., i. 16. 3 Horn., xviii. I, 3.
4 o65eis dya0bs, el /ffy 6 irarJip /J.QV, K.T.\. (Ptedag., i. 8, 72, cf. 74); els
dyaObs 6 irar/ip (Strom., v. 10, 64).
5 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 260, note 2.
6 The supposed reference to the Ep. to the Romans i. 20 ; cf. Clem. Al.,
Strom., iv. 13, 91, 92, is much more distant than either of the preceding. It
is not necessary for us to discuss it ; but, as Dr. Westcott merely gives references
to all of the passages without quoting any of the words, a good strong assertion
becomes a powerful argument, since few readers have the means of verifying
its correctness.
7 By a misprint, Dr. Westcott ascribes all his references of Valentinus to the
N. T., except three, to the extracts from his writings in the Stromata of
Clement, although he should have indicated the work of Hippolytus. Cf. On
the Canon, 1866, p. 260, note 2.
VALENTINUS 337
by Valentinus, although it must be admitted that the former does
so with greater fairness of treatment than Dr. Westcott. Tischen-
dorf does refer to, and admit, some of the difficulties of the case,
as we shall presently see, whilst Dr. Westcott, as in the case of
Basilides, boldly makes his assertion, and totally ignores all
adverse facts. The only Gospel reference which can be adduced
even in the Philosophumena, exclusive of one asserted to be to the
fourth Gospel, which will be separately considered hereafter, is
advanced by Dr. Westcott, for Tischendorf does not refer
to it. The passage is the same as one also imputed to
Basilides: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee "; which happens to
agree with the words in Luke i. 35 ; but, as we have seen in
connection with Justin, there is good reason for concluding that
the narrative to which it belongs was contained in other
Gospels. In this instance, however, the quotation is carried
further and presents an important variation from the text of
Luke. "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power
of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore the thing
begotten of thee shall be called holy" 1 (Stb -rb yei/vw/zevoi/ CK
o-ow ayiov KA/^i/creTcu). The reading of Luke is : " Therefore
also the holy thing begotten shall be called the Son of God"
(Sib KOU TO yei/vwjuevov ayiov KXTjOtjcreTai IHOS $eov). It is
probable that the passage referred to in connection with the
followers of Basilides may have ended in the same way as this,
and been derived from the same source. Nothing can be clearer
than the fact that this quotation is not taken from our third
Synoptic, inasmuch as there does not exist a single MS. which
contains such a passage.
We again come to the question : Who really made the
quotations which Hippolytus introduces so indefinitely ? We
have already, in speaking of Basilides, pointed out the loose
manner in which Hippolytus and other early writers, in dealing
with different schools of heretics, indifferently quote the founder
or his followers without indicating the precise person referred to.
This practice is particularly apparent in the work of Hippolytus
when the followers of Valentinus are in question. Tischendorf
himself is obliged to admit this. He asks : " Even though it be also
incontestable that the author (Hippolytus) does not always sharply
distinguish between the sect and the founder of the sect, does this
apply to the present case ?" 2 He denies that it does in the instance
to which he refers, but he admits the general fact. In the same
way, another apologist, speaking of the fourth Gospel (and, as the
use of that Gospel is maintained in consequence of a quotation in
1 Hippolytus, Adv. ff,er., vi. 35. . 2 Wann wurden, u. s. TV., p. 46.
z
338 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the very same chapter as we are now considering, only a few lines
higher up, both the third and fourth are in the same position) is
forced to admit : " The use of the Gospel of John by Valentinus
cannot so certainly be proved from our refutation-writing (the
work of Hippolytus). Certainly, in the statement of these
doctrines it gives abstracts, which contain an expression of John
(x. 8), and there cannot be any doubt that this is taken from some
writing of the sect. But the apologist, in his expressions regarding
the Valentinian doctrines, does not not seem to confine himself
to one and the same work, but to have alternately made use of
different writings of the school, for which reason we cannot say
anything as to the age of this quotation ; and from this testimony,
therefore, we merely have further confirmation that the Gospel
was early 1 (?) used in the School of the Valentinians," 2 etc. Of all
this not a word from Dr. Westcott, who adheres to his system of
bare assertion.
Now, we have already quoted 3 the opening sentence of Book
VI. 35 of the work ascribed to Hippolytus, in which the quotation
from John x. 8, referred to above, occurs ; and ten lines further
on, with another intermediate, and equally indefinite, " he says "
(<r;o-i), occurs the supposed quotation from Luke i. 35, which,
equally with that from the fourth Gospel, must, according to
Weizsacker, be abandoned as a quotation which can fairly be
ascribed to Valentinus himself, whose name is not once mentioned
in the whole chapter. A few lines below the quotation, however,
a passage occurs which throws much light upon the question.
After explaining the views of the Valentinians regarding the verse,
" The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," etc., the writer thus
proceeds : " Regarding this there is among them (aiVofs) a great
question, a cause both of schism and dissension. And hence
their (awwv) teaching has become divided, and the one teaching,
according to them (KO.T' avrovs), is called Eastern (avaroAtKr/),
and the other Italian. They from Italy, of whom is Heracleon
and Ptolemaeus, say ($00-1) that the body of Jesus was animal,
and, on account of this, on the occasion of the baptism, the Holy
Spirit, like a dove, came down that is, the Logos from the
Mother above, Sophia and became joined to the animal, and
raised him from the dead. This, he says (<//o-i), is the declaration
(TO flprjfj^vov)" and here, be it observed, we come to another
of the "clear references" which Dr. Westcott ventures, deliberately
and without a word of doubt, to attribute to Valentinus himself*
1 Why " early " ? since Hippolytus writes about A.D. 225.
2 Weizsacker, Untcrs. ub. d. evang. Gesch., 1864, p. 234; cf. Luthardt, Der
johann, Urspr. viert. Ev., 1874, p. 88 f.
3 P. 330, "Therefore all the Prophets," etc. *.
4 On the Canon, p. 260. [He no longer does so, see back p. 334, n. i.]
VALENTINUS 339
" This, he says, is the declaration : ' He who raised Christ from
the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies,' 1 that is animal.
For the earth has come under a curse : ' For dust, he says (^o-t),
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.' 2 On the other hand,
those from the East (ol 8' av O.TTO rvjs avaToA/qs), of whom is
Axionicus and Bardesanes, say (A-eyowriv) that the body of the
Saviour was spiritual, for the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, that is
the Sophia and the power of the Highest," 3 etc.
In this passage we have a good illustration of the mode in
which the writer introduces his quotations with the subjectless
" he says." Here he is conveying the divergent opinions of the
two parties of Valentinians, and explaining the peculiar doctrines
of the Italian school " of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus,"
and he suddenly departs from the plural " they " to quote the
passage from Romans viii. 1 1, in support of their views, with the
singular "he says." Nothing can be more obvious than that "he"
cannot possibly be Valentinus himself, for the schism is repre-
sented as taking place amongst his followers, and the quotation is
evidently made by one of them to support the views of his party
in the schism ; but whether Hippolytus is quoting from
Heracleon or Ptolemaeus, or some other of the Italian* school,
there is no means of knowing. Of all this, again, nothing is said
by Dr. Westcott, who quietly asserts, without hesitation or argu-
ment, that Valentinus himself is the person who here makes the
quotation.
We have already said that the name of Valentinus does not
occur once in the whole chapter (vi. 35) which we have been
examining and, if we turn back, we find that the preceding con-
text confirms the result at which we have arrived, that the (frrjo-i
has no reference to the Founder himself, but is applicable only to
some later member of his school, most probably contemporary
with Hippolytus. In vi. 21, Hippolytus discusses the heresy of
Valentinus, which he traces to Pythagoras and Plato ; but in ch. 29
he passes from direct reference to the Founder to deal entirely
with his school. This is so manifest that the learned editors of
the work of Hippolytus, Professors Duncker and Schneidewin,
alter the preceding heading at that part from " Valentinus " to
" Valentiniani." At the beginning of ch. 29 Hippolytus writes:
"Valentinus, therefore, and Heracleon and Ptolemaeus and the
whole school of these (heretics) have laid down, as the funda-
mental principle of their teaching, the arithmetical system. For,
1 Cf.'Rom. viii. 11. 2 Cf. Gen. iii. 19.
3 Hippolytus, Ref. Omn. Hcer., vi. 35.
^>i 4 iThe quotation from an Epistle to the Romans by the Italian school is
appropriate.
340 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
according to these," etc. And a few lines lower down, " There is
discernible amongst them, however, considerable difference of
opinion. For many of them, in order that the Pythagorean
doctrine of Valentinus may be wholly pure, suppose, etc., but
others," etc. He shortly after says that he will proceed to state
their doctrines as they themselves teach them (/Avr/^ovtiVai/Tev
ws 6Kuvoi 8i8darKoi>criv (povpcv). He then continues : " There
is, he says (<//o-i)," etc., quoting evidently one of these followers
who want to keep the doctrine of Valentinus pure, or of the
" others," although without naming him, and three lines further on
again, without any preparation, returning to the plural " they say "
(Xeyouo-iv), and so on through the following chapters, " he says "
alternating with the plural, as the author apparently has in view
something said by individuals, or merely expresses general views.
In the chapter (34) preceding that which we have principally been
examining, Hippolytus begins by referring to "the Quaternion
according to Valentinus "; but after five lines on it he continues :
" This is what they say : ravra ecrrtv a Aeyownv," 1 and then goes on
to speak of " their whole teaching" (TT)V Tra<rav O.VTMV StSaorKaAtWy,
and lower down he distinctly sets himself to discuss the
opinions of the school in the plural : " Thus these (Valentinians)
subdivide the contents of the Pleroma," etc. (oirrws oSrot, /c.r.X.),
and continues, with an occasional " according to them " (KO.T'
airroi><}), until, without any name being mentioned, he makes
use of the indefinite " he says " to introduce the quotation
referred to by Dr. Westcott as a citation by Valentinus himself
of " the Epistle to the Ephesians as Scripture." 2 " This is, he
says, what is written in Scripture," and there follows a quotation
which, it may merely be mentioned, as Dr. Westcott says nothing
of it, differs considerably from the passage in the Epistle iii. 14-18.
Immediately after, another of Dr. Westcott's quotations from
i Cor. ii. 14 is given, with the same indefinite " he says," and, in
the same way, without further mention of names, the quotations
in ch. 35 compared with John x. 8 and Luke i. 35. There is,
therefore, absolutely no ground for referring the <?/o-i to Valen-
tinus himself; but, on the contrary, Hippolytus shows, in the
clearest way, that he is discussing the views of the later writers
of the sect, and it is one of these, and not the Founder himself,
whom he thus quotes.
We have 'been forced by these bald and unsupported assertions
of apologists to go at such length into these questions, at the risk
of b_eing very wearisome to our readers ; but it has been our aim as
much as possible to make no statements without placing before
those who are interested the materials for forming an intelligent
1 vi. 34. 2 OnVhe Canon, p. 260.
VALENTINUS 341
opinion. Any other course would be to meet such assertion by
mere denial, and it is only by bold and unsubstantiated state-
ments, which have been simply and in good faith accepted by
ordinary readers who have not the opportunity, if they have even
the will, to test their veracity, that apologists have so long held
their ground. Our results regarding Valentinus so far may be
stated as follows : the quotations which are so positively imputed
to Valentinus are not made by him, but by later writers of his
school ; and, moreover, the passages which are indicated by the
English apologist as references to our two synoptic Gospels not
only do not emanate from Valentinus, but do not agree with our
Gospels, and are apparently derived from other sources.
The remarks of Dr. Westcott with regard to the connection of
Valentinus with our New Testament are on a par with the rest of
his assertions. He says : " There is no reason to suppose that
Valentinus differed from Catholic writers on the Canon of the
New Testament." 1 We might ironically adopt this sentence, for
as no writer of the time of Valentinus recognised any New
Testament Canon at all, he certainly did not in this respect
differ from the other writers of that period. Dr. Westcott
relies upon the statement of Tertullian, but even here, although
he quotes the Latin passage in a note, he does not fully
give its real sense in his text. He writes in immediate continua-
tion of the quotation given above : " Tertullian says that in this
he differed from Marcion, that he at least professed to accept 'the
whole instrument,' perverting the interpretation, where Marcion
mutilated the text." Now, the assertion of Tertullian has a very
important modification, which, to anyone acquainted with the
very unscrupulous boldness of the "Great African" in dealing
with religious controversy, is extremely significant. He does not
make the assertion positively and of his own knowledge, but
modifies it by saying : " Nor, indeed, if Valentinus seems to use
the whole instrument (neque enim si Valentinus integro instrumento
uti videtur)" 2 etc. Tertullian evidently knew very little of
Valentinus himself, and had probably not read his writings at all.
His treatise against the Valentinians is avowedly not original, but,
as he himself admits, is compiled from the writings of Justin,
Miltiades, Irenaeus, and Proclus. 3 Tertullian would not have
hesitated to affirm anything of this kind positively, had there been
any ground for it ; but his assertion is at once too uncertain, and
the value of his statements of this nature much too small, for such
1 On the Canon, p. 259. [Dr. Westcott omits these words from his 4th ed. ,
but he uses others here and elsewhere which imply very nearly the same
assertion.]
2 De Prascrip. Har., 38. 3 Adv. Valent., 5.
342 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
a remark to have any weight as evidence. Besides, by his own
showing, Valentinus altered Scripture (sine dubio emendans)* which
he could not have done had he recognised it as of canonical
authority. We cannot, however, place any reliance upon criticism
emanating from Tertullian.
All that Origen seems to know on this subject is that the
followers of Valentinus (TOVS euro OvaXcvrivov) have altered
the form of the Gospel (^Ta-^apd^avrfs TO euayyeAiov). 2 Clement
of Alexandria, however, informs us that Valentinus, like Basilides,
professed to have direct traditions from the Apostles, his teacher
being Theodas, a disciple of the Apostle Paul. 3 If he had known
any Gospels which he believed to have apostolic authority, there
would clearly not have been any need of such tradition. Hippolytus
distinctly affirms that Valentinus derived his system from Pytha-
goras and Plato, and " not from the Gospels " (owe OTTO TWI>
vayycA.iW), and that consequently he might more properly be
considered a Pythagorean and Platonist than a Christian. 4
Irenaeus, in like manner, asserts that the Valentinians derive their
views from unwritten sources (! d.ypd(fxv avaywoo-Kovres),? and
he accuses them of rejecting the Gospels, for, after enumerating
them, 6 he continues : " When, indeed, they are refuted out of the
Scriptures, they turn round in accusation of these same Scriptures,
as though they were not correct, nor of authority For (they
say) that it (the truth) was not conveyed by written records, but
by the living voice."? In the same chapter he goes on to show
that the Valentinians not only reject the authority of Scripture,
but also reject ecclesiastical tradition. He says : " But, again,
when we refer them to that tradition which is from the Apostles,
which has been preserved through a succession of Presbyters in
the Churches, they are opposed to tradition, affirming themselves
wiser not only than Presbyters, but even than the Apostles, in
that they have discovered the uncorrupted truth. For (they say)
the Apostles mixed up matters which are of the law with the
words of the Saviour, etc It comes to this, they neither
consent to Scripture nor to tradition. ( Evenit i/ayue, negue
Scrip tur is jam, neque Traditioni consentire eos.)" s We find,
therefore, that even in the time of Irenaeus the Valentinians
rejected the writings of the New Testament as authoritative
1 De Prtescrip. Hcer., 30. 2 Contra Cels., ii. 27.
3 Strom., vii. 17, 106. 4 Ref. Own. ffeer., vi. 29; cf. vi. 21.
5 Adv. H<er., i. 8, i. 6 fb., iii. i, I.
i Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum
Scripturarutn, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate Non enim
per litteras traditam t7/am, sed per vivam vocern, etc. ( Irenteus, Adv. ffcer. ,
iii. 2, i). ,
8 76., iii. 2, 2.
VALENTINUS 343
documents, which they certainly would not have done had the
Founder of their sect himself acknowledged them. So far from
this being the case, there was absolutely no New Testament
Canon for Valentinus himself to deal with, and his perfectly
orthodox contemporaries recognised no other Holy Scriptures
than those of the Old Testament.
Irenaeus goes still further, and states that the Valentinians
of his time not only had many Gospels, but that they pos-
sessed one peculiar to themselves. " Those indeed who are
followers of Valentinus," he says, "again passing beyond all
fear, and putting forth their own compositions, boast that they
have more Gospels than there actually are. Indeed, they have
proceeded so far in audacity that they entitle their not long
written work, agreeing in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles,
the Gospel of Truth, so that there cannot be any Gospel among
them without blasphemy." 1 It follows clearly, from the very
name of the Valentinian Gospel, that they did not consider that
others contained the truth, and indeed Iremeus himself perceived
this, for he continues : " For if what is published by them be the
Gospel of Truth, yet is dissimilar from those which have been
delivered to us by the Apostles, any may perceive who please,
as is demonstrated by these very Scriptures, that that which has
been handed down from the Apostles is not the Gospel of Truth." 3
These passages speak for themselves. It has been suggested
that the " Gospel of Truth " was a harmony of the four Gospels. 3
This cannot by any possibility have been the case, inasmuch
as Irenaeus distinctly says that it did not agree in anything
with the Gospels of the Apostles. We have been compelled
to devote too much space to Valentinus, and we now leave him
with the certainty that in nothing does he afford any evidence
even of the existence of our synoptic Gospels,
1 Hi vero, qui sunt a Valentino, Her urn exsistentes extra omnem timorem,
steas comcriptiones proferentes, plura habere gloriantur, quam sint ipsa
Evangelia. Siquidem in tanturn processerunt audafite, uti quod ab his non
olitn conscripttitn est, veritatis Evangelium titulent, in nihilo conveniens
apostolorum Evangeliis, tit nee Evangelium qtiidcm sit apudeos sine blasphemia
(Irenaeus, Adv. H<zr., iii. n, 9).
2 Irenseus, Adv. Har., iii. II, 9. 3 Bleek, Einl, N. 71, p. 638.
CHAPTER VII.
MARCION
WE must now turn to the great Heresiarch of the second century,
Marcion, and consider the evidence regarding our Gospels which
may be derived from what we know of him. The importance,
and at the same time the difficulty, of arriving at a just conclusion
from the materials within our reach have rendered Marcion's
Gospel the object of very elaborate criticism, and the discussion of
its actual character has continued with fluctuating results for
nearly a century.
Marcion was born at Sinope, in Pontus, of which place his
father was Bishop, 1 and although it is said that he aspired to the
first place in the Church of Rome, 2 the Presbyters refused him
communion on account of his peculiar views of Christianity. We
shall presently more fully refer to his opinions, but here it will be
sufficient to say that he objected to what he considered the
debasement of true Christianity by Jewish elements, .and he upheld
the teaching of Paul alone, in opposition to that of all the other
Apostles, whom he accused of mixing up matters of the law with
the Gospel of Christ, and falsifying Christianity,3 as Paul himself
had protested. * He came to Rome about A.D. 139-142, and
continued teaching for some twenty years. His high personal
character and elevated views produced a powerful effect upon his
time, and, although during his own lifetime and long afterwards
vehemently and with every- opprobrious epithet denounced by
ecclesiastical writers, his opinions were so widely adopted that, in
the time of Epiphanius, his followers were to be found throughout
the whole world. 5
Marcion is said to have recognised as his sources of Christian
doctrine, besides tradition, a single Gospel and ten Epistles of
Paul, which in his collection stood in the following order :
Epistle to Galatians, Corinthians (2), Romans, Thessalonians (2),
Ephesians (which he had with the superscription "to the
1 Epiphanius, Har., xlii. I, ed. Petav., p. 302.
a Epiph., Hter., xlii. i.
3 Irenaius, Adv. Har., iii. 2, 2 ; cf. 12, 12 ; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iv.
2, 3 ; cf. i. 2O ; Origen, injoann. v. , 4.
* Gal. i. 6ff. ; cf. ii. 4 ff., 11 ff. ; cf. 2 Cor. xi. I ff.
5 Epiph., Hicr., xlii. i. ,
344
MARCION 345
Laodiceans "), l Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon. 2 None of
the other books which now form part of the canonical New
Testament were either mentioned or recognised by Marcion.
This is the oldest collection of Apostolic writings of which there
is any trace, but there was at that time no other "Holy Scripture"
than the Old Testament, and no New Testament Canon had yet
been imagined. Marcion neither claimed canonical authority for
these writings, nor did he associate with them any idea of divine
inspiration. We have already seen the animosity expressed by
contemporaries of Marcion against the Apostle Paul.
Before proceeding to a closer examination of Marcion's Gospel
and the general evidence bearing upon it, it may be well here
briefly to refer to the system of the Heresiarch, whose high
personal character exerted so powerful an influence upon his own
time, and whose views continued to prevail widely for a couple
of centuries after his death. It was the misfortune of Marcion
to live in an age when Christianity had passed out of the pure
morality of its infancy, when, untroubled by complicated
questions of dogma, simple faith and pious enthusiasm had
been the one great bond of Christian brotherhood, into a phase
of ecclesiastical development in which religion was fast degen-
erating into theology, and complicated doctrines were rapidly
assuming that rampant attitude which led to so much bitterness,
persecution, and schism. In later times Marcion might have
been honoured as a reformer ; in his own he was denounced as
a heretic. Austere and ascetic in his opinions, he aimed at
superhuman purity ; and although his clerical adversaries might
scoff at his impracticable doctrines regarding marriage and the
subjugation of the flesh, they have had their parallels amongst
those whom the Church has since most delighted to honour, and at
least the whole tendency of his system was markedly towards the
side of virtue. 3 It would, of course, be foreign to our purpose to
enter upon any detailed statement of its principles, and we must
confine ourselves to such particulars only as are necessary to an
understanding of the question before us.
As we have already frequently had occasion to mention, there
were two broad parties in the primitive Church, and the very
existence of Christianity was in one sense endangered by the
national exclusiveness of the people amongst whom it originated.
1 Tertullian, Adv. Man., v. n, 17; Epiph., Hcer., xlii. 9; cf. 10,
Schol. xl.
2 Tertullian, Adv. Marc., v. ; Epiph. , ffcer., xlii. 9. (Epiphanius transposes
the order of the last two Epistles.)
5 Gfrorer, Allg. K. G., i., p. 134 f; Hagenbach, A'. G., 1869, i., p. 134 f. ;
Hug, Einl. N. '/'., i., p. 56 ff. ; Milman, Hist, of Chr., 1867, ii., p. 77 ff. ;
Neander, AUg. K. G., ii., p. 791 ff. ; Volkmar, Das Ev. Marc., p. 25 ff.
346 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
The one party considered Christianity a mere continuation of the
Law, and dwarfed it into an Israelitish institution, a narrow sect
of Judaism ; the other represented the glad tidings as the intro-
duction of a new system applicable to all, and supplanting the
Mosaic dispensation of the Law by a universal dispensation of
grace. These two parties were popularly represented in the
early Church by the two Apostles Peter and Paul, and their
antagonism is faintly revealed in the Epistle to the Galatians.
Marcion, a gentile Christian, appreciating the true character of the
new religion and its elevated spirituality, and profoundly impressed
by the comparatively degraded and anthropomorphic features of
Judaism, drew a very sharp line of demarcation between them,
and represented Christianity as an entirely new and separate
system, abrogating the old and having absolutely no connection
with it. Jesus was not to him the Messiah of the Jews, the son of
David come permanently to establish the Law and the Prophets,
but a divine being sent to reveal to man a wholly new spiritual
religion, and a hitherto unknown God of goodness and grace.
The Creator (A^tovpyos), the God of the Old Testament, was
different from the God of Grace who had sent Jesus to reveal the
Truth, to bring reconciliation and salvation to all, and to abrogate
the Jewish God of the World and of the Law, who was opposed
to the God and Father of Jesus Christ as Matter is to Spirit,
impurity to purity. Christianity was in distinct antagonism to
Judaism ; the spiritual God of heaven, whose goodness and love
were for the Universe, to the God of the World, whose chosen and
peculiar people were the Jews; the Gospel of Grace to the
dispensation of the Old Testament. Christianity, therefore, must
be kept pure from the Judaistic elements humanly thrust into
it, which were so essentially opposed to its whole spirit.
Marcion wrote a work called "Antitheses" ('Avri#rts), in
which he contrasted the old- system with the new, the God of the
one with the God of the other, the Law with the Gospel, and in
this he maintained opinions which anticipated many held in our
own time. Tertullian attacks this work in the first three books of
his treatise against Marcion, and he enters upon the discussion of
its details with true theological vigour : " Now, then, ye hounds,
yelping at the God of truth, whom the Apostle casts out, 1 to all
your questions ! These are the bones of contention which ye
gnaw ! " 2 The poverty of the " Great African's " arguments keeps
pace with his abuse. Marcion objected : If the God of the Old
1 Rev. xxii. 15.
2 Jam hinc ad quastiones omnes, canes, quos foras apostolus expellit, latrantes
in deum veritatis. fftec sunt argumentationum ossa, qua obroditis (Adv*
Marc., ii. 5). .
MARCION 347
Testament be good, prescient of the future, and able to avert evil,
why did he allow man, made in his own image, to be deceived by
the devil, and to fall from obedience of the Law into sin and
death ?' How came the devil, the origin of lying and deceit, to be
made at all ? 2 After the fall, God became a judge both severe
and cruel : woman is at once condemned to bring forth in sorrow
and to serve her husband, changed from a help into a slave ; the
earth is cursed which before was blessed, and man is doomed to
labour and to death. 3 The law was one of retaliation and not of
justice -lex talionis eye for eye, tooth for tooth, stripe for
stripe. 4 And it was not consistent, for, in contravention of the
Decalogue, God is made to instigate the Israelites to spoil the
Egyptians, and fraudulently rob them of their gold and silver ;5 to
incite them to work on the Sabbath by ordering them to carry the
ark for eight days round Jericho ; 6 to break the second command-
ment by making and setting up the brazen serpent and the golden
cherubim. 7 Then God is inconstant, electing men, as Saul and
Solomon, whom he subsequently rejects ; 8 repenting that he had
set up Saul, and that he had doomed the Ninevites,9 and so on.
God calls out : Adam, where art thou ? inquires whether he had
eaten the forbidden fruit, asks of Cain where his brother was, as if
he had not yet heard the blood of Abel crying from the ground, and
did not already know all these things. 10 Anticipating the results of
modern criticism, Marcion denies the applicability to Jesus of the
so-called Messianic prophecies. The Emmanuel of Isaiah (vii. 14,
cf. viii. 4) is not Christ; 11 the "Virgin," his mother, is simply a
"young woman" according to Jewish phraseology ; 12 and the
sufferings of the Servant of God (Isaiah Hi. 13, liii. 9) are not
predictions of the death of Jesus. 13 There is a complete sever-
ance between the Law and the Gospel ; and the God of the latter is
the antithesis of the God of the former. 14 " The one was perfect,
pure, beneficent, passionless ; the other, though not unjust by
nature, infected by matter subject to all the passions of
man cruel, changeable ; the New Testament, especially as re-
modelled by Marcion, 15 was holy, wise, amiable; the Old Testa-
1 Tertullian, Adv. Marc.,\\. 5 ; cf. 9. 2 Ib., ii. 10.
3 Ib., ii. ii. * 76., ii. 18.
5 Ib. , ii. 20. Tertullian introduces this by likening the Marcionites to the
cuttle-fish, like which " they vomit the blackness of blasphemy " (tcnebras
blasphemicE intervomunt), I.e.
6 Ib., ii. 21. ^ Ib., ii. 22. 8 Ib., ii. 23.
9 Ib. , ii. 24. I0 Ib. , ii. 25.
" Adv. Marc., iii. 12. I2 Ib., iii. 13.
'3 Ib., iii. 17, 18. I4 Ib., iv. I.'
15 We give this quotation as a rteumt by an English historian and divine, but
the idea of the " New Testament remodelled by Marcion " is a mere ecclesias-
tical imagination.
34 8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
ment, the Law, barbarous, inhuman, contradictory, and detestable." 1
Marcion ardently maintained the doctrine of the impurity of
matter, and he carried it to its logical conclusion, both in specula-
tion and practice. He, therefore, asserting the incredibility of an
incarnate God, denied the corporeal reality of the flesh of Christ.
His body was a mere semblance and not of human substance ; he
was not born of a human mother ; and the divine nature was not
degraded by contact with the flesh. 2 Marcion finds in Paul the
purest promulgator of the truth as he understands it, and,
emboldened by the Epistle to the Galatians, in which that Apostle
rebukes even Apostles for "not walking uprightly according to the
truth of the Gospel," he accuses the other Apostles of having
depraved the pure form of the Gospel doctrines delivered to them
by Jesus, 3 " mixing up matters of the Law with the words of the
Saviour. "4
Tertullian reproaches Marcion with having written the work in
which he details the contrasts between Judaism and Christianity,
of which we have given the briefest sketch, as an introduction and
encouragement to belief in his Gospel, which he ironically calls
"the Gospel according to the Antitheses r '; 5 and the charge which
the Fathers bring against Marcion is that he laid violent hands on
the canonical Gospel of Luke, and manipulated it to suit his own
views. " For certainly the whole object at which he laboured in
drawing up the 'Antitheses,'" says Tertullian, "amounts to this :
that he may prove a disagreement between the Old and New
Testament, so that his own Christ may be separated from the
Creator, as of another God, as alien from the Law and the
Prophets. For this purpose it is certain that he has erased what-
ever was contrary to his own opinion and in harmony with the
Creator, as if interpolated by his partisans, but has retained
everything consistent with his own opinion." 6 The whole hypo-
thesis that Marcion's Gospel is a mutilated version of our third
Synoptic, in fact, rests upon this accusation.
The principal interest, in connection with the collection of Mar-
cion, centres in his single Gospel, the nature, origin, and identity of
which have long been actively and minutely discussed by learned
men of all shades of opinion with very varying results. The work
itself is unfortunately no longer extant, and our only knowledge of
it is derived from the bitter and very inaccurate opponents of
Marcion. It seems to have borne much the same analogy to
our third canonical Gospel as existed between the Gospel
1 Milman, Hist, of Christianity, 1867, ii. , p. 77 f.
3 Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iii. 8 ff. 3 ib. , iv. 3.
4 Apostolos enim adnriscuisse ea quiz stint legalia salvatoris verbis (Irenseus,
Adv. fleer., iii. 2, 2 ; cf. iii. 12, 12). ,
5 Adv. Marc., iv. I. * //>., iv. 6.
* MARCION 349
according to the Hebrews and our first Synoptic. The Fathers,
whose uncritical and, in such matters, prejudiced character led
them to denounce every variation from their actual texts as a mere
falsification, and without argument to assume the exclusive
authenticity and originality of our Gospels, which towards the
beginning of the third century had acquired wide circulation in the
Church, vehemently stigmatised Marcion as an audacious adul-
terator of the Gospel, and affirmed his evangelical work to be
merely a mutilated and falsified version of the " Gospel according
to Luke." 1
This view continued to prevail, almost without question or
examination, till towards the end of the eighteenth century,
when Biblical criticism began to exhibit the earnestness and
activity which have ever since characterised it. Semler first
abandoned the prevalent tradition, and, after analysing the
evidence, he concluded that Marcion's Gospel and Luke's were
different versions of an earlier work, 2 and that the so-called
heretical Gospel was one of the numerous Gospels from amongst
which the Canonical had been selected by the Church. 3 Griesbach
about the same time also rejected the ruling opinion, and denied
the close relationship usually asserted to exist between the two
Gospels.-* Lofflers and Carrodi 6 strongly supported Semler's
conclusion, that Marcion was no mere falsifier of Luke's Gospel,
and J. E. C. Schmidt? went still further, and asserted that Marcion's
Gospel was the genuine Luke, and our actual Gospel a later version
of it with alterations and additions. Eichhorn, 8 after a fuller and
more exhaustive examination, adopted similar views ; he repudiated
the statements of Tertullian regarding Marcion's Gospel as utterly
untrustworthy, asserting that he had not that work itself before
him at all, and he maintained that Marcion's Gospel was the more
original text and one of the sources of Luke.9 Bolten, Bertholdt, 10
1 Iren?eus, Adv. fleer., i. 27, 2 ; iii. 12, 12 ; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iv.
2-6 ; Epiphanius, ffier., xlii. 9, II ; Origen, Contra Cels., ii. 27 ; Theodoret,
H<rr, Fab., i. 24.
2 Vorrede zu Townsotfs Abhandl. iib. d. vier Evv. , 1 783.
3 Nener Versuch, die Gemeinniitzige Auslegung u. anivend. der N. T. zu
befordern, 1786, p. 162 f. ; cf. Prolegg. in Ep. ad Galatas.
4 Curee in hist, textus epist. Pauli, 1799, sect, iii., Opuscula Academica, ii.,
p. 124 ff.
5 Marcionem Pauli epist. et LUCIE evang. adulterasse dubitatur, 1788, in
Vellhusen Kuincel et Ruperti Comment. Theologies, 1794, i. , pp. 180-218.
6 Versuch einer Beleuc htung d. Gesth.desjiid. u. Christl.Bibelkanons, 1792,
ii., p. 158 ff. 169.
7 Ueber das tichte Evang. des Lucas, in HenkJs Mag. filr Religions -phi los. ,
u. r. w., iii., 1796, p. 468 ff., 482 f., 507 f.
8 Einl. N. T., 1820, i., pp. 43-84.
9 Bericht des Lucas vonjesu dem Messia (Vorbericht, 1796, p. 29 f.).
10 Einl. A. u. N. T., 1813, iii., p. 1293 ff.
350 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Schleiermacher, 1 and D. Schulz 2 likewise maintained that Marcion's
Gospel was by no means a mutilated version of Luke, but, on the
contrary, an independent original Gospel. A similar conclusion
was arrived at by Gieseler ;3 but later, after Harm's criticism, he
abandoned it, and adopted the opinion that Marcion's Gospel
was constructed out of Luke.*
On the other hand, the traditional view was maintained by
Storr,s Arneth, 6 Hug,? Neander, 8 and Gratz,9 although with little
originality of investigation or argument ; and Paulus 10 sought to
reconcile both views by admitting that Marcion had before him
the Gospel of Luke, but denying that he mutilated it, arguing
that Tertullian did not base his arguments on the actual Gospel
of Marcion, but upon his work, the Antithesis. Hahn," however,
undertook a more exhaustive examination of the problem, attempt-
ing to reconstruct the text of Marcion's Gospel 12 from the statements
of Tertullian and Epiphanius, and he came to the conclusion that
the work was a mere version, with omissions and alterations made
by the Heresiarch in the interest of his system, of the third
canonical Gospel. Olshausen 13 arrived at the same result, and,
with more or less of modification but no detailed argument,
similar opinions were expressed by Credner, 14 De Wette, 15 and
others.
Not satisfied, however, with the method and results of Hahn
and Olshausen, whose examination, although more minute than
any previously undertaken, still left much to be desired, Ritschl 16
made a further thorough investigation of the character of Marcion's
Gospel, and decided that it was in no case a mutilated version of
Luke, but, on the contrary, an original and independent work,
from which the canonical Gospel was produced by the introduction
1 Sdmmtl. Werke, viii.; Einl. N. T., 1845, p. 64 f., 197 f., 214 f.
2 Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1829, 3, pp. 586-595.
3 Entst. schr. Ew., 1818, p. 24 ff.
4 Recens. d. Hahn's Das Ev. Marcion's in Hall. Allg. Lift. Z., 1823,
p. 225 ff.; K. <7., i., 45.
5 Zweck d. Evang. Gesch. u. Br. Johan., 1786, pp. 254-265.
6 Ueber d. Bekanntsck. Marcion's mit. u. Kanon, u. s. w., 1809.
i Einl. N. T., 1847, i., p. 64 ff.
8 Genet. Entwickl. d. vorn. Gnost. Syst., 1818, p. 311 ff.; cf. Allg. K. G.,
1843, ii., pp. 792-816.
9 Krit. Unters. iib. Marcion's Evang., 1818.
Theol. exeg. Conserv., 1822, Lief, i., p. 115 ff.
1 Das. Evang. Marcion's in seiner urspriingl. Gestalt, 1823.
2 The reconstructed text is in ThiMs Cod. Apocr. N. T., 1832, pp.
403-486.
3 Die Echtheit der vier kan. Ew., 1823, pp. 107-215.
4 Beitrdge, i., p. 43.
5 Einl. N. T., 6lh ausg., 1860, p. 119 ff. ^
6 Das Evangelium Marcion's, 1846.
MARCION 351
of anti-Marcionitish passages and readings. Baur 1 strongly enun-
ciated similar views, and maintained that the whole error lay in the
mistake of the Fathers, who had, with characteristic assumption,
asserted the earlier and shorter Gospel of Marcion to be an
abbreviation of the later canonical Gospel, instead of recognising
the latter as a mere extension of the former. Schwegler 2 had
already, in a remarkable criticism of Marcion's Gospel, declared
it to be an independent and original work, and in no sense a
mutilated Luke, but, on the contrary, probably the source of that
Gospel. KostlhV while stating that the theory that Marcion's
Gospel was an earlier work and the basis of that ascribed to Luke
was not very probable, affirmed that much of the Marcionitish
text was more original than the canonical, and that both Gospels
must be considered versions of the same original, although Luke's
was the later and more corrupt.
These results, however, did not satisfy Volkmar, 4 who entered
afresh upon a searching examination of the whole subject, and
concluded that whilst, on the one hand, the Gospel of Marcion
was not a mere falsified and mutilated form of the canonical
Gospel, neither was it, on the other, an earlier work, and still less
the original Gospel of Luke, but merely a Gnostic compilation
from what, so far as we are concerned, may be called the oldest
codex of Luke's Gospel, which itself is nothing more than a
similar Pauline edition of the original Gospel. Volkmar's analysis,
together with the arguments of Hilgenfeld, succeeded in con-
vincing Ritschl, 5 who withdrew from his previous opinions, and,
with those critics, merely maintained some of Marcion's readings
to be more original than those of Luke, 6 and generally defended
Marcion from the aspersions of the Fathers on the ground that
his procedure with regard to Luke's Gospel was precisely that of
the canonical Evangelists to each other ;? Luke himself being
clearly dependent both on Mark and Matthew. 8 Baur was like-
wise induced by Volkmar's and Hilgenfeld's arguments to modify
his views ;9 but, although for the first time he admitted that
Marcion had altered the original of his Gospel frequently for
dogmatic reasons, he still maintained that there was an older form
of the Gospel without the earlier chapters, from which both
Marcion and Luke directly constructed their Gospels both of
them stood in the same line in regard to the original ; both
1 Krit. Unters. kan. Ew., 1847, p. 397 ff.
2 Das nachap. Zeit., 1846, i., p. 260 ff.
3 Der Ursprung d. synopt. Ew., 1853, p. 303 ff.
4 Theol. Jahrb., 1850, pp. 110-138, pp. 185-235.
s Theol. Jahrb., 1851, p. 528 ff. 6 Ib., p. 530 ff.
7 Ib., p. 529. 8 Ib., p. 534 ff.
9 Das Markusevang. Anhang iib. das Ev. Marriotts, 1851, p. 191 ff.
352 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
altered it; the one abbreviated, the other extended it. 1 Encou-
raged by this success, but not yet satisfied, Volkmar immediately
undertook a further and more exhaustive examination of the text
of Marcion in the hope of finally settling the discussion ; and he
again, but with greater emphasis, confirmed his previous results. 2
In the meantime, Hilgenfelds had seriously attacked the problem,
and, like Hahn and Volkmar, had sought to reconstruct the text of
Marcion, and, whilst admitting many more original and genuine
readings in the text of Marcion, he had also decided that his
Gospel was dependent on Luke, although he further concluded
that the text of Luke had subsequently gone through another,
though slight, manipulation before it assumed its present form.
These conclusions he again fully confirmed after a renewed
investigation of the subject. 4
This brief sketch of the controversy which has so long occu-
pied the attention of critics will, at least, show the uncertainty of
the data upon which any decision is to be based. We have not
attempted to give more than the barest outlines, but it will appear
as we go on that most of those who decide against the general
independence of Marcion's Gospel at the same time admit his
partial originality and the superiority -of some of his readings
over those of the third Synoptic, and justify his treatment of Luke
as a procedure common to the Evangelists, and warranted not
only by their example, but by the fact that no Gospels had in his
time emerged from the position of private documents in limited
circulation.
Marcion's Gospel not being any longer extant, it is important to
establish clearly the nature of our knowledge regarding it and the
exact value of the data from which various attempts have been
made to reconstruct the text. It is manifest that the evidential
force of any deductions from a reconstructed text is almost
wholly dependent on the accuracy and sufficiency of the materials
from which that text is derived.
The principal sources of our information regarding Marcion's
Gospel are the works of his most bitter denouncers, Tertullian and
Epiphanius, who, it must be borne in mind, wrote long after
his time the work of Tertullian against Marcion having been
composed about A.P. 208,5 and that of Epiphanius a century later.
1 Ib., p. 225 f. 2 Das Evang. Marcion's, 1852.
3 Ueb. die Ew. Justin's der Clem. Horn, und Martian's, 1850, p. 389 flf.
4 Theol. Jahrb. , 1853, pp. 192-244. [A remarkably able and interesting
work, The Origin of the Third Gospel, by P. C. Sense, M.A., 1901, may be
advantageously referred to. Mr. Sense maintains that the third Gospel was
compiled from the writing used by the Marcionites, known as the Marcionite
Gospel, and other apocryphal Gospels.] *
s Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc., i. 15.
MARCION 353
We may likewise merely mention here the " Dialogus de recta in
deum fide" commonly attributed to Origen, although it cannot
have been composed earlier than the middle of the fourth century.
The first three sections are directed against the Marcionites, but
only deal with the late forms of their doctrines. As Volkmar
admits that the author clearly had only a general acquaintance
with the Antitheses and principal proof passages of the Marcionites,
but, although he certainly possessed the Epistles, had not the Gospel
of Marcion itself, 1 we need not now more particularly con-
sider it.
We are, therefore, dependent upon the "dogmatic and partly
blind and unjust adversaries " 2 of Marcion for our only knowledge
of the text they stigmatise ; and, when the character of polemical
discussion in the early centuries of our era is considered, it is
certain that great caution must be exercised, and not too much
weight attached to the statement of opponents who regarded a
heretic with abhorrence and attacked him with an acrimony which
carried them far beyond the limits of fairness and truth. Their
religious controversy bristles with misstatements, and is turbid
with pious abuse. Tertullian was a master of this style, and the
vehement vituperation with which he opens 3 and often interlards
his work against " the impious and sacrilegious Marcion " offers
anything but a guarantee of fair and legitimate criticism. Epipha
nius was, if possible, still more passionate and exaggerated in
his representations against him. Undue importance must not,
therefore, be attributed to their statements. 4
Not only should there be caution exercised in receiving the
representations of one side in a religious discussion, but more
particularly is such caution necessary in the case of Tertullian,
whose trustworthiness is very far from being above suspicion, and
whose inaccuracy is often apparent. " Son christianisme," says
Reuss, " est ardent, sincere, profondement ancre dans son ante. U'on
voit qu'il en vit. Mais ce christianisme est apre, insolent, brutal,
ferrailleur. II est sans onction et sans charite, quelquefois meme sans
loyaute, des qu'il se trouve en face d'tme opposition quelconque. C'est
un soldat qui ne salt que se battre et qui oublie, tout en se battant,
qtt'il faut aussi respecter son ennemi. Dialecticien subtil et ruse, il
excelle a ridiculiser ses adversaires. Uinjure, le sarcasme, un
langage qui rappelle parfois en verite le genre de Rabelais, une
effronterie d affirmation dans les moments de faiblesse qui frise et
1 Das Ev. Marriott's, p. 53.
2 Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb. , 1850, p. 120. 3 Adv. Marc., i. I.
4 Reuss, Hist, du Cation, p. 71 ff. ; Gieseler, Entst. schr. Ew., p. 25 ;
Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 75 ; Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb., 1850, p. 120;
Westcott, On the Canon, p. 276; De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 122.
2A
354 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
atteint meme la mauvaise foi, voila ses armes. Je sais ce qifil faut en
cela mettre sur le compte de Vtpoque Si, au second siecle, tons les
partis, sauf quelques gnostiques, sont intoltrants, Tertullian Vest
plus que tout le monde." 1
The charge of mutilating and interpolating the Gospel
of Luke is first brought against Marcion by Irengeus, 2
and it is repeated with still greater vehemence and fulness
by Tertullian3 and Epiphanius ;* but the mere assertion by
Fathers at the end of the second and in the third centuries, that a
Gospel different from their own was one of the canonical Gospels
falsified and mutilated, can have no weight in itself in the
inquiry as to the real nature of that work. Their arbitrary
assumption of exclusive originality and priority for the four Gospels
of the Church led them, without any attempt at argument, to treat
every other evangelical work as an offshoot or falsification of
these. The arguments by which Tertullian endeavours to establish
that the Gospels of Luke and the other canonical Evangelists
were more ancient than that of Marcion 5 show that he had no idea
of historical or critical evidence. We are, however, driven back
upon such actual data regarding the text and contents of Marcion's
Gospel as are given by the Fathers, as the only basis, in the
absence of the Gospel itself, upon which any hypothesis as to its
real character can be built. The question therefore is : Are these
data sufficiently ample and trustworthy for a decisive judgment
from internal evidence if, indeed, internal evidence in such a case
can be decisive at all.
All that we know, then, of Marcion's Gospel is simply what
Tertullian and Epiphanius have stated with regard to it. It
is undeniable and, indeed, is universally admitted, that
their object in dealing with it at all was entirely dogmatic, and
not in the least degree critical. The spirit of that age was
so essentially uncritical that not even the canonical text
could waken it into activity. Tertullian very clearly states what
his object was in attacking Marcion's Gospel. After asserting
that the whole aim of the Heresiarch was to prove a disagreement
between the Old Testament and the New, and that, for this pur-
pose, he had erased from the Gospel all that was contrary to his
opinion, and retained all that he had considered favourable,
1 Reuss, Rev. de Tkdol., xv., 1857, p. 67 f. Cf. Mansel, The Gnostic
Heresies, 1875, p. 250, p. 259 f.
3 Et super hcec, id quod est secundum Lucam Evangelium circumcidens
(Irenaeus, Adv Hatr., i. 27, 2 ; cf. iii. n, 7 ; 12, 12 ; 14, 4).
3 Adv. Marc., iv. I, 2, 4 et passim.
4 H<zr., xlii. 9, 10 et passim.
s Adv. Marc., iv. 5. *
MARCION 355
Tertullian proceeds to examine the passages retained, 1 with the
view of proving that the heretic has shown the same "blindness
of heresy," both in that which he has erased and in that
which he has retained, inasmuch as the passages which Marcion
has allowed to remain are as opposed to his system as those
which he has omitted. He conducts the controversy in a free
and discursive manner, and, whilst he appears to go through
Marcion's Gospel with some regularity, it will be apparent,
as we proceed, that mere conjecture has to play a large part
in any attempt to reconstruct, from his data, the actual text
of Marcion. Epiphanius explains his aim with equal clearness.
He had made a number of extracts from the so-called Gospel of
Marcion, which seemed to him to refute the heretic, and, after
giving a detailed and numbered list of these passages, which he
calls o-)(oA.ta, he takes them consecutively, and to each adds his
" Refutation." His intention is to show how wickedly and dis-
gracefully Marcion has mutilated and falsified the Gospel, and
how fruitlessly he has done so, inasmuch as he has stupidly, or by
oversight, allowed much to remain in his Gospel by which he may
be completely refuted. 2
As it is impossible within our limits fully to illustrate the pro-
cedure of the Fathers with regard to Marcion's Gospel, and the
nature and value of the materials they supply, we shall, as far as
possible, quote the declarations of critics, and more especially of
Volkmar and Hilgenfeld, who, in the true and enlightened spirit
of criticism, impartially state the character of the data available
for the understanding of the text. As these two critics have, by
their able and learned investigations, done more than any others
to educe and render possible a decision of the problem, their own
estimate of the materials upon which a judgment has to be formed
is of double value.
With regard to Tertullian, Volkmar explains that his desire is
totally to annihilate the most dangerous heretic of his time
first (Books I. to III.), to overthrow Marcion's system in general as
expounded in his Antithesis, and then (Book IV.) to show that
even the Gospel of Marcion only contains Catholic doctrine (he
concludes, Christus Jesus in Evangelio tuo meus est, c. 43) ; and
therefore he examines the Gospel only so far as may serve to
establish his own view and refute that of Marcion. " To show,"
Volkmar continues, "wherein this Gospel was falsified or mutilated
i.e., varied from his own on the contrary, is in no way his design,
1 Hac co nveniemus, fuec amplectetnur, sinobiscum magis fuerint, si Marcionis
prcesumptionem percusserint . Tune et ilia constabit eodem vitio kieretiaz
ccecitatis erasa quo et hcec reservata. Sic habebit intentio et forma opttsculi
nostri, etc. (Tertullian, Adv. Marc., iv. 6).
2 Epiphanius, Hcer. , xlii. 9 f.
356 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
for he perceives that Marcion could retort the reproach of inter-
polation, and in his time proof from internal grounds was hardly
possible, so that only exceptionally, where a variation seems to
him remarkable, does he specially mention it." 1 On the other
hand, Volkmar remarks that Tertullian's Latin rendering of the
text of Marcion which lay before him which, although certainly
free and having chiefly the substance in view, is still in weightier
passages verbally accurate directly indicates important variations
in that text. He goes on to argue that the silence of Tertullian
may be weighty testimony for the fact that passages which exist
in Luke, but which he does not mention, were missing in Marcion's
Gospel, though he does so with considerable reservation. " But
his silence alone" he says, "can only under certain conditions
represent with diplomatic certainty an omission in Marcion. It
is indeed probable that he would not lightly have passed over
a passage in the Gospel of Marcion which might in any way be
contradictory to its system, if one altogether similar had not
preceded it, all the more as he frequently drags in by force such
proof passages from Marcion's text, and often plainly, but with a
certain sophistry, tries to refute his adversary out of the words of
his own Gospel. But it remains always possible that in his
eagerness he has overlooked much ; and, besides, he believes that
by his replies to particular passages he has already sufficiently
dealt with many others of a similar kind ; indeed, avowedly, he
will not willingly repeat himself. A certain conclusion, therefore,
can only be deduced from the silence of Tertullian when special
circumstances enter." 2 Volkmar, however, deduces with certainty
from the statements of Tertullian that, whilst he wrote, he had
not before him the Gospel of Luke, but intentionally laid it aside,
and merely referred to the Marcionitish text, and further that, like
all the Fathers of the third century, he preferred the Gospel
according to Matthew to 'the other Synoptics, and was well
acquainted with it alone, so that in speaking of the Gospel
generally he only has in his memory the sense, and the sense
alone, of Luke except in so far as it agrees, or seems to agree,
with Matthew.3
With regard to the manner in which Tertullian performed the
work he had undertaken, Hilgenfeld remarks : "As Tertullian, in
going through the Marcionitish Gospel, has only the object of
refutation in view, he very rarely states explicitly what is missing
from it ; and as, on the one hand, we can only venture to conclude
from the silence of Tertullian that a passage is wanting, when it
is altogether inexplicable that he should not have made use of it
1 Volkmar, Das Evang. Marciorfs, p. 29.
2 76., p. 29 f.; cf. Theol.Jahrb., 1855, p. 237.* 2 Il> ., p. 30 f
MARClON 35?
for the purpose of refutation; so, on the other, we must also know
how Marcion used and interpreted the Gospel, and should never
lose sight of Tertullian's refutation and defence." 1
Hahn substantially expresses the same opinions. He says :
" Inasmuch as Tertullian goes through the Marcionitish text with
the view of refuting the heretic out of that which he accepts, and
not of critically pointing out all variations, falsifications, and
passages rejected, he frequently quotes the falsified or altered
Marcionitish text without expressly mentioning the variations. 2
Yet he cannot refrain although this was not his object
occasionally, from noticing amongst other things any falsifications
and omissions which, when he perhaps examined the text of Luke
or had a lively recollection of it, struck and too grievously
offended him. "3
Volkmar's opinion of the procedure of Epiphanius is still more
unfavourable. Contrasting it with that of Tertullian, he charac-
terises it as "more superficial," and he considers that its only merit
is its presenting an independent view of Marcion's Gospel.
Further than this, however, he says : "How far we can build upon
his statements, whether as regards their completeness or their
trustworthiness, is not yet made altogether clear. "4 Volkmar goes
on to show how thoroughly Epiphanius intended to do his work,
and yet that, although from what he himself leads us to expect,
we might hope to find a complete statement of Marcion's sins, the
Father himself disappoints such an expectation by his own
admission of incompleteness. He complains generally of his free
and misleading method of quotation, such, for instance, as his
alteration of the text without explanation; alteration of the
same passage on different occasions in more than one way;
abbreviations, and omissions of parts of quotations ; the sudden
breaking off of passages just commenced with the indefinite KCU
TO. e^s or KGU TO Xonrov, without any indication how much this
may include. 5
Volkmar, indeed, explains that Epiphanius is only thoroughly
trustworthy where, and so far as, he wishes to state in his Scholia
an omission or variation in Marcion's text from his own canonical
Gospel, in which case he minutely registers the smallest point ; but
this is to be clearly distinguished from any charge of falsifica-
tion brought against Marcion in his Refutations ; for only while
drawing up his Scholia had he the Marcionitish Gospel before
him and compared it with Luke ; but in the case of the
Refutations, on the contrary, which he wrote later, he did not
1 Die Evv. Justirfs, p. 397.
2 Das Ev. Marcion's, p. 96. 3 Ib. , p. 98.
4 Volkmar, Das Ev. Marriott's, p. 32, cf. p. 43.
5 Ib., p. 33 ff. ; cf. Hahn, Das Ev. Marcion's, p. 123 ff.
358 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
again compare the Gospel of Luke. " It is, however, alto-
gether different," continues Volkmar, "as regards the statements
of Epiphanius concerning the part of the Gospel of Luke which is
preserved in Marcion. Whilst he desires to be strictly literal in
the account of the variations, and also with two exceptions is so,
he so generally adheres only to the purport of the passages retained
by Marcion that altogether literal quotations are quite exceptional ;
throughout, however, where passages of greater extent are referred
to, these are not merely abbreviated, but also are quoted very
freely, and nowhere can we reckon that the passage in
Marcion ran verbally as Epiphanius quotes it." 1 And to this we
may add a remark made further on : " We cannot in general rely
upon the accuracy of his statements in regard to that which
Marcion had in common with Luke." 2 On the other hand,
Volkmar had previously said : " Absolute completeness in regard
to that which Marcion's Gospel did not contain is not to be
reckoned upon in his Scholia. He has certainly not intended to pass
over anything, but in the eagerness which so easily renders men
superficial and blind much has escaped him. "3
Hahn bears similar testimony to the incompleteness of
Epiphanius. " It was not his purpose," he says, " fully to notice
all falsifications, variations, and omissions, although he does mark
most of them, but merely to extract from the Gospel of Marcion,
as well as from his collection of Epistles, what seemed to him well
suited for refutation."-* But he immediately adds : " When he
quotes the passage from Marcion's text, however, in which such
falsifications occur, he generally but not always notes them
more or less precisely, and he had himself laid it down as a
subsidiary object of his work to pay attention to such falsifica-
tions.'^ A little further on he says : " In the quotations of the
remaining passages which Epiphanius did not find different from
the Gospel of Luke, and where he, therefore, says nothing of
falsification or omission, he is often very free, neither adhering
strictly to the particular words, nor to their arrangement; but his
favourite practice is to give their substance and sense for the pur-
pose of refuting his opponent. He presupposes the words as
known from the Gospel of Luke." 6
It must be stated, however, that both Volkmar? and Hilgenfeld 8
consider that the representations of Tertullian and Epiphanius sup-
plement each other, and enable the contents of Marcion's Gospel to
be ascertained with tolerable certainty. Yet a few pages earlier
1 Volkmar, Das Ev. Mart-tort's, p. 43 f. ; cf. p. 34. 2 Il>,p. 45.
3 /#.,p. 33. * Hahn, Das Ev. Marcioris,^. 121.
5 Il>., p. 122. 6 Ib., p. 123 f.
7 Volkmar, Das Ev. M. , p. 45 ff. 8 Die Ev. Justin's, p. 397 f.
MARCION 359
Volkmar had pointed out that " The ground for a certain fixture of
the text of the Marcionitish Gospel seems completely taken
away by the fact that Tertullian and Epiphanius, in their state-
ments regarding its state, not merely repeatedly seem to, but in
part actually do, directly contradict each other." 1 Hahn endeavours
to explain some of these contradictions by imagining that later
Marcionites had altered the text of their Gospel, and that
Epiphanius had the one form and Tertullian another ; 2 but such a
doubt only renders the whole of the statements regarding the
work more uncertain and insecure. That it is not without some
reason, however, appears from the charge which Tertullian brings
against the disciples of Marcion : " For they daily alter it (their
Gospel) as they are daily refuted by us." 3 In fact, we have no
assurance whatever that the work upon which Tertullian and
Epiphanius base their charge against Marcion of falsification and
mutilation of Luke was Marcion's original Gospel, and we
certainly, have no historical evidence on the point.
The question even arises whether Tertullian and Epiphanius
had Marcion's Gospel in any shape before them when they
wrote, or merely his work the Antitheses. In commencing
his onslaught on Marcion's Gospel, Tertullian says : " Marcion
seems (videtur) to have selected Luke to mutilate it. "4 This is the
first serious introduction of his " mutilation hypothesis," which he
thenceforward presses with so much assurance; but the expression
is very uncertain for so decided a controversialist, if he had been
able to speak more positively. We have seen that it is admitted
that Epiphanius wrote without again comparing the Gospel of
Marcion with Luke, and it is also conceded that Tertullian, at
least, had not the canonical Gospel, but in professing to quote
Luke evidently does so from memory, and approximates his text
to Matthew, with which Gospel, like most of the Fathers, he was
better acquainted. This may be illustrated by the fact that both
Tertullian and Epiphanius reproach Marcion with erasing passages
from the Gospel of Luke which never were in Luke at all. In
one place Tertullian says : " Marcion, you must also remove this
from the Gospel : ' I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the
house of Israel,' 5 and ' It is not meet to take the children's bread
and give it to dogs,' 6 in order, be it known, that Christ may not
1 Volkmar, Das Ev. Marciorfs, p. 22 f., p. 46 ff. ; Theol. Jahrb., 1854,
p. 1 06.
2 Hahn, Das Ev. Man-wit's, p. 130 f., p. 169, p. 224 ff. ; cf. Neudecker,
EM. N. T., p. 82.
3 Nam et quotidie reformant illud, prout a nobis quotidie revincuntur. Adv.
Marc., iv. 5 ; cf. Dial, de recta in deuinf.de, 5 ; Orig. , Opp., i., p. 867.
4 Nam ex Us comtmntatoribus, quos habemus, Lucam videtur Marcion
elegisse, quern ciederet (Adv. Marc., iv. 2).
5 Matt. xv. 24. 6 Ib., xv. 26.
360 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
seem to be an Israelite. 1 The " Great African " thus taunts his
opponent, evidently under the impression that the two passages
were in Luke, immediately after he had accused Marcion of having
actually expunged from that Gospel, " as an interpolation," 2 the
saying that Christ had not come to destroy the law and the
prophets, but to fulfil them,3 which likewise never formed part of
it. He repeats a similar charge on several other occasions.-*
Epiphanius commits the same mistake of reproaching Marcion
with omitting from Luke what is only found in Matthew. 5 We
have, in fact, no certain guarantee of the accuracy or trustworthiness
of their statements.
We have said enough, we trust, to show that the sources for
the reconstruction of a text of Marcion's Gospel are most unsatis-
factory, and no one who attentively studies the analysis of Hahn,
Ritschl, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, and others, who have examined
and systematised the data of the Fathers, can fail to be struck by
the uncertainty which prevails throughout, the almost continuous
vagueness and consequent opening, nay, necessity, for conjecture,
and the absence of really sure indications. The Fathers had no
intention of showing what Marcion's text actually was, and, their
object being solely dogmatic and not critical, their statements are
very insufficient for the purpose. The materials have had to be
ingeniously collected and sifted from polemical writings whose
authors, so far from professing to furnish them, were only bent
upon seeking in Marcion's Gospel such points as could legiti-
mately, or by sophistical skill, be used against him. Passing
observations, general remarks, as well as direct statements, have
too often been the only indications guiding the patient explorers,
and in the absence of certain information the silence of the angry
Fathers has been made the basis for important conclusions. It
is evident that not only is such a procedure necessarily uncertain
and insecure, but that it rests upon assumptions with regard to
the intelligence, care, and accuracy of Tertullian and Epiphanius,
which are not sufficiently justified by that part of their treatment
of Marcion's text which we can examine and appreciate. And
when all these doubtful landmarks have failed, too many passages
have been left to the mere judgment of critics, as to whether they
were too opposed to Marcion's system to have been retained by him,
or too favourable to have been omitted. The reconstructed texts,
as might be expected, differ from each other, and one Editor finds
1 Marcion, aufer etiatn illud de evangelio : non sum missus t nisi ad oves
perditas domus Israel ; et : non est auferre panem filiis et dare enm canibus, ne
scilicet Christus Israelis videretur (Adv. Marc., iv. 7).
3 Hoc enim Marcion ut additum erasit (Adv. Marc., iv. 7).
3 Matt. v. 17. Adv. Marc., iv. 9, 12; ii. 17, iv. 17, 36.
5 Har., xlii., p. 322 f., Ref. I ; cf. Luke v. 14 ; Matt. viii. 4.
MARCION 361
the results of his predecessors incomplete or unsatisfactory,
although naturally, at each successive attempt, the materials
previously collected and adopted have contributed to an apparently
more complete result. After complaining of the incompleteness
and uncertainty of the statements of Tertullian and Epiphanius,
Ritschl affirms that they furnish so little solid material on which
to base a hypothesis that rather by means of a hypothesis must
we determine the remains of the Gospel from Tertullian. 1
Hilgenfeld quotes this with approval, and adds that at least
Ritschl's opinion is so far right that all the facts of the case can
no longer be settled from external data, and that the general view
regarding the Gospel only can decide many points. 2 This means,
of course, that hypothesis is to supply that which is wanting in
the Fathers. Volkmar, in the introduction to his last compre-
hensive work on Marcion's Gospel, says : "And, in fact, it is no
wonder that critics have for so long, and substantially to so little
effect, fought over the protean question, for there has been so
much uncertainty as to the very basis (Fundament) itself
the precise text of the remarkable document that Baur has
found full ground for rejecting, as unfounded, the supposition on
which that finally-attained decision (his previous one) rested." 3
Critics of all shades of opinion are forced to admit the incom-
pleteness of the materials for any certain reconstruction of
Marcion's text, and consequently for an absolute settlement of
the question from internal evidence, although the labours
of Volkmar and Hilgenfeld have materially increased our know-
ledge of the contents of his Gospel.
In the earlier editions of this work, 4 we contended that the
theory that Marcion's Gospel was a mutilated form of our third
Synoptic had not been established, and that more probably it was
an earlier work, from which our Gospel might have been elaborated.
Since the sixth edition of this work was completed, however, a
very able examination of Marcion's Gospel has been made by
Dr. Sanday,s which has convinced us that our earlier hypothesis is
untenable ; that the portions of our third Synoptic excluded from
Marcion's Gospel were really written by the same pen which com-
posed the mass of the work, and, consequently, that our third Synoptic
existed in his time, and was substantially in the hands of Marcion.
This conviction is mainly the result of the linguistic analysis,
1 Ritschl, Das Ew. Marcion's, p. 55.
2 Hilgenfeld, Die Eirv. Justin's, p. 445.
3 Volkmar, Das Ev. Marcion's, 1852, p. 19 f.
4 For the arguments, omitted here, see the complete edition, 1879, vol. ii.,
pp. 108-138.
5 Fortnightly Review, 1875, p. 855 ff. ; The Gospels in Second Century,
1876, p. 204 ff.
362 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
sufficiently indicated by Dr. Sanday and, since, exhaustively
carried out for ourselves. We still consider the argument based
upon the dogmatic views of Marcion, which has hitherto been
almost exclusively relied on, quite inconclusive by itself; but the
linguistic test, applied practically for the first time in this con-
troversy by Dr. Sanday, must, we think, prove irresistible to all
who are familiar with the comparatively limited vocabulary of
New Testament writers. Throughout the omitted sections
peculiarities of language and expression abound which clearly
distinguish the general composer of the third Gospel, and it is,
consequently, not possible reasonably to maintain that these
sections are additions subsequently made by a different hand,
which seems to be the only legitimate course open to those
who would deny that Marcion's Gospel originally contained them.
Here, then, we find evidence of the existence of our third
Synoptic about the year 140, and it may of course be inferred that
it must have been composed at least some time before that date. 1
It is important, however, to estimate aright the facts actually
before us and the deductions which may be drawn from them.
The testimony of Marcion does not throw any light upon the
authorship or origin of the Gospel of which he made use. Its
superscription was simply " The Gospel," or " The Gospel of
the Lord " (TO ei'ayyeA,iov, or ei'ayyeA.iov TOV Kupiou), 2 and no
author's name was attached to it. The Heresiarch did not pretend
to have written it himself, nor did he ascribe it to any other person.
Tertullian, in fact, reproaches him with its anonymity. "And here
already I might make a stand," he says at the very opening of his
attack on Marcion's Gospel, " contending that a work should not
be recognised which does not hold its front erect which does
not give a pledge of its trustworthiness by the fulness of its title,
and the due declaration of its author."^ Not only did Marcion
himself not in any way connect the name of Luke with his Gospel,
but his followers repudiated the idea that Luke was its author.'*
1 With regard to this, the considerations, advanced in connection with the
Acts of the Apostles, as to the author's use of the works of Josephus should he
referred to.
" Marcion Evangelio suo nu/lum adscribit auctorem (Tertullian, Adv. Marc.,
iv. 2 ; Dial, de recta fide, i).
3 Et possem hie jam gradum figere, non agnoscendum contendens opus,
quod non erigat front em, quod nullam constantiam pneferat, nullam fidem
repromittat de plenitudine tituli et professione debita auctoris (Tertullian, Adv.
Marc., iv. 2).
4 Dial, de rectaf.de, i. Cf. Bertholdt, Einl., iii., p. 1295, 1218 ff. ; Eich-
horn, Einl. N. T., i., p. 79 f. ; Gieseler, Entst. schr. Ew., p. 25 ; Holtzmann,
in Bunsen's Bibeliverk, viii., p. 563. The later Marcionites affirmed their
Gospel to have been written by Christ himself, and the particulars of the
Crucifixion, etc., to have been added by Paul.
MARCION 363
In admitting the substantial identity of Marcion's Gospel and
our third Synoptic, therefore, no advance is made towards
establishing the authorship of Luke. The Gospel remains
anonymous still. On the other hand, we ascertain the important
fact that, so far from its having any authoritative or infallible
character at that time, Marcion regarded our Synoptic as a work
perverted by Jewish influences, and requiring to be freely expurgated
in the interests of truth. Amended by very considerable omissions
and alterations, Marcion certainly held it in high respect as a
record of the teaching of Jesus, but beyond this circumstance, and
the mere fact of its existence in his day, we learn nothing from the
evidence of Marcion. It can scarcely be maintained that this does
much to authenticate the third Synoptic as a record of miracles
and a witness for the reality of Divine Revelation.
There is no evidence whatever that Marcion had any knowledge
of the other canonical Gospels in any form. None of his writings
are extant, and no direct assertion is made even by the Fathers
that he knew them, although from their dogmatic point of view
they assume that these Gospels existed from the very first, and
therefore insinuate that, as he only recognised one Gospel, he
rejected the rest. 1 When Irenseus says : " He persuaded his
disciples that he himself was more veracious than were the
Apostles who handed down the Gospel, though he delivered to
them not the Gospel, but part of the Gospel," 2 it is quite clear
that he speaks of the Gospel the good tidings, Christianity and
not of specific written Gospels. In another passage which is
referred to by Apologists, Irenseus says of the Marcionites that
they have asserted "That even the Apostles proclaimed the
Gospel still under the influence of Jewish sentiments ; but that
they themselves are more sound and more judicious than the
Apostles. Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have had
recourse to mutilating the Scriptures, not recognising some books
at all, but curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the
Epistles of Paul ; these, they say, are alone authentic which they
themselves have abbreviated." 3 These remarks chiefly refer to
the followers of Marcion, and as we have shown, when treating of
1 Irenseus, Adv. Hcer., i. 27, 2 ; cf. Hi. 2 ; 12, 12 ; Tertullian, Adv.
Marc., iv. 3 ; cf. De Carne Christi, 2, 3.
2 Semetipsum esse veraciorem, quam sunt hi, qui Evangelium tradiderunt,
apostoli, suasit discipulis mis ; non Evangelium, sed particulam Evangelii
tradens eis (Adv. H(er., i. 27, 2).
3 Et apostolos qiiidem adhuc qua; sunt Judaorum sentientes, annuntiasse
Evangelium ; se autein sinceriores, et prudentiores apostolis esse. Unde et
Marcion, et qui ab eo sunt, ad intercidendas conversi sunt Scripturas, quasdam
quidem in totuin non cognoscentes, secundum Lucam autein Evangelium, et
Epistolas Pauli decurtantes, hcec sola legitima esse dicunt, qua ipsi minora-
verunt (Adv. Har., iii. 12, 12).
364 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Valentinus, Irengeus is expressly writing against members of
heretical sects living in his own day, and not of the founders of
those sects. 1 The Marcionites of the time of Irenaeus no doubt
deliberately rejected the Gospels, but it does not by any means
follow that Marcion himself knew anything of them. As yet we
have not met with any evidence even of their existence.
The evidence of Tertullian is not a whit more valuable. In the
passage usually cited he says : " But Marcion, lighting upon the
Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, in which he reproaches even
Apostles for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the
Gospel, as well as accuses certain false Apostles of perverting the
Gospel of Christ, tries with all his might to destroy the status of
those Gospels which are put forth as genuine and under the name
of Apostles, or at least of contemporaries of the Apostles, in order,
be it known, to confer upon his own the credit which he takes
from them." 2 Now here again it is clear that Tertullian is simply
applying, by inference, Marcion's views with regard to the preach-
ing of the Gospel by the two parties in the Church, represented
by the Apostle Paul and the " pillar " Apostles whose leaning to
Jewish doctrines he condemned, to the written Gospels recognised
in his day, though not in Marcion's. " It is uncertain," says even
Dr. Westcott, " whether Tertullian in the passage quoted speaks
from a knowledge of what Marcion may have written on the
subject, or simply from his own point of sight." 3 Any doubt is,
however, removed on examining the context, for Tertullian pro-
ceeds to argue that if Paul censured Peter, John, and James, it was
for changing their company from respect of persons ; and similarly,
" if false apostles crept in," they betrayed their character by insisting
on Jewish observances. " So that it was not on account of their
preaching, but of their conversation, that they were pointed out by
Paul "; 4 and he goes on to argue that if Marcion thus accuses
Apostles of having depraved the Gospel by their dissimulation, he
accuses Christ in accusing those whom Christ selected. 5 It is
palpable, therefore, that Marcion, in whatever he may have
written, referred to the preaching of the Gospel, or Christianity,
by Apostles who retained their Jewish prejudices in favour of
1 Cf. Adv. Hter., i., Prof., 2 ; iii. Preef., etc.
2 Sed enim Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Galatas, etiam ipsos apostolos
suggitlantis ut non recto pede incedentes ad veritatem evangelii, simul et
accusantis pseudapostolos quosdam pervertentes evangelium Christi, connititur
ad destruendum statum eorum evangeliorum, qua propria et sub a-hostolorum
nomine eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum, ut scilicet fidem, quatn illis adimit,
suo conferat (Adv. Marc., iv. 3 ; cf. de Carne Christi, 2, 3).
3 On the Canon, p. 276, note I.
4 Adeo non de prcedicatione, sed de conversation a Paulo denotabantur
(Adv. Marc., iv. 3).
5 Adv. Marc., iv. 3.
MARCION 365
circumcision and legal observances, and not to written Gospels.
Tertullian merely assumes, with his usual audacity, that the
Church had the four Gospels from the very first, and therefore
that Marcion, who had only one Gospel, knew the others and
deliberately rejected them.
CHAPTER VIII.
TATIAN DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH
FROM Marcion we now turn to Tatian, another so-called heretic
leader. Tatian, an Assyrian by birth, 1 embraced Christianity and
became a disciple of Justin Martyr 2 in Rome, sharing with him,
as it seems, the persecution excited by Crescens the Cynics to
which Justin fell a victim. After the death of Justin, Tatian,
who till then had continued thoroughly orthodox, left Rome and
joined the sect of the Encratites, of which, however, he was not
the founder, and became the leading exponent of their austere
and ascetic doctrines. 4
The only one of his writings which is still extant is his Oration
to the Greeks (A.oyos irpos "EAA^vas). This work was written
after the death of Justin, for in it he refers to that event,s and it
is generally dated between A.D. 170-175. Tischendorf does not
assert that there is any quotation in this address taken from the
synoptic Gospels ; 6 and Dr. Westcott only affirms that it contains
a "clear reference" to "a parable recorded by St. Matthew," and
he excuses the slightness of this evidence by adding : " The
absence of more explicit testimony to the books of the New
Testament is to be accounted for by the style of his writing, and
not by his unworthy estimate of their importance,"? a remark which
is not very pertinent, as we know nothing whatever with regard to
Tatian's estimate of any such books.
The supposed " clear reference " is as follows : " For by means
of a certain hidden treasure (diroKpv<f)ov Oipravpov) he made
himself lord of all that we possess, in digging for which though
we were covered with dust, yet we give it the occasion of falling
into our hands and abiding with us." 8 This is claimed as a
reference to Matt. xiii. 44 : " The kingdom of heaven is like unto
treasure hidden (dr)travp<jj xeK/w/x/xei/w) in the field, which a man
found and hid, and for his joy he goeth and selleth all that he
hath and buyeth that field." So faint a similarity could not
prove anything, but it is evident that there are decided differences
here, and the passage does not warrant the deduction that he
1 Oratio ad Grtzcos, ed Otto, 42. 2 Ib., 1 8. 3 Ib., 19.
4 Eusebius, H. ., iv. 29; Irenaeus, Adv. Har., i. 28 ; Epiphanius, H<zr.,
xlvi. i ; Hieron., De Vir. Illustr., 29; Theodoret. Hffr. Fab., i. 20.
5 Orat. ad Gr., 19. 6 Cf. Watty wurden, . s. TV., p. 1 6 f.
7 On the Canon, p. 278. 8 Orat. ad Gr., 30.
366
TATIAN 367
must have derived it from our Matthew, and not from any other
of the numerous Gospels which we know to have early been in
circulation. Ewald ascribes the parable in Matthew originally to
the Spruchsammlung or collection of Discourses, the second of
the four works out of which he considers our first Synoptic to
have been compiled. 1
Although neither Tischendorf nor Dr. Westcott thinks it worth
while to refer to it, some writers claim another passage in the
Oration as a reference to our third Synoptic. " Laugh ye : never-
theless you shall weep." 2 This is compared with Luke vi. 25 :
"Woe unto you that laugh now : for ye shall mourn and weep." 3
Here, again, it is not possible to trace a reference in the words of
Tatian specially to our third Gospel. If there be one part of the
Gospel which was more known than another in the first ages of
Christianity, it was the Sermon on the Mount, and there can be
no doubt that many evangelical works now lost contained versions
of it. Ewald likewise assigns this passage of Luke originally to
the Spruchsammlung^ and no one can doubt that the saying was
recorded long before the writer of the third Gospel undertook to
compile evangelical history as so many had done before him.
Further on, however, Dr. Westcott says : "It can be gathered
from Clement of Alexandria that he (Tatian) endeavoured to
derive authority for his peculiar opinions from the Epistles to the
Corinthians and Galatians, and probably from the Epistle to the
Ephesians, and the Gospel of St. Matthew."s The allusion here
is to a passage in the Stromata of Clement, in which reference is
supposed by Dr. Westcott to be made to Tatian. No writer,
however, is named, and Clement merely introduces his remark by
the words, "a certain person" (rts), and then proceeds to give
his application of the injunction, " not to treasure upon earth
where moth and rust corrupt " (ri yrjs p) drjo-a.vpi.fav 6Vov ays
Kal ppuxris d<f)avifci). 6 The parallel passage in Matthew vi. 19
reads : " Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where
moth and rust doth corrupt," etc. (p) Bi^ravpi^frf. vp.v Orjvavpovs
ori 1-175 yrjs, K.T.A.). Dr. Westcott, it is true, merely suggests that
" probably " or " perhaps " this may be ascribed to Tatian, but it
is almost certain that it was not attributed to him by Clement.
Tatian is several times referred to in the course of the same
1 Die drei ersten Evv. , 1. c.
- FeXare 5e tret's, ws Kal K\avcrovTes. Orat. ad. Gr., 32.
3 oval Vfjuv ol YeXawres vvv Srt irevd-fjffeTe Kal /cXawrere. Luke vi. 25.
4 Die drei ersten Evv. , 1. c.
5 On the Canon, p. 279. [In the 4th edition Dr. Westcott has altered the
" probably" of the above sentence to " perhaps," and in a note has addded :
" These two last references are from an anonymous citation (TIS) which has
been commonly assigned to Tatian." Page 318, n. I.]
6 Strom., iii. 12, 86.
368 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
chapter, and his words are continued by the use of <f>j](ri or
and it is in the highest degree improbable that Clement should
introduce another quotation from him in such immediate context
by the vague and distant reference, " a certain person " (ns). On
the other hand, reference is made in the chapter to other writers
and sects, to one of whom with much greater propriety this
expression applies. No weight, therefore, could be attached to
any such passage in connection with Tatian. Moreover, the
quotation not only does not agree with our Synoptic, but may
more probably have been derived from the Gospel according to
the Hebrews. It will be remembered that Justin Martyr quotes
the same passage, with the same omission of " drjo-avpovs," from a
Gospel different from our Synoptics. 1
Tatian, however, is claimed as a witness for the existence of our
Gospels, principally on the ground that he is said to have com-
piled a Gospel which was generally called Diatessaron (8ia recrcrdpotv)
or " by four," and it is assumed that this was a harmony of our
four Gospels.
Our information regarding this Gospel in the writings of
the Fathers is, as we shall see, of the scantiest and most
unsatisfactory description, and critics have arrived at very
various conclusions with regard to its composition. Some of
course affirm, with more or less of hesitation, that it was nothing
else than a harmony of our four canonical Gospels ; many of
these, however, are constrained to admit that it was also partly
based upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Others
maintain that it was a harmony of our three Synoptics together
with the Gospel according to the Hebrews ; whilst many deny
that it was composed of our Gospels at all, and either declare it
to have been a harmony of the Gospel according to the Hebrews
with three other Gospels whose identity cannot be determined,
or that it was simply the Gospel according to the Hebrews itself,
by which name, as Epiphanius states, it was called by some in
his day. 2
Before proceeding to discuss this work we must consider
the date which must be assigned to Tatian's literary career.
According to Eusebius, Justin suffered martyrdom A.D. 165,3
and the generally-received theory is that his death may be
set about A.D. 163-165. Tatian's literary activity seems to have
begun after his master's death, "and after this we have to allow for
his own career, first as an orthodox Christian and then as a
heretic."* It is argued by some that Tatian was no longer living
1 Justin, Apol., i. 15 ; see p. 222 f., p. 232 f.
2 Epiphanius, Hcer., xlvi. I. 3 H. ., iv. 16 ; Chron. Pasch.
4 Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion* f. 274.
TATIAN 369
when Irerueus wrote of him in the first book of his great work,
which, it is said, must be dated between A.D. 178-190 ; but this
is far from certain, and the expressions used by no means neces-
sarily convey such an inference. Nor does the mention of the
"Assyrian" by the Alexandrian Clement as one of his teachers, 1
in the first book of the Stromata, written not earlier than
A.D. 195, throw much light upon the date, nor, indeed, the fact of
Rhodon having been one of his disciples. The Address to the
Greeks, the only one of Tatian's works which has been preserved,
was written, as has already been said, after the death of Justin,
and is generally dated about A.D. 170-175. This work was
certainly written before he had adopted the heretical views which
led to his separation from the Church, so that, at least, the date
assigned to this composition is some slight indication of the phases
of his career. " If, therefore, we assume even A.D. 170 as the date
of the Address, the Diatessaron, which was condemned and
destroyed as heretical, must, at least, be assigned to a still later
period. Dr. Lightfoot, who, without arguing the point, thought
the date A.D. 170-175 " probably some years too late" for the
Address* assigns the Diatessaron to A.D. i7o;3 but, unless good
reasons can be given for dating the Address earlier than A.D. 170-
175 and these have not been forthcoming it is probable that
the Diatessaron must have been compiled at a later date. The
Address is completely orthodox, and no one who has attacked
Tatian's later views has, apparently, been able to discover even a
heretical tendency in its vigorous arguments. Some years must,
therefore, reasonably be allowed to elapse before Tatian's opinions
changed and led him to arrange a Harmony of Gospels in accor-
dance with them. Probably the date assigned to it should not be
earlier than A.D. 175-180,4 and the later part of this term may be
considered the more reasonable. We have no information what-
ever as to the date of Tatian's death.
If we examine contemporary writings, or such extracts as have
come down to us, for information regarding the works of Tatian,
we meet with references to several of his compositions. His
pupil Rhodon -as quoted by Eusebius, promises to write a
work in answer to one by Tatian, in which he professes to explain
certain obscurities in the sacred writings. 5 Irenaeus denounces
some of his heretical views in no measured terms. 6 His disciple
Clement of Alexandria refers to his treatise On Perfection
according to the Saviour, 1 and likewise attacks his peculiar
1 Strom., i. i, ii. 2 Essays, 275. 3 The Fourth Gospel, 1892, p. 132.
4 Zahn dates it soon after A.D. 172 (Forschungen, p. 290 f.).
5 H. E., v. 13. 6 Adv. Hier., i. 28, I ; iii. 23, 8. ^ Strom., Hi. 12, 80 f.
2B
370 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
opinions, but makes at the same time copious use of his Address
to the Greeks. The author of the work against the heresy of
Artemon, quoted by Eusebius, cites Tatian as an apologist along
with men like Justin and Clement, and as maintaining the divinity
of Christ. 1 Tertullian, 2 Hippolytus, 3 and Origen-* refer to him,
and combat his opinions. None of these writers, however, make
any mention of a Harmony of Gospels in connection with Tatian,
nor does any writer prior to Eusebius.
The first time, then, that we hear anything of a Harmony
of Gospels ascribed to Tatian, or meet with any trace of
such a work, is in the mention of it by Eusebius, writing some
century and a half after the Harmony is supposed to have been
composed. Eusebius says in the well-known passage : " Tatian,
however, their former chief, having put together a certain amalga-
mation and collection, I know not how, of the Gospels, named
this the Diatessaron, which even now is current with some." 5
Beyond the mere statement that Tatian made some kind of
Harmony of Gospels, which was called Diatessaron, nothing
could be less explicit than this passage. It seems to be based
upon mere hearsay, and the expression " I know not how " (OI'K
ot8' 6Vws) does not indicate any personal acquaintance with
the composition to which Eusebius refers. Dr. Lightfoot
argues, on the contrary, that, " so far from implying that Eusebius
had no personal knowledge of the work, it " (the expression) " is
constantly used by writers in speaking of books where they are
perfectly acquainted with the contents, but do not understand the
principles or do not approve the method. In idiomatic English
it signifies ' I cannot think what he was about,' and is equivalent
to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so that, if anything, it implies
knowledge rather than ignorance of the contents." 6 Dr. Lightfoot
gives references to a number of examples of its use in the treatise
of Origen against Celsus, but when examined they do not in the
least prove his point. It is certain that OUK 018' orrws is fre-
quently used to express partial, as well as complete, ignorance
ignorance of something in a book, as well as absence of acquain-
tance with a book itself; but it always indicates ignorance,
real or assumed. If we look at the passage in Eusebius itself,
there is nothing to indicate that the words are intended to
express anything but imperfect knowledge, or that Eusebius
wished to indicate disapproval of such a work. In his Epistle to
1 H. ., v. 28. " Dejejun., 15.
3 Philosoph. viii. 4, 16 ; x. 18. 4 C. Ce/s., i. 16, etc.
s 'O /X^VTOI "ye TTp&repo? O.VT&V dpxTjybs 6 fanavbs ffvvd<f>fidi> ru>a nal ffwayuyty,
OUK old Sirwy, T&V euayyeXiuy ffvvOeis, rb Sia Tfffcrdpwv TOVTO irpoffiavdfj.acrev, 8 Kal
trapd riffiy etfftrt vvv tptperai. H. ., iv. 29.
6 Essays, p. 278.
TATIAN 371
Carpianus, Eusebius writes of a similar Harmony of Gospels by
Ammonius not only without censure, but with approval. If his
purpose had been to condemn the Diatessaron, he would have
said more than this. As it is, he has chronicled the existence of
the work without a detail evincing acquaintance with it ; but, on
the contrary, with a distinct expression of ignorance. The best
critics on both sides, amongst whom may be mentioned Credner,
Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Reuss, Scholten, Zahn, and others, are
agreed in inferring that Eusebius had no personal acquaintance
with the Diatessaron.
It must be admitted that the words of Eusebius give a very
scant account of a work of which not a trace has been found in
the extant literature of a hundred and fifty years after its supposed
composition. Not only are we not told anything of the peculiarities
or arrangement of its contents, but we are left in total ignorance
even of the language in which it was written. This absence of
information is particularly to be regretted in the case of such a
work as a Harmony of the Gospels, which, from its very nature,
cannot have borne an author's name, and the identification of
which inevitably became more difficult as time went on. Con-
tinuing our search for information regarding it, we find the rapidly
increasing Christian literature a complete blank so far as any
Harmony of Gospels by Tatian is concerned. Neither Irenseus,
Clement of Alexandria, nor Jerome, who refer to other works of
Tatian, make any reference to it. We have mentioned incidentally
that, in his Epistle to Carpianus, Eusebius refers to a similar
Harmony of Gospels by Ammonius. No writer mentions the
Diatessaron again until we come to Epiphanius, writing about the
end of the fourth century, or some two hundred years after its
compilation. He makes the following remarkable statement :
" It is said that the Diatessaron Gospel owes its origin to him
(Tatian), which some call the Gospel according to the Hebrews." 1
It is almost universally agreed that Epiphanius, the second
writer who refers to the Diatessaron, had as little personal know-
ledge of the work as the first (Eusebius) ; but several important
points are to be deduced from the report which he chronicles. In
the first place, it is quite clear that, as has been suggested above,
the name of Tatian was not attached to the Diatessaron. Had it
been so, the expression, "it is said," could not have been used.
By the time of Epiphanius the connection of Tatian with his
Harmony had already become merely conjectural. How is the
fact that some called it the Gospel according to the Hebrews to
be explained ? It is unnecessary to press the possibility that what
1 Afyerai d r6 5t<i reaa&ptav evayytXiov t!>7r' avrov yeyei>7Jffdai, Sirep Kara
'E/3/xxovs rivts /caXoOcri. H<zr., 46, I.
372 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
had been understood to be Tatian's Diatessaron] was [nothing
but the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which, from having
matter common to our Gospels, was mistaken for a Harmony.
The Gospel according to the Hebrews was, we know, used by the
Encratites, the sect to which Tatian belonged, and at least nothing
can be more probable than the hypothesis that, in a Harmony
compiled after he had separated himself from the Church, he
must have made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, to
which his followers were attached. Two facts which we know
should be borne in mind in connection with this confusion, if
confusion it be, of the Diatessaron with the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, that this Gospel was constructed on the lines of our
first Synoptic, and that it omitted the genealogies, both of which
peculiarities are said to be characteristic of the Diatessaron.
More than half a century passes before we meet with any fresh
mention of Tatian's work, and then we come to a more detailed
statement regarding it than we have yet discovered. Writing about
A.D. 453, Theodoret gives the following account of what took
place in his diocese :
" He [Tatian] composed the Gospel which is called Diatessaron, cutting out
the genealogies and such other passages as show the Lord to have been born of
the seed of David after the flesh. This work was in use not only among
persons belonging to his sect, but also among those who follow the apostolic
doctrine, as they did not perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the
book in all simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more than
two hundred such copies held in respect in the churches in our parts. All
these I collected and put away, and I replaced them by the Gospels of the Four
Evangelists." 1
It will be observed that Theodoret does not say that the Gospel
of Tatian was a Harmony of four Gospels, but merely that it was
" called Diatessaron" and it is difficult to suppose that, if it merely
omitted "the genealogies and such other passages as show the
Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh," a
bishop, even in the fifth century, could confiscate two hundred
copies of a book when books were so scarce and precious. What
could be expected from a Harmony of Gospels but omission of
some matter contained in them ? One is tempted to think that
when Theodoret speaks of " the mischief of the composition," he
had in his mind more than these omissions, though he does not
enter into full detail. In any case, the omissions specified are
all that is added to our knowledge of the Diatessaron by the
statement of Theodoret.
It may be well to refer here to an apocryphal Syriac work, called
the Doctrine of Addai, giving a copy of correspondence alleged to
1 Theodoret, De Fab. ffkr.
TATIAN 373
have taken place between " the Lord Jesus Christ and Abgar,
King of Edessa." A very early date is assigned to it by many,
but Dr. Lightfoot "cannot place it much earlier than the middle
of the third century," 1 and it might safely be set much later. In
this little work an account is given of the Church at Edessa, and
it is said that the people assembled for prayer and to hear read,
along with the Old Testament, the " New of the Diatessaron" 2
This might well be explained as a mere reading of four Gospels,
but there are certain reasons for believing that it really means a
Harmony. 2ahn has quoted the following rule from the Canons
of Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa (A.D. 412-435): "Let the
presbyters and deacons have a care that in all the churches there
be provided and read a copy of the distinct Gospel." This
" distinct " Gospel is understood to be opposed to the Harmony of
four Gospels, and light is thrown upon the point by the fact that,
in the Syriac Gospels of Cureton, the first Gospel is described as
the " Distinct Gospel of Matthew,'' meaning, probably, the Gospel
in a separate form. Taking this with the statement of Theodoret,
it is probable that the Diatessaron referred to was that which he
confiscated in his diocese. Be this as it may, however, it is clear
that, beyond the fact that the Diatessaron was read, we have no
further information from the Doctrine of Addai as to the contents
of the Diatessaron, the particular Gospels from which it was com-
piled, their reputed authors, or even the name of the person who
prepared the Harmony.
The next reference to the Diatessaron which has to be considered
comes from Victor of Capua, about the middle of the sixth cen-
tury. Victor met with a harmony entitled Diatessaron, which, as
we have already shown to be naturally the case with all such
compilations, was anonymous, and he consequently endeavoured to
discover a probable author for it. He went to Eusebius for
information, and in his Ecclesiastical History he found the mention
of a Diatessaron attributed to Tatian, which has been quoted
above ; and in his Epistle to Carpianus, prefixed to the Canons,
he met with the account of another ascribed to Ammonius. The
description of the Diatessaron of Ammonius of Alexandria given
by Eusebius may now be quoted : " He placed by the side of the
Gospel according to Matthew the corresponding passages of the
other Evangelists, so that, as a necessary result, the sequence in
the three was destroyed so far as regards the order of reading. "3
Victor, however, read the passage of Eusebius with a singular
variation from that which we have, and cites him as saying that
the Gospel which Tatian composed out of four was entitled
1 Essays, p. 279. 2 Phillips, Doctr. Add, c. 35.
3 Eusebius, Op. (ed. Migne), iv., p. 1276.
374 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Diapente, or "by five." 1 Whether the copy of Eusebius before him
had this reading, or whether he corrected Eusebius from the
contents or from the title of his Harmony, cannot now be definitely
settled ; but there is the distinct statement, and it is all the more
curious since he has just said "unum ex quatuor" and it is,
therefore, difficult to explain the immediate statement of Diapente
as the title, which contradicts the description, except as a copy of
something before him which he records. Dr. Lightfoot argues
that Victor, who knew Greek, can hardly have written Diapente
himself, and attributes the curious reading to the blundering or
officiousness of some later scribe. 2 But to write Diapente for
Diatessaron is scarcely like a slip of the pen, and the discrepancy
between the Harmony and the name must have been very striking
to render probable the theory of officiousness. I will let Dr.
Lightfoot's own words state the result of Victor's investigation :
" Assuming that the work which he had discovered must be one
or other, he decides in favour of the latter (Tatian), because it
does not give St. Matthew continuously and append the passages
of the other Evangelists, as Eusebius states Ammonius to have
done."3 A little later, Dr. Lightfoot adds: "Thus, Victor gets
his information directly from Eusebius, whom he repeats. He
knows nothing about Tatian's Diatessaron except what Eusebius
tells him." We have seen that this was little enough. Dr.
Lightfoot expresses a very decided opinion (which he afterwards
modifies) that Victor was mistaken in ascribing the authorship to
Tatian, but the discussion of this point must be reserved for a
more appropriate place further on.
In seeking for mention of the Diatessaron of Tatian in extant
literature, we have already had to make wide strides through time,
but these must now be increased. In a Glossary of Bar-ali,
written about the end of the ninth century, we have the next
reference to the work : " Diastarsun (otherwise Diakutrum) ; the
Gospel which is the Diatessaron, made by Tatian, the compiled
Gospel. A gospel made sense for sense on the sense of the
combined four apostolic Gospels. It contains neither the natural
nor the traditional genealogy of our Lord Christ ; and
he who made it namely, Tatian has on this account been
anathematised. "< There can be little doubt that Bar-ali derives
his information from Theodoret, and does' not know the work
himself.
1 " Ex historia quoque ejus [i.e. Eusebii] comperi quod Tatianus vir erudi-
tissimus et orator illius temporis clarus unum ex quatuor compaginaverit
Evangelium cut titulum Diapente imposuit. "
2 Essays, p. 286 f. 3 /&#, p. 286.
4 Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syr.,\. 869; Zahn % Forsch.,i. 98; Harnack,
Gesch. altchristl. Lit., i. 2 Halfte, 1893, p. 494.
TATIAN 375
We have to pass over a long period before we again hear
anything of the Diatessaron. We receive some important infor-
mation regarding it from Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who died A.D. 1207.
He wrote a Commentary on the Gospels, in which there is the
following statement :
"Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr, selected and
patched together from the four Gospels and constructed a Gospel, which he
called Diatessaron that is. Miscellanies. On this work Mar Ephrem wrote
an exposition ; and its commencement was : ' In the beginning was the
Word.' Elias of Salamia, who is also called Aphthonius, constructed a
Gospel after the likeness of the Diatessaron of Ammonius, mentioned by
Eusebius in his prologue to the Canons which he made for the Gospel.
Elias sought for that Diatessaron, and could not find it, and, in consequence,
constructed this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with
several things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in them,
and rightly. But this copy [work] which Elias composed is not often met
with." 1
Mar Ephrem of Edessa, who is here referred to, is said to have
died about A.D. 373, and it is a very curious fact that we hear of
such a commentary, upon which the whole argument regarding
the Diatessaron of Tatian has recently turned, a thousand years
after the composition of the Harmony, and some eight centuries
from the date of the alleged commentary. About eighty years
later than Bar-Salibi, another Syrian father, Gregory Bar-Hebraeus,
tells us: "Eusebius of Caesarea, seeing the corruptions which
Ammonius of Alexandria introduced into the Gospel of the
Diatessaron, that is Miscellanies, which commenced, ' In the
beginning was the Word,' and which Mar Ephrem expounded,
kept the four Gospels in their integrity, but pointed out the agree-
ment of the words by Canons written in red." 3
Mr. J. Rendel Harris has recently pointed out that this
apparent contradiction, which arises from a use of the fragment
given by Assemani, does not really exist, and that the MSS. of
Bar-Hebraeus, which are accessible to us in England, continue
the foregoing passage as follows : " And he (i.e., Eusebius)
confessed as a lover of truth that he took his cue from the labours
of that man (i.e., Ammonius). For Tatian, also the disciple of
Justin, the Philosopher and Martyr, patched and composed the
Gospel of the Combined, and because the sequence of Mark,
Luke, and John was lost, he defined the ten Canons only," etc. 3
The important question may still be put : Was the Diatessaron
upon which Mar Ephrem commented really that of Tatian ? The
1 This is the rendering of Dr. Lightfoot, Essays, p. 280.
2 Assemani, Bibl. Orient., \. 57.
3 Contemp. Rev., Aug. 1893, p. 274 f. Mr. Harris quotes many Syriac
writers showing use of Ephrem's Commentary. Cf. Fragments of the Comment:
of Ephrem Syrus, 1895.
376 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
mere statement that it began with the sentence, "In the beginning
was the Word," does not afford much help for identifying the
special Diatessaron, because many other Harmonies may have
adopted the same obviously appropriate opening ; and we must all
the more regret that the Diatessaron which, according to the
Doctrine of Addai, was publicly read at Edessa, is not more
clearly identified, for it might naturally be the work upon which
a Churchman of Edessa may have written a commentary.
So little is really known of the Diatessaron of Tatian that there
is no certainty even as to the language in which it was composed.
Zahn and the majority of modern critics are of opinion that the
original was written in Syriac, but Harnack states strong reasons
for maintaining a Greek original.
We now come to comparatively recent times. The Armenian
monks of St. Lazaro published, in 1834, four volumes of translations
into Armenian of works of Ephrem Syrus, which contained a
Harmony of the Gospels apparently beginning with the passage
John i. i. Aucher, the editor of Ephrem, made a Latin transla-
tion of the Commentary in 1841, which, being amended by
Professor Mosinger, was published in 1876.' This is said to be
the commentary which Ephrem is reported to have written upon
Tatian's Diatessaron. The editors state their opinion that the
Armenian version was written about the fifth century, and that it
is a translation from the Syriac. Zahn long ago pointed out that
the Commentary is evidently based upon exegetical lectures,
probably delivered to theological classes, perhaps the subsequent
record of a student. 2 Ephrem, moreover, or the writer of the
"Commentary," whoever he may be, never himself calls the work
upon which he is commenting the Diatessaron, nor mentions
Tatian, but sometimes Scriptura, and occasionally Evangelium.
There is, in fact, nothing whatever apart from the tradition
preserved by Bar-Salibi and the note of the translator, written long
after the time of Ephrem, to indicate that this is a commentary
upon the Diatessaron of Tatian. The order is not always the
same in the passages selected for comment as that of the Harmony
of Victor, or of the Arabic Diatessaron, of which we shall presently
speak, and the texts of all have been so manipulated that no
literal importance can be attached to them.
We may now conveniently return to the Latin Harmony of
Victor of Capua. It will be remembered that he was completely
in doubt as to the authorship of the compilation which had come
1 This work did not come to notice in this country till after the complete
edition of S. R. was published in 1879, a d of course we need not add that the
still later works presently to be noticed could not before be discussed.
* Forsch., p. 51 ; Resch, Aussercan. Parallel-texts, p. 43.
TATIAN 377
in his way, and as to whether he should ascribe it to Ammonius
or to Tatian. Finally, upon mere conjecture, he decided in
favour of Tatian. Regarding this Dr. Hemphill writes :
"Victor of Capua himself is an important witness ; for he was skilled in
both Greek and Latin, and was a man of considerable eminence as a scholar
and controversialist. And his solitary reason for attributing his discovery to
Tatian is that he found one passage in Eusebius which spoke of Tatian having
compiled a patchwork Gospel, which he judged to be the same, substantially,
as that which accidentally came into his hands. Not one other allusion to
Tatian's work does Victor mention ; and the conclusion is that, but for the
statement of Eusebius, he would have remained perfectly ignorant that such a
work had ever existed The Latin Harmony, as it now exists in the Codex
Fuldemis, represents not the harmony as it was found by Victor, but the
Harmony as it was modified and edited under his direction. The index, which
somehow escaped revision, does not in all cases agree with the body of the
Codex, from which we gather that the latter may have been to some extent
changed in order, and interpolated as in the case of the genealogies ; while
the text which Victor found has been changed piece by piece into the Vulgate
of St. Jerome." 1
Victor, making perfectly free use of the Latin Harmony which
he had found, and altering it to suit his orthodox views, had it
transcribed, and his fine manuscript has come down to us in the
Codex Fuldensis, which is admitted to be almost the best authority
for the text of the Vulgate version of the Gospels. It is no
evidence, however, for the text of Tatian's Diatessaron, with which,
in the first place, it cannot be identified, and to which, if it could,
it no longer bears any likeness.
It must be apparent that the theory that the original of this
Harmony, which was done into Latin, was that of Tatian, and not
the Diatessaron of Ammonius or some one else who may have
compiled a Diatessaron in the course of the four centuries between
Tatian and Victor, rests upon a most unsubstantial basis. The most
striking characteristic of Tatian's work, as we have seen, was the
omission of the genealogies, an omission which led to its being
anathematised by the Church. In the index which is cited to
prove that the original Latin Harmony began with John i. i we
also find the genealogy, V. de generatione vel nativitate Christi.
It is not possible, upon any real grounds of evidence, to identify
this Harmony with the Diatessaron of Tatian.
We now come to the last and most important document con-
nected with this discussion. It had long been known that an
Arabic manuscript existed in the Vatican Library purporting to be
the Diatessaron of Tatian. This work, which had been brought
to the library by Joseph Assemani, is described by him as Tatiani
Diatessaron seu quatuor Evangelia in unum redacta. 2 It did not
1 Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian, pp. xi. , xxiv. f.
2 Bib I. Orient., i. 619.
378 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
attract any attention till some years ago, when Agostino Ciasca, in
1883, published a pamphlet describing it, promising at some
future time, if possible, to publish the manuscript. He did not
find an opportunity of doing so, nor did Lagarde, who also thought
of attempting it, till 1888, when Ciasca was able to produce an
edition of the Diatessaron based upon this manuscript (XIV.), and
a still more perfect one, which was presented to the Borgian
Library in 1886 by Catholic Copts in Egypt, with a Latin trans-
lation by himself. 1 The latter manuscript, generally called the
Borgian Codex, contains notes at the beginning and end, stating
that this is a translation of Tatian's Diatessaron from a Syriac
manuscript written by Isa ibn Ali el Mutatabbib, a disciple of
Honain ibn Ishaq, by Abu-1-Faraj Abdullah Ibn-at-Tayyib.
Honain is believed to have died A.D. 873, and the death of
Abdullah Ibn-at-Tayyib is set down by Bar-Hebrseus as having
taken place A.D. 1043. The existing manuscript is assigned to
the fourteenth century. The Syriac manuscript was, therefore,
written seven centuries after Tatian's time, and the Arabic trans-
lation made some nine centuries after it. Beyond the notes of the
scribe, we have no external evidence that the original Diatessaron
was the work ascribed to Tatian and, as has already been fully
stated, nothing could be more difficult than the identification of
an anonymous compilation of this kind.
So little does the Arabic Harmony agree with what we are
actually told of the Diatessaron of Tatian that elaborate expla-
nation and conjecture are necessary to support the statement of
the Arab translator or scribe that we have here that mysterious
work. The Diatessaron of Tatian was said to have commenced
with the passage : " In the beginning was the Word." Now, in
the Vatican MS. XIV. the Diatessaron does not begin with
these words, but with the opening words of the second Synoptic,
" The Gospel of Jesus, the Son of the living God." This formerly
convinced scholars that the Arabic Harmony was not that of
Tatian, but Ciasca suggested that the words from Mark were added
by another hand to supply the lack of a title. When the Borgian
manuscript arrived, it was found that the introductory words from
the second Synoptic are separated by a space from the text which
follows. Which of these was the original form of the work from
which the Arabic version was made cannot now be determined, or
whether the separation in the Borgian manuscript was the result
of a preconceived theory that the Harmony, being understood to
be Tatian's, ought to open with the words of the fourth Gospel.
Then the fact which we learn from Theodoret, that the genealogies
and the passages showing Jesus to have been born of the seed of
1 Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmonize Arabice.
TATIAN 379
David, after the flesh, were omitted from the Diatessaron, in
consequence of which he resorted to the strong measure of
" putting away " a couple of hundred copies of the work, is a still
stronger obstacle to the identification of the Arabic Harmony with
it, for these passages (Matt. i. 1-17 and Luke iii. 23-38) are
contained in MS. XIV. In the Borgian manuscript, however,
these genealogies are removed from the text and put as an
appendix, under the title, " The Book of the Generation of Jesus."
It is argued from this that we have here the passages in the first
stage of insertion they have got into the appendix on their way
into the text. But may it not with greater probability be argued
that they are in the first stage of omission excluded from an
inconvenient position in the text, where they clashed with the
theory of the Harmony being by Tatian, and relegated to the
appendix by the translators, who did not like to go so far as to
exclude such scriptural matter altogether? One fact which
seems to support the latter view is that in the index to
the Latin Harmony of Victor which Zahn regards as repre-
sentative of the 'original Latin version of a Syriac Diatessaron
which became transformed into the Codex Fuldensis the fifth
chapter is given as " de generatione vel nativitate Christi." In
connection with these difficulties it must never be forgotten that,
to identify the Arabic Harmony with the work of Tatian, we have
really nothing but the note of almost unknown Arab scholars,
writing nearly a thousand years after the time of Tatian, of a work
which had no specific mark of authorship.
Another indication may be given, valuable in the almost
complete absence of information regarding Tatian's Diatessaron,
which likewise opposes the identification of the Arabic Harmony
with that work. Dean Burgon 1 quotes an ancient Scholion
which he met with while examining the Harleian manuscript 5,647
(of Evan. 72, published by Wetstein), which states that, in Tatian's
Diatessaron, the verse of the fourth Gospel, " And another took a
spear and pierced his side, and there came out water and blood,"
was inserted in Matt, xxvii. 48, and the writer adds that it is
also introduced into the Evangelical History of Diodorus and
divers other Holy Fathers, and "this also Chrysostom says."
The only one of these assertions which can be tested now is that
regarding Chrysostom, and it is found to be correct, for in
Homily 88 the text occurs against a clear summary of v. 48. Now,
this is not found either in the Codex Fuldensis or in the Arabic
Diatessaron.
The doubts which exist as to the identification of these MSS.
with the Diatessaron of Tatian are intensified when we consider
1 Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, 1871, p. 316 f.
380 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the text of these works. If the identification were complete and
decisive upon other grounds of evidence, it might be unnecessary
to enter upon this part of the subject, but the changes which have
taken place in the centuries which have passed since the compila-
tion of the Diatessaron are so indicative of the tendency to adjust
facts to agreement with prevalent opinion that it is instructive to
consider also this side of the case. In his work on the Diatessaron,
Mr. Rendel Harris frankly says : " From what has been said, it
will be seen that, in describing the manuscripts from which
Ciasca's text is made, we have been careful to avoid the assumption
that the text of the Arabic Harmony is necessarily and at all
points identical with that of the Diatessaron of Tatian. For,
even if we accept the Harmony as Tatian's on the ground of its
general agreements with the traditional Tatian, we are obliged to
note in the manuscripts themselves a tendency to change in the
most striking Tatian characteristics ; and further, since the
Harmony is substantially a New Testament manuscript, it is
impossible that it could have remained in circulation without being
affected by the same causes which were in operation to change the
form of every successive recension of the New Testament into
agreement with the latest recension of all." 1 Harnack considers
that the Syriac manuscript from which the Arabic translation was
made contained an already manipulated Catholic Diatessaron?
and elsewhere he says : " In all cases where I have referred to the
Arabic Harmony that is to say, at the passages characteristic of
the real Tatian the characteristic had been removed and the
commonplace substituted." Resch, speaking of all these supposed
representations of the Diatessaron, after pointing out the effect of
the establishment of the canonical text, as the only authority, in
producing a process of fundamental extirpation (griindlicher
Ausrottungs process) of pre-canonical Gospel texts, says : " In
consequence of this, the Diatessaron belongs to the number of
wholly lost writings. Neither Greek nor Syriac copies of this
oldest Gospel Harmony have been preserved," and he only
regards Ephrem, Aphraates, the Codex Fuldensis, and the Arabic
Harmony as sources for a partial reconstruction. 3 Zahn's opinion
of the text is not a whit more favourable. It will be remembered
that he said of the Latin Tatian that " the translation, if we can so
call it, has been made in such a way that the fragments from
which the Syriac book was compiled were sought for in the Latin
Bible in the version of Jerome, and transcribed from it. It is
equally clear," he continues, " that either on the occasion of the
1 The Diatessaron of Tatian, 1890, p. 9.
2 Gesch. d. altchr. Lit., 1893, '> P- 495-
3 Aussercan. paralleltexte zu d. Ev. , "^893, p. 42 f.
DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH 381
translation from Syriac into Latin, or even previously in the Syriac
text itself which the Latinist had before him, the literary composi-
tion of the Diatessaron had undergone a profound transformation.
All this and much more," he adds, "may also have occurred when
the Diatessaron was translated into Arabic." 1
When we consider the slightness of the evidence upon which
any identification of these works with the Diatessaron of Tatian
rests, this final judgment on the transformation of the text itself
forms a suitable illustration of the whole position of the question.
If many are content to consider the identity of the works settled,
at least it is pretty certain that, if Tatian himself were to-day to see
his Diatessaron as it stands in Ciasca's MS., he could not recognise
his own work.
We have thought it desirable to state the case for Tatian's
Diatessaron with sufficient fulness, as interesting in itself
and important for a just appreciation of the difficulties which
surround it ; but so far as our special investigation is concerned a
final judgment is simple and conclusive. Even if it be accepted
that, towards the last quarter of the second century, Tatian
possessed and made use of our Gospels, the fact can only prove
the existence of those writings, but adds nothing to our knowledge
of their authors, and certainly does not in the least justify us in
accepting them as adequate witnesses for miracles and the reality
of Divine Revelation.
Dionysius of Corinth need not detain us long. Eusebius in-
forms us that he was the author of seven Epistles addressed to
various Christian communities, and also of a letter to Chrysophora,
" a most faithful sister." Eusebius speaks of these writings as
Catholic Epistles, and briefly characterises each ; but, with the
exception of a few short fragments preserved by him, none of
these fruits of the " inspired industry " (ev#eou (/uAoTrovtas) of
Dionysius are now extant. 2 These fragments are all from an
Epistle said to have been addressed to Soter, Bishop of Rome,
and give us a clue to the time at which they were written. The
Bishopric of Soter is generally dated between A.D. 168-176,2
during which years the Epistle must have been composed. It
could not have been written, however, before Dionysius became
Bishop of Corinth in A.D. 170,* and it was probably written some
years after. s
1 Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, 1891, ii., p. 533 f.
2 Eusebius, H. E., 5v. 23 ; Hieron., De Vir. III., 2^ ; Grabe, Spidl. Patr.,
ii., p. 217 f-5 Routh, Keliq. Sacra, \., p. 180 ff.
3 Eusebius, in his Chronicon, sets it in A.D. 171. 4 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 19.
5 Anger places it between 173-177, Synops. Ev. Proleg., xxxii.; cf. Credner,
Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 79. Jerome states that Dionysius flourished under
M. Aurel. Verus and L. Aurel. Commodus (De Vir. III., 27).
382 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
No quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the New
Testament occurs in any of the fragments of the Epistles now
extant ; nor does Eusebius make mention of any such reference in
the Epistles which have perished. As testimony for our Gospels,
therefore, Dionysius is an absolute blank. Some expressions and
statements, however, are put forward by apologists which we must
examine. In the few lines which Tischendorf accords to
Dionysius he refers to two of these. The first is an expression
used, not by Dionysius himself, but by Eusebius, in speaking of
the Epistles to the Churches at Amastris and at Pontus. Euse-
bius says that Dionysius adds some " expositions of Divine
Scriptures " (ypa<f>a)v Otiuv e^T/yryo-ci?). 1 There can be no
doubt, we think, that this refers to the Old Testament only, and
Tischendorf himself does not deny it. 2
The second passage which Tischendorf3 points out, and which
he claims with some other apologists as evidence of the actual
existence of a New Testament Canon when Dionysius wrote,
occurs in a fragment from the Epistle to Soter and the Romans
which is preserved by Eusebius. It is as follows : " For the
brethren having requested me to write Epistles, I wrote them.
And the Apostles of the devil have filled these with tares, both
taking away parts and adding others ; for whom the woe is
destined. It is not surprising, then, if some have recklessly
ventured to adulterate the Scriptures of the Lord (TWI> KvpiaKwv
ypafyuv) when they have formed designs against these which
are not of such importance."'* Regarding this passage, Dr. West-
cott, with his usual boldness, says : "It is evident that the
' Scriptures of the Lord 'the writings of the New Testament-
were at this time collected, that they were distinguished from other
books, that they were jealously guarded, that they had been
corrupted for heretical purposes." 5 We have seen, however, that
there has not been a trace of -any New Testament Canon in the
1 Eusebius, H. ., iv. 23.
3 Tischendorf, IVann wurden, u.s.w., p. l8f. ; Volkmar, Der Ursprung,
p. 38 ; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. , p. 217. Dr. Westcott's
opinion is shown by his not even referring to the expression.
3 Wann wurden, . s. w., p. 18 f. 4 H. ., iv. 23.
5 On the Canon, p. 166. Dr. Westcott, in the first instance, translates the
expression, TUV KvpiaK&v ypa<t>G>v : "The Scriptures of the New Testament."
In a note to his fourth edition, however, he explains : "Of course, it is not
affirmed that the collection here called ai KvpiaKal ypa<pai was identical with
our ' New Testament,' but simply that the phrase shows that a collection of
writings belonging to the New Testament existed" (p. 188, n. 2). Such a
translation, in such a work, assuming, as it does, the whole question, and
concealing what is doubtful, is most unwarrantable. The fact is that not only
is there no mention of the New Testament at all, but the words as little neces-
sarily imply a "collection" of writings as they do a " collection " of the
Epistles of Dionysius. <
DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH 383
writings of the Fathers before and during this age, and it is not
permissible to put such an interpretation upon the remark of
Dionysius. Dr. Donaldson, with greater critical justice and
reserve, remarks regarding the expression, "Scriptures of the
Lord" : "It is not easy to settle what this term means," although
he adds his own personal opinion, " but most probably it refers to
the Gospels as containing the sayings and doings of the Lord. It
is not likely, as Lardner supposes, that such a term would be
applied to the whole of the New Testament." 1 The idea of our
collected New Testament being referred to is of course quite un-
tenable, and although it is open to argument that Dionysius may
have referred to evangelical works, it is obvious that there are no
means of proving the fact, and much less that he referred specially
to our Gospels. In fact, the fragments of Dionysius present no
evidence whatever of the existence of our Synoptics.
In order further to illustrate the inconclusiveness of the argu-
ments based upon so vague an expression, we may add that it
does not of necessity apply to any Gospels or works of Christian
history at all, ai^d may with perfect propriety have indicated the
Scriptures of the Old Testament. We find Justin Martyr com-
plaining in the same spirit as Dionysius, through several chapters,
that the Old Testament Scriptures, and more especially those
relating to the Lord, had been adulterated, that parts had been
taken away, and others added, with the intention of destroying or
weakening their application to Christ. 2 Justin's argument through-
out is, that the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures refer to
Christ ; and Tryphon, his antagonist, the representative of Jewish
opinion, is made to avow that the Jews not only wait for Christ,
but, he adds, " We admit that all the Scriptures which you have
cited refer to him."3 Not only, therefore, were the Scriptures of
the Old Testament closely connected with their Lord by the
Fathers and, at the date of which we are treating, were the only
" Holy Scriptures " recognised, but they made the same complaints
which we meet with in Dionysius, that these Scriptures were
adulterated by omissions and interpolations.* The expression of
Eusebius regarding " expositions of Divine Scriptures " (ypa^cov
Oetwv e^y^o-fts) added by Dionysius, which applied to the Old
Testament, tends to connect the Old Testament also with this
term, "Scriptures of the Lord."
If the term, " Scriptures of the Lord," however, be referred to
Gospels, the difficulty of using it as evidence continues undimin-
ished. We have no indication of the particular evangelical works
1 Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii., p. 217.
2 Dial. c. Try ph. , Ixx.-lxxv. 3 Dial. Ixxxix.
4 This charge is made with insistence throughout the Clementine Homilies.
384 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
which were in the Bishop's mind. We have seen that other
Gospels were used by the Fathers, and in exclusive circulation
amongst various communities ; and even until much later times
many works were regarded by them as divinely inspired which
have no place in our Canon. The Gospel according to the
Hebrews, for instance, was probably used by some at least of
the Apostolic Fathers, by pseudo-Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias,
Hegesippus, Justin Martyr, and at least employed along with our
Gospels by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome. 1 The
fact that Serapion, in the third century, allowed the Gospel of
Peter to be used in the church of Rhossus 2 shows at the same
time the consideration in which it was held, and the incomplete-
ness of the canonical position of the New Testament writings.
So does the circumstance that in the fifth century Theodoret found
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or Tatian's Gospel, widely
circulated and held in honour amongst orthodox churches in his
diocese. 3 The Shepherd of Hermas, which was read in the churches
and nearly secured a permanent place in the Canon, was quoted
as inspired by Irenaeus.* The Epistle of Barnafcas was held in
similar honour, and quoted as inspired by Clement of Alexandria^
and by Origen, 6 as was likewise the Epistle of the Roman Clement.
The Apocalypse of Peter was included by Clement of Alexandria
in his account of the canonical Scriptures and those which are
disputed, such as the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic
Epistles, 7 and it stands side by side with the Apocalypse of John
in the Canon of Muratori, being long after publicly read in the
churches of Palestine. 8 Tischendorf, indeed, conjectures that a
blank in the Codex Sinaitiats, after the New Testament, was
formerly filled by it. Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and
Lactantius quote the Sibylline books as the Word of God,
and pay similar honour to the Book of Hystaspes.9 So great
indeed was the consideration and use of the Sibylline Books in
the Church of the second and third centuries that Christians from
that fact were nicknamed Sibyllists. 10 It is unnecessary to multiply,
as might so easily be done, these illustrations ; it is sufficiently well
1 Cf. p. 263 f. * Eusebius, H. ., vi. 12.
3 Theodoret, Hter. Fab., i. 20; cf. ii. 2 ; cf. Epiph., Hcer., xlvi. i.
4 Adv. ffttr., iv. 20, 2 ; Eusebius, H. ., v. 8 ; cf. iii. 3.
s Strom., ii. 8, iv. 17. 6 Philocal., 18.
7 Eusebius, H. ., vi. 14 8 Sozom, H. E., vii. 19.
9 Justin, Apol., i. 20, 44; Clem. Al., Strom., vi. 5, 42, 43 ; Lactantius,
Insttt. Div., i. 6, 7, vii. 15, 19. Clement of Alexandria quotes with perfect
faith and seriousness some apocryphal book, in which, he says, the Apostle
Paul recommends the Hellenic books, the Sibyl and the books of Hystaspes, as
giving notably clear prophetic descriptions of the Son of God (Strom., vi. 5,
42, 43).
10 Origen, Contra Cels., v. 6 ; cf. vii. 53. *
DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH 385
known that a number of Gospels and similar works, which have been
excluded from the Canon, were held in deepest veneration by the
Church in the second century, to which the words of Dionysius
may apply. So vague and indefinite an expression, at any rate, is
useless as evidence for the existence of our canonical Gospels.
Dr. Westcott's deduction from the words of Dionysius, that not
only were the writings of the New Testament already collected,
but that they were "jealously guarded, "is imaginative indeed. It
is much and devoutly to be wished that they had been as care-
fully guarded as he supposes ; but it is well known that this was
not the case, and that numerous interpolations have been intro-
duced into the text. The whole history of the Canon and of
Christian literature in the second and third centuries displays the
most deplorable carelessness and want of critical judgment on
the part of the Fathers. Whatever was considered as conducive
to Christian edification was blindly adopted by them, and a
number of works were launched into circulation and falsely
ascribed to Apostles and others likely to secure for them greater
consideration. Such pious fraud was rarely suspected, still more
rarely detected in the early ages of Christianity, and several of
such pseudographs have secured a place in our New Testament.
The words of Dionysius need not receive any wider signification
than a reference to well-known Epistles. It is clear from the
words attributed to the Apostle Paul, in 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17, that
his Epistles were falsified and, setting aside some of those which
bear his name in our Canon, spurious Epistles were long ascribed
to him, such as the Epistle to the Laodiceans and a third Epistle
to the Corinthians. We need not do more than allude to the
second Epistle falsely bearing the name of Clement of Rome, as
well as the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, the Apostolical
Constitutions, and the spurious letters of Ignatius, the letters and
legend of Abgarus quoted by Eusebius, and the Epistles of Paul
and Seneca, in addition to others already pointed out, as instances
of the wholesale falsification of that period, many of which gross
forgeries were at once accepted as genuine by the Fathers, so
slight was their critical faculty and so ready their credulity. 1 In
one case the Church punished the author who, from mistaken zeal
for the honour of the Apostle Paul, fabricated the Acta Pauli et
Theclce in his name, 2 but the forged production was not the less
made use of in the Church. There was, therefore, no lack of
falsification and adulteration of works of Apostles and others of
greater note than himself to warrant the remark of Dionysius,
1 The Epistle of Jude quotes as genuine the Assumption of Moses, and also
the Book of Enoch ; and the defence of the authenticity of the latter by Tertullian
(de Cult u fern., i. 3) will not be forgotten. - Tertullian, De Baptisino, 17.
2C
386 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
without any forced application of it to our Gospels or to a New
Testament Canon, the existence of which there is nothing to
substantiate, but, on the contrary, every reason to discredit.
Before leaving this passage we may add that, although even
Tischendorf does not, Dr. Westcott does find in it references to our
first Synoptic and to the Apocalypse. " The short fragment just
quoted," he says, " contains two obvious allusions, one to the Gospel
of St. Matthew and one to the Apocalypse." 1 The words, " the
Apostles of the devil have filled these with tares," are, he supposes,
an allusion to Matt. xiii. 24 ff. But even if the expression were
an echo of the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, it is not permis-
sible to refer it in this arbitrary way to our first Gospel, to the
exclusion of the numerous other works which existed, many of
which doubtless contained it. Obviously the words have no
evidential value.
Continuing his previous assertions, however, Dr. Westcott
affirms with equal boldness : " The allusion in the last clause "-
to the " Scriptures of the Lord " " will be clear when it is
remembered that Dionysius ' warred against the heresy of
Marcion and defended the rule of truth ' " (Trapta-rao-Bai KO.VOVI
aA..). 2 Tischendorf, who is ready enough to strain every expres-
sion into evidence, recognises too well that this is not capable of
such an interpretation. Dr. Westcott omits to mention that the
words, moreover, are not used by Dionysius at all, but simply
proceed from Eusebius.3 Dr. Donaldson distinctly states the fact
that " there is no reference to the Bible in the words of Eusebius :
he defends the rule of the truth " 4 (r<j> TTJS aA/qflet'as Tra.pio-Ta.Tai.
KO.VOVL).
There is only one other point to mention. Dr. Westcott refers
to the passage in the Epistle of Dionysius, which has already been
quoted in this work, regarding the reading of Christian writings
in churches. " To-day," he writes to Soter, " we have kept the
Lord's holy day, in which we have read your Epistle, from the
reading of which we shall ever derive admonition, as we do from
the former one written to us by Clement." 5 It is evident that
there was no idea, in selecting the works to be read at the weekly
assembly of Christians, of any Canon of a New Testament. We
here learn that the Epistles of Clement and of Soter were habitually
read ; and, while we hear of this and of the similar reading of
Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles? of the Shepherd oft. Hermas,? of
the Apocalypse of Peter, 8 and other apocryphal works, we do not
at the same time hear of the public reading of our Gospels.
1 On the Canon, p. 167. 3 Ib., p. 166 f. 3 ff, ., iv. 23.
4 Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., Hi., p. 217 f. s Euseb., ff. ., iv. 23.
6 Justin, Apol., i. 67. 1 Euseb., H. E., iii. 3; Hieron., De Vir. III., 10.
8 Sozom., H. E., vii. 9.
CHAPTER IX.
MELITO OF SARDIS CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS ATHENAGORAS
THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS
WE might altogether have passed over Melito, Bishop of Sardis,
in Lydia, had it not been for the use of certain fragments of
his writings made by Dr. Westcott. Melito, naturally, is not cited
by Tischendorf at all, but the English apologist, with greater zeal,
we think, than critical discretion, forces him into service as
evidence for the Gospels and a New Testament Canon. The date
of Melito, it is generally agreed, falls after A.D. 176, a phrase in
his apology presented to Marcus Antoninus preserved in Eusebius 1
(//.era TOV TrcuSos) indicating that Commodus had already been
admitted to a share of the Government.
Dr. Westcott affirms that, in a fragment preserved by Eusebius,
Melito speaks of the books of the New Testament in a collected
form. He says : " The words of Melito on the other hand are
simple and casual, and yet their meaning can scarcely be mis-
taken. He writes to Onesimus, a fellow-Christian, who had urged
him ' to make selections for him from the Law and the Prophets
concerning the Saviour and the faith generally, and furthermore
desired to learn the accurate account of the Old (TraXaiwv)
Books ' : ' having gone therefore to the East,' Melito says, ' and
reached the spot where [each thing] was preached and done, and
having learned accurately the Books of the Old Testament, I have
sent a list of them.' The mention of ' the Old Books '- ' the
Books of the Old Testament,' naturally implies a definite New
Testament, a written antitype to the Old ; and the form of
language implies a familiar recognition of its contents." 2 This is
truly astonishing ! The " form of language " can only refer to the
words, " concerning the Saviour and the faith generally," which
must have an amazing fulness of meaning to convey to Dr. West-
cott the implication of a " familiar recognition " of the contents of
a supposed already collected New Testament, seeing that a simple
Christian, not to say a Bishop, might at least know of a Saviour
and the faith generally from the oral preaching of the Gospel, from
1 H. ., iv. 26.
- On the Canon, p. 193. (In the fourth edition Dr. Westcott omits the last
phrase, making a full stop at " Old," p. 218.)
387
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
a single Epistle of Paul, or from any of the iroXXot of Luke. This
reasoning forms a worthy pendant to his argument, that because
Melito speaks of the books of the Old Testament he implies the
existence of a definite collected New Testament. Such an asser-
tion is calculated to mislead a large class of readers. 1
The fragment of Melito is as follows : " Melito to his brother
Onesimus, greeting. As thou hast frequently desired in thy
zeal for the word (Xoyov) to have extracts made for thee,
both from the law and the prophets concerning the Saviour and
our whole faith ; nay, more, hast wished to learn the exact state-
ment of the old books (TroAcuwv /3<,/3A,tW), how many they are
and what is their order, I have earnestly endeavoured to accom-
plish this, knowing thy zeal concerning the faith, and thy desire
to be informed concerning the word (Aoyov), and especially
that thou preferrest these matters to all others from love towards
God, striving to gain eternal salvation. Having, therefore, gone
to the East, and reached the place where this was preached and
done, and having accurately ascertained the books of the Old
Testament (TO, TTJS TraXatas <5ia#;/o/s /3(,/3Aia), I have, subjoined,
sent a list of them unto thee, of which these are the names "-
then follows a list of the books of the Old Testament, omitting,
however, Esther. He then concludes with the words : " Of these
I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." 2
Dr. Westcott's assertion that the expression, "Old Books,"
" Books of the Old Testament," involves here by antithesis a
definite written New Testament, requires us to say a few words
as to the name of " Testament " as applied to both divisions of the
Bible. It is of course well known that this word came into use
originally from the translation of the Hebrew word " covenant,"
or compact made between God and the Israelites^ in the
Septuagint version, by the Greek word AIU^/KT/, which in a legal
sense also means a will or testament, and that word is adopted
throughout the New Testament. 5 The Vulgate translation,
instead of retaining the original Hebrew signification, translated
1 It must be said, however, that Dr. Westcott merely follows and exaggerates
Lardner here, who says : " From this passage I would conclude that there
was then also a volume or collection of books called the New Testament,
containing the writings of Apostles and Apostolical men ; but we cannot from
hence infer the names or the exact number of those books" (Credibility, etc.,
Works, ii., p. 148).
2 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 26. 3 Cf. Exod. xxiv. 7.
4 The legal sense of Siaff-fiKti as a Will or Testament is distinctly intended in
Heb. ix. 16. " For where a Testament (SiaO^K^) is, there must also of necessity
be the death of the testator " (diaffe^vov). The same word Sia6 77*77 is employed
throughout the whole passage (Heb. ix. 15-23).
5 2 Cor. iii. 14 ; Ileb. viii. 6-13, xii. 24 ; Rcyn. ix. 4, xi. 26-28 ; Gal. iii.
14-17 ; Ephes. ii. 12, etc.
MELITO OF SARDIS 389
the word in the Gospels and Epistles, " Testamentvm" and >}
ira.Xa.ia SiaOiJKij became " Vetus lestamentum," instead of " Vetus
Fxdus" and whenever the word occurs in the English version
it is almost invariably rendered " Testament " instead of covenant.
The expression " Book of the Covenant," or " Testament," /SiflXos
TVJS' Sta^Krjs, frequently occurs in the LXX version of the Old
Testament and its Apocrypha j 1 and in Jeremiah xxxi. 3I-34 2 the
prophet speaks of making a " new covenant " (KCUV?) Sta&j/o;)
with the house of Israel, which is indeed quoted in Hebrews viii. 8.
It is the doctrinal idea of the new covenant, through Christ con-
firming the former one made to the Israelites, which has led to the
distinction of the Old and New Testaments. Generally the Old
Testament was, in the first ages of Christianity, indicated by the
simple expressions, "The Books " (TO, /3i/3Aia), " Holy Scriptures "
(te/od ypttjn/AaTa,3 or ypaffral dyicu),4 or " The Scriptures " iflti
ypa^ou) ;5 but the preparation for the distinction of " Old
Testament " began very early in the development of the doc-
trinal idea of the New Testament of Christ, before there was
any part of the New Testament books written at all. The
expression " New Testament," derived thus antithetically from
the " Old Testament," occurs constantly throughout the second
part of the Bible. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, viii. 6-13, the
Mosaic dispensation is contrasted with the Christian, and Jesus is
called the Mediator of a better Testament (oVx^/o;). 6 The first
Testament, not being faultless, is replaced by the second, and the
writer quotes the passage from Jeremiah to which we have referred
regarding a New Testament, winding up his argument with the
words, v. 13 : "In that he saith a new (Testament) he hath made
the first old." Again, in our first Gospel, during the Last Supper,
Jesus is represented as saying : " This is my blood of the New
Testament " (TT/S KCUV?}? Sia0r/K'?/s) ;7 and in Luke he says :
" This cup is the New Testament (/? /cain? Sta#?//a/) in my blood." 8
There is, therefore, a very distinct reference made to the two
Testaments as " New" and " Old," and in speaking of the books of
the Law and the Prophets as the " Old Books " and " Books of the
Old Testament," after the general acceptance of the Gospel of
Jesus as the New Testament or Covenant, there was no anti-
thetical implication of a written New Testament, but a mere
reference to the doctrinal idea. We might multiply illustrations
showing how ever-present to the mind of the early Church was the
1 Cf. Exod. xxiv. 7 5 2 Chron. xxxiv. 30 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 2 ; I Maccab. i. 57 >
Sirach, xxiv. 23, etc.
2 In the Septuagint version, xxxviii. 31-34.
3 2 Tim. iii. 15. 4 Rom. i. 2. s Matt. xxii. 29.
6 Cf. ix. 15, xii. 24. ? Matt. xxvi. 28. 8 Luke xxii. 20.
390 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
contrast of the Mosaic and Christian Covenants as Old and New.
Two more we may venture to point out. In Romans ix. 4 and
Gal. iv. 24 the two Testaments or Covenants (at 8vo Sia^/cai),
typified by Sinai and the heavenly Jerusalem, are discussed, and
the superiority of the latter asserted. There is, however, a
passage still more clear and decisive. Paul says in 2 Corinthians
iii. 6 : " Who also (God) made us sufficient to be ministers of the
New Testament (KGUVT}S Siatfr/Kj/s), not of the letter, but of the
spirit " (ov ypo.fjLfjMro^ dXXa TrvcuptTos). Why does not Dr.
Westcott boldly claim this as evidence of a definite written New
Testament, when not only is there reference to the name, but a
distinction drawn between the letter and the spirit of it, from which
an apologist might make a telling argument ? But, proceeding to
contrast the glory of the New with the Old dispensation, the
Apostle, in reference to the veil with which Moses covered his
face, says : " But their understandings were hardened : for until
this very day remaineth the same veil in the reading of the Old
Testament " (ri rrj avayviixrei TI^S TraXatas Sia^jjKTjs) ;* and as
if to make the matter still clearer he repeats in the next verse :
" But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil lieth upon
their heart." Now, here the actual reading of the Old Testament
(TraAcuas Sta^io/s) is distinctly mentioned, and the expression,
quite as aptly as that of Melito, "implies a definite New
Testament, a written antitype to the Old "; but even Dr. Westcott
would not dare to suggest that, when the second Epistle to the
Corinthians was composed, there was a " definite written New
Testament " in existence. This conclusively shows that the whole
argument from Melito's mention of the books of the Old
Testament is absolutely groundless.
On the contrary, the first general designation for the two
portions of the New Testament collection was " The Gospel "
(ei'ayyeAiov, ei'ayyeAiKoV, evayyeAixa) and " The Apostle "
(aTroo-ToAos, aVocrToAiKoV, a7T(xrTo/\.iKa), in contrast with the
two divisions of the Old Testament, the Law and the
Prophets (o vo/xos, ol TT/DO^TCU) ; 2 and the name New
Testament occurs for the very first time in the third century, when
Tertullian called the collection of Christian Scriptures Novum
1 Verse 14.
2 Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Har., i. 3, 6 ; Clemens Al., Strom., v. 5, 31 ;
Tertullian, De Prascr., 36 ; Adv. Marc., iv. 2, Apolog., 18 ; Origen, Horn.
xix. in Jerem. iii., p. 364. The Canon of Muratori says that the Pastor of
Hermas can neither be classed " inter Prophetas neque inter Apostolos." In a
translation of the Clavis, a spurious work attributed to Melito himself and
Dr. Westcott admits it to be spurious (p. 198, note l) the Gospels are referred
to simply by the formula "in evangelic? and ,the Epistles generally "in
aposto/o."
MELITO OF SARDIS 391
Instrumentum and Novum Testamentum* The term r\
SiaWjKi] is not, so far as we are aware, applied in the Greek to
the " New Testament " Scriptures in any earlier work than Origen's
De Prinripiis, iv. i. It was only in the second half of the third
century that the double designation TO ei'ayyeA.toi' KGU o aTroo-roAos
was generally abandoned.
As to the evidence for a New Testament Canon, which Dr.
Westcott supposes he gains by his unfounded inference from
Melito's expression, we may judge of its value from the fact that
he himself, like Lardner, admits : " But there is little evidence in
the fragment of Melito to show what writings he would have in-
cluded in the new collection." 2 Little evidence ? There is none
at all.
There is, however, one singular and instructive point in this
fragment to which Dr. Westcott does not in any way refer, but
which well merits attention as illustrating the state of religious
knowledge at that time and, by analogy, giving a glimpse of the
difficulties which beset early Christian literature. We are told by
Melito that Onesimus had frequently urged him to give him exact
information as to the number and order of the books of the Old
Testament, and to have extracts made for him from them con-
cerning the Saviour and the faith. Now, it is apparent that Melito,
though a Bishop, was not able to give the desired information
regarding the number and order of the books of the Old
Testament himself, but that he had to make a journey to collect
it. If this was the extent of knowledge possessed by the Bishop
of Sardis of what was to the Father^ the only Holy Scripture, how
ignorant his flock must have been, and how unfitted, both, to form
any critical judgment as to the connection of Christianity with the
Mosaic dispensation. The formation of a Christian Canon at a
period when such ignorance was not only possible but generally
prevailed, and when the zeal of believers led to the composition of
such a mass of pseudonymic and other literature, in which every
consideration of correctness and truth was subordinated to a
childish desire for edification, must have been slow indeed and
uncertain ; and in such an age fortuitous circumstances must have
mainly led to the canonisation or actual loss of many a work. So
far from affording any evidence of the existence of a New
Testament Canon, the fragment of Melito only shows the igno-
rance of the Bishop of Sardis as to the Canon even of the Old
Testament.
We have not yet finished with Melito in connection with Dr.
1 Adv. Prax., 15, 20; Adv. Marc., iv. i. He says in the latter place
" imtrtimenti," referring to Old and New Testaments, "vel, quod magis usui
est dicere, testamenti"
- On the Canon, p. 194.
392 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Westcott, however, and it is necessary to follow him further in
order fully to appreciate the nature of the evidence for the New
Testament Canon, which, in default of better, he is obliged to
offer. Eusebius gives a list of the works of Melito which have
come to his knowledge, and, in addition to the fragment already
quoted, he extracts a brief passage from Melito's work on the
Passover, and some much longer quotations from his Apology, to
which we have in passing referred. 1 With these exceptions, none
of Melito's writings are now extant. Dr. Cureton, however, has
published a Syriac version, with translation, of a so-called Oration
of Meliton, the Philosopher, who was in the Presence of Antoninus
Ccesar, together with five other fragments attributed to Melito. 2
With regard to this Syriac Oration, Dr. Westcott says : " Though,
if it be entire, it is not the Apology with which Eusebius was
acquainted, the general character of the writing leads to the belief
that it is a genuine book of Melito of Sardis ";3 and he proceeds
to treat it as authentic. In the first place, we have so little of
Melito's genuine compositions extant that it is hazardous indeed
to draw any positive deduction from the " character of the writing."
Cureton, Bunsen, and others, maintain that this Apology is not a
fragment ; and it cannot be the work mentioned by Eusebius, for
it does not contain the quotations from the authentic Orations
which he has preserved, and which are considerable. It is, how-
ever, clear, from the substance of the composition, that it cannot
have been spoken before the Emperor ; and, moreover, it has in
no way the character of an " apology," for there is not a single
word in it about either Christianity or Christians. There is every
reason to believe that it is not a genuine work of Melito. There
is no ground for supposing that he wrote two Apologies, nor
is this ascribed to him upon any other ground than the
' inscription of an unknown Syriac writer. This, however, is not
the only spurious work attributed to Melito. Of this work Dr.
Westcott says : " Like other Apologies, this oration contains only
indirect references to the Christian Scriptures. The allusions in
it to the Gospels are extremely rare, and, except so far as they show
the influence of St. John's writings, of no special interest." 4 It
would have been more correct to have said that there are no
allusions in it to the Gospels at all.
Dr. Westcott is somewhat enthusiastic in speaking of Melito
and his literary activity as evinced in the titles of his works
recorded by Eusebius, and he quotes a fragment, said to be from
1 Euscb., H.E., iv. 26.
2 Spicilegium Syriacutn, 1855, pp. 41-56; Pitra, Spicil. Solesm., 1855, ii.
Proleg., xxxviii. f.
3 On the Cattoti, p. 194. * Ib,, p. 194.
MELITO OF SARDIS 393
a treatise, On faith, amongst these Syriac remains, and which he
considers to be " a very striking expansion of the early historic
creed of the Church." 1 As usual, we shall give the entire frag-
ment :
" We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relative to those
things which have been declared respecting our Lord Jesus Christ, that we
may prove to your love that he is perfect Reason, the Word of God ; who was
begotten before the light ; who was Creator together with the Father ; who
was the Fashioner of man ; who was all in all ; who among the Patriarchs was
Patriarch ; who in the Law was the Law ; among the Priests chief Priest ;
among Kings Governor ; among the Prophets the Prophet ; among the Angels
Archangel ; in the voice the Word ; among Spirits Spirit ; in the Father the
Son ; in God the King for ever and ever. For this was he who was Pilot
to Noah ; who conducted Abraham ; who was bound with Isaac ; who was in
exile with Jacob ; who was sold with Joseph ; who was captain with Moses ;
who was the Divider of the inheritance with Jesus the son of Nun ; who in
David and the Prophets foretold his own sufferings ; who was incarnate in the
Virgin ; who was born at Bethlehem ; who was wrapped in swaddling clothes
in the manger ; who was seen of shepherds ; who was glorified of angels ; who
was worshipped by the Magi ; who was pointed out by John ; who assembled
the Apostles ; who preached the kingdom ; who healed the maimed ; who gave
light to the blind ; who raised the dead ; who appeared in the Temple ; who
was not believed by the people ; who was betrayed by Judas ; who was laid
hold of by the priests ; who was condemned by . Pilate ; who was pierced in
the flesh ; who was hanged upon the tree ; who was buried in the earth ; who
rose from the dead ; who appeared to the Apostles ; who ascended to heaven ;
who sitteth on the right hand of the Father ; who is the Rest of those who are
departed ; the Recoverer of those who are lost ; the Light of those who are in
darkness ; the Deliverer of those who are captives ; the Finder of those who
have gone astray ; the Refuge of the afflicted ; the Bridegroom of the Church ;
the Charioteer of the Cherubim ; the Captain of the Angels ; God who is of
God ; the Son who is of the Father ; Jesus Christ, the King for ever and ever.
Amen." 2
Dr. Westcott commences his commentary upon this passage
with the remark : " No writer could state the fundamental truths
of Christianity more unhesitatingly, or quote the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments with more perfect confidence." 3 We
need not do more than remark that there is not a single quotation
in the fragment, and that there is not a single one of the references
to Gospel history or to ecclesiastical dogmas which might not
have been derived from the Epistles of Paul, from any of the
forms of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Protevangelium
of James, or from many other apocryphal Gospels, or the oral
teaching of the Church. It is singular, however, that the only
hint which Dr. Westcott gives of the more than doubtful authen-
ticity of this fragment consists of the introductory remark, after
1 On the Canon, p. 196.
2 Cureton, Spicil. Syriacum, p. 53 f. ; Pitra, Spicil. Solesm., ii. Proleg. lix.
f. ; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 196 f.
3 On the Canon, p. 197.
394 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
alluding to the titles of his genuine and supposititious writings :
" Of these multifarious writings very few fragments remain in the
original Greek, but the general tone of them is so decided in its
theological character as to go far to establish the genuineness of
those which are preserved in the Syriac translation." 1
Now, the fragment On Faith which has just been quoted is one
of the five Syriac pieces of Dr. Cureton to which we have referred,
and which even apologists agree "cannot be regarded as genuine." 2
It is well known that there were other writers in the early Church
bearing the names of Melito and Miletius or Meletius, which were
frequently confounded. Of these five Syriac fragments one bears
the superscription, "Of Meliton, Bishop of the city of Attica,"
and another, "Of the holy Meliton, Bishop of Utica "; and Cureton
himself evidently leant to the opinion that they are not by our
Melito, but by a Meletius or Melitius, Bishop of Sebastopolis in
Pontus. 3 The third fragment is said to be taken from a discourse,
On the Cross, which was unknown to Eusebius, and from its
doctrinal peculiarities was probably written after his time. 4 Another
fragment purports to be from a work on the Soul and Body ; and
the last one from the treatise On Faith, which we are discussing.
The last two works are mentioned by Eusebius, but these frag-
ments, besides coming in such suspicious company, must for other
reasons be pronounced spurious. 5 They have in fact no attesta-
tion whatever except that of the Syriac translator, who is unknown,
and which therefore is worthless ; and, on the other hand, the
whole style and thought of the fragments are unlike anything else
of Melito's time, and clearly indicate a later stage of theological
development. 6 Moreover, in the Mechitarist Library at Venice
there is a shorter version of the same passage in a Syriac MS.,
and an Armenian version of the extract as given above, with some
variation of the opening lines, in both of which the passage is
distinctly ascribed to Irenaeus.? Besides the Oration and the five
Syriac fragments, there are two other works extant falsely attributed
to Melito, one, De Transitu Virginis Maria, describing the
miraculous presence of the Apostles at the death of Mary ; 8 and
the other, De Actibus Joannis Apostoli, relates the history of
miracles performed by the Apostle John. Both are universally
admitted to be spurious, as are a few other fragments also bearing
1 On the Canon, p. 196.
2 Donaldson, Hist, Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii., p. 236 ; cf. Sanday, Gospels
in Sec. Cent. , p. 245. 3 Spicil. Syriac. , p. 96 f.
4 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii., p. 237.
5 Ib., iii., p. 227. 6 Ib., iii., p. 236.
7 They are given by Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. , i. , p. 3 f.
8 It is worthy of remark that the Virgin is introduced into all these fragments
in a manner quite foreign to the period at which M*elito lived.
CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS 395
his name. Melito did not escape from the falsification to which
many of his more distinguished predecessors and contemporaries
were victims, through the literary activity and unscrupulous
religious zeal of the first three or four centuries of our era.
Very little is known regarding Claudius Apollinaris, to whom
we must now for a moment turn. Eusebius informs us that he
was Bishop of Hierapolis, 1 and in this he is supported by the
fragment of a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, preserved to
us by him, which refers to Apollinaris as the " most blessed." 2
Tischendorf, without any precise date, sets him down as contem-
porary with Tatian and Theophilus (the latter of whom, he thinks,
wrote his work addressed to Autolycus about A.D. 180-181). 3
Eusebius^ mentions that, like his somewhat earlier contemporary,
Melito of Sardis, Apollinaris presented an " Apology " to the
Emperor Marcus Antoninus, and he gives us further materials for a
date 5 by stating that Claudius Apollinaris, probably in his Apology,
refers to the miracle of the " Thundering Legion," which is said
to have occurred during the war of Marcus Antoninus against the
Marcomanni in A.D. i74- 6 The date of his writings may, therefore,
with moderation, be fixed between A.D. 177-180.
Eusebius and others mention various works composed by him, 7
none of which, however, are extant ; and we have only to deal
with two brief fragments in connection with the Paschal con-
troversy, which are ascribed to Appollinaris in the Paschal
Chronicle of Alexandria. This controversy as to the day upon
which the Christian Passover should be celebrated broke out
about A.D. 170, and long continued to divide the Church. In the
preface to the Paschal Chronicle, a work of the seventh century,
the unknown chronicler says : " Now, even Apollinaris, the most
holy Bishop of Hierapolis, in Asia, who lived near apostolic
times, taught the like things in his work on the Passover, saying
1 H. E., iv. 21, 26. 2 Ib., v. 19.
3 Wann wurden, u. s. TV., p. 1 6, anm. I.
4 H. E., iv. 26, 27 ; cf. Hieron., De Vir. III., 26.
5 Eusebius himself sets him- down in his Chronicle as nourishing in the
eleventh year of Marcus, or A.D. 171, a year later than he dates Melito.
6 Eusebius, H. E., v. 5 ; Moshiem, Inst. Hist. Eccles., book i., cent, ii.,
part. i. , ch. i. , 9. Apollinaris states that, in consequence of this miracle, the
Emperor had bestowed upon the Legion the name of the " Thundering
Legion." We cannot here discuss this subject, but the whole story illustrates
the rapidity with which a fiction is magnified into truth by religious zeal,
and is surrounded by false circumstantial evidence. Cf. Tertullian, Apol. 5,
ad Scapulam, 4 ; Dion Cassius, lib. 55 ; Scaliger, Animadv. in Euseb.,
p. 223 f.
7 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 27 ; cf. 26, v. 19 ; Hieron., Vir. III., 26 ; Theodoret,
r. Fab., ii. 21, iii. 2; Photius, Biblioth. Cod. 14.
396 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
thus : ' There are some, however, who, through ignorance, raise
contentions regarding these matters in a way which should be
pardoned, for ignorance does not admit of accusation, but requires
instruction. .And they say that the Lord, together with his dis-
ciples, ate the sheep (TO Trpo/Sarbv) on the i4th Nisan, but him-
self suffered on the great day of unleavened bread. And they
state (Su/yoriTcu) that Matthew says precisely what they have
understood ; hence their understanding of it is at variance with
the law, and, according to them, the Gospels seem to contradict
each other.' "" The last sentence is interpreted as pointing out
that the first synoptic Gospel is supposed to be at variance with
our fourth Gospel. This fragment is claimed by Tischendorf 2 and
others as evidence of the general acceptance, at that time, both
of the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel. Dr. Westcott, with
obvious exaggeration, says : " The Gospels are evidently quoted as
books certainly known and recognised ; their authority is placed
on the same footing as the Old Testament." 3 The Gospels are
referred to merely for the settlement of the historical fact as to the
day on which the last Passover had been eaten, a narrative of
which they contained.
There are, however, very grave reasons for doubting the
authenticity of the two fragments ascribed to Apollinaris, and
we must mention that these doubts are much less those of
German critics, who either do not raise the question at all
or hastily dispose of it, than doubts entertained by orthodox
apologists, who see little ground for accepting them as genuine. 4
Eusebius, who gives a catalogue of the works of Apollinaris which
had reached him, 5 was evidently not acquainted with any writing of
his on the Passover. It is argued, however, that "there is not any
sufficient ground for doubting the genuineness of these fragments
On Easier, in the fact that Eusebius mentions no such book by
Apollinaris." 6 It is quite true that Eusebius does not pretend to
give a complete list of these works, but merely says that there are
many preserved by many, and that he mentions those with which
he had met? At the same time, entering with great interest, as
1 Pnefat. Chron. Pasch. sive Alex. ed. Ducange, p. 6; Routh, Reliq. Sac/:,
L, p. 160.
2 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 18. 3 On the Canon, p. 199.
4 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii., p. 247 f. ; Lardner, Credi-
bility, etc., Works, 1788, ii., p. 296 ; Tillemont, Mini. Hist. Eccles.,\\., pt. iii.,
p. 91 ; cf. Neander, K. G. 1842, i., p. 513, an in. I.
5 H. ., iv. 27.
6 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 198, note 3; cf. Baur, Unters. kan. Ew.,
p. 340 f. This is the only remark which Dr. Westcott makes as to any doubt
of the authenticity of these fragments. Tischendorf does not mention a doubt
at all.
^ H. ., iv. 27.
CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS 397
he does, into the Paschal controversy, and acquainted with the
principal writings on the subject, 1 it would indeed have been
strange had he not met with the treatise itself, or at least with
some notice of it in the works of others. Eusebius gives an
account of the writings of Melito and Apollinaris together. He
was acquainted with the work of Melito on the Passover, and
quotes it, 2 and it is extremely improbable that he could have been
ignorant of a treatise by his distinguished contemporary on the same
subject had he actually written one. Not only, however, does
Eusebius seem to know nothing of his having composed such a
work, but neither do Theodoret.,3 Jerome, 4 nor Photius,s who refer
to his writings, mention it ; and we cannot suppose that it was
referred to in the lost works of Iremeus or Clement of Alexandria
on the Passover. Eusebius, who quotes from them, 6 would in
that case have probably mentioned the fact, as he does the
statement by Clement regarding Melito's work, or at least would
have been aware of the existence of such a writing, and alluded to
it when speaking of the works of Apollinaris.
This silence is equally significant whether we regard Apollinaris
as a Quartodeciman or as a supporter of the views of Victor and
the Church of Rome. On the one hand, Eusebius states that
"all the churches of Asia "7 kept the i4th Nisan, and it is difficult
to believe that, had Apollinaris differed from this practice and,
more especially, had he written against it, the name of so eminent
an exception would not have been mentioned. The views of the
Bishop of Hierapolis, as a prominent representative of the Asiatic
Church, must have been quoted in many controversial works on
the subject, and even if the writing itself had not come into their
hands, Eusebius and others could scarcely fail to become indirectly
acquainted with it. On the other hand, supposing Apollinaris to
have been a Quartodeciman, whilst the ignorance of Eusebius and
others regarding any contribution by him to the discussion is
scarcely less remarkable, it is still more surprising that no allusion
is made to him by Polycrates 8 when he names so many less
distinguished men of Asia, then deceased, who kept the i4th
Nisan, such as Thaseas of Eumenia, Sagoris of Laodicea, Papirius
of Sardis, and the seven Bishops of his kindred, not to mention
Polycarp of Smyrna and the Apostles Philip and John. He also
cites Melito of Sardis : why does he not refer to Apollinaris of
Hierapolis ? If it be argued that he was still living, then why
does Eusebius not mention him amongst those who protested
against the measures of Victor of Rome ?9
1 Eusebius, H. E., v. 23, 24. 2 Ib., iv. 26.
3 Hceret. Fab., ii. 21, iii. 2. 4 Vir. III. 26.
5 Biblioth. Cod., 14. 6 H. E., v. 24, iv. 26; cf. vi. 13.
7 Ib. , v. 23. 8 Ib. , v. 24. 9 Ib., v., 23, 24.
398 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
There has been much discussion as to the view taken
by the writer of these fragments, Hilgenfeld and others 1
maintaining that he is opposed to the Quartodeciman party. Into
this it is not necessary for us to enter, as our contention simply
is that in no case can the authenticity of the fragments be
established. Supposing them, however, to be directed against
those who kept the i4th Nisan, how can it be credited that this
isolated convert to the views of Victor and the Roman Church
could write of so vast and distinguished a majority of the Churches
of Asia, including Polycarp and Melito, as " some who through
ignorance raised contentions" on the point, when they really
raised no new contention at all, but, as Polycrates represented,
followed the tradition handed down to them from their fathers,
and authorised by the practice of the Apostle John himself !
None of his contemporaries nor writers about his own time
seem to have known that Apollinaris wrote any work from which
these fragments can have been taken, and there is absolutely no
independent evidence that he ever took any part in the Paschal con-
troversy at all. The only ground we have for attributing these
fragments to him is the preface to the Paschal Chronicle of
Alexandria, written by an unknown author of the seventh century
some five hundred years after the time of Apollinaris, whose
testimony has rightly been described as " worth almost nothing." 2
Most certainly many passages preserved by him are inauthentic,
and generally allowed to be so.3 The two fragments have by
some been conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria, a writer
of the third century, who composed a work on Easter ; but there
is no evidence on the point. In any case, there is such
exceedingly slight reason for attributing these fragments to
Claudius Apollinaris, and so many strong grounds for believing
that he cannot have written them, that they have no material
value as evidence for the antiquity of the Gospels.
We know little or nothing of Athenagoras. He is not
mentioned by Eusebius, and our only information regarding him
is derived from a fragment of Philip Sidetes, a writer of the fifth
century, first published by Dodwell.* Philip states that he was
the first leader of the school of Alexandria during the time of
Hadrian and Antoninus, to the latter of whom he addressed his
1 Hilgenfeld, Der Paschastreit, 1860, p. 255 f.; Baur, K.G., i., p. 157 ;
Davidson, Int. N. T., ii., p. 406 f.
3 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii., p. 247 ; Lardner, Credibility,
etc., Works, ii., p. 296.
3 Dr. Donaldson rightly calls a fragment in the Chronicle ascribed to Melito,
" unquestionably spurious " (Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doc tr., iii., p. 231).
4 Append, ad Diss. Iren. , p. 488. The extract from Philip 's History is
made by an unknown author.
ATHENAGORAS 399
Apology; and he further says that Clement of Alexandria was his
disciple, and that Pantsenus was the disciple of Clement. Part of
this statement we know to be erroneous, and the Christian
History of Philip, from which the fragment is taken, is very
slightingly spoken of both by Socrates 1 and Photius. 2 No
reliance can be placed upon this information.
The only works ascribed to Athenagoras are an Apology
called an Embassy, Trp(o-/3eia bearing the inscription : " The
Embassy of Athenagoras the Athenian, a philosopher and a
Christian, concerning Christians, to the Emperors Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, Armeniaci
Sarmatici and, above all, philosophers " ; and further, a Treatise :
On the Resurrection of the Dead. A quotation from the
Apology by Methodius in his work on the Resurrection of the
Body is preserved by Epiphanius 3 and Photius, 4 and this, the
mention by Philip Sidetes, and the inscription by an unknown
hand just quoted, are all the evidence we possess regarding the
Apology. We have no evidence at all regarding the treatise on
the Resurrection, beyond the inscription. The authenticity of
neither therefore stands on very sure grounds. The address of
the Apology and internal evidence furnished by it, into which we
need not go, show that it could not have been written before A.D.
176-177, the date assigned to it by most critics, although there
are many reasons for dating it some years later.
In the six lines which Tischendorf devotes to Athenagoras, he
says that the Apology contains " several quotations from Matthew
and Luke," 5 without, however, indicating them. In the very
few sentences which Dr. Westcott vouchsafes to him, he says :
" Athenagoras quotes the words of our Lord as they stand in St.
Matthew four times, and appears to allude to passages in St. Mark
and St. John, but he nowhere mentions the name of an
Evangelist." 6 Here the third Synoptic is not mentioned. In
another place he says : " Athenagoras at Athens and Theophilus
at Antioch make use of the same books generally, and treat
them with the same respect "; and in a note : " Athenagoras
quotes the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John."? Here it will
be observed that also the Gospel of Mark is quietly dropped out
of sight, but still the positive manner in which it is asserted that
Athenagoras quotes from "the Gospel of St. Matthew," without
further explanation, is calculated to mislead. We shall refer to
each of the supposed quotations.
Athenagoras not only does not mention any Gospel, but
singularly enough he never once introduces the name of " Christ "
1 H. ., vii. 27. 2 Bibl. Cod., xxxv., p. 21. 3 Har., Ixiv. 21.
4 Bibl. Cod., ccxxxiv., p. 908. s Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 19.
6 On the Canon, p. 103. 7 Ib. , p. 304, and note 2.
400
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
into the works ascribed to him, and all the " words of the Lord "
referred to are introduced simply by the indefinite "he says," <r/oT,
and without any indication whatever of a written source. The
only exception to this is an occasion on which he puts into the
mouth of " the Logos " a saying which is not found in any of our
Gospels. The first passage to which Dr. Westcott alludes is the
following, which we contrast with the supposed parallel in the
Gospel :
MATT. v. 39-40.
But I say unto you : that ye resist
not evil : but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek (<re pawicrfi. tiri
TTJV dfi;tdv ffov <Ttay6i>a) turn to him the
other also. And if any man be minded
to sue thee at the law (Kpi07ji>at) and
take away (\a./3ftv) thy coat, let him
have (&<pes avrf) thy cloak also. 2
ATHENAGORAS.
For we have learnt not only not
to render a blow, nor to go to law
(5iKde<T0ai) with those who spoil and
plunder us, but even to those who
should strike (us) on one side of
the forehead (KOTOI K6f>frrjs jrpoffinj\a-
Kifafft) to offer for a blow the other
side of the head also ; and to those
who should take away (6,<paipoivTo)
the coat, to give also (eTridid6va.i) the
cloak besides. 1
It is scarcely possible to imagine a greater difference in language
conveying a similar idea than that which exists between Athena-
goras and the first Gospel, and the parallel passage in Luke is in
many respects still more distant. No echo of the words in
Matthew has lingered in the ear of the writer, for he employs
utterly different phraseology throughout, and nothing can be more
certain than the fact that there is not a linguistic trace in it of
acquaintance with our Synoptics.
The next passage which is referred to is as follows :
ATHENAGORAS. MATT. v. 44-45.
What, then, are those precepts in
which we are instructed ?
I say unto you : love your
enemies, bless them that curse,
pray for them that persecute you ; that
ye may be sons of your Father which
But I say unto you, Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, 4
do good to them that hate you, and
pray for them that 5 persecute you :
That ye may be sons of your Father
is in the heavens who (5s) maketh his which is in heaven: for (6Vt)hemaketh
sun, etc. 3
his sun, etc. 6
1 Legation pro Christianis, I. 2 Matt. v. 39, 40; cf. Luke vi. 29.
3 Ayu v/juv 'Ayairdre TOVS tx^povs V/J.MV, evXoyelrc TOVS Karapw^vovs,
irpOfffvXfffOe vwtp TUV diUKdvTUV vpSis, STTWJ ytvrjffOf viol rov Harpd* vfiSiv rov
tv rots obpavols, 8s TO? ij\iov avrov dparAXei, K.T.\. Leg. Pro. Christ., II.
4 The expressions, etiXoyelrf TOI>J Karapufitvovs vfias, /caXws iroieire TOI/J
luffovvras vfj-ds, " bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,"
are omitted from some of the oldest MSS. , but we do not know any in which
the first of these two doubtful phrases is retained, as in Athenagoras, and the
" do good to them that hate you " is omitted.
5 The phrase, 4wijpfa.^6vruv v/j.as, " despitefully use you," is omitted from
many ancient codices.
6 Eyw dt \tyw vfuv, ayairare roi>s tx0pv* v/j.&>v xai irpotrevxecrde virtp rGiv
ATHENAGORAS
401
The same idea is continued in the next chapter, in which the
following passage occurs :
MATT. v. 46.
For if ye should love (ayair-fiffrfTe)
them which love you, what reward
have ye ? 2
ATHENAGORAS.
For if ye love (aya.wa.re), he says,
(0?7<rt) them which love, and lend to
them which lend to you, what reward
shall ye have ?'
There is no parallel at all in the first Gospel to the phrase, " and
lend to them that lend to you," and in Luke vi. 34 the passage
reads : "and if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what
thank have ye?"(Kcu euv 6Wi'(eTe Trap' S>v eATrt^ere Xafiav, TTOIO.
vfiiv xP l ? ecrriV ;). It is evident, therefore, that there are decided
variations here, and that the passage of Athenagoras does not
agree with either of the Synoptics. We have seen the persistent
variation in the quotations from the " Sermon on the Mount "
which occur in Justin, 3 and there is no part of the discourses of
Jesus more certain to have been preserved by living Christian
tradition, or to have been recorded in every form of Gospel. The
differences in these passages from our Synoptic present the same
features as mark the several versions of the same discourse in our
first and third Gospels, and indicate a distinct source. The same
remarks also apply to the next passage :
ATHENAGORAS. MATT. v. 28.
For whosoever, he says (<j>-r]ffi), look- But I say unto you, That whoso-
eth on a woman to lust after her, hath ever looketh on a woman to lust
committed adultery (fj.efj.oixevKfv) al- j after her, hath committed adultery
ready in his heart. 4 with her (t/j.olx(vcrev avri]v) already
in his heart. 5
The omission of avr-^v, " with her," is not accidental, but is an
important variation in the sense, which we have already met with
in the Gospel used by Justin Martyr. 6 There is another passage,
in the next chapter, the parallel to which follows closely on
this in the great Sermon as reported in our first Gospel, to
which Dr. Westcott does not refer, but which we must point
out :
Sitj}K6vTii}v vfjias' OTTWS y^vijo'de viol rov Trarpbs vp.G)v rov <.v ovpavois, 8ri rbv
ij\i.ov avrov avar4\\fi, K.T.\. Matt. v. 44, 45.
1 'Eav yap ayairare, <pT]<riv, rovs ayatrdvras, Kal daveifcrf rots davtlfovfftv
vfuv, riva. [uffflbv ere. Leg. pro Chr., 12.
2 'Eav yap ayair-qu^re roiis aya-iruvras u/aax, riva. jj-icrObv ^x ere - Matt. v. 46.
3 Justin likewise has d7a7rare for ayaTnr)crriT in this passage.
4 '0 yap pX^Trwv, (frijffi, yvvawa irpbs r6 tTTiOvuijffai avrijs,
rrj Kapdiq. avrov. Leg. pro Chr., 32.
5 'Eyw 5 Xtyu vfuv Sri iras 6 j3\^Truv yvvaiKO. irpbs TO ^irtdvfjLfjcraL avrty
tfj.oixevffev avrty ty rrj KapSiq. avrov.
6 Apol., i. 15.
2B
4O2
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
ATHENAGORAS. MATT. v. 32.
For whosoever, he says (0i?<rl), shall But I say unto you, That whosoever
put away his wife and marry another shall put away his wife, saving for
committeth adultery. 1 the cause of fornication, causeth her
to commit adultery : and whosoever
shall marry her when divorced commit-
teth adultery. 2
It is evident that the passage in the Apology is quite different
from that in the " Sermon on the Mount " in the first Synoptic.
If we compare it with Matt. xix. 9, there still remains the express
limitation p) rt vopvtiy, which Athenagoras does not admit, his
own express doctrine being in accordance with the positive
declaration in his text. In the immediate context, indeed, he
insists that even to marry another wife after the death of the first
is cloaked adultery. We find in Luke xvi. 18 the reading of
Athenagoras, 3 but with important linguistic variation :
ATHENAGORAS. LUKE. xvi. 18.
Oj yap av airoXvffr) TTJV yvvatKO.
avrov, Kal ya/j,riffri aXX'fjv
lias 6 aTToXudw TTJV yvvaiKa
avrov Kal ya^Ctv ertpav
It cannot, obviously, be rightly affirmed that Athenagoras must
have derived this from Luke, and the sense of the passage in that
Gospel, compared with the passage in Matt. xix. 9, on the contrary,
rather makes it certain that the reading of Athenagoras was
derived from a source combining the language of the one and the
thought of the other. In Mark x. 1 1 the reading is nearer that
of Athenagoras, and confirms this conclusion ; and the addition
there of r' avn/jv, " against her," after yuotxTut, further tends to
prove that his source was not that Gospel.
We may at once give the last passage which is supposed to be
a quotation from our Synoptics, and it is that which is affirmed to
be a reference to Mark. Athenagoras states in almost immediate
context with the above : "for in the beginning God formed one
man and one woman."'* This is compared with Mark x. 6 : " But
from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
female ":
ATHENAGORAS.
On tv apxH o Qeos tva avdpa HwXaffe
Kal fj,iav yvvatKa.
Airb
MARK. x. 6.
apx?)s Krlfffus apffev Kal
v ai)roi/s 6 Oe6s.
1 *0s yap av airoXucry, tfnjffl, rr)t> yvveuKO, avrou, Kal ya^-fiffri &\\r]v, fj-oixarai.
Leg.Jro Chr., 33. < ^
3 'Eyw dt Xtyu vjui> 6n 8y av airoXtiffr) TTJV yvvaiKa avrov vapeKrbs \6yov
iropveias iroiet avrrjv noixfvOrjvai, Kal Ss av diro\f\vfj.t>>r)v yap-tiay, fioixaTai-
Matt. v. 32. iraj 6 airoKvuv is the older and better reading, but we give Sj av
airo\{>ffri as favouring the similarity.
3 Lardner, indeed, points to the passage as a quotation from the third Gospel.
Works, ii., p. 183. .
< Leg. pro Chr., 33.
ATHENAGORAS 403
This passage differs materially in every way from the
second Synoptic. The reference to " one man " and " one
woman " is used in a totally different sense, and enforces the
previous assertion that a man may only marry one wife. Such
an argument, directly derived from the Old Testament, is perfectly
natural to one who, like Athenagoras, derived his authority
from it alone. It is not permissible to claim it as evidence of the
use of Mark.
We must repeat that Athenagoras does not name any
source from which he derives his knowledge of the sayings of
Jesus. These sayings are all from the Sermon on the Mount,
and are introduced by the indefinite phrase <fyrf<ri and it is
remarkable that all differ distinctly from the parallels in our
Gospels. The whole must be taken together as coming from one
source, and while the decided variation excludes the inference
that they must have been taken from our Gospels, there is
reasonable ground for assigning them to a different source. Dr.
Donaldson states the case with great fairness : "Athenagoras
makes no allusion to the inspiration of any of the New Testament
writers. He does not mention one of them by name, and one
cannot be sure that he quotes from any except Paul. All the
passages taken from the Gospels are parts of our Lord's discourses,
and may have come down to Athenagoras by tradition." 1 He
should have added that they might also have been derived from
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or many other collections
now unhappily lost.
One circumstance strongly confirming this conclusion is the
fact already mentioned, that Athenagoras, in the same chapter
in which one of these quotations occurs, introduces an apocryphal
saying of the Logos, and connects it with previous sayings by the
expression, " The Logos again (TTUA.IV) saying to us." This can
only refer to the sayings previously introduced by the indefinite
<?/crt. The sentence, which is in reference to the Christian
salutation of peace, is as follows : " The Logos again saying to
us : 'If any one for this reason kiss a second time because it
pleased him (he sins) '; and adding : ' Thus the kiss, or rather
the salutation, must be used with caution, as, if it be defiled even
a little by thought, it excludes us from the life eternal.' " 2 This
saying, which is directly attributed to the Logos, is not found in
our Gospels. The only natural deduction is that it comes from
the same source as the other sayings, and that source was not
our synoptic Gospels.
The total absence of any allusion to New Testament Scriptures
1 Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii., p. 172. De Wette says regarding
Athenagoras: "The quotations of evangelical passages prove nothing"
(Einl. A. T., 1852, p. 25). 2 Leg. +ro Chr., 32.
404 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
in Athenagoras, however, is rendered more striking and significant
by the marked expression of his belief in the inspiration of the
Old Testament. He appeals to the prophets for testimony as to
the truth of the opinions of Christians men, he says, who spoke
by the inspiration of God, whose Spirit moved their mouths to
express God's will as musical instruments are played upon :' " But
since the voices of the prophets support our arguments, I think
that you, being most learned and wise, cannot be ignorant of the
writings of Moses, or of those of Isaiah and Jeremiah and of the
other prophets, who, being raised in ecstasy above the reasoning
that was in themselves, uttered the things which were wrought in
them, when the Divine Spirit moved them, the Spirit using them
as a flute-player would blow into the flute." 2 He thus enunciates
the theory of the mechanical inspiration of the writers of the Old
Testament in the clearest manner, and it would, indeed, have
been strange, on the supposition that he extended his views of
inspiration to any of the Scriptures of the New Testament, that
he never names a single one of them, nor indicates to the
Emperors in the same way, as worthy of their attention, any of
these Scriptures along with the Law and the Prophets. There
can be no doubt that he nowhere gives reason for supposing that
he regarded any other writings than the Old Testament as inspired
or " Holy Scripture."^
In the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius,
between the 7th March, 177-178, a fierce persecution was, it is
said,-* commenced against the Christians in Gaul, and more
especially at Vienne and Lyons, during the course of which the
aged Bishop Pothinus, the predecessor of Irenreus, suffered
martyrdom for the faith. The two communities some time after
addressed an Epistle to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, and
also to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, 5 relating the events which
h^d occurred, and the noble testimony which had been borne to
Christ by the numerous martyrs who had been cruelly put to
death. The Epistle has in great part been preserved by Eusebius, 6
and critics generally agree in dating it about A.D. 177, although it
was most probably not written until the following year.?
No writing of the New Testament is mentioned in this Epistle,
but it is asserted that there are " unequivocal coincidences of
language " 8 with the Gospel of Luke, and others of its books.
1 Leg.proChr., 7. ' Ib., 9.
3 In the treatise on the Resurrection there are no arguments derived from
Scripture.
4 Eusebius, H. E. , v. Proem. 5 Ib. , v. 3. 6 Ib. , v. I t.
7 Baronius dates the death of Pothinus in A. D. 1 79 ; Valesius, ad Euseb. ,
H. E., v. 5. 8 \Vestcott, On the Canon, p. 295.
THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS 405
The passage which is referred to as showing knowledge of our
Synoptic is as follows. The letter speaks of one of the sufferers,
a certain Vettius Epagathus, whose life was so austere that,
although a young man, "he was thought worthy of the testimony
(fMptvftiq.) borne by the elder (Trpfo-flvrepov) Zacharias. He
had walked, of a truth, in all the commandments and ordinances
of the Lord blameless, and was untiring in every kind office
towards his neighbour ; having much zeal for God and being
fervent in spirit." 1 This is compared with the description of
Zacharias and Elizabeth in Luke i. 6 : " And they were both
righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and
ordinances of the Lord blameless." 2 A little further on in the
Epistle it is said of the same person : " Having in himself the
advocate (Trapa/cA/^Tov), the spirit (TO Trvevpx), more abundantly
than Zacharias," etc., 3 which again is referred to Luke i. 67,
"And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and
prophesied, saying," &c.*
A few words must be said regarding the phrase, T-rj TOV
irperr/SvTfpov Za^apiov fj-aprvpia., "the testimony of the presbyter
Zacharias." This, of course, may either be rendered : " the
testimony borne to Zacharias," that is to say, borne by others to
his holy life ; or, "the testimony borne by Zacharias," his own
testimony to the Faith : his martyrdom. We adopt the latter
rendering for various reasons. The Epistle is an account of the
persecution of the Christian community of Vienne and Lyons,
and Vettius Epagathus is the first of the martyrs who is named in
it : fjLfiprvpiawa.s at that time the term used to express the supreme
testimony of Christians martyrdom, and the Epistle seems here
simply to refer to the martyrdom, the honour of which he shared
with Zacharias. It is, we think, very improbable that under such
circumstances the word fiaprvpia. would have been used to express
a mere description of the character of Zacharias given by some
other writer. The interpretation which we prefer is that adopted
by Tischendorf. 5 We must add that the Zacharias here spoken
of is generally understood to be the father of John the Baptist,
1 <rwet<ToO(T0cu rrj TOV irpecrfivTepov Zaxaplov fiaprvpla- TTfirSpevTO
yovv ev TTCUTCUJ rcus ei/roXats Kal SiKaiwfJiaffi TOV Kvplov S/ae/uirros, Kai iraffr] rrj
jrpbs TOV irXrjcriov XtiTOvpyia &OKVOS, fj\ov Qeov TTO\VI> <=Xt>>i>, Kai few*' T(j5 irvev-
/j.aTi, K.r.X. Euseb. , H. E. , v. I.
2 J]ffa,v oe SiKaioi dfji<f>6TfpoL Ivijiiriov TOV 6eov, iropevofj-evoi et> irdffais rats
evToXcus Kai diKaiw/naffiv TOV Kvpiov S,/j,fjirrToi. Luke i. 6.
3 ?x w> ' <>t TOV Tra-pa.K\t]Tov ev eaury, TO Trvevfia TrXflov TOV Zaxapiou. Euseb.,
H. E., v. i.
4 Kat Zax<*/>tais 6 traTrjp avrov eirX'fjffd'r] Trvev/j-dTOS aylov Kal tirpo<frliTevo~ev
\tywv, K.T.\. Luke i. 67.
5 Wann wttrden, n. s. w., p. 80, n. I. See also Hilgenfeld, Die w.
Jus fin's, p. 155, and others.
406 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
and no critic, so far as we can remember, has suggested that the
reference in Luke xi. 51 applies to him. 1 Since the Epistle,
therefore, refers to the martyrdom of Zacharias, the father of
John the Baptist, when using the expressions which are supposed
to be taken from our third Synoptic, is it not reasonable to suppose
that those expressions were derived from some work which like-
wise contained an account of his death, which is not found in the
Synoptic ? When we examine the matter more closely, we find
that, although none of the Canonical Gospels, except the third,
gives any narrative of the birth of John the Baptist, that portion
of the Gospel in which are the words we are discussing cannot
be considered an original production by the third Synoptist, but,
like the rest of his work, is merely a composition, based upon
earlier written narratives. Ewald, for instance, assigns the whole
of the first chapters of Luke (i. 5~ii. 40) to what he terms " the
eighth recognisable book." 2
However this may be, the fact that other works existed at an
earlier period in which the history of Zacharias the father of the
Baptist was given, and in which not only the words used in the
Epistle were found but also the martyrdom, is in the highest
degree probable ; and, so far as the history is concerned, this is
placed almost beyond doubt by the Protevangelium Jacobi which
contains it. Tischendorf, who does not make use of this Epistle
at all as evidence for the Scriptures of the New Testament, does
refer to it, and to this very allusion in it to the martyrdom of
Zacharias, as testimony to the existence and use of the Protevan-
gelium Jacobi, a work whose origin he dates so far back as the
first three decades of the second century,3 and which he considers
was also used by Justin, as Hilgenfeld had already observed. 4
Tischendorf and Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming that the
reference to Zacharias which we have quoted indicates acquaint-
ance with a different Gospel from our third Synoptic. Hilgenfeld
rightly maintains that the Protevangelium Jacobi in its present
shape is merely an altered form of an older work, 5 which he
conjectures to have been the Gospel according to Peter, or the
Gnostic work, Tei/i/a Manias, 6 and both he and Tischendorf
show that many of the Fathers? were either acquainted with
1 The great majority of critics consider it a reference to 2 Chron. xxiv.
21, though some apply it to a later Zacharias.
* Die drei erst. Ew. , p. 97 f.
3 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 76 ff. , 80, anm. I ; cf. Evang. Apocr. Proleg.,
p. xii. f.
4 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 76 f., p. 80, anm. I ; Hilgenfeld, Die Ew.
Justiris, p. 154 f.
5 Die Ew. Justin's, p. 154 f. 6 Ib., p. 160 f.
7 Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 76 ff. ; cf. Evang. Apoc. Proleg.,
p. xii. f. ; Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. J., p. 154 f. *
THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS 407
the Protevangelium itself or the works on which it was based.
The state of the case, then, is as follows : We find a coincidence
in a few words in connection with Zacharias between the Epistle
and our third Gospel ; but, so far from the Gospel being in any way
indicated as their source, the words in question are connected
with a reference to events unknown to our Gospel, but which were
indubitably chronicled elsewhere. As part of the passage in the
epistle, therefore, could not have been derived from our third
Synoptic, the natural inference is that the whole emanates from a
Gospel, different from ours, which likewise contained that part.
In any case, the agreement of these few words, without the slightest
mention of the third Synoptic in the epistle, cannot be admitted
as proof that they must necessarily have been derived from it, and
from no other source.
CHAPTER X.
PTOLEM^EUS AND HERACLEON CELSUS THE CANON OF
MURATORI RESULTS
WE have now reached the extreme limit of time within which we
think it in any degree worth while to seek for evidence as to
the date and authorship of the Synoptics, and we might now
proceed to the fourth Gospel ; but before doing so it may be well
to examine one or two other witnesses whose support has been
claimed by apologists, although our attention may be chiefly con-
fined to an inquiry into the date of such testimony, upon which
its value, even if real, mainly depends so far as we are concerned.
The first of these whom we must notice are the two Gnostic
leaders, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon.
Epiphanius has preserved a certain " Epistle to Flora " ascribed
to Ptolemaeus, in which, it is contended, there are " several quota-
tions from Matthew, and one from the first chapter of John." 1
What date must be assigned to this Epistle ? In reply to those
who date it about the end of the second century, Tischendorf pro-
duces the evidence for an earlier period to which he assigns it.
He says : " He (Ptolemseus) appears in all the oldest sources as
one of the most important, most influential of the disciples of
Valentinus. As the period at which the latter himself flourished
falls about 1 40, do we say too much when we represent Ptolemaeus
as working at the latest about 160; Irenaeus (in the 2nd Book)
and Hippolytus name him together with Heracleon ; likewise
pseudo-Tertullian (in the .appendix to De Prcescriptionibus
Hareticoruni) and Philastrius make him appear immediately
after Valentinus. Irenseus wrote the first and second books
of his great work most probably before 180, and in both he
occupies himself much with Ptolemaeus." 2 Dr. Westcott, beyond
calling Ptolemaeus and Heracleon disciples of Valentinus, does
not assign any date to either, and does not, of course, offer any
further evidence on the point, although, in regard to Heracleon,
he admits the ignorance in which we are as to all points of his
history,3 and states generally, in treating of him, that " the exact
chronology of the early heretics is very uncertain."-*
1 Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s.iv., p. 46. Dr. Westcott, with greater
caution, says : " He quoted words of our Lord recorded by St. Matthew, the
prologue of St. John's Gospel, etc." (On the Canon, p. 267).
2 Wann wurden, u. s. TV. , p. 46 f.
3 Oft the Canon, p. 263. 4 76., p. 264, note 2.
408
PTOLEM^US AND HERACLEON 409
Let us examine the evidence upon which Tischendorf relies
for the date he assigns to Ptolemasus. He states in vague terms
that Ptolemasus appears " in all the oldest sources " (in alien
den altesten Quellen) as one of the most important disciples of
Valentinus. We shall presently see what these sources are, but
must now follow the argument : " As the date of Valentinus falls
about 140, do we say too much when we represent Ptolemceus as
working at the latest about 160 ?" It is obvious that there is no
evidence here, but merely assumption, and the manner in which
the period "about 160" is begged is a clear admission that there
are no certain data. The year might with equal propriety upon
those grounds have been put ten years earlier or ten years later.
The deceptive and arbitrary character of the conclusion, however,
will be more apparent when we examine the grounds upon which
the relative dates 140 and 160 rest. Tischendorf here states that
the time at which Valentinus flourished falls about A.D. 140, but the
fact is that, as all critics are agreed, and as even Tischendorf
himself elsewhere states, 1 Valentinus came out of Egypt to Rome
in that year, when his public career practically commenced, and he
continued to flourish for at least twenty years after. 2 Tischendorf s
pretended moderation, therefore, consists in dating the period
when Valentinus flourished from the very year of his first
appearance, and in assigning the active career of Ptolemseus to
1 60, when Valentinus was still alive and teaching. He might on
the same principle be dated 180, and even in that case there
could be no reason for ascribing the Epistle to Flora to so early a
period of his career. Tischendorf never even pretends to state
any ground upon which Ptolemseus must be connected with any
precise part of the public life of Valentinus, and still less for
determining the period of the career of Ptolemseus at which the
Epistle may have been composed. It is obvious that a wide limit
for date thus exists.
After these general statements Tischendorf details the only
evidence which is available, (i) " Iremeus (in the 2nd Book)
and Hippolytus name him together with Heracleon ; likewise (2).
pseudo-Tertullian (in the appendix to De Prcescriptionibus Hcereti-
corum} and Philastrius make him appear immediately after
Valentinus," etc. We must examine these two points a little
more closely in order to ascertain the value of such state-
ments. With regard to the first (i), we shall presently see
that the mention of the name of Ptolemaeus along with that of
Heracleon throws no light upon the matter from any point of view,
1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 43. " Valentinus, der utn 140 aus sEgypten
nach Rom kaui tmd darauf no ch 1Q Jahre gclebt haben tnag."
2 Cf. IrenzEus, Adv. Har,, iii. 4, 3 ; Eusebius, H. E,,\v. n.
4 io SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
inasmuch as Tischendorf has as little authority for the date he
assigns to the latter, and is in as complete ignorance concerning
him as in the case of Ptolemaeus. It is amusing, moreover, that
Tischendorf employs the very same argument, which sounds well
although it means nothing, inversely to establish the date of
Heracleon. Here, he argues, " Irenaeus and Hippolytus name
him (Ptolemaeus) together with Heracleon " ;' there, he reasons,
" Irenaeus names Heracleon together with Ptolemaeus," 2 etc. As
neither the date assigned to the one nor to the other can stand
alone, he tries to get them into something like an upright position
by propping the- one against the other an expedient which,
naturally, meets with little success. We shall in dealing with the
case of Heracleon show how untenable is the argument from the
mere order in which such names are mentioned by these writers ;
meantime we may simply say that Irenaeus only once mentions
the name of Heracleon in his works, and that the occasion on
which he does so, and to which reference is here made, is merely
an allusion to the ^Eons " of Ptolemaeus himself, and of
Heracleon, and all the rest who hold these views." 3 This phrase
might have been used, exactly as it stands, with perfect propriety
even if Ptolemaeus and Heracleon had been separated by
a century. The only point which can be deduced from this
coupling of names is that, in using the present tense, Irenaeus is
speaking of his own contemporaries. We may make the same
remark regarding Hippolytus, for, if his mention of Ptolemaeus and
Heracleon has any weight at all, it is to prove that they were
flourishing in his time : " Those who are of Italy, of whom is
Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say ," etc. We shall have to go
further into this point presently. As to (2) pseudo-Tertullian and
Philastrius, we need only say that even if the fact of the names of
the two Gnostics being coupled together could prove anything in
regard to the date, the repetition by these writers could have no
importance for us, their works being altogether based on those of
Irenaeus and Hippolytus, s and scarcely, if at all, conveying in-
dependent information. 6 We have merely indicated the weakness
of these arguments in passing, but shall again take them up
further on.
The next and final consideration advanced by Tischendorf is
1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 47. 3 Ib., p. 48.
3 Ipsius Ptolemai et Heracleonis, et reliquorum omnium qui eadem opinantur
(Adv. Har., ii. 4, i).
4 Ref. Horn. Har., vi. 35.
5 Cf. Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanites, 1865.
6 Indeed, the direct and avowed dependence of Hippolytus himself upon the
work of Irenseus deprives the Philosophumena, in many parts, of all separate
authority.
PTOLEM^US AND HERACLEON 411
the only one which merits serious attention. " Irenaeus wrote the
first and second book of his great work most probably before 180,
and in both he occupies himself much with Ptolemaeus." Before
proceeding to examine the accuracy of this statement regarding
the time at which Irenaeus wrote, we may ask what conclusion
would be involved if Irenaeus really did compose the two books in
A.I). 1 80 in which he mentions our Gnostics in the present tense?
Nothing more than the simple fact that Ptolemaeus and Heracleon
were promulgating their doctrines at that time. There is not a
single word to show that they did not continue to flourish long
after ; and as to the " Epistle to Flora," Irenaeus apparently knows
nothing of it, nor has any attempt been made to assign it to an
early part of the Gnostic's career. Tischendorf, in fact, does not
produce a single passage nor the slightest argument to show that
Irenaeus treats our two Gnostics as men of the past, or otherwise
than as heretics then actively disseminating their heterodox
opinions; and, even taken literally, the argument of Tischendorf
would simply go to prove that about A.D. 180 Irenaeus wrote part
of a work in which he attacks Ptolemaeus and mentions Heracleon.
When did Irenaeus, however, really write his work against
Heresies ? Although our sources of credible information regard-
ing him are exceedingly limited, we are not without materials for
forming a judgment on the point. Irenaeus was probably born
about A.D. 140-145, and is generally supposed to have died at the
beginning of the third century (A.D. 202). We know that he was
deputed by the Church of Lyons to bear to Eleutherus, then
Bishop of Rome, the Epistle of that Christian community describ-
ing their sufferings during the persecution commenced against
them in the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus (7th March, 177-1 78).* It is very improbable that
this journey was undertaken, in any case, before the spring
of A.D. 178, and, indeed, in accordance with the given data,
the persecution itself may not have commenced earlier than the
beginning of that year, so that his journey need not have been
undertaken before the close of 178 or the spring of 179, to which
epoch other circumstances might lead us. 2 There is reason to
believe that he remained some time in Rome. Baronius states
that Irenaeus was not appointed Bishop of Lyons till A.D. 180,
for he says that the see remained vacant for that period after the
death of Pothinus in consequence of the persecution. Now,
certain expressions in his work show that Irenaeus did not write it
until he became Bishop.3 It is not known how long Irenaeus
1 Eusebius, H. E., v. I, Prtzf.; i, 3, 4.
2 Baronius (Ann. Eccles.) sets the death of Pothinus in A.D. 179-
3 Cf. Adv. Hcer., v. Prtef.; Massuet, Dissert, in Iren., ii., art. ii., 49;
Lardner, Works, ii., p. 157.
412 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
remained in Rome, but there is every probability that he must
have made a somewhat protracted stay for the purpose of making
himself acquainted with the various tenets of Gnostic and other
heretics then being actively taught, and the preface to the first
book refers to the pains he took. He wrote his work in Gaul,
however, after his return from this visit to Rome. This is apparent
from what he himself states in the Preface to the first Book : " I
have thought it necessary," he says, " after having read the
Memoirs (iVo/xvi/^ao-t) of the disciples of Valentinus, as they call
themselves, and having had personal intercourse with some of them
and acquired full knowledge of their opinions, to unfold to thee," 1
etc. A little further on he claims from the friend to whom he
addresses his work indulgence for any defects of style on the
score of his being resident amongst the Keltae. 2 Irenaeus no
doubt, during his stay in Rome, came in contact with the school
of Ptolemseus and Heracleon, if not with the Gnostic leaders
themselves and, being shocked, as he describes himself, at the
doctrines which they insidiously taught, he undertook, on his
return to Lyons, to explain them that others might be exhorted to
avoid such an "abyss of madness and blasphemy against Christ."3
Irenseus gives us other materials for assigning a date to his work.
In the third Book he enumerates the bishops who had filled the
Episcopal Chair of Rome, and the last whom he names is
Eleutherus (A.D. 177-190), who, he says, "now in the twelfth
place from the apostles, holds the inheritance of the episcopate." 4
There is, however, another clue which, taken along with this,
leads us to a close approximation to the actual date. In the same
Book, Irenaeus mentions Theodotion's version of the Old Testa-
ment : " But not as some of those say," he writes, "who now (vuv)
presume to alter the interpretation of the Scripture : ' Behold the
young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,' as Theodotion,
the Ephesian, translated it, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish
proselytes." 5 Now we are informed by Epiphanius that
Theodotion published his translation during the reign of the
Emperor Commodus 6 (A.D. 180-192). The Chronicon Paschale
adds that it was during the Consulship of Marcellus, or, as
Massuet? proposes to read, Marullus, who, jointly with ^lianus,
assumed office A.D. 184. These dates decidedly agree with the
passage of Irenaeus and with the other data, all of which lead
us to about the same period within the episcopate of Eleutherus
1 Adv. Hezr., i. Prof., 2 (see the passage quoted, p. 332 f. ).
2 Ib., 3- 3 /*-, 2.
4 Adv. Har., iii. 3, 3 ; Eusebius, H. ., v. 6.
s Adv. Hcer., iii. 21, I ; Euseb., H. E., v. 8.
6 De Ponderib. et A/ens. , 1 7.
7 Dissert, in Iren., ii., art. ii. xcvii., $47.
PTOLEM^US AND HERACLEON 413
(t c. 190).* We have here, therefore, a clue to the date at which
Irenseus wrote. It must be remembered that at that period the
multiplication and dissemination of books was a very slow process.
A work published about 184 or 185 could scarcely have come into
the possession of Irenseus in Gaul till some years later, and we are,
therefore, brought towards the end of the episcopate of Eleutherus
as the earliest date at which the first three books of his work
against Heresies can well have been written, and the rest must be
assigned to a later period under the episcopate of Victor
(t i 9 8-i 9 9). 2
At this point we must pause and turn to the evidence which
Tischendorf offers regarding the date to be assigned to Heracleon. 3
As in the case of Ptolemaeus, we shall give it entire, and then
examine it in detail. To the all-important question, " How old
is Heracleon ? " Tischendorf replies : " Irenaeus names Heracleon,
together with Ptolemaeus (II. 4, i), in a way which makes them
appear as well-known representatives of the Valentinian school.
This interpretation of his words is all the more authorised because
he never again mentions Heracleon. Clement, in the 4th Book
of his Sti-omata, written shortly after the death of Commodus
(193), recalls an explanation by Heracleon of Luke xii. 8,
when he calls him the most noted man of the Valentinian
school (o TT}? OvaXevrivov (r^oA'/}s SOKI/AWTUTOS is Clement's
expression). Origen, at the beginning of his quotation from
Heracleon, says that he was held to be a friend of Valen-
tinus (TOV OvaXevTivov Xeyofjievov eTvat yvwpi/j.ov 'HpaxXewva).
Hippolytus mentions him, for instance, in the following way
(vi. 29): ' Valentinus, and Heracleon, and Ptolemaeus, and the
whole school of these, disciples of Pythagoras and Plato '
Epiphanius says (Hcer. 41): 'Cerdo (the same who, according
1 Cf. Credner, Beitrage, ii., p. 253 f.; De Wette, Einl. A. T., 1852, p. 61 f.,
p. 62, anm. d. ; Lardner, " He also speaks of the translation of Theodotion,
which is generally allowed to have been published in the reign of Commodus. "
Works, ii., p. 156 f.; Massuet, Dissert, in Iren., ii., art. ii. xcvii., 47.
2 Massuet, Dissert, in Iren., ii., art. ii. xcvii. ( 47), xcix. (50) ; Volkmar,
Der Ursprung, p. 24; cf. De Wette, Einl. A. 7'., p. 62, anm. d. ("Er
schrieb zw., 177-192"); cf. Credner, Beitrage, ii., p. 255. The late Dr.
Mansel places the work " between A.D. 182-188." The Gnostic Heresies, p.
240. This date is partly based upon the mention of Eleutherus (cf. p. 240,
note 2), which, it must be remembered, however, occurs in the third book.
Jerome says : ' ' Hoc Hie scripsit ante annos circiter trecentos " (Epist. ad Theod. ,
53, al. 29). If, instead of "trecentos," which is an evident slip of the pen,
we read " ducentos,'' his testimony as to the date exactly agrees.
3 Dr. Westcott adds no separate testimony. He admits that " The history
of Heracleon, the great Valentinian commentator, is full of uncertainty.
Nothing is known of his country or parentage " (On the Canon, p. 263). And
in a note, "The exact chronology of the early heretics is very uncertain"
(p. 264, note 2).
4H SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
to Irenaeus III. 4, 3, was in Rome under Bishop Hyginus with
Valentinus) follows these (Ophites, Kainities, Sethiani), and
Heracleon.' After all this, Heracleon certainly cannot be placed
later than 150 to 160. The expression which Origen uses
regarding his relation to Valentinus must, according to linguistic
usage, be understood of a personal relation." 1
We have already pointed out that the fact that the names of
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon are thus coupled together affords no
clue in itself to the date of either, and their being mentioned as
leading representatives of the school of Valentinus does not in
any way involve the inference that they were not contemporaries
of Irenaeus, living and working at the time he wrote. The way in
which Irensaus mentions them in this the only passage throughout
his whole work in which he names Heracleon, and to which
Tischendorf pointedly refers, is as follows : " But if it was not
produced, but was generated by itself, then that which is void is
both like, and brother to, and of the same honour with, that
Father who has before been mentioned by Valentinus ; but
it is really more ancient, having existed long before, and is
more exalted than the rest of the ^Eons of Ptolemaeus him-
self, and of Heracleon, and all the rest who hold these
views." 2 We fail to recognise anything special here, of the kind
inferred by Tischendorf, in the way in which mention is
made of the two later Gnostics. If anything be clear, on
the contrary, it is that distinction is drawn between Valen-
tinus and Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, and that Irenaeus points out
inconsistencies between the doctrines of the founder and those of
his later followers. It is quite irrelevant to insist merely, as
Tischendorf does, that Irenaeus and subsequent writers represent
Ptolemaeus and Haracleon and other Gnostics of his time as of
" the school " of Valentinus. The question simply is, whether in
doing so they at all imply that these men were not contemporaries
of Irenaeus, or necessarily assign their period of independent
activity to the lifetime of Valentinus, as Tischendorf appears to
argue? Most certainly not, and Tischendorf does not attempt
to offer any evidence that they do so. We may perceive how
utterly worthless such a fact is for the purpose of fixing an
early date by merely considering the quotation which Tischendorf
himself makes from Hippolytus : " Valentinus, therefore, and
Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, and the whole school of these, disciples
1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 48 .
a Si autem non prolatum est, sed a se generatum est ; et simile est, et frater-
nurn, et ejusdem honoris id quod est vacuum, ei Patri qui pr&dictus est a
Valentino : antiquius autem et multo ante exsistens, et honortficentius reliquis
SEonibus ifsius Ptolemtei et Heracleonis, et rejiquorum omnium qui eadem
opinantur (Adv. ff<zr., ii. 4, i).
PTOLEM^iUS AND HERACLEON 415
of Pythagoras and Plato "* If the statement that men
are of a certain school involves the supposition of coincidence of
time, the three Gnostic leaders must be considered contemporaries
of Pythagoras or Plato, whose disciples they are said to be.
Again, if the order in which names are mentioned, as Tischendorf
contends by inference throughout his whole argument, is to
involve strict similar sequence of date, the principle applied to the
whole of the early writers would lead to the most ridiculous
confusion. Tischendorf quotes Epiphanius : " Cerdo follows these
(the Ophites, Kainites, Sethiani), and Heracleon." Why he does
so it is difficult to understand, unless it be to give the appearance
of multiplying testimonies, for two sentences further on he is
obliged to admit : " Epiphanius has certainly made a mistake, as
in such things not unfrequently happens to him, when he
makes Cerdo, who, however, is to be placed about 140, follow
Heracleon." 2 This kind of mistake is, indeed, common to all the
writers quoted, and when it is remembered that such an error
is committed where a distinct and deliberate affirmation of the
point is concerned, it will easily be conceived how little
dependence is to be placed on the mere mention of names in the
course of argument. We find Irenaeus saying that " neither
Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides " possesses
certain knowledge, 3 and elsewhere : " of such an one as Valen-
tinus, or Ptolemaeus, or Basilides." 4 To base an argument as to
date on the order in which names appear in such writers is
preposterous.
Tischendorf draws an inference from the statement that
Heracleon was said to be a yvwpt/io? of Valentinus, that Origen
declares him to have been his friend, holding personal intercourse
with him. Origen, however, evidently knew nothing individually
on the point, and speaks from mere heresay, guardedly using the
expression " said to be " (Xeyopzvov eivat, yviapi/j.ov}. But
according to the later and patristic use of the word, yvwpip>s
meant nothing more than a "disciple," and it cannot here be
necessarily interpreted into a " contemporary." Under no circum-
stances could such a phrase, avowedly limited to hearsay, have
any weight. The loose manner in which the Fathers repeat each
other, even in serious matters, is too well known to every one
acquainted with their writings to require any remark. Their
inaccuracy keeps pace with their want of critical judgment. We
1 Ref. Omn. H<zr., vi. 29.
2 Wann wurden, u. s. w. , p. 49. We do not here enter into the discussion
of the nature of this error (see Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 129 f. ; Scholten,
Die lilt. Zeugnisse, p. 91 ; Riggenbach, Die Zeugn.f. d. Ev. fohan., 1866,
P- 79)-
3 Adv. HcB)-., ii. 28, 6. + Ib., ii. 28, 9.
416 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
have seen one of the mistakes of Epiphanius, admitted by
Tischendorf to be only too common with him, which illustrates
how little such data are to be relied on. We may point out
another of the same kind committed by him in common with
Hippolytus, pseudo-Tertullian, and Philastrius. Mistaking a
passage of Irenaeus 1 regarding the sacred Tetrad (Kol-Arbas) of
the Valentinian Gnosis, Hippolytus supposes Irenasus to refer to
another heretic leader. He at once treats the Tetrad as such a
leader named " Kolarbasus," and after dealing (vi. 4) with the
doctrines of Secundus, Ptolemjeus, and Heracleon, he proposes,
5, to show " whait are the opinions held by Marcus and
Kolarbasus." 2 At the end of the same book he declares that
Irenreus, to whom he states that he is indebted for a knowledge of
their inventions, has completely refuted the opinions of these
heretics, and he proceeds to treat of Basilides, considering that it
has been sufficiently demonstrated " whose disciples are Marcus
and Kolarbasus, the successors of the school of Valentinus." 3 At
an earlier part of the work, he had spoken in a more independent
way in reference to certain persons who had promulgated great
heresies : "Of these," he says, "one is Kolarbasus, who endeavours
to explain religion by measures and numbers."-* The same mistake
is committed by pseudo-Tertullian 5 and Philastrius, 6 each of
whom devotes a chapter to this supposed heretic. Epiphanius, as
might have been expected, fell into the same error, and he pro-
ceeds elaborately to refute the heresy of the Kolarbasians, " which
is Heresy XV." He states that Kolarbasus follows Marcus and
Ptolemaius, 7 and after discussing the opinions of this mythical
heretic he devotes the next chapter, " which is Heresy XVI.," to
the Heracleonites, commencing it with the information that " A
certain Heracleon follows after Kolarbasus." 8 This absurd mis-
take? shows how little these writers knew of the Gnostics of whom
they wrote, and how the orfe ignorantly follows the other.
The order, moreover, in which they set the heretic leaders
varies considerably. It will be sufficient for us merely to remark
1 Adv. Hcer., i. 14.
2 Ref. Omn. Hcer., vi., 5. There can be no doubt that a chapter on
Kolarbasus is omitted from the MS. of Hippolytus which we possess. Cf.
Bunsen, Hippolytus u. s. Zeit, 1852, p. 54 f.
3 Ref. Omn. Hcer., vi., 55.
4 T Qv elj i>v KoXdp/3a<roj, 5s 5i
tmxeipft Kef. Omn. Hcer., iv., 13.
s Hcer., 15. 6 Id., 43.
i Ib., xxxv., I, p. 258. 8 Hcer., xxxvi., I, p. 262.
9 Volkmar, Die Colarbasus-gnosis in Niednei*s Zeitschr. hist. Theol., 1855 ;
Der Ursprung, p. 128 f. ; Baur, K.G. d. drei erst. Jahrh., p. 204; anm. I ;
Lipsius, Der Gnostidsmus, in Ersch. u. Gruber^s Real. Encykl.; Zur Quellen-
kritik des Epiph., p. 166 f., 1 68 f. ; Scholten, D\t alt. Zeugnisse, p. 91.
PTOLEM/F.US AND HERACLEON 417
here that while pseudo-Tertullian 1 and Philastrius 2 adopt the
following order after the Valentinians : Ptolemaeus, Secundus,
Heracleon, Marcus, and Kolarbasus ; Epiphanius 3 places them :
Secundus, Ptolemaeus, Marcosians, Kolarbasus, and Heracleon ;
and Hippolytus* again : Secundus, Ptolemaeus, Heracleon, Marcus,
and Kolarbasus. The vagueness of Irenaeus had left some
latitude here, and his followers were uncertain. The somewhat
singular fact that Irenseus only once mentions Heracleon, whilst
he so constantly refers to Ptolemaeus, taken in connection with
this order, in which Heracleon is always placed after Ptolemaeus, 5
and by Epiphanius after Marcus, may be reasonably explained by
the fact that, whilst Ptolemaeus had already gained considerable
notoriety when Irenaeus wrote, Heracleon may only have begun to
come into notice. Since Tischendorf lays so much stress upon
pseudo-Tertullian and Philastrius making Ptolemaeus appear
immediately after Valentinus, this explanation is after his own
principles.
We have already pointed out that there is not a single passage
in Irenaeus, or any other early writer, assigning Ptolemaeus and
Heracleon to a period anterior to the time when Irenaeus under-
took to refute their opinions. Indeed, Tischendorf has not
attempted to show that they do, and he has merely, on the strength
of the general expression that these Gnostics were of the school of
Valentinus, boldly assigned to them an early date. Now, as we
have stated, he himself admits that Valentinus only came from
Egypt to Rome in A.D. 140, and continued teaching till i6o, 6 and
these dates are most clearly given by Irenaeus himself. 7 Why,
then, should Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, to take an extreme case,
not have known Valentinus in their youth, and yet have flourished
chiefly during the last two decades of the second century?
Irenaeus himself may be cited as a parallel case, which Tischendorf
at least cannot gainsay. He is never tired of telling us that
Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, 8 whose martyrdom he sets
about A.D. 165 ; and he considers that the intercourse of Iremeus
with the aged Father must properly be put about A.D. 150,9 yet he
himself dates the death of Irenaeus A.D. 202, 10 and nothing is more
certain than that the period of his greatest activity and influence
falls precisely in the last twenty years of the second century. Upon
his own data, therefore, that Valentinus may have taught for
1 H<cr., 13 f. 2 7J., 39 f. 3 !/>., 32 f.
4 Kef. Omn. ff<er., vi., 3, 4, 5.
5 Tertullian also makes Heracleon follow Ptolemoeus (Adv. Val., 4).
Wann witrden, u. s. w., p. 43.
7 Adv. Htfr., iii. 4, 3 ; Euseb., H. ., iv. n.
8 IVaitn wiirden, 11. s. iv., p 25, p. n.
9 //>., p. 12. Compare, however, p. 175 f, I0 /^., p. u f.
2E
4 i8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
twenty years after his first appearance in Rome A.D. 140 and
there is no ground whatever for asserting that he did not teach for
even a much longer period Ptolemaeus and Heracleon might
well have personally sat at the feet of Valentinus in their youth,
as Irenaeus is said to have done about the very same period at
the feet of Polycarp, and yet, like him, have flourished chiefly
towards the end of the century.
Although there is not the slightest ground for asserting that
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were not contemporaries with Irenaeus,
flourishing like him towards the end of the second century, there
are, on the other hand, many circumstances which altogether
establish the conclusion that they were. We have already shown,
in treating of Valentinus, 1 that Irenaeus principally directs his work
against the followers of Valentinus living at the time he wrote,
and notably of Ptolemaeus and his school. 2 In the preface
to the first book, having stated that he writes after personal
intercourse with some of the disciples of Valentinus,3 he more
definitely declares his purpose : " We will, then, to the best of our
ability, clearly and concisely set forth the opinions of those who
are now (yvv) teaching heresy, I speak particularly of the disciples of
Ptoknuzus (TWV irt.pl IlToAe/Aaiov), whose system is an offshoot from
the school of Valentinus." 4 Nothing could be more explicit.
Irenaeus in this passage distinctly represents Ptolemaeus as teaching
at the time he is writing, and this statement alone is decisive, more
especially as there is not a single known fact which is either
directly or indirectly opposed to it.
Tischendorf lays much stress on the evidence of Hippolytus in
coupling together the names of Ptolemaeus and Heracleon with
that of Valentinus; similar testimony of the same writer, fully
confirming the above statement of Irenaeus, will, therefore, have
the greater force. Hippolytus says that the Valentinians differed
materially among themselves regarding certain points which led to
divisions, one party being called the Oriental and the other the
Italian. " They of the Italian party, of whom is Heracleon and
Ptolemaeus, say, etc They, however, who are of the Oriental
party, of whom is Axionicus and Bardesanes, maintain," etc. 5
Now, Ptolemaeus and Heracleon are here quite clearly represented
as being contemporary with Axionicus and Bardesanes, and, with-
out discussing whether Hippolytus does not, in continuation,
describe them as all living at the time he wrote, 6 there can be no
1 P. 332 f.
2 Dr. Westcott admits this (On the Canon, p. 266 f.).
3 See passage quoted, p. 332 f. 4 Adv. H<rr., i., Prof., 2.
5 Ref. Omn. Har., vi. 35.
6 Tischendorf did not refer to these passages at all originally, and only does
so in the second and subsequent editions of his btjpk, in reply to Volkmar and
PTOLEM.F.US AND HERACLEON 419
doubt that some of them were, and that this evidence confirms
again the statement of Irenaeus. Hippolytus, in a subsequent part
of his work, states that a certain Prepon, a Marcionite, has
introduced something new, and " now, in our own time (iv TOIS
na.6' T//AUS xpoVots v?v), has written a work regarding the heresy in
reply to Bardesanes." 1 The researches of Hilgenfeld have proved
that Bardesanes lived at least over the reign of Heliogabalus
(218-222), and the statement of Hippolytus is thus confirmed. 2
Axionicus again was still flourishing when Tertullian wrote his
work against the Valentinians (201-226). Tertullian says :
" Axionicus of Antioch alone to the present day (ad hodiernum)
respects the memory of Valentinus, by keeping fully the rules of
his system." 3 Although on the whole they may be considered to
have flourished somewhat earlier, Ptolemreus and Heracleon are
thus shown to have been for a time at least contemporaries of
Axionicus and Bardesanes^
Moreover, it is evident that the doctrines of Ptolemseus and
Heracleon represent a much later form of Gnosticism than that
of Valentinus. It is generally admitted that Ptolemaeus reduced
the system of Valentinus to consistency, 5 and the inconsistencies
which existed between the views of the Master and these later
followers, and which indicate a much more advanced stage of
development, are constantly pointed out by Irenaeus and the
Fathers who wrote in refutation of heresy. Origen also repre-
sents Heracleon as amongst those who held opinions sanctioned
by the Church, 6 and both he and Ptolemaeus must indubitably be
classed amongst the latest Gnostics. It is clear, therefore, that
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon were contemporaries of Irenaeus at the
time he composed his work against Heresies (185-195), both, and
others in the Vvnvort (p. ix. f.), and in a note (p. 49, note 2). Yolkmar argues
from the opening of the next chapter (36), TaOra o$v fKeivot fijreiruja-aj' KO.T'
aiToi/s(Let those heretics, therefore, discuss these points amongst themselves),
that they are represented as contemporaries of Hippolytus himself at the time
he wrote (A.D. 225-235), Der Ursprung, p. 23, p. 130 f. It is not our
purpose to pursue this discussion, but, whatever may he the conclusion as
regards the extreme deduction of Volkmar, there can be no doubt that'the
passage proves at least the date which was assigned to them against Tischen-
dorf.
1 Kef. Omn. ffter., vii. 31.
= Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes, 1864, p. II ff. ; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 131,
p. 23 ; Lipsius, Zeitschr. miss. Theol,, 1867, p. 80 ff. ; Riggenbach, Die
Zengnisse f. d. Ev. Johannis, 1 866, p. 78 f. ; Scholten, Die alt. Zengnisse,
p. 90.
3 Adv. Val., 4; Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes, p. 15; Volkmar, Der Ursprung,
p. I3of. ; Lipsius, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 81.
4 Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 23 f., p. 130 f. ; Lipsius, Zeitschr. -wiss.
Theol., 1867, p. 82 ; Scholten, Die alt. Zengnisse, p. 90.
5 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 276.
6 Injoh., T. xvi., p. 236 f. ; Grabe, Sficil Pair., ii., p. 105.
420
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
especially the latter, flourishing and writing towards the end of
the second century.
We mentioned, in first speaking of these Gnostics, that Epi-
phanius has preserved an Epistle, attributed to Ptolemaeus, which
is addressed to Flora, one of his disciples. 1 This Epistle is
neither mentioned by Irenaeus nor by any other writer before
Epiphanius. There is nothing in the Epistle itself to show that
it was really written by Ptolemseus himself. Assuming it to be by
him, however, the Epistle was in all probability written towards
the end of the second century, and it does not, therefore, come
within the scope of our inquiry. We may, however, briefly notice
the supposed references to our Gospels which it contains. The
writer of the Epistle, without any indication of a written source
from which he derived them, quotes sayings of Jesus for which
parallels are found in our first Gospel. These sayings are
introduced by such expressions as "he said," "our Saviour de-
clared," but never as quotations from any Scripture. Now, in
affirming that they are taken from the Gospel according to
Matthew, apologists exhibit their usual arbitrary haste, for we
must clearly and decidedly state that there is not a single one of
the passages which does not present decided variations from the
parallel passages in our first Synoptic. We subjoin for comparison
in parallel columns the passages from the Epistle and Gospel :
El'ISTI.E (H/KR. XXXIII., 3).
OtKta yap -fj 7r6\is jj.epurOc'iffa
tavrty OTI (JLT] Svvarai ffrijvai, 6 ffu
MATT. xn. 25.
iraffa ir6Xn r) oiKia
KO.O' fO.VTT)S OV ffTOJtyfftTfU,
MATT. xix. 8 and 6.
\tyei O.VTOIS "On Mwi'tr^y irpbs
4- $<fni avrois OTL Mwi'cr^s irpbi TT}V
ffK\7]poKapdLav vfiwv tTrtrpftye rb airo-
\t'/f(i TTJI* yvvatKa ai'vov- air' dpx^ yap dTroXwrcu
ov ylyovev oCrws. Be6s yap, <jrr)ffl, 5t ov ytyovfv oi'Jrws.
ffvvttvj-t ravrqv rty vvfr/ylav, Kal I
"" v 6 Ki'ipios, avdptaicoi ju-J;
4. '6 ykp 0et>s, <fnjfflv, flire, rlfj.a rbv
jrartpa ffov Kal TJJV ^.rjT^pa. ffov, Iva. ef;
croi ytrijTcu. iJ/ietj 5^, <trt)aiv, elp^Kart,
rots irpeff/Birrtpois \tyuv, oCipov T$ Of if
6 tkv d>
/cat r]K\ip<j)ffa.Te rbv v6/j.ov rov ffeov, Sta
TTJV Trapadoffiv TUV irptffpiirtpuv \ifj.(af.
TOVTO Si 'Hffaiat t$f<(>uviiffev dir&v,
'0 Xa6j ofrros, K.T.\ .......
MATT. xv. 4-8.
'0 y&p debs tvfTflXaro, \eyw T//xa
TOV irarfpa Kal rty /jL-qrepa, Kal 'O KO/CO-
\oyun>, K.r.\. 2 5. v/j.eis 6 \tyere- *Oi
av ttvg r{f irarpl fj rrj irtfTpl, A&pov, 6
far t/J.ov w<pe\i)0ys, Kal ov /J.TJ riyu^ret
rbv warepa avrov, ff TT\V fj.-rjTepa aiVroO-
6. Kal riKiipuffare TOV vofiov rov fffov
dia rty trapaSoffiv V/JLUV.
7. vwoKptral, KaXw
irepl vnuv 'Htratas, \fyuv,
8. '0 \abs ouroy, K.T,\.
1 Epiphanius, Har., xxxiji. 3-7.
1 This phrase, from Leviticus xx. 9, occurs further on in the next chapter.
PTOLEM.EUS AND HERACLEON
MATT. v. 38-39.
'H.KOv<ra.Tt OTI eppeOrf 'Q(f>6a.\n.bv d
6<f>6a\fj.ov, /cat 6S6vra dvTl odovTos. 39.
f'yd) 5e Xeyw vu,1v, /J.TJ dvTicrTrjvai T<t
Trovrjpif)- d\\' Sorts <Tf pairiffei fTTi TTJV
bf^idv ffov ffiayova, ffTpe-J/ov airry /cat
TTJV
EPISTLE (ILiiK. xxxn., 3).
5. TO yap, '0<j>8a\/jLQv dvrl
6ipOa\fj,ov, KO.L odovra dvrl 686i>Tos
S 6. eyib yap \fyw i'fuv p,rj dvri.o'Trjt'ai
oXws rip 7ro;'?7p<> dXXa ddv ris <re
paTTtV]? urpi-^ov aiVy /cat rrjc 6Xh.t]v
<riay6i'a. '
It must not be forgotten that Iremieus makes very explicit state-
ments as to the recognition of other sources of evangelical truth
than our Gospels by the Valentinians, regarding which we have
fully written when discussing the founder of that sect. 2 We know
that they professed to have direct traditions from the Apostles
through Theodas^ a disciple of the Apostle Paul ; 3 and in the
Epistle to Flora allusion is made to the succession of doctrine
received by direct tradition from the Apostles. 4 Irensus says that
the Valentinians profess to derive their views from unwritten
sources, 3 and he accuses them of rejecting the Gospels of the
Church f but, on the other hand, he states that they had many
Gospels different from what he calls the Gospels of the Apostles. ?
With regard to Heracleon, it is said that he wrote Commentaries
on the third and fourth Gospels. The authority for this statement
is very insufficient. The assertion with reference to the third
Gospel is based solely upon a passage in the Stromata of the
Alexandrian Clement. Clement quotes a passage found in Luke
xii. 8, n, 12, and says: "Expounding this passage, Heracleon,
the most distinguished of the school of Valentinus, says as follows,"
etc. 8 This is immediately interpreted into a quotation from a
Commentary on Luke.9 We merely point out that from Clement's
remark it by no means follows that Heracleon wrote a Commentary
at all ; and, further, there is no evidence that the passage com -
mented upon was actually from our third Gospel. 10 The Stromaia
of Clement were not written until after A.D. 193, and in them we
find the first and only reference to this supposed Commentary.
We need not here refer to the Commentary on the fourth Gospel,
1 In the next chapter, 7, there is eVa yap /J.QVOV elvat dyaflbv Oebv TOV
eavrov iraTepa. 6 ffWTrjp r\p!av dire^rjvaTo, K.T.\. Cf. Matt. xix. 17 e?s effrlv
o dyaOos.
2 See p. 342 ff. 3 Clemens Al., Strom., vii. 17.
4 Epiphanius, ffai: , xxxiii. 7.
s Adv. Hcer., i. 8, i. Il>., Hi. 2, I.
7 fb., iii. ii, 9. 8 Strom., iv. 9, 73.
9 In LUCCE igitur Evangelium Comment aria edidit Heracleon, etc. (Grabe.
Spicil Patr. , ii. , p. 83).
70 The second reference by Clement to Heracleon is in the fragment 25 ;
but it is doubted by apologists (cf. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 264). It
would, however, tend to show that the supposed Commentary could not be
upon our Luke, as it refers to an apostolic injunction regarding baptism not
found in our Gospels.
422 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
which is merely inferred from references in Origen (c. A.D. 225)
but of which we have neither earlier nor fuller information. 1 We
must, however, before leaving this subject, mention that Origen
informs us that Heracleon quotes from the Preaching of Peter
(KiJ/oi'y/itt Ilerpov, Prccdicatio Petri}> a work which, as we have
already several times mentioned, was cited by Clement of Alexan-
dria as authentic and inspired Holy Scripture. 2
The epoch at which Ptolemseus and Heracleon flourished would,
in any case, render testimony regarding our Gospels of little value.
The actual evidence which they furnish, however, is not of a
character to prove even the existence of our Synoptics, and
much less does it in any way bear upon their character or
authenticity.
A similar question of date arises regarding Celsus, who wrote a
work entitled Aoyos dXijQ-tjs, True Doctrine, which is no longer
extant, of which Origen composed an elaborate refutation. The
Christian writer takes the arguments of Celsus in detail, presenting
to us, therefore, its general features, and giving many extracts ;
and, as Celsus professes to base much of his accusation upon the
writings in use amongst Christians, although he does not name a
single one of them, it becomes desirable to ascertain what those
works were, and the date at which Celsus wrote. As usual, we
shall state the case by giving the reasons assigned for an early
date.
Arguing against Volkmar and others, who maintain, from a
passage at the close of his work, that Origen, writing about the
second quarter of the third century, represents Celsus as his con-
temporary^ Tischendorf, referring to the passage, which we shall
give in its place, proceeds to assign an earlier date upon the follow-
ing grounds : " But, indeed, even in the first book, at the com-
mencement of the whole work, Origen says : ' Therefore, I cannot
compliment a Christian whose faith is in danger of being shaken
by Celsus, who yet does not even (ov8) still (In) live the common
life among men, but already and long since (r/S?/ xal irdXai) is dead.'
In the same first book Origen says : ' We have heard that there
were two men of the name of Celsus, Epicureans, the first under Nero;
1 Neither of the works, whatever they were, could have been written before
the end of the second century. Volkmar, Der tjrsprung, p. 22 f. , 130 f.,
165 ; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 91 f. ; Ebrard, Evang. Gesch., p. 874,
142; Lipsius, Zeitschr. -wiss Theol., 1867, p. 81 f.
2 Clem. Al., Strom., vi. 5, 39, 6, 48, 7, 58, 15, 128. Dr. Westcott
says regarding Ptolemneus : "Two statements, however, which he makes are
at variance with the Gospels : that our Lord's ministry was completed in a
year ; and that He continued for eighteen months with His disciples after His
resurrection " (On t/ie Canon, p. 268).
3 Volkmar, Dcr Ursprung, p. So ; Scholten, Die alt Zcitgnisse, p. 99 f.
CELSUS 423
this one ' (that is to say, ours) ' under Hadrian and later.' It is not
impossible that Origen mistakes when he identified his Celsus
with the Epicurean living 'under Hadrian and later'; but it is
impossible to convert the same Celsus of whom Origen says this
into a contemporary of Origen. Or would Origen himself, in the
first book, really have set his Celsus 'under Hadrian (117-138)
and later,' yet in the eighth have said : 'We will wait (about 225)
to see whether he will still accomplish this design of making
another work follow ' ? Now, until some better discovery regarding
Celsus is attained, it will be well to hold to the old opinion that
Celsus wrote his book about the middle of the second century,
probably between 150-160," etc. 1
It is scarcely necessary to point out that the only argument
advanced by Tischendorf bears solely against the assertion that
Celsus was a contemporary of Origen, "about 225," and leaves
the actual date entirely unsettled. He not only admits that the
statement of Origen regarding the identity of his opponent with
the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian "and 'later" may be
erroneous, but he tacitly rejects it, and, having abandoned the
conjecture of Origen as groundless and untenable, he substitutes
a conjecture of his own, equally unsupported by reasons, that
Celsus probably wrote between 150-160. Indeed, he does not
attempt to justify this date, but arbitrarily decides to hold by it
until a better can be demonstrated. He is forced to admit the
ignorance of Origen on the point, and he does not conceal his
own.
Now it is clear that the statement of Origen in the preface to
his work, quoted above, that Celsus, against whom he writes, is
long since dead, 2 is made in the belief that this Celsus was the
Epicurean who lived under Hadrian,3 which Tischendorf, although
he avoids explanation of the reason, rightly recognises to be a
mistake. Origen undoubtedly knew nothing of his adversary,
and it obviously follows that, his impression that he is Celsus the
Epicurean being erroneous, his statement that he was long since
dead, which is based upon that impression, loses all its value.
Origen certainly at one time conjectured his Celsus to be the
Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian, for he not only says so directly
in the passage quoted, but on the strength of his belief in the
fact he accuses him of inconsistency. " But Celsus," he says,
" must be convicted of contradicting himself ; for he is discovered
from other of his works to have been an Epicurean; but here,
because he considered that he could attack the Word more
effectively by not avowing the views of Epicurus, he pretends, etc,
' IVann wurden, it. s.v)., p. J4- ' Contra Cah., Pr<cf. % 4>
3 Id., i. 8.
424 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Remark, therefore, the falseness of his mind," etc. 1 And
from time to time he continues to refer to him as an Epicurean, 2
although it is evident that, in the writing before him, he con-
stantly finds evidence that he is of a wholly different school.
Beyond this belief, founded avowedly on mere hearsay, Origen
absolutely knows nothing of the personality of Celsus or the
time at which he wrote,3 and he sometimes very naively expresses
his uncertainty regarding him. Referring in one place to certain
passages which seem to imply a belief in magic on the part of
Celsus, Origen adds: "I do not know whether he is the same
who has written several books against magic." 4 Elsewhere he
says: " the Epicurean Celsus (if he be the same who com-
posed two other books against Christians)," etc. 5
Not only is it apparent that Origen knows nothing of the
Celsus with whom he is dealing, but it is almost impossible
to avoid the conviction that, during the time he was composing his
work, his impressions concerning the date and identity of his
opponent became considerably modified. In the earlier portion of
the first book 6 he has heard that his Celsus is the Epicurean of
the reign of Hadrian ; but a little further on? he confesses his
ignorance as to whether he is the same Celsus who wrote against
magic, which Celsus the Epicurean actually did. In the fourth
book, R he expresses uncertainty as to whether the Epicurean
Celsus had composed the work against Christians which he is
refuting, and at the close of his treatise he seems to treat him as a
contemporary. He writes to his friend Ambrosius, at whose
request the refutation of Celsus was undertaken : " Know, how-
ever, that Celsus has promised to write another treatise after
this one If, therefore, he has not fulfilled his promise
to write a second book, we may well be satisfied with the
eight books in reply to his Discourse. If, however, he has
commenced and finished this work' also, seek it and send
it in order that we may answer it also, and confute the
false teaching in it," etc.9 From this passage, and supported by
1 Cf. Contra Ce/s., i. 8.
2 Cf. ib., i. 10, 21 ; iii. 75, 80 ; iv. 36.
3 Neander, K. G., 1842, i., p. 274. 4 Contra Ce/s,, i. 68.
' 76., iv. 36. M. 8. 7 i. 68. 8 iv. 36.
9 "IffOi /j.(t>TOi, ^Trayy(\\6/j.fvov rbv Kf\ffov &\\o cri'ivray/j.a fj-era, rovro ITOITJ-
fffiv Kl t*tv o?>v OVK lypa\f/ft> viroffx6/J.(vot rbv Setirepov \6yov, e5 &v Hx l
dpKeiffffai Tf/Lias rots (5roj irpbs rbv \6yov avroS virayopfvOfltn /3i/3Mots. Et 5
Ka,Kf?vo)> dp^d/J,fvos <rvvtTf\f<Ff, ^TijiTOv, KOI iTffj.^ov rb ffuyypafj.fj.0., 'iva. Kal wpbs
tKfivo virayopevffavTes, Kal TTJV tv iKfivip ^ei'SoSo^Lav dvarp'i//ii>/j.ei>- K.T.\.
Contra. Ce/s., viii. 76. We quote above the rendering of the passage referred
to, p. 422, upon which Tischendorf (]Vann ivurden, u. s. w., p. 73 f. )
insists. We may mention that, in strictness, the original Greek reads :
" promises" instead of "has promised"; " diftjiot write" instead of "has
GELS US 425
other considerations, Volkmar and others assert that Celsus was
really a contemporary of Origen. 1 To this, as we have seen,
Tischendorf merely replies by pointing out that Origen, in the
preface, says that Celsus was already dead, and that he was identical
with the Epicurean Celsus who flourished under Hadrian and
later. The former of these statements, however, was made under
the impression that the latter was correct, and, as it is generally
agreed that Origen was mistaken in supposing that Celsus the
Epicurean was the author of the Aoyos aAr;^?;s, and Tischendorf
himself admits the fact, the two earlier statements, that Celsus
flourished under Hadrian, and consequently that he had long been
dead, fall together, whilst the subsequent doubts regarding his
identity not only stand, but rise into assurance at the close of
the work, in the final request to Ambrosius. 2 There can be no
doubt that the first statements and the closing paragraphs are
contradictory, and, whilst almost all critics pronounce against the
accuracy of the former, the inferences from the latter retain full
force, confirmed as they are by the intermediate doubts expressed
by Origen himself.
Even those who, like Tischendorf, in an arbitrary manner
assign an early date to Celsus, although they do not support their
conjectures by any satisfactory reasons of their own, all tacitly set
aside these of Origen. 3 It is generally admitted by these, with
Lardner* and Michaelis,5 that the Epicurean Celsus, to whom
Origen was at one time disposed to refer the work against
Christianity, was the writer of that name to whom Lucian, his
friend and contemporary, addressed his Alexander or Pseudo-
mantis, and who really wrote against magic, 6 as Origen mentions. 7
not written"; and "commenced and finished" instead of "has commenced
and finished." This, however, does not materially affect the argument of
Volkmar.
1 Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 80, cf. 165 ; Scholten, Die tilt. Zeugnhse,
p. loo ; cf. Riggenbach, Die Zeugn. f. d. Ev. Johann. , p. 83; Ueberweg,
Grundriss der Gesch. der Philos. des Allerth., 1867, i., p. 237.
- Contra Cds., viii. 76-
s Kirchhofer says that Origen himself does not assign a date to the work
of Celsus: "but as he (Celsus) speaks of the Marcionites, he must, in any
case, be set in the second half of the second century" (Quellensamml., p. 330,
anm. i). Lardner decides that Celsus wrote under Marcus Aurelius, and
chooses to date him A.D. 176 (Works, viii., p. 6). Bindemann dates between
170-180 (Zeitschr. f. d. Hist. Theol., 1842, H. 2, p. 60, 107 f. ; cf. Anger,
Synops. Ev. Proleg., p. xl. ; Michaelis, Einl. N. B., 1788, i., p. 41 ; Riggen-
bach, Die Zengn.f. d. Ev. Johan., p. 83 ; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1845, p. 629).
Dr. Westcott dates Celsus " towards the close of the second century " (On the
Canon, p. 356). Keim dates the work about A. P. 178 (Celsus' Wahres Wort,
1873, p. 261 f.) ; so also Pelagaud, Et. stir Celse, 1878, p. 207 f.
4 Works, viii., p. 6. 5 Einl. N. B., i., p. 41. 6 ^?ev86/j,ai>Tts, 21.
7 Contra Ccls., i. 68 ; Neander, A". G., i. , p. 275 ; Baur, A". G. , drei erst.
Jahrh., p. 383, anm. I ; cf. Keim, Celsus Wahres Wort, 1873, p. 275 f.
426 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
But although on this account Lardner assigns to him the date of
A.D. 176, the fact is that Lucian did not write his Pseudomantis,
as Lardner is obliged to admit, 1 until the reign of the Emperor
Commodus (180-193), and even upon the supposition that this
Celsus wrote against Christianity, of which there is not the
slightest evidence, there would be no ground for dating the work
before A.D. 180. On the contrary, as Lucian does not in any way
refer to such a writing by his friend, there would be strong reason
for assigning the work, if it be supposed to be written by him, to
a date subsequent to the Pseudomantis. It need not be remarked
that the references of Celsus to the Marcionites, 2 and to the
followers of Marcellina, 3 only so far bear upon the matter as to
exclude an early date. 4
It requires very slight examination of the numerous extracts
from, and references to, the work which Origen seeks to refute,
however, to convince any impartial mind that the doubts of Origen
were well founded as to whether Celsus the Epicurean were really
the author of the Aoyo? aX^^r/s. As many critics of all shades of
opinion have long since determined, so far from being an Epicu-
rean, the Celsus attacked by Origen, as the philosophical opinions
which he everywhere expresses clearly show, was a Neo-Platonist.
Indeed, although Origen seems to retain some impression that his
antagonist must be an Epicurean, as he had heard, and frequently
refers to him as such, he does not point out Epicurean sentiments
in his writings, but, on the contrary, not only calls upon him no
longer to conceal the school to which he belongs and avow him-
self an Epicurean, 5 but accuses him of expressing views incon-
sistent with that philosophy, 6 or of so concealing his Epicurean
opinions that it might be said that he is an Epicurean only in
name. 7 On the other hand, Origen is clearly surprised to find
that he quotes so largely from the writings, and shows such
marked leaning towards the teaching, of Plato, in which Celsus
indeed finds the original and purer form of many Christian
doctrines ; 8 and Origen is constantly forced to discuss Plato in
meeting the arguments of Celsus.
The author of the work which Origen refuted, therefore, instead
of being an Epicurean, as Origen supposed merely from there
having been an Epicurean of the same name, was undoubtedly a
1 Works, viii., p. 6; cf. Bindemann, Ztitschr. hist. Thtol., 1842, H. 2,
p. 107.
2 Contra Ce/s., v. 62, vi. 53, 74. 3 //,., v. 62.
4 Iremeus says that Marcellina came to Rome under Anicetus (157-168), and
made many followers (Adv. Hdr., i. 25, $ 6 : cf. EpiphaniuS, ffdr., xxvii. 6).
s Contra Ceh., iii. 80, iv. 54. 6 Ib., \, 8. ^ Ib., iv. 54.
8 Ib., i. 32, iii. 63, iv. 54, 55, 83, vi. I, 6, 8^, lo, I2> 13, !$> 16, 17, itf,
19, 20, 47, vii. 28, 31, 42, 58 f., etc.
CANON OF MURATORI 427
Neo-Platonist, as Mosheim long ago demonstrated, of the school
of Ammonius, who founded the sect at the close of the second
century. 1 The promise of Celsus to write a second book with
practical rules for living in accordance with the philosophy he
promulgates, to which Origen refers at the close of his work, con-
firms this conclusion, and indicates a new and recent system of
philosophy. 2 An Epicurean would not have thought of such a
work it would have been both appropriate and necessary in con-
nection with Neo-Platonism.
We are, therefore, constrained to assign the work of Celsus to
at least the early part of the third century, and to the reign of
Septimius Severus. In it, Celsus repeatedly accuses Christians of
teaching their doctrines secretly and against the law, which seeks
them out and punishes them with death,3 and this indicates a
period of persecution. Lardner, assuming the writer to be the
Epicurean friend of Lucian, supposes from this clue that the
persecution referred to must have been that under Marcus
Aurelius (f 180), and, practically rejecting the data of Origen him-
self, without advancing sufficient reasons of his own, dates Celsus
A.I). 176.4 Asa Neo-Platonist, however, we are more accurately
led to the period of persecution which, from embers never wholly
extinct since the time of Marcus Aurelius, burst into fierce flame,
more especially in the tenth year of the reign of Severus 5 (A.D.
202), and continued for many years to afflict Christians.
It is evident that the dates assigned by apologists are wholly
arbitrary, and even if our argument for the later epoch were very
much less conclusive than it is, the total absence of evidence for an
earlier date would completely nullify any testimony derived from
Celsus. It is sufficient for us to add that, whilst he refers to
incidents of Gospel history and quotes some sayings which have
parallels, with more or less of variation, in our Gospels, Celsus
nowhere mentions the name of any Christian book, unless we
except the Book of Enoch f and he accuses Christians, not with-
out reason, of interpolating the books of the Sibyl, whose authority,
he states, some of them acknowledged. 7
The last document which we need examine in connection with
the synoptic Gospels is the list of New Testament and other
writings held in consideration by the Church, which is generally
called, after its discoverer and first editor, the Canon of Muratori.
1 Just. Hist. Effles., lib. i., sac. ii., p. I, cap. 2, 8 ; De Rebus Christ.,
sac. ii., 19, 27.
2 Cf. Neander, A'. G.,\., p. 278.
3 Origen, Contra Ce/s., i. I, 3, 7, vlii. 69.
4 Works, viii., p. 6. s Euseb., H. ., vi. I, 2.
6 Contra, Ce/s., v. 54, 55. ^ 76., vii. 53, 56.
428 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
This interesting fragment, which was published in 1740 by
Muratori in his collection of Italian antiquities, 1 at one time
belonged to the monastery of Bobbio, founded by the Irish monk
Columban, and was found by Muratori in the Ambrosian Library
at Milan in a MS. containing extracts of little interest from writings
of Eucherius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and others. Muratori
estimated the age of the MS. at about a thousand years, but so
far as we are aware no thoroughly competent judge has since
expressed any opinion upon the point. The fragment, which is
defective both at the commencement and at the end, is written in
an apologetic tone, and professes to give a list of the writings which
are recognised by the Christian Church. It is a document which
has no official character, but which merely conveys the private
views and information of the anonymous writer, regarding whom
nothing whatever is known. From any point of view, the com-
position is of a nature permitting the widest differences of opinion.
It is by some affirmed to be a complete treatise on the books
received by the Church, from which fragments have been lost ;
whilst others consider it a mere fragment in itself. It is written
in Latin, which by some is represented as most corrupt, whilst
others uphold it as most correct. 2 The text is further rendered
almost unintelligible by every possible inaccuracy of orthography
and grammar, which is ascribed diversely to the transcriber, to the
translator, and to both. Indeed, such is the elastic condition of
the text, resulting from errors and obscurity of every imaginable
description, that, by means of ingenious conjectures, critics are
able to find in it almost any sense they desire. Considerable
difference of opinion exists as to the original language of the
fragment, the greater number of critics maintaining that the com-
position is a translation from the Greek, whilst others assert it to
have been originally written in Latin.3 Its composition is variously
attributed to the Church of Africa and to a member of the Church
in Rome.
The fragment commences with the concluding portion of
1 Antiqttit, Ital, Med. Awi, iii., p. 851 f. '
1 Volkmar considers it in reality the reverse of corrupt. After allowing for
peculiarities of speech, and for the results of an Irish-English pronunciation by
the monk who transcribed it, he finds the characteristic original Latin, the old
lingua volgata which, in the Roman provinces, such as Africa, etc. , was the
written as well as the spoken language (Anhang zit Credner's Gesch. N. T.
A'aitott, p. 341 f.).
3 If the fragment, as there is some reason to believe, was originally written
in Latin, it furnishes evidence that it was not written till the third century.
Dr. Westcott, who concludes from the order of the Gospels, etc. , that it was
not written in Africa, admits that "There is no evidence of the existence of
Christian Latin literature out of Africa till abqut the close of the second
century."
THE CANON OF MURATORI 429
a sentence " quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit" "at which
nevertheless he was present, and thus he placed it." The MS.
then proceeds : "Third book of the Gospel according to Luke.
Luke, that physician, after the ascension of Christ when Paul took
him with him , wrote it in his name as he deemed best (ex
opinione) nevertheless he had not himself seen the Lord in the
flesh and he too, as far as he could obtain information, also
begins to speak from the nativity of John." The text, at the
sense of which this is a closely approximate guess, though several
other interpretations might be maintained, is as follows : Tertio
evangelii librum secundo Litcan Lucas iste medicus post ascensum
Christi cum eo Paulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum adsum-
sisset numeni suo ex opinione concribset dominum tamen nee ipse
vidit in came et idem prout asequi potitit ita et ad nativitate
Johannis incipet dicere.
The MS. goes on to speak in more intelligible language " of
the fourth of the Gospels of John, one of the disciples" (Quarti
evangeliorum Johannis ex decipolis\ regarding the composition of
which the writer relates a legend, which we shall quote when we
come to deal with that Gospel. The fragment then proceeds to
mention the Acts of the Apostles which is ascribed to Luke
thirteen epistles of Paul in peculiar order, and it then refers to an
Epistle to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged,
in the name of Paul, after the heresy of Marcion, " and many
others which cannot be received by the Catholic Church, as gall
must not be mixed with vinegar." The Epistle to the Ephesians
bore the name of Epistle to the Laodiceans in the list of Marcion,
and this may be a reference to it. 1 The Epistle to the Alex-
andrians is generally identified with the Epistle to the Hebrews,
although some critics think this doubtful, or deny the fact, and
consider both Epistles referred to pseudographs attributed to the
Apostle Paul. The Epistle of Jude and two (the second and
third) Epistles of John are, with some tone of doubt, mentioned
amongst the received books, and so is the Book of Wisdom.
The Apocalypses of John and of Peter only are received, but
some object to the latter being read in church.
The Epistle of James, both Epistles of Peter, the Epistle to the
Hebrews (which is, however, probably that entitled here the Epistle
to the Alexandrians), and the first Epistle of John are omitted
altogether, with the exception of a quotation which is supposed
to be from the last-named Epistle, to which we shall hereafter
1 Tertullian, Adv. Marc., v. 17. Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon, p. 42; Scholten,
Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 129 ; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 190, note I. Cf.
Schnekenburger, Beitr. Einl. N. 7\, 1832, p. 153 f. It will be remembered
that reference is made in the Epistle to the Colossians to an Epistle to the
Laodiceans which is lost (Col. iv. 16).
430 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
refer. Special reference is made to the Shepherd of Hermas,
regarding which the writer expresses his opinion that it should
be read privately but not publicly in church, as it can be classed
neither amongst the books of the prophets nor of the apostles.
The fragment concludes with the rejection of the writings of
several heretics.
It is inferred that in the missing commencement of the frag-
ment the first two Synoptics must have been mentioned. This,
though of course most probable, cannot actually be ascer-
tained, and so far as these Gospels are concerned, therefore,
the "Canon of Muratori" only furnishes conjectural evidence.
The statement regarding the third Synoptic merely proves the
existence of that Gospel at the time the fragment was composed,
and we shall presently endeavour to form some idea of that date.
Beyond this, the information given does not at all tend to
establish the unusual credibility claimed for the Gospels. It is
declared by the fragment, as we have quoted, that the third Synoptic
was written by Luke, who had not himself seen the Lord, but
narrated the history as best he was able. It is worthy of remark,
moreover, that even the Apostle Paul, who took Luke with him
after the Ascension, had not been a follower of Jesus, nor had
seen him in the flesh ; and certainly he did not, by the showing
of his own Epistles, associate much with the other Apostles, so
that Luke could not have had much opportunity while with
him of acquiring any intimate knowledge of the events of
Gospel history. It is undeniable that the third Synoptic is not
the narrative of an eye-witness, and the occurrences which it
records did not take place in the presence or within the personal
knowledge of the writer, but were derived from tradition, or from
written sources. Such testimony, therefore, could not in any case
be of much service to our third Synoptic ; but when we consider
the uncertainty of the date at which the fragment was composed,
and the certainty that it could not have been written at an early
period, it will become apparent that the value of its evidence is
reduced to a minimum.
We have already mentioned that the writer of this fragment
is totally unknown, nor does there exist any clue by which
he can be identified. All the critics who have assigned an
early date to the composition of the fragment have based their
conclusion, almost solely, upon a statement made by the author
regarding the Shepherd of Hermas. He says : " Hermas in truth
composed the Shepherd very recently in our times in the
city of Rome, the Bishop Pius his brother, sitting in the
chair of the church of the city of Rome. And, therefore, it
should indeed be read, but it cannot be published in the
church to the people, neither being amorig the prophets, whose
THE CANON OF MURATORI 431
number is complete, nor amongst the apostles in the latter
days." 1
Muratori, the discoverer of the MS., conjectured for various
reasons, which need not be here detailed, that the fragment was
written by Caius the Roman Presbyter, who flourished at the end
of the second (c. A.D. 196) and beginning of the third century, and
in this he was followed by a few others. 2 The great mass of
critics, however, have rejected this conjecture, as they have
likewise negatived the fanciful ascription of the composition by
Simon de Magistris to Papias of Hierapolis,3 and by Bunsen to
Hegesippus.4 Such attempts to identify the unknown author are
obviously mere speculation, and it is impossible to suppose that,
had Papias, Hegesippus, or any other well-known writer of the
same period composed such a list, Eusebius could have failed to
refer to it, as so immediately relevant to the purpose of his work.
Thiersch even expressed a suspicion that the fragment was a
literary mystification on the part of Muratori himself. 5
The mass of critics, with very little independent consideration,
have taken literally the statement of the author regarding the
composition of the Shepherd " very recently in our times "
(nuperrime temporibus nostris), during the Episcopate of Pius (A.D.
142-157), and have concluded the fragment to have been written
towards the end of the second century, though we need scarcely
say that a few writers would date it even earlier. On the other
hand, and we consider with reason, many critics, including men
who will not be accused of opposition to an early Canon, assign
the composition to a later period, between the end of the second
or beginning of the third century, and some even to the fourth
century.
When we examine the ground upon which alone an early date
can be supported, it becomes apparent how slight the foundation is.
The only argument of any weight is the statement with regard to
the composition of the Shepherd; but, with the exception of the few
apologists who do not hesitate to assign a date totally inconsistent
with the state of the Canon described in the fragment, the great
majority of critics feel that they are forced to place the composition
not earlier than the end of the second century, at a period when
1 " Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hernia con-
scripsit sedente cathedra nrbis Ronue ecclesice Pio episcopus fratre ejtis et ideo
kgi eum quidem oportet se ptiblicare vero in ecclesia popitlo neque inter prophetas
coinplehnn numero neque inter apostolos in fine tempornm potest."
- Antiq. Ital., iii., p. 854 f. ; Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. Pair., 1788, ii., p. xxxiii. ;
Freindaller, apud Routh, Rel. Sai~r., i., p. 401 ; cf. Hefele, Patr. Ap. Proleg.,
p. Ixiii.
3 Daniel secundum LXX. 1772 ; Dissert., iv., p. 467 f.
4 Analecta Ante-Nic., 1854, i., p. 125 ; Hippolytus and his Age, i. p. 3144
5 Versuch, n. s. iv., p. 387.
432 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the statements in the fragment may better agree with the
actual opinions in the Church, and yet sufficiently accord with
the expression, " very recently in our times," as applied to the
period of Pius of Rome, 142-157. It must be evident that, taken
literally, a very arbitrary interpretation is given to this indication,
and in supposing that the writer may have appropriately used the
phrase thirty or forty years after the time of Pius, so much license
is taken that there is absolutely no reason why a still greater
interval may not be allowed. With this sole exception, there is
not a single word or statement in the fragment which would
oppose our assigning the composition to a late period of the third
century. Volkmar has very justly pointed out, however, that in saying
" very recently in our times " the writer merely intended to distin-
guish the Shepherd of Hermas from the writings of the Prophets
and Apostles : It cannot be classed amongst the Prophets whose
number is complete, nor amongst the Apostles, inasmuch as it was
only written in our post-apostolic time. This seems an accurate
interpretation of the expression, which might with perfect propriety
be used a century after the time of Pius. We have seen that there
has not appeared a single trace of any Canon in the writings
of the Fathers whom we have examined, and that the Old
Testament has been the only Holy Scripture they have acknow-
ledged ; and it is therefore unsafe, upon the mere interpre-
tation of an elastic phrase, to date this anonymous fragment
earlier than the very end of the second or beginning of the third
century, and it is still more probable that it was not written until
an advanced period of the third century. The expression used
with regard to Pius, " Sitting in the chair of the Church," is quite
unprecedented in the second century or until a very much later
date. It is argued that the fragment is imperfect, and that
sentences have fallen out; and in regard to this, and to the
assertion that it is a translation from the Greek, it has been well
remarked by a writer whose judgment on the point will scarcely be
called prejudiced : " If it is thus mutilated, why might it not also
be interpolated ? If, moreover, the translator was so ignorant of
Latin, can we trust his translation ? and what guarantee have we
that he has not paraphrased and expanded the original ? The
force of these remarks is peculiarly felt in dealing with the
paragraph which gives the date. The Pastor of Hermas was not
well known to the Western Church, and it was not highly
esteemed. It was regarded as inspired by the Eastern, and read
in the Eastern Churches. We have seen, moreover, that it was
extremely unlikely that Hermas was a real personage. It would
be, therefore, far more probable that we have here an interpolation,
or addition by a member of the Roman or African Church,
probably by the translator, made expressly for the purpose of
RESULTS 433
Serving as proof that the Pastor of Hernias was not inspired. The
paragraph itself bears unquestionable marks of tampering," 1 etc.
It would take us too far were we to discuss the various statements
of the fragment as indications of date, and the matter is not of
sufficient importance. It contains nothing involving an earlier
date than the third century.
The facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows, so far
as our object is concerned. The third Synoptic is mentioned by
a totally unknown writer, at an unknown, but certainly not
early, date in all probability during the third century in a
fragment which we possess in a very corrupt version, much
open to suspicion of interpolation in the precise part from which
the early date is inferred. The Gospel is attributed to Luke, who
was not one of the followers of Jesus, and of whom it is expressly
said that " he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh," but
wrote " as he deemed best (ex opinione)" and followed his history
as he was able (et idem f rout asequi potuit}* If the fragment of
Muratori, therefore, even came within our limits as to date, its evi-
dence would be of no value, for, instead of establishing the trust worthi-
ness and absolute accuracy of the narrative of the third Synoptic,
it distinctly tends to discredit it, inasmuch as it declares it to be
the composition of one who undeniably was not an eye-witness of
the miracles reported, but collected his materials as best he could
long after their supposed occurrence. 3
We may now briefly sum up the results of our examination of
the evidence for the synoptic Gospels. After having exhausted
the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not
found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels, with the
exception of the third, during the first century and a half after the
death of Jesus. Only once during the whole of that period do
we find even a tradition that any of our Evangelists composed a
Gospel at all, and that tradition, so far from favouring our
Synoptics, is fatal to the claims of the first and second. Papias,
about the middle of the second century, on the occasion to which
1 Donaldson, ffitf. Ckr> Lit. and Doch: , ,iii. , p. 2O2,
- The passage is freely rendered thus by Dr. Westcott : "The Gospel of
St. Luke, it is then said, stands third in order (in the Canon), having been
written by ' Luke the physician,' the companion of St. Paul, who, not being
himself an eye-witness, based his narrative on such information as he could
obtain, beginning from the birth of John" (On the Cation, p. 187).
3 We do not propose to consider the Ophites and Peratici, obscure Gnostic
sects towards the end of the second century. There is no direct evidence
regarding them, and the testimony of writers in the third century, like Hippo-
lytus, is of no value for the Gospels. Further on, in Connection with the
Acts of the Apostles, we shall state reasons for ascribing a late date for the
composition of the third Gospel.
434 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
we refer, records that Matthew composed the Discourses of the
Lord in the Hebrew tongue, a statement which totally excludes
the claim of our Greek Gospel to apostolic origin. Mark, he said,
wrote down from the casual preaching of Peter the sayings and
doings of Jesus, but without orderly arrangement, as he was not
himself a follower of the Master, and merely recorded what fell
from the Apostle. This description, likewise, shows that our
actual second Gospel could not, in its present form, have been the
work of Mark. There is no other reference during the period to
any writing of Matthew or Mark, and no mention at all of any
work ascribed to Luke. The identification of Marcion's Gospel
with our third Synoptic proves the existence of that work before
A.D. 140; but no evidence is thus obtained either as to the
author or the character of his work ; but, on the contrary, the
testimony of the great heresiarch is so far unfavourable to that
Gospel, as it involves a charge against it of being interpolated and
debased by Jewish elements. The freedom with which Marcion
expurgated and altered it clearly shows that he did not regard it
either as a sacred or canonical work. Any argument for the mere
existence of our Synoptics based upon their supposed rejection by
heretical leaders and sects has the inevitable disadvantage that the
very testimony which would show their existence would oppose
their authenticity. There is no evidence of their use by heretical
leaders, however, and no direct reference to them by any writer,
heretical or orthodox, whom we have examined. If it be con-
sidered that the Diatessaron of Tatian is based upon our Synoptics,
all that is established by the fact is their existence about the last
quarter of the second century, and no appreciable addition is
made to our knowledge of their authorship. It is unnecessary to
add that no reason whatever has been shown for accepting the
testimony of these Gospels as sufficient to establish the reality of
miracles and of a direct Divine Revelation. 1 It is not pretended
that more than one of the synoptic Gospels was written by an
eye-witness of the miraculous occurrences reported ; and, whilst no
evidence has been, or can be, produced even of the historical
accuracy of the narratives, no testimony as to the correctness of
the inferences from the external phenomena exists, or is now even
conceivable. The discrepancy between the amount of evidence
required and that which is forthcoming, however, is greater than,
under the circumstances, could have been thought possible.
1 A comparison of the contents of the three Synoptics would have con-
firmed this conclusion ; but this is not at present necessary.
J>ART III;
THE FOURTH GOSPEL
CHAPTER I.
THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
WE shall now examine, in the same order, the witnesses already
cited in connection with the Synoptics, and ascertain what
evidence they furnish for the date and authenticity of the fourth
Gospel.
Apologists do not even allege that there is any reference to the
fourth Gospel in the so-called Epistle of Clement of Rome to the
Corinthians. 1
A few critics 2 pretend to find a trace of it in the Epistle of
Barnabas, in the reference to the brazen Serpent as a type of
Jesus. Tischendorf states the case as follows :
" And when in the same chapter xii. it is shown how Moses, in
the brazen serpent, made a type of Jesus ' who should suffer (die)
and yet himself make alive,' the natural inference is that Barnabas
connected therewith John iii. 14 f., even if the use of this passage
in particular cannot be proved. Although this connection cannot
be affirmed, since the author of the Epistle, in this passage as in
many others, may be independent, yet it is justifiable to ascribe
1 Dr. Westcott, however, cannot resist the temptation to press Clement
into service. He says : " In other passages it is possible to trace the influence
of St. John, ' The blood of Christ hath gained for the whole world the offer of
the grace of repentance.' ' Through Him we look steadfastly on the heights
of heaven ; through Him we view as in a glass (eVoTrrpt^etfa) His spot-
less and most excellent visage; through Him the eyes of our heart
were open ; through Him our dull and darkened understanding is
quickened with new vigour on turning to his marvellous light.' " He does not
indicate more clearly the nature and marks of the "influence" to which he refers.
As he also asserts that the Epistle " affirms the teaching of St. Paul and St.
James," and that the Epistle to the Hebrews is ' ' wholly transfused into
Clement's mind," such an argument does not require a single remark (On the
Canon, p. 23 f.).
2 Lardner, Dr. Westcott, and others, do not refer to it at all.
435
436 sUPEkNAf UkAL kELlGioN
the greatest probability to its. dependence on the passage in
John, as the tendency of the Epistle in no way required a
particular leaning to the expression of John. The dispropor-
tionately more abundant use of express quotations from the Old
Testament in Barnabas is, on the contrary, connected most
intimately with the tendency of his whole composition." 1
It will be observed that the suggestion of reference to the fourth
Gospel is here advanced in a very hesitating way, and does not
indeed go beyond an assertion of probability. We might, there-
fore, well leave the matter without further notice, as the reference
in no case could be of any weight as evidence. On examination of
the context, however, we find that there is every reason to conclude
that the reference to the brazen serpent is made direct to the Old
Testament. The author, who delights in typology, is bent upon
showing that the cross is prefigured in the Old Testament. He
gives a number of instances, involving the necessity for a display
of ridiculous ingenuity of explanation, which should prepare
us to find the type of the brazen serpent naturally selected*
After pointing out that Moses, with his arms" stretched out
in prayer that the Israelites might prevail in the fight, was a
type of the cross, he goes on to say : " Again Moses makes a type
of Jesus, that he must suffer and himself make alive (KOI CU'TOS
wo7ron/(r), whom they will appear to have destroyed, in a
figure, while Israel was falling " ? and connecting the circumstance
that the people were bit by serpents and died with the trans-
gression of Eve by means of the serpent, he goes on to narrate
minutely the story of Moses and the brazen serpent, and then
winds up with the words: "Thou hast in this the glory of
Jesus ; that in him are all things and for him."^ No one can read
the whole passage carefully without seeing that the reference is
direct to the Old Testament. There is no ground for supposing
that the author was acquainted with the fourth Gospel.
To the Shepherd of Hermas Tischendorf devotes only two lines,
in which he states that " it has neither quotations from the Old nor
from the New Testament." Dr. Westcott makes the same state-
ment,'* but, unlike the German apologist, he proceeds subsequently
to affirm that Hermas makes " clear allusions to St. John," which
few or no apologists support. This assertion he elaborates and
illustrates as follows :
" The view which Hermas gives of Christ's nature and work is
no less harmonious with apostolic doctrine, and it offers striking
analogies to the Gospel of St. John. Not only did the Son
' appoint angels to preserve each of those whom the Father gave
1 U'ann ivtirdcn, it. s. w.. 06 f. '-' Ch. xii.
* * %
3 Ch. xii.; cf. Hcb. ii. 10; Rom. xi. 36. 4 On the Canon, p. 175.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 437
to him,' but ' He himself toiled very much and suffered very
much to cleanse our sins And so when he himself had
cleansed the sins of the people, he showed them the paths of life
by giving them the Law which he received from his Father.' 1 He
is ' a Rock higher than the mountains, able to hold the whole
world ; ancient, and yet having a new gate.' 2 ' His name is great
and infinite, and the whole world is supported by him. '3 ' He is
older than Creation, so that he took counsel with the Father about
the creation which he made.'+ ' He is the sole way of access to
the Lord ; and no one shall enter in unto him otherwise than by
his Son.' "s
This is all 1 )r. Westcott says on the subject. 6 He does not
attempt to point out any precise portions of the fourth Gospel with
which to compare these " striking analogies," nor does he produce
any instances of similarity of language, or of the use of the same
terminology as the Gospel in this apocalyptic allegory. It is
clear that such evidence could in no case be of any value for the
fourth Gospel.
When we examine more closely, however, it becomes certain
that these passages possess no real analogy with the fourth Gospel,
and were not derived from it. There is no part of them that has
not close parallels in writings antecedent to our Gospel, and there
is no use of terminology peculiar to it. The author does not even
once use the term Logos. Dr. Westcott makes no mention of the
fact that the doctrine of the Logos and of the pre-existence of
Jesus was enunciated long before the composition of the fourth
Gospel, with almost equal clearness and fulness, and that its
development can be traced through the Septuagint translation, the
" Proverbs of Solomon," some of the Apocryphal works of the Old
Testament, the writings of Philo, the Apocalypse, and the Epistle
to the Hebrews, as well as the Pauline Epistles. To any one who
examines the passages cited from the work of Hernias, and still
more to any one acquainted with the history of the Logos
doctrine, it will, we fear, seem wasted time to enter upon any
minute refutation of such imaginary " analogies." We shall, how-
ever, as briefly as possible refer to each passage quoted.
The first is taken from an elaborate similitude with regard to
true fasting, in which the world is likened to a vineyard, and, in
explaining his parable, the Shepherd says : " God planted the
vineyard ; that is, he created the people and gave them to his Son :
and the Son appointed his angels over them to keep them : and he
himself cleansed their sins, having suffered many things and
endured many labours He himself, therefore, having cleansed
1 Simil., v. 6. - Ib., ix. 2, 12. 3 Ib.y ix. 14.
4 //;., ix. 12, quoted above. 3 A, ix. 12. c On the Canon, p. 177 f,
438 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the sins of the people, showed them the paths of life by giving
them the Law which he received from his Father." 1
It is difficult indeed to find anything in this passage which is in
the slightest degree peculiar to the fourth Gospel, or apart from
the whole teaching of the Epistles, and more especially the
Epistle to the Hebrews. We may point out a few passages for
comparison: Heb. i. 2-4; ii. 10-11; v. 8-9; vii. 12, 17-19;
viii. 6-10 ; x. 10-16; Romans viii. 14-17; Matt. xxi. 33; Mark
xii. i ; Isaiah v. 7, liii.
The second passage is taken from a similar parable on the
building of the Church : (a) " And in the middle of the plain he
showed me a great white rock which had risen out of the plain,
and the rock was higher than the mountains, rectangular so as to
be able to hold the whole world, but that rock was old, having a
gate (irvXij) hewn out of it, and the hewing out of the gate (irv\i))
seemed to me to be recent." 2 Upon this rock the tower of the
Church is built. Further on an explanation is given of the simili-
tude, in which occurs another of the passages referred to. (ft)
" This rock (Tre-r/aa) and this gate (irvXr)) are the Son of God.
' How, Lord,' I said, ' is the rock old and the gate new ?'
' Listen,' he said, ' and understand, thou ignorant man. (y)
The Son of God is older than all of his creation (6 /ACI/ vlos
roP 6eov Trdcrrjs TT/S KTwmus avrov Trpoyevto-Ttpos to-riv), so that
he was a councillor with the Father in his work of creation ; and
for this is he old.' (8) 'And why is the gate new, Lord?' I
said. ' Because,' he replied, ' he was manifested in the last days
(or' ea-yjoLTiDv TWV rj^epiov) of the dispensation ; for this cause
the gate was made new, in order that they who shall be saved
might enter by it into the kingdom of God.' "3
And a few lines lower down the Shep/ierd further explains,
referring to entrance through the gate, and introducing another of
the passages cited : (e) " ' In this way,' he said, ' no one shall enter
into the kingdom of God unless he receive his holy name. If,
therefore, you cannot enter into the City unless through its gate,
so also,' he said, 'a man cannot enter in any other way into the
kingdom of God than by the name of his Son beloved by him '
'and the gate (TTI'AT/) is the Son of God. This is the one entrance
to the Lord.' In no other way, therefore, shall any one enter in
to him, except through his Son."-*
With regard to the similitude of a rock, we need scarcely
say that the Old Testament teems with it ; and we need not point
to the parable of the house built upon a rock in the first Gospel. s
1 Simil., v. 6. * //>., ix. 2.
3 Ib. t ix. 12. Philo represents the Logos as a rock (irfrpa). Quod det.
potion insid., 31, Mangey, i. 213.
4 Simil,, ix. 12. 5 Mitt. vii. 24.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 439
A more apt illustration is the famous saying with regard to Peter :
" And upon this rock (Trer/oa) I will build my Church," upon
which, indeed, the whole similitude of Hermas turns; and in
i Cor. x. 4 we read : " For they drank of the Spiritual Rock
accompanying them ; but the Rock was Christ " (7; irtrpa. & ijv
o Xpwrros). There is no such similitude in the fourth Gospel
at all.
We then have the " gate," on which we presume Dr. Westcott
chiefly relies. The parable in John x. 1-9 is quite different from
that of Hermas, 1 and there is a persistent use of different
terminology. The door into the sheepfold is always 6vpa, the
gate in the rock always TrvXij. " I am the door " 2 (lyw ei/xt >)
Ovpa) is twice repeated in the fourth Gospel. " The gate is the
Son of God " (?) Tri'Ar/ 6 vtos TOV Qsov IcmV) is the declaration of
Hermas. On the other hand, there are numerous passages, else-
where, analogous to that in the Shepherd of Hermas. Every one
will remember the injunction in the Sermon on the Mount : Matt,
vii. 13, 14. "Enter in through the strait gate (TrvXrj), for wide
is the gate (irvAr/), etc., 14. Because narrow is the gate (TrvA.?^) and
straitened is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be
that find it." 3 The limitation to the one way of entrance into the
kingdom of God, " by the name of his Son," is also found every-
where throughout the Epistles, and likewise in the Acts of the
Apostles ; as, for instance, Acts iv. 13:" And there is no
salvation in any other : for neither is there any other name under
heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,"
The reasons given why the rock is old and the gate new (y, 8)
have anything but special analogy with the fourth Gospel. We
are, on the contrary, taken directly to the Epistle to the Hebrews
in which the pre-existence of Jesus is prominently asserted, and
between which and the Shepherd, as in a former passage, we find
singular linguistic analogies. For instance, take the whole opening
portion of Heb. i. i : " God having at many times and in many
manners spoken in times past to the fathers by the prophets,
2. At the end of these days (r' fa-^drov TW
spake to us in the Son whom he appointed heir
of all things, by whom he also made the worlds, 3. Who being
* Cf. Heb. ix. 24, 11-12, etc. 2 John x. 7, 9.
3 Compare the account of the new Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 12 f. ; cf. xxii.
4, 14. In Siini/. ix. 13 it is insisted that, to enter into the kingdom, not only
(< his name" must be borne, but that we must put on certain clothing.
4 We may remark that in the parable Ilermas speaks of the son as the heir
(K\ijpoi>6/j.os), and of the slave who is the true son also as co-heir
(<ri>yK\7)pov6tJi.os), and a few lines below the passage above quoted, of the
heirship (KXrjpovofjLias). This is another indication of the use of this Epistle,
the peculiar expression in regard to the son " whom he appointed heir
(K\y]pov6/j.os) of all things" occurring here (cf. fiimi/. t v. 2, 6).
440 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the brightness of his glory and the express image of his substance,
upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made
by himself a cleansing of our sins sat down at the right hand of
Majesty on high, 4. Having become so much better than the
angels," 1 etc.; and if we take the different clauses we may also
find them elsewhere constantly repeated, as for instance : (y)
The son older than all his creation : compare 2 Tim. i., 9, Col.
i. 15 ("who is the first born of all creation" os la-riv
TT^HOTOTO/COS Trao-T/5 KTMT(os), 1 6, 1 7, 1 8, Rev. in. 14, x. 6. The
works of Philo are full of this representation of the Logos. For
example : " For the Word of God is over all the universe, and
the oldest and most universal of all things created" (KOL o
Aoyos 8c rov dfov iVe/Mtvw irai/ros m rov Koayxov, /cai Tr^err-
/^UTCITOS Ka.1 yeviKMTaros TWV ocra yeyoi/e). 2 Again, as to the
second clause, that he assisted the Father in the work of creation,
compare Heb. ii. 10, i. 2, xi. 3, Rom. xi. 36, r Cor. viii. 6,
Col. i 15, 1 6.3
The only remaining passage is the following : " The name of
the Son of God is great and infinite, and supports the whole world."
For the first phrase, compare a Tim. iv. 18, Heb. i. 8 ; and for
the second part of the sentence, Heb, i. 3, Col, i, 1 7, and many
other passages quoted above.-*
The whole assertion 5 is devoid of foundation, and might well
have been left unnoticed. The attention called to it, however,
may not be wasted in observing the kind of evidence with which
apologists are compelled to be content.
It would scarcely be necessary to refer to The Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles in connection with the fourth Gospel, for no
critic that we are aware of has claimed that it contains any
1 Ilel). i. i f.
- Leg. A/leg., iii., 61, Mangey, i., p. 121 ; cf. DC Confim. Ling., 28,
Mang., i., p. 427, 14, jb., i., p. 414; De Proftigh, 19, Mang, , i. 561 :
De Carita/e, 2, Mang., ii. 385, etc. The Logos is constantly called by
1'hilo "the first-begotten of God" (irpwrfS-yoi'os 6eoi" Aefyos) ; "the most
ancient son of God " (irpffffivTaros i>toj Oeoi").
3 Cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg. t iii., 31, Mangey, i. 106 ; De Cherubim, 35,
Mang., i. 162, etc.
4 Cf. Philo, De Profitgis, 20, Mangey, i. 562 ; Frag. Mangey, ii. 655 ;
De Soniniis, i., 41, Mang., i. 656.
5 Dr. Westcott also says: " In several places also St. John's teaching on 'the
Truth ' lies at the ground of Hernias' words," and in a note he refers to
" Mand. iii. \ John ii. 27; iv. 6," without specifying any passage of the
book (On the Canon, p. 176, and note 4). Such unqualified assertions
unsupported by any evidence cannot be too strongly condemned. Dr.
Westcott's own words maybe quoted against himself: "It is impossible to
exaggerate the mischief done by these vague general statements, which
produce a permanent impression wholly out of proportion with the minute
element of truth which is hidden in them ",(> the Canon, 4th ed,,
p. 156, n. I).
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 441
quotation from that Gospel ; but a few consider that in parts
it exhibits a Johannine spirit which seems to indicate at least
acquaintance with the fourth Gospel. This is said to be chiefly
or only found in the Eucharistic prayers of the Didache ix. and x.,
and it may, therefore, be well to say a few words on the subject.
In x. 2, the principal passage, we read: "We thank thee, holy
Father, for thy holy name which thou hast caused to dwell
(KaTeo-K?ji'wo-a) in our hearts." This verse is supposed by those
who entertain the Johannine theory to be connected with John i. 14 :
" The Word dwelt (eo-Kr/rwo-ev) amongst us," and reliance is
specially placed on the use of this verb not a very strong basis
upon which to rest such a theory. Dr. Taylor has pointed out,
however, that instead of there being no precedent for the transitive
sense of the Greek word KUTMTK^VOM, to make to dwell, it is found
in the Septuagint version of Jeremiah vii. 12:" But go ye now
unto my place which was in Shiloh, where I caused my name to
dwell (ov KaTefrKt'/vwra TO ovopA p.ov IKCI e/ji7rpo<r$ei'). 1 It is all
the more appropriate to find this passage in Jeremiah, as the
germ of the "Two Ways," from which the Didache has grown,
is also derived from the same prophet, xxi. 8. A similar phrase
occurs in Neh. ii. 9, " and will bring them unto the place
that I have chosen to cause my name to dwell there "
(/fttTCfnoji'dxrcu TO oVojuxx /JLOV e/cei).
With regard to the Eucharistic prayer which we have quoted,
Dr. Taylor says: "The Thanksgiving opens with a simple
Hebraism"; 2 and, treating generally of the Eucharistic passage of
the Didache, Mr. Rendel Harris has rightly and ably pointed out:
" The prayers are full of reminiscence of the Jewish Passover
ritual, and capable of direct illustration from the Jewish Service-
books of the present day; and even in those parts of the thanks-
giving where no direct parallel can be made the language of the
teaching is utterly Jewish. Take, for example, the rule of prayer
given in Berachoth f. 40 b : 'All blessing in which there is no
mention of the Name is not a blessing'; And the 'Name' is
found in the expression, ' Thy holy Name which thou hast
caused to dwell in our hearts.' Nothing could be more evidently
Jewish. "3
This practically disposes of the allegation which we are examin-
ing, and, for the rest, if this anonymous work had really any
reminiscences of the fourth Gospel, which can fully be denied,
these could do nothing to establish its authenticity or value as
testimony for miracles.
Tischendorf points out two passages in the Epistles of psendo-
1 The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, p. 73 f.
- Ib., p. 73. 3 T] ie Teaching of the Apostles, p. 89.
.442 ,>r SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Ignatius which, he considers, show the use of the fourth Gospel. 1
They are as follows Epistle to the Romans vii.: "I desire the
bread of God, the bread of heaven, the bread of life, which is
the flesh of Jesus Christ the son of God, who was born at a later
time of the seed of David and Abraham ; and I desire the drink
of God (irofjM 0eov), that is his blood, which is love incorruptible,
;and eternal life " (deyvaoy C"^)- 2 This is compared with John vi. 41 :
" I am the bread which came down from heaven," 48 "I am
the bread of life," 51 "And the bread that I will give is my
flesh "; 54. " He who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood
hath everlasting life " (tw?)v aiwviov). Scholten has pointed out that
the reference to Jesus as "born of the seed of David and Abra-
ham " is not in the spirit of the fourth Gospel ; and the use of
7r6/jia Oeov for the TTOO-IS of vi. 55, and dei/wos <inj instead of w?)
atwvios, are also opposed to the connection with that Gospel. 3
On the other hand, in the institution of the Supper, the bread is
.described as the body of Jesus, and the wine as his blood ; and
reference is made there, and elsewhere, to eating bread and drinking
wine in the kingdom of God, 4 and the passage seems to be nothing
but a development of this teaching, s Nothing could be proved by
such an analogy.
The second passage referred to by Tischendorf is in the Epistle
to the Philadelphians vii. : "For if some would have led me astray
according to the flesh, yet the Spirit is not led astray, being from
God, for it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, and
detecteth the things that are hidden." 6 Tischendorf considers that
these words are based upon John iii. 6-8, and the last phrase,
" And detecteth the hidden things," upon verse 20. The sense of
the Epistle, however, is precisely the reverse of that of the Gospel,
which reads: "The wind bloweth where it listeth; and thou hearest
the sound thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh and whither
it goeth ; so is every one that is born of the Spirit " ;i whilst the
Epistle does not refer to the wind at all, but affirms that the
Spirit of God does know whence it cometh, etc. The analogy in
verse 20 is still more remote : " For every one that doeth evil
hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should
be detected." 8 In i Cor. ii. 10 the sense is found more closely ;
" For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, even the deep things of
God. "9 It is evidently unreasonable to assert from such a passage
1 Wnnn wurden, u. s. w., p. 22 f. Liicke does not attach much weight to
any of the supposed allusions in these Epistles ( Connii. Ev. Joh., i., p, 43;
cf. Sanday, Gospels in Sec. Cen. , p. 273 f. ).
2 Ad A'otn., vii. 3 Die alt. Zeusptisse, p. 54.
4 Matt. xxvi. 26-29 ? Mark xiv. 22-25 5 Luke xxii. 17-20; I Cor. xi. 23-25 ;
cf. Luke xiv. 15.
5 Cf. Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p, 54. , 6 Ad Philailetyh. , vii,
* John iii. 8. 8 John iii. 20, 9 j Cor, ii. 10.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 443
the use of the fourth Gospel. Even Tischendorf recognises that
in themselves the phrases which he points out in Pseudo-Ignatius
could not, unsupported by other corroboration, possess much
weight as testimony for the use of our Gospels. He says: ''Were
these allusions of Ignatius to Matthew and John a wholly isolated
phenomenon, and one which perhaps other undoubted results of
inquiry wholly contradicted, they would hardly have any con-
clusive weight. But ."' Dr. Westcott says : The " Jgnatian
writings, as might be expected, are not without traces of the influence
of St. John. The circumstances in which he was placed required a
special enunciation of Pauline doctrine ; but this is not so expressed
as to exclude the parallel lines of Christian thought. Love is ' the
stamp of the Christian ' {Ad Magn. v,). ' Faith is the beginning
and love the end of life ' (Ad Ephes. xiv.). ' Faith is our guide
upward ' (araywytvs), but love is the road that ' leads to God '
(Ad Eph. ix.). 'The Eternal (aiStos) Word is the manifestation
of God ' (Ad Magn. viii.), ' the door by which we come to the
Father' (Ad Philad. ix., cf. John x. 7), 'and without Him we have
not the principle of true life ' (Ad Trail, ix. : ov x w ps TO dXrjdtvov
fyflv OVK H xofj.tr. cf. Ad Eph. iii. : 'I.X. TO doiaKpirov fjp.iov $v).
The true meat of the Christian is the ' bread of God, the bread of
heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ,' and
his drink is ' Christ's blood, which is love incorruptible ' (Ad Rom.
vii., cf. John vi. 32, 51, 53). He has no love of this life; 'his love
has been crucified, and he has in him no burning passion for the
world, but living water (as the spring of a new life), speaking
within him, and bidding him come to his Father ' {Ad Rom. \. c.).
Meanwhile his enemy is the enemy of his Master, even the ' ruler
of this age ' {Ad Rom. 1. c., o Hpykw rov aaovos TOVTOV. Cf. John
xii. 31, xvi. ii : o ap^ow rov Koo-p-ov TOVTOV and see i Cor. ii.
6, 8 2 )."
Part of these references we have already considered ; others of
them really do not require any notice, and the only one to
which we need direct our attention for a moment may be the
passage from the Epistle to the Philadelphians ix., which reads :
" He is the Door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob and the prophets, and the apostles, and the Church."-"
This is compared with John x. 7. "Therefore said Jesus again:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the Sheep " (yw
elp.L -f] 6vpa TIOV 7r/3o/3aTo>v). We have already referred, a few
pages back,4 to the image of the door. Here again it is obvious
that there is a marked difference in the sense of the Epistle from
1 Wann wnrden, u. s. TV., p. 23.
2 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 32 f., and notes. We have inserted in the text
the references given in the notes,
3 Ad Phi '/ad., ix. * P. 438 f.
444 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
that of the Gospel. In the latter Jesus is said to he the door into
the Sheepfold ; T whilst in the Epistle he is the door into' the
Father, through which not only the patriarchs, prophets, and
apostles enter, but also the Church itself. Such distant analogy
cannot warrant the conclusion that the passage shows any acquain-
tance with the fourth Gospel. As for the other phrases, they are
not only without special bearing upon the fourth Gospel, but they
are everywhere found in the canonical Epistles, as well as else-
where. Regarding love and faith, for instance, compare Gal. v. 6,
14, 22; Rom. xii. 9, 10, viii. 39, xiii. 9; i Cor. ii. 9, viii. 3;
Ephes. iii. 17, v. i, 2, vi. 23 ; Philip, i. 9, ii. 2 ; 2 Thess. iii. 5 ; i
Tim. i. 14, vi. n ; 2 Tim. i. 13 ; Heb. x. 38 f., xi., etc.
We might point out many equally close analogies in the works
of Philo, 2 but it is unnecessary to do so, although we may indicate
one or two which first present themselves. Philo equally has
" the Eternal Logos " (<> aiSios Aoyo?),3 whom he represents as the
manifestation of God in every way. " The Word is the likeness of
God, by whom the universe was created " (Aoyos 8e &mv CI.KMV
6eov } oY o? o-iyx7ras 6 Kooyz,os tS^jJt*ovpy&TO^ He is " the vice-
gerent " (vjropxs) of God, 5 " the heavenly incorruptible food of
the soul," "the bread (a/>ros) from heaven." In one place he
says: "and they who inquired what is the food of the soul
learnt at last that it is the word of God, and the Divine Logos
This is the heavenly nourishment, and it is mentioned in the holy
Scriptures saying, ' Lo ! I rain upon you bread (apros) from
heaven ' (Exod. xvi. 4). ' This is the bread (a/>ros) which the
Lord has given them to eat ' " (Exod. xvi. 1 5). 6 And again : " For
the one indeed raises his eyes towards the sky, contemplating the
manna, the divine Word, the heavenly incorruptible food of the long-
ing soul. "7 Elsewhere : " but it is taught by the Hierophant
and Prophet Moses, who will say : 'This is the bread (apros), the
nourishment which God gave to the soul ' that he offered his
own Word and his own Logos ; for this is bread (<ipros) which he
1 Compare the whole passage, John x. 1-16.
- Philo's birth is dated at least twenty to thirty years before our era, and his
death about A.r>. 40. His principal works were certainly written l>efore his
embassy to Caius. Dahne, Gesi'h. DarsteU. jiid. ale.v. Religions- Fhilos. , 1834,
i abth., p. 98, anm. 2; Delaunay, Philon d'Aiexcmdrie, 1867, p. n f. ; Ewnld,
Cesfh. d. V. /sr., vi., p. 239; Gfrorer, Gesdi. des Urchristenthitms, i., p. 5,
p. 37 f., p. 45.
3 De plant. Noe, 5, Mang., i. 332 ; De Mttndo, 2, Mang., ii. 604.
4 De Monarchia, ii., 5 ; Mang., ii. 225.
5 De Agriailt.y 12, Mang., i. 308 ; De Sowniis, i., 41, Mang., i. 656 ;
cf. Coloss. i. 15 ; Heb. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4.
6 De Profugis, 25, Mang., i. 566.
7 Qttis rerum Dt'v. Heres., 15, Mang., i. 484; Quod det. potion insid.,
31, Mang., i. 213.-
445
has given us to eat, this is the Word (TO pj/xa)." 1 He also says :
" Therefore he exhorts him that can run swiftly to strive with
breathless eagerness towards the Divine Word, who is, above all
things, the fountain of Wisdom, in order that, by drinking of the
stream, instead of death he may for his reward obtain eternal
life." 2 It is the Logos who guides us to the Father, God " by the
same Logos both creating all things and leading up (avaywi/) the
perfect man from the things of earth to himself." 3 These are very
imperfect examples, but it may be asserted that there is not a
representation of the Logos in the fourth Gospel which has not
close parallels in the works of Philo.
We have given these passages of the Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles
which are pointed out as indicating acquaintance with the fourth
Gospel, in order that the whole case might be stated and
appreciated. The analogies are too distant to prove anything, but
were they fifty times more close, they could do little or nothing to
establish an early origin for the fourth Gospel, and nothing at all
to elucidate the question as to its character and authorship.* The
Epistles in which the passages occur are spurious, and of no value
as evidence for the fourth Gospel. Only one of them is found in
the three Syriac Epistles. We have already stated the facts
connected with the so-called Epistles qf Ignatius^ and no
one who has attentively examined them can fail to see that the
testimony of such documents cannot be considered of any historic
weight, except for a period when evidence of the use of the fourth
Gospel ceases to be of any significance.
It is not pretended that the so-called Epistle of Polytarp to the
Philippians contains any references to the fourth Gospel. Tischen-
dorf, however, affirms that it is weighty testimony for that
Gospel, inasmuch as he discovers in it a certain trace of the first
" Epistle of John " and; as he maintains that the Epistle and the
Gospel are the works of the same author, any evidence for the one
is at the same time evidence for the other. 6 We shall hereafter
consider the point of the common authorship of the Epistles
and fourth Gospel, and here confine ourselves chiefly to
the alleged fact of the reference. The passage to which
Tischendorf alludes we subjoin, with the supposed parallel in the
Epistle.
1 Leg. Alleg., iii. , 60, Mang., i. 121 ; cf. ib,, g 6l, 62.
2 DC Profngis, 1 8, Mang., i. 560.
3 De Sacrif. Abe/is et Caini, 3 ; Mang., i. 165.
4 In general the Epistles follow the Synoptic narratives, and not the account
of the fourth Gospel. See, for instance, the reference to the anointing of Jesus,
Ad Eph. xvii., cf. Matt. xxvi. 7 f. ; Mark xiv. 3 f., cf, John xii. I f.
s P. 158 f.
~' n-'anii wuracn, u. s. w., p. 24 f.
446 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
EPISTLE OF POLYCARP, vn. i i EPISTLE OF JOHN, iv. 3.
For whosoever doth not confess ! And every spirit that confesseth not
the Lord Jesus come in the flesh is not
of God, and this is the (spirit] of Anti-
christ of which ye have heard that it
cometh, and now already it is in the
world*
Kett irav trvevfJia 5 /AT; 6/J.o\oyei
! Ii)o~ovt> Kvpiov ev ffapKl f\rj\vf)6ra, fK
TOV fftOV OVK ZffTlV, KO.I TOUT<J 0~TIV TO
TOV dvTi%piffTov, 6 TI dKr)Koafji.v fin
; Kal vvv fv rf KoV/uy e <srlv tfdr]. l
that Jesus Christ hath come in the
flesh is Antichrist, and whosoever
doth not confess the martyrdom of
the cross is of the devil, and whoso-
ever doth pervert the oracles of the
Lord to his own lusts, and saith that
there is neither resurrection nor
judgment, he is a firstborn of Satan<
lias yap, 6s av /j.rj opoXoyfi, 'Itjffovv
HpiffTov v ffapKl 4Xr)\v6evai, dvTl-
X/3t0T<5s o~TLV Kal 6s av /a?) o/uoXoyj}
TO fiapTvpiov TOV o~Tavpov, e/c TOV
8iafi6\ov effTiv Kal 6's av fj.fdoSevfi TO.
\6yia TOV Kvpiov irpbs TO.S ISlas tiriOv-
fjilas, Kal \eyei /xijYe dv<iffTao~iv fj.rrrf
Kplffiv, OVTOS Tr/wrdVoKo's 4ffTi TOV
Sarai'fi.
This passage does not occur as a quotation, and the utmost
that can be said of the few words with which it opens is that a
phrase somewhat resembling, but at the same time materially
differing from, the Epistle of John is interwoven with the text of
the Epistle to the Philippians. If this were really a quotation from
the canonical Epistle, it would indeed be singular that, considering
the supposed relations of Polycarp and John, the name of the
apostle should not have been mentioned, and a quotation have
been distinctly and correctly made. On the other hand, there is
no earlier trace of the canonical Epistle, and, as Volkmar argues,
it may be doubted whether it may not rather be dependent on the
Epistle to tfie Philippians, than the latter upon the Epistle of
John. 2
We believe, with Scholten, that neither is dependent on the
other, but that both adopted a formula in use in the early Church
'' We give the text of the Sinaitic Codex as the most favourable. A great
'majority of the other MSS., and all the more important, present very marked
difference from this reading. [In reference to this, Ur. Westcott has the
following note in the 4th edition of his work, On the Canon, p. 50, n. 2 : " The
author of Supernatural Religion gives (ii., p. 268) a good example of the
facility with which similar phrases are mixed up, when, with the Greek text of
St. John before him, he quotes as ' I John iv. 3,' Kal ir'dv irvev^a., K. r. X. (quot-
'ing the passage in the text above). Is this also taken from an apocryphal
writing ?" No, as was clearly stated in the note, it is taken from the Codex
Sinaitifiis. Dr. Westcott ought to have observed this. At the end of his
volume, in a page of "addenda," he says : "I should have added that the
singular combination of phrases which is quoted is taken from Cod. Sin. The
words, as they stand, are liable to be misunderstood." In this he does himself
injustice. It would not be easy to misunderstand the sarcastic question, and
still less the curious addition made when his mistake was pointed out to him.J
2 Volkiuar, Der Unpntng, p. 48 f.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 447
against various heresies, 1 the superficial coincidence of which is
without any weight as evidence for the use of either Epistle by
the writer of the other. Moreover, it is clear that the writers refer
to different classes of heretics. Polycarp attacks the Docetas who
deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, that is with a
human body of flesh and blood; whilst the Epistle of John is
directed against those who deny that Jesus who has come in the
flesh is the Christ the Son of God. 2 Volkmar points out that in.
Polycarp the word " Antichrist " is made a proper name, whilst in
the Epistle the expression used is the abstract " Spirit of Anti-
Christ." Polycarp, in fact, says that whoever denies the flesh of
Christ is no Christian but anti-Christ, and Volkmar finds this
direct assertion more original than the assertion of the Epistle :
" Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
is of God," 3 etc. In any case it seems to us clear that in both
writings we have only the independent enunciation, with decided
difference of language and sense, of a formula current in the
Church, and that neither writer can be held to have originated the
condemnation, in these words, of heresies which the Church had
begun vehemently to oppose, and which were merely an
application of ideas already well known, as we see from the
expression of the Epistle in reference to the Spirit of Antichrist,
" of which ye have heard that it cometh." Whether this phrase be
an allusion to the Apocalypse xiii., or to 2 Thess. ii., or to
traditions current in the Church, we need not inquire ; it is
sufficient that the Epistle of John avowedly applies a prophecy
regarding Antichrist already known amongst Christians, which was
equally open to the other writer, and probably familiar in the
Church. This cannot under any circumstances be admitted as
evidence of weight for the use of the first Epistle of John.
There is no evidence of the existence of the Epistles ascribed
to John previous to this date, and their origin would have to be
established on sure grounds before the argument we are con-
sidering can have any value.
On the other hand, we have already seen* that there is strong
reason to doubt the authenticity of the Epistle attributed to Poly-
carp, and certainty that in any case it is, in its present form,
considerably interpolated. Even if genuine in any part, the use
of the first Epistle of John, if established, could not be of much
value as testimony for the fourth Gospel, of which the writing does
1 Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 45 f. ; cf. Volkmar, Der Ursprttng, p. 48 f. ;
cf. Irenieus, Adv. Hier., i. 24, 4 ; pseudo- Ignatius, Ad Smyni., v., vi.
* Scholten, Die alt. Zcngnisse, p. 46 f. ; Volkmar, Der Ur sprung, p. 48 f. ;
cf. I John ii. 22 ; iv. 2, 3 ; v. i, 5 f.
3 Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 49 f. ; Scholten, Die alt. Zcngnisse, p. 46 f.
4 1'. 175 f.
448 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
not show a trace. So far from there being any evidence that
Polycarp knew the fourth Gospel, however, everything points to
the opposite conclusion. About A.D. 154-155 we find them
taking part in the Paschal controversy, 1 contradicting the state-
ments of the fourth Gospel, 2 and supporting the Synoptic view,
contending that the Christian festival should be celebrated on the
1 4th Nisan, the day on which he affirmed that the Apostle John
himself had observed it. 3 Irenajus, who represents Polycarp as
the disciple of John, says of him : " For neither was Anicetus able
to persuade Polycarp not to observe it (on the Hth) because he
had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and
with the rest of the apostles with whom he consorted." 4 Not
only, therefore, does Polycarp not refer to the fourth Gospel, but
he is, on the contrary, an important witness against it as the work
of John, for he represents that apostle as practically contradicting
the Gospel of which he is said to be the author.
The fulness with which we have discussed the character of the
evangelical quotations of Justin Martyr renders the task of ascer-
taining whether his works indicate any acquaintance with the
fourth Gospel comparatively easy. The detailed statements
already made enable us without preliminary explanation directly to
attack the problem, and we are freed from the necessity of making
extensive quotations to illustrate the facts of the case.
Whilst apologists assert with some boldness that Justin made
use of our Synoptics, they are evidently, and with good reason,
less confident in maintaining his acquaintance with the fourth
Gospel. Dr. Westcott states : " His references to St. John are
uncertain ; but this, as has been already remarked, follows from
the character of the fourth Gospel. It was unlikely that he should
quote its peculiar teaching in apologetic Writings addressed to
Jews and heathens ; and at the same time he exhibits types of
language and doctrine which, if not immediately drawn from St.
John, yet mark the presence of his influence and the recognition
of his aulhority."s This apology for the neglect of the fourth
1 The date has, hitherto, generally been fixed at A.t>. 160, but the recent
investigations referred to, p. 175 f. , have led to the adoption of this earlier
date, and the visit to Rome must, therefore, probably have taken place
just after the accession of Anicetus to the Roman bishopric (cf. Lipsius,
Zeifsfhr. w. T/ieo/., 1874, p. 205 f.).
3 John xiii. I, xvii. 28, xix. 14, 31 ; cf. Matt. xxvi. 17 ; Mark xiv. 12 ;
Luke xxii. 8.
3 Cf. Irenieus, Adv. liter., iii. 3, 4 ; Eusebius, H. ., iv. 14, v. 24.
4 Eusebius, H. ., v. 24.
s On the Catwit, p. 145. In a note Dr. Westcott refers to Credner,
Beitrage, i., p. 253 f. Credner, however, pronounces against the use of the
fourth Gospel by Justin. Dr. Westcott adds thesingular argument : "Justin's
acquaintance with the Valentinians proves that the Gospel could not have
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 449
Gospel illustrates the obvious scantiness of the evidence furnished
by Justin.
Tischendorf, however, with his usual temerity, claims Justin as
a powerful witness for the fourth Gospel. He says : " According
to our judgment there are convincing grounds of proof for the fact
that John also was known and used by Justin, provided that
unprejudiced consideration be not made to give way to
antagonistic predilection against the Johannine Gospel." In order
fully and fairly to state the case which he puts forward, we shall
quote his own words, but to avoid repetition we shall permit our-
selves to interrupt him by remarks and by parallel passages from
other writings for comparison with Justin. Tischendorf says :
" The representation of the person of Christ, altogether peculiar to
John, as it is given particularly in his prologue i. i (' In the begin-
ning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God'), and verse 14 ('and the word became flesh'), in the
designation of him as Logos, as the word of God, unmistakably
re-echoes in not a few passages in Justin ; for instance : ' And
Jesus Christ is alone the special Son begotten by God, being his
Word and first-begotten and power.' " :
With this we may compare another passage of Justin from the
second Apology. " But his son, who alone is rightly called Son,
the Word before the works of creation, who was both with him and
begotten when in the beginning he created and ordered all things
by him," 2 etc.
Now the same words and ideas are to be found throughout the
Canonical Epistles and other writings, as well as in earlier works.
In the Apocalypse,3 the only book of the New Testament men-
tioned by Justin, and which is directly ascribed by him to John,*
the term Logos is applied to Jesus "the Lamb " (xix. 13) ; " and
his name is called the Word of God " (/cat KfKXrjrai TO OVO/AO, atrou
o Aoyos TOV deov). Elsewhere (iii. 14) he is called "the Begin-
ning of the Creation of God " (17 o-pxn rfs KTMTCWS T u $eou) ;
and again in the same book (i. 5) he is " the first-begotten of the
been unknown to him" (Dial. 35). We have already proved that there is no
evidence that Valentinus and his earlier followers knew anything of our
Synoptics, and we shall presently show that this is likewise the case with the
fourth Gospel.
1 Wann ivurden, u. s. w., p. 32. Kal 'Ii;<r<wj Xpiffrbs fj.6vos ISlws vi&s r$ dey
yeyevvtjrai, A6yos avrov virdpxuv Kal irpuT&roKos Kal StWyius. Apol., i. 23.
2 'O 5 utds eKelvov, 6 (J.6i>os \(y6/j.ei>os Kvplws vibs, 6 Abyos irpb r(av irOL-qnartav,
Kal ffvv&v Kal yevvd)fj.fi*os, 8re TTJV apXTJ" 5t" avrov wavra I/mere Kal fK6ff/J.r)ffe.
ApoL, ii. 6.
3 Written c. A.D. 68-69; Credner, Einl. N. T., i., p. 704 f. ; Beitrdge, ii.,
p. 294 ; Lucke, Comm. Offenb. Joh., 1852, ii., p. 840 ff. ; Ewald, Jahrb. bibl.
\Viss., 1852-53, p. 182 ; Gesch. d. V. hr., vi., p. 643, etc.
* Dial. 81.
2G
450 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
dead " (o TT/HDTOTOKOS TWV vexpwv). In Heb. i. 6 he is the
" first-born " (TT^WTOTOKOS), as in Coloss. i. 15 he is "the first-born
of every creature " (TT^WTOTOKOS irao-?;? KTiVews) ; and in i Cor.
i. 24 we have : " Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of
God " (Xptcrrof 6eov 8vvap.iv Kal Beoi cro^tav), and it will be
remembered that " Wisdom " was the earlier term which became
an alternative with " Word " for the intermediate Being. In Heb.
i. 2 God is represented as speaking to us "in the Son by
whom he also made the worlds " (ev vlw, Si ov KOI roir;o-v
cuioi/as). In 2 Tim. i. 9 he is " before all worlds " (71710
cuWiW), cf. Heb. i. 10, ii. 10, Rom. xi. 36, i Cor. viii.
6, Ephes. iii. 9.
The works of Philo are filled with similar representations of the
Logos, but we must restrict ourselves to a very few. God as a
Shepherd and King governs the universe, "having appointed his
true Logos, his first begotten Son, to have the care of this sacred
flock, as the Vicegerent of a great King." 1 In another place Philo
exhorts men to strive to become like God's " first begotten Word "
(TOV TjyjwToyovov avrov Aoyov), 2 and he adds, a few lines further
on: "for the most ancient Word is the image of God" (0eor
yap eiKwv Aoyos o irpea-fivraTos}. The high priest of God in
the world is "the divine Word, his first-begotten son" (6
TrptoToyovos avrov 0ios Aoyos). 3 Speaking of the creation
of the world, Philo says : " The instrument by which it was formed
is the Word of God " (opyavov ot Aoyov Oeov, 6Y ov
KaTeo-/cevao-0?7).4 Elsewhere : " For the word is the image of God
by which the whole world was created " (Aoyos Se fomv
etKtui/ 6eov, 6Y ov irvfjuras o Kooyxos eor)p.iovpyfiTo}.5 These
passages might be indefinitely multiplied.
Tischendorfs next passage is : "The first power (SiWps)
after the Father of all and God the Lord, and Son, is the Word
(Logos); in what manner having been made flesh (o-u/>Ko7ro<.r/#eis)
he became man, we shall in what follows relate." 6
We find everywhere parallels for this passage without seeking
them in the fourth Gospel. In i Cor. i. 24, " Christ the Power
(6vva/x,6s) of God and the Wisdom of God "; cf. Heb. i. 2, 3, 4,
6, 8 ; ii. 8. In Heb. ii. 14-18 there is a distinct account of his
becoming flesh ; cf. verse 7. In Phil. ii. 6-8 : " Who (Jesus
s rbv 6pObv O.VTOV A6yov, irpUT6yovov vl6i>, 6s rrjv
firifjie\eia>' TTJS iepas TCLVTTIS dytXys old TIS fj.eyd\ov flaffiXews tiirapxos Siadfi-erai.
Zte Agricult., 12, Mang., i. 308.
2 De Confus. ling., 28, Mang., i. 427, cf. 14, ib. t i. 414; cf. De Migrat.
Abrahami, I, Mang., i. 437 ; cf. Heb. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4.
3 De Somniis, i., 37, Mang.,i. 653. 4 De Cherubim, 35, Mang., i. 162.
5 De Monarfhia, ii., 5, Mang., ii. 225. .
6 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 32 (Apol., i. 32).
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 451
Christ) being in the form of God, deemed it not grasping to be
equal with God (7), But gave himself up, taking the form of a
servant, being made in the likeness of men," etc. In Rom. viii. 3
we have : " God sending his own Son in the likeness of the flesh
of sin," etc. (6 Oebs TOV tavrov vlbv Tre/A^as ev o^oiwjuari crapxos
u/m/m'as). It must be borne in mind that the terminology of
John i. 14, "and the word became flesh" (o-ap eyei/eTo) is
different from that of Justin, who uses the word o-apKOTronjBeis.
The sense and language here is, therefore, quite as close as that
of the fourth Gospel. We have also another parallel in i Tim. iii.
1 6, " Who (God) was manifested in the flesh "(os ffaLvepwO-rj tv
i) ; cf. I Cor. XV. 4, 47-
In like manner we find many similar passages in the works of
Philo. He says, in one place, that man was not made in the
likeness of the most high God the Father of the universe, but in
that of the " Second God who is his Word " (aXXa Trpbs TOV
Seurepov 0eov, 6's f(mv tKeivov Adyos). 1 In another place the
Logos is said to be the interpreter of the highest God, and he
continues: "that must be God of us imperfect beings" (Ovros
yap tjiJLtav TWV dreAwv uv eir/ #os). 2 Elsewhere he says :
" But the divine Word which is above these (the Winged
Cherubim) but being itself the image of God, at once the
most ancient of all conceivable things, and the one placed nearest
to the only true and absolute existence without any separation or
distance between them "; 3 and a few lines further on he explains
the cities of refuge to be : " The word of the Governor (of all
things) and his creative and kingly power, for of these are the
heavens and the whole world." 4 " The Logos of God is above all
things in the world, and is the most ancient and the most universal
of all things which are." 5 The Word is also the " Ambassador
sent by the Governor (of the universe) to his subject (man) "
(Trpe<T/3evTr]S 8e TOU rjye/AoVos Trpbs TO iVr^Koov). 6 Such views of
the Logos are everywhere met with in the pages of Philo.
Tischendorf continues : " The Word (Logos) of God is his
Son."? We have already in the preceding paragraphs abundantly
illustrated this sentence, and may proceed to the next : "But
since they did not know all things concerning the Logos, which is
1 Philo, Fragm., i., ex. Euseb. , Pr&par. Evang., vii. 13, Mang., ii. 625 ; cf.
De Somniis, i., 41, Mang., i. 656 ; Leg. Alleg., ii., 21, ib., i. 83.
2 Leg. Alleg., iii., 73, Mang., i. 128.
3 De Proftigis, 19, Mang., i. 561. 4 Ib., 19.
5 Kai 6 A^yos 3 roO 0eoii virepdvu Travr6s <TTI TOV K&T/UOU, /cat Trpecr/Suraros
Ko.1 7eciKu)raTOs TUV Sera yeyove. Leg. Alleg., iii., 6l, Mang., i. 121 ; cf. De
Somniis, i., 41, Mang., i. 656.
6 Quis rerum div. Heres., 42, Mang., i. 501.
7 '0 A.6yos 5 TOV Otov eanv o i>26j avrov. (Apol., i. 63).
452 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Christ, they have frequently contradicted each other." 1 These
words are used with reference to lawgivers and philosophers.
Justin, who frankly admits the delight he took in the writings of
Plato 2 and other Greek philosophers, held the view that Socrates
and Plato had, in an elementary form, enunciated the doctrine of
the Logos, 3 although he contends that they borrowed it from the
writings of Moses ; and with a largeness of mind very uncommon
in the early Church, and, indeed, we might add, in any age, he
believed Socrates and such philosophers to have been Christians,
even although they had been considered Atheists. 4 As they did
not, of course, know Christ to be the Logos, he makes the asser-
tion just quoted. Now, the only point in the passage which
requires notice is the identification of the Logos with Jesus, which
has already been dealt with, and, as this was asserted in the
Apocalypse xix. 13, before the fourth Gospel was written, no
evidence in its favour is deducible from the statement. We shall
have more to say regarding this presently.
Tischendorf continues : " But in what manner, through the
Word of God, Jesus Christ our Saviour has become flesh,"s etc.
It must be apparent that the doctrine here is not that of the
fourth Gospel which makes " the word become flesh " simply,
whilst Justin, representing a less advanced form, and more uncer-
tain stage, of its development, draws a distinction between the
Logos and Jesus, and describes Jesus Christ as being made flesh
by the power of the Logos. This is no accidental use of words,
for he repeatedly states the same fact, as for instance : " But why
through the power of the Word, according to the will of God the
Father and Lord of all, he was born a man of a Virgin," 6 etc.
Tischendorf continues : " To these passages out of the short
second Apology we extract from the first (cap. 33).? By the
Spirit, therefore, and power of God (in reference to Luke i.
35 : 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee ') we have nothing else to under-
stand but the Logos, which is the first-born of God." 8
Here again we have the same difference from the doctrine of the
fourth Gospel which we have just pointed out, which is, however,
i) 5e oti ir&vTa ra TOV A6yov e'yvibpiffav, fij etrn Xpi<rr6s, Kal ('vavrla
eaiTois 7roXXa/as elwov. Apol., ii. IO.
2 Apol., ii. 12 ; cf. Dial. 2 f. 3 76., i. 60, etc.; cf. 5. 4 Ib., i. 46.
5 Wann warden, u. s. w. , p. 32. aXX' &v rp6irov Slot A6yov 6eov ffapKOTronjOeis
'Ir)<rovs X/>rrds 6 Zwr>)/> JIJJMV, K.T.\. Apol., i. 66.
6 Apol., i. 46.
? This is an error. Several of the preceding passages are out of the first
Apology. No references, however, are given to the source of any of them.
We have added them. ,
8 Wann warden, u. s. w., p. 32 (Apol., i. 33);
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 453
completely in agreement with the views of Philo, and charac-
teristic of a less developed form of the idea. We shall further
refer to the terminology hereafter, and meantime we proceed
to the last illustration given by Tischendorf.
"Out of the Dialogue (c. 105): 'For that he was the only-
begotten of the Father of all, in peculiar wise begotten of him as
Word and Power (Svva/xis), and afterwards became man through
the Virgin, as we have learnt from the Memoirs, I have already
stated." 1
The allusion here is to the preceding chapters of the Dialogue,
wherein, with special reference (c. 100) to the passage which has a
parallel in Luke i. 35, quoted by Tischendorf in the preceding
illustration, Justin narrates the birth of Jesus.
This reference very appropriately leads us to a more general
discussion of the real source of the terminology and Logos
doctrine of Justin. We do not propose, in this work, to enter
fully into the history of the Logos doctrine, and we must confine
ourselves strictly to showing, in the most simple manner possible,
that not only is there no evidence whatever that Justin derived his
ideas regarding it from the fourth Gospel, but that, on the con-
trary, his terminology and doctrine may be traced to another
source. In the very chapter (100) from which this last
illustration is taken, Justin shows clearly whence he derives the
expression, "only-begotten. In chap. 97 he refers to the Ps.
xxii. (Sept. xxi.) as a prophecy applying to Jesus, quotes the whole
Psalm, and comments upon it in the following chapters ; refers to
Ps. ii. 7 : " Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,"
uttered by the voice at the baptism, in ch. 103, in illustration of
it; and in ch. 105 he arrives, in his exposition of it, at verse 20 :
" Deliver my soul from the sword, and my 2 only-begotten
(liovoyevrj) from the hand of the dog." Then follows the
passage we are discussing, in which Justin affirms that he has
proved that he was the only-begotten (^ovoyev^s) of the Father,
and at the close he again quotes the verse as indicative of his
sufferings. The Memoirs are referred to in regard to the fulfilment
of this prophecy, and his birth as man through the Virgin. The
phrase in Justin is quite different from that in the fourth Gospel,
i. 14 :" And the Word became flesh (0"<V eyevtro) and tabernacled
among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only-begotten
from the Father " (ws /Aovoyevovs irapa Trar/ods), etc. In Justin, he
is " the only-begotten of the Father of all " (/Aoi/oyevr)? rw liar pi
TWV oAxoi/), and he " became man (av^powros yevd/ievos) through the
Virgin," and Justin never once employs the peculiar terminology
of the fourth Gospel, o-ap eyevero, in any part of his writings.
1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 32 (Dial. c. Tryph., 105).
2 This should probably be " thy."
454 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
There can be no doubt that, however the Christian doctrine of
the Logos may at one period of its development have been
influenced by Greek philosophy, it was in its central idea mainly
of Jewish origin, and the mere application to an individual of a
theory which had long occupied the Hebrew mind. After the
original simplicity which represented God as holding personal
intercourse with the Patriarchs, and communing face to face with
the great leaders of Israel, had been outgrown, an increasing
tendency set in to shroud the Divinity in impenetrable mystery,
and to regard him as unapproachable and undiscernible by man.
This led to the recognition of a Divine representative and sub-
stitute of the highest God and Father, who communicated with
his creatures, and through whom alone he revealed himself. A
new system of interpretation of the ancient traditions of the nation
was rendered necessary, and in the Septuagint translation of the
Bible we are fortunately able to trace the progress of the theory
which culminated in the Christian doctrine of the Logos.
Wherever in the sacred records God has been represented as
holding intercourse with man, the translators either symbolised the
appearance or interposed an angel, who was afterwards understood
to be the Divine Word. The first name under which the Divine
Mediator was known in the Old Testament was Wisdom (2o<ia),
although in its Apocrypha the term Logos was not unknown.
The personification of the idea was very rapidly effected, and in
the Book of Proverbs, as well as in the later Apocrypha based
upon it (the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach,
" Ecclesiasticus ") we find it in ever-increasing clearness and con-
cretion. In the School of Alexandria the active Jewish intellect
eagerly occupied itself with the speculation, and in the writings of
Philo especially we find the doctrine of the Logos the term
which by that time had almost entirely supplanted that of
Wisdom elaborated to almost its final point, and wanting little
or nothing but its application in an incarnate form to an individual
man to represent the doctrine of the earlier Canonical writings of
the New Testament, and notably the Epistle to the Hebrews
the work of a Christian Philo 1 the Pauline Epistles, and lastly
the fourth Gospel.
In Proverbs viii. 22 f. we have a representation of Wisdom
corresponding closely with the prelude to the fourth Gospel, and
still more so with the doctrine enunciated by Justin : "22. The
Lord created me the Beginning of his ways for his works. 23.
1 Ewald freely recognises that the author of this Epistle, written about A.D.
66, transferred Philo's doctrine of the Logos to Christianity. Apollos, whom
he considers its probable author, impregnated the Apostle Paul with the
doctrine (Gesch. des. V. Fsr., vi., p. 474 f. , p. 638 f. ; Das Sendschr. an d,
Hebraer, p. 9 f.). *
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 455
Before the ages he established me, in the beginning before he
made the earth. 24. And before he made the abysses, before the
springs of the waters issued forth. 25. Before the mountains
were settled, and before all the hills he begets me. 26. The Lord
made the lands, both those which are uninhabited and the
inhabited heights of the earth beneath the sky. 27. When he
prepared the heavens I was present with him, and when he
set his throne upon the winds, 28, and made strong the high
clouds, and the deeps under the heaven made secure, 29, and
made strong the foundations of the earth, 30, I was with him
adjusting, I was that in which he delighted ; daily I rejoiced in
his presence at all times." 1 In the Wisdom of Solomon we
find the writer addressing God : ix. i " Whomadest all things
by thy Word " (6 Trot-^o-as rot iravra kv Aoyw (row) ; and further on
in the same chapter, v. 9 : " And Wisdom was with thee who
knoweth thy works, and was present when thou madest the world,
and knew what was acceptable in thy sight, and right in thy
commandments." In verse 4 the writer prays : " Give me
Wisdom that sitteth by thy thrones " (Ads pn TYJV TMV O-MV Opovwv
TTctpeSpov <ro(iav). In a similar way the son of Sirach makes
Wisdom say (Eccles. xxiv. 9) : " He (the Most High) created me
from the beginning before the world, and as long as the world I
shall not fail." We have already incidentally seen how these
thoughts grew into an elaborate doctrine of the Logos in the works
of Philo.
Now Justin, whilst he nowhere adopts the terminology of the
fourth Gospel, and nowhere refers to its introductory condensed
statement of the Logos doctrine, closely follows Philo and, like
him, traces it back to the Old Testament in the most direct way,
accounting for the interposition of the divine Mediator in
precisely the same manner as Philo, and expressing the views
which had led the Seventy to modify the statement of the
Hebrew original in their Greek translation. He is, in fact,
thoroughly acquainted with the history of the Logos doctrine and
its earlier enunciation under the symbol of Wisdom, and his
knowledge of it is clearly independent of, and antecedent to, the
statements of the fourth Gospel.
Referring to various episodes of the Old Testament in which
God is represented as appearing to Moses and the Patriarchs, and
in which it is said that "God went up from Abraham," 2 or "The
Lord spake to Moses,"3 or " The Lord came down to behold the
town, "4 etc., or " God shut Noah into the ark," 5 and so on,
Justin warns his antagonist that he is not to suppose that " the
1 Prov. viii. 22 ; Sept. vers. 2 Gen. xviii. 22.
3 Exod. vi. 29. 4 Gen. xi. 5. 5 Gen. vii. 16,
456 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
unbegotten God " (ayevK7;Tos #eos) did any of these things, for he
has neither to come to any place, nor walks, but from his own place,
wherever it may be, knows everything, although he has neither
eyes nor ears. Therefore he could not talk with anyone, nor be
seen by anyone, and none of the Patriarchs saw the Father at all,
but they saw " him who was according to his will both his Son
(being God) and the Angel, in that he ministered to his purpose,
whom also he willed to be born man by the Virgin, who became
fire when he spoke with Moses from the bush." 1 He refers
throughout his writings to the various appearances of God to the
Patriarchs, all of which he ascribes to the pre-existent Jesus, the
Word, 2 and in the very next chapter, after alluding to some of
these, he says : " He is called Angel because he came to men, since
by him the decrees of the Father are announced to men At
other times he is also called Man and human being, because he
appears clothed in these forms as the Father wills, and they call
him Logos because he bears the communications of the Father to
mankind." 3
Justin, moreover, repeatedly refers to the fact that he was called
Wisdom by Solomon, and quotes the passage we have indicated
in Proverbs. In one place he says, in proof of his assertion that
the God who appeared to Moses and the Patriarchs was distin-
guished from the Father, and was in fact the Word (ch. 66-70) :
" Another testimony I will give you, my friends, I said, from the
Scriptures, that God begat before all of the creatures (TT/JO iravrwv
KTicrpmov) a Beginning (<>-px*l v )S a certain rational Power
oyiKrjv) out of himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit,
now the Glory of the Lord, then the Son, again Wisdom, again
Angel, again God, and again Lord and Logos," etc., and a little
further on : " The Word of Wisdom will testify to me, who is him-
self this God begotten of the Father of the universe, being Word,
and Wisdom, and Power (Scraps), and the Glory of the Begetter,"
etc., 5 and he quotes, from the Septuagint version, Proverbs viii.
22-36, part of which we have given above. Elsewhere, indeed,
(ch. 129), he cites the passage a second time as evidence, with a
1 Dial. 127: cf. 128, 63; cf. Philo, De Somniis, i. , II f., Mang., i. 630 f. ;
31, ib., i. 648 ; 33 f., #., i. 649 f.; 39 f., ib., i. 655 f. Nothing, in
fact, could show more clearly the indebtedness of Justin to Philo than this
argument (Dial. 100) regarding the inapplicability of such descriptions to the
"unbegotten God." Philo in one treatise, from which we are constantly
obliged to take passages as parallels for those of Justin (de Confiisione linguartim),
argues from the very same text : "The Lord went down to see that city and
tower," almost in the very same words as Justin, 27. The passage is un-
fortunately too long for quotation.
2 Dial. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 126, 127, 128, etc. ; Apol., i. 62, 63 ; cf. Philo,
Vita Mosis, 12 f., Mang., i. 91 f.; Leg. Al/eg., iii., 25 f., ib. t i. 103 f.,
etc.
3 Dial. 128 ; cf. Apol., i. 63 ; Dial. 60. 4 Cf. %poc., iii. 14. s Dial. 61.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 457
similar context. Justin refers to it again in the next chapter, and
the peculiarity of his terminology in all these passages, so markedly
different from, and indeed opposed to, that of the fourth Gospel,
will naturally strike the reader : " But this offspring (-/ewrjfia)
being truly brought forth by the Father was with the Father' before
all created beings (-n-pb TTCIVTWV TMV Troi^/ai-wi'), and the Father
communes with him, as the Logos declared through Solomon, that
this same, who is called Wisdom by Solomon, had been begotten
of God before all created beings (irpb iravnov TWV Trot^aTwv), both
Beginning (apx r /) an d Offspring (yew^/Aa)," etc. 1 In another
place, after quoting the words, " No man knoweth the Father but
the Son, nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son
will reveal him," Justin continues : "Therefore he revealed to us
all that we have by his grace understood out of the Scriptures,
recognising him to be indeed the first-begotten (TT/JOJTOTOKOS) of
God, and before all creatures (irpo TTOVTWV TWV KTwr/xarcov)
and calling him Son, we have understood that he proceeded from
the Father by his power and will before all created beings (irpb
TravTwv TT3ir)[jMTwv), for in one form or another he is spoken of in
the writings of the prophets as Wisdom," etc. ; 2 and again, in two
other places, he refers to the same fact. 3
On further examination, we find on every side still stronger
confirmation of the conclusion that Justin derived his Logos
doctrine from the Old Testament and Philo, together with early
New Testament writings. We have quoted several passages in
which Justin details the various names of the Logos, and we may
add one more. Referring to Ps. Ixxii., which the Jews apply to
Solomon, but which Justin maintains to be applicable to Christ,
he says : " For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord,
and Angel, and Man, and Captain, and Stone, and a Son born
(TraiSiov yei'vojju.evov), etc., as I prove by all of the Scriptures." 4
Now these representations, which are constantly repeated through-
out Justin's writings, are quite opposed to the Spirit of the fourth
Gospel ; but are, on the other hand, equally common in the works
of Philo, and many of them also to be found in the Philonian
Epistle to the Hebrews. Taking the chief amongst them, we
may briefly illustrate them. The Logos as King, Justin avowedly
derives from Ps. Ixxii., in which he finds that reference is made to
the " Everlasting King, that is to say Christ. "s We find this
representation of the Logos throughout the writings of Philo. In
one place already referred to, 6 but which we shall now more fully
quote, he says : " For God as Shepherd and King governs accord-
ing to Law and justice like a flock of sheep, the earth, and water,
Dial. 62. 2 If>., 100. 3 /<*., 126, 129.
/*., 34- s /*-,34- 6 P. 450 f.
458 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
and air, and fire, and all the plants and living things that are in
them, whether they be mortal or divine, as well as the course of
heaven, and the periods of sun and moon, and the variations
and harmonious revolutions of the other stars ; having appointed
his true Word (rbv opOov avrov Aoyov) his first-begotten Son
(Trpwroyovov viov) to have the care of this sacred flock as the
Vicegerent of a great King "; x and a little further on he says :
" Very reasonably, therefore, he will assume the name of a King,
being addressed as a Shepherd." 2 In another place Philo speaks
of the " Logos of the Governor, and his creative and kingly power,
for of these is the heaven and the whole world. "3
Then if we take the second epithet, the Logos as Priest (te/aei's),
which is quite foreign to the fourth Gospel, we find it repeated by
Justin, as, for instance : " Christ the eternal Priest " (ic/aevs) ;* and it
is not only a favourite representation of Philo, but is almost the
leading idea of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in connection with the
episode of Melchisedec, in whom also both Philo 5 and Justin 6
recognise the Logos. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, vii. 3, speaking
of Melchisedec : "but likened to the Son of God, abideth a Priest
forever"; again in iv. 14: "Seeing then that we have a great
High Priest that is passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of
God," etc.; ix. n : " Christ having appeared a High Priest of the
good things to come"; xii. 21 : "Thou art a Priest for ever."
The passages are far too numerous to quote. 7 They are
equally numerous in the writings of Philo. In one place already
quoted 8 he says : "For there are, as it seems, two temples of God,
one of which is this world, in which the High Priest is the Divine
Word, his first-begotten Son " (Avo yap, ws eoixcv, iepa Otov, fv p.*i>
o8f o Kooyzo?, fv (a Ko,l dp^iepev<s, o TTpWToyovos avTov $ios Aoyos).9
Elsewhere, speaking of the period for the return of fugitives, the
death of the high priest, which taken literally would embarrass him
in his allegory, Philo says : " For we maintain the High Priest not
to be a man, but the divine Word, who is without participation
not only in voluntary but also in involuntary sins "; 10 and he goes
on to speak of this priest as " the most sacred Word " (6 le
1 Zte Agritult., 12, Mang., i. 308.
2 Etadrws Tolvvv 6fj.tv f3a<ri\fus 6vo/j.a virodi'fferai, iroifiriv trpoffayopevOfis, K,T.\.
14, cf. Zte Profugis, 20, Mang., i. 562 ; De Somniis, ii., 37, Mang.,
i. 691.
3 De Profjigis, 19, Mang., i. 561 ; cf. de Migrat Abrahami, i, Mang.,
i. 437. * Dial. 42.
5 Legis Alleg., 26, Mang., i. 104, etc. 6 Dial. 34, 83, etc.
7 Heb. vii. n, 15, 17, 21 f., 26 f. ; viii. I f. ; ii. 6, 17 ; v. 5, 6, 10.
8 P. 450. 9 Philo, De Somniis , i. , 37, Mang. , i. 653.
10 De Profugis, 20, Mang., i. 562. Philo continues: that this priest, the
Logos, must be pure, " God indeed being his Father, who is also the Father of
all things, and Wisdom his mother, by whom the^iniverse came into being."
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 459
Adyos). 1 Indeed, in many long passages he descants upon the
" high priest Word " (o dp^iepev<s Adyos). 2
Proceeding to the next representations of the Logos as " God
and Lord," we meet with the idea everywhere. In Hebrews i. 8 :
" But regarding the Son he saith : Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever " (TT/>OS 8e TOV vlov '0 dpovos crov, o Oeos, e''s TOV cu'wra TOV
cu'wvos), etc. ; and again in the Epistle to the Philippians, ii. 6 :
" Who (Jesus Christ), being in the form of God, deemed it not
grasping to be equal with God " (os ev pop^rj Oeov virapyuv ov-%
dpwayfj.ov rjyi'^craTO TO eivai wra $e( t o), etc. 3 Philo, in the fragment
preserved by Eusebius, to which we have already referred, 4 calls
the Logos the "Second God" (Seirrepo? fods). 5 In another
passage he has : " But he calls the most ancient God his present
Logos," etc. (xaXei Se Oeov TOV Trpeo-j3vTaTov avrov vvvl Adyov) ; 6
and a little further on, speaking of the inability of men to look on
the Father himself: "Thus they regard the image of God, his
Angel Word, as himself" (OUTWS KCU TTJV TOV 6eov et'/cdva, TOV
ayyeAoy avTov Adyov, as O.VTOV Karavooumv).? Elsewhere dis-
cussing the possibility of God's swearing by himself, which he
applies to the Logos, he says : " For in regard to us imperfect
beings he will be a God, but in regard to wise and perfect beings
the first. And yet Moses, in awe of the superiority of the unbe-
gotten (ayevv^roi)) God, says : ' And thou shalt swear by his name,'
not by himself; for it is sufficient for the creature to receive assu-
rance and testimony by the divine Word." 8
It must be remarked, however, that both Justin and Philo place
the Logos in a position more clearly secondary to God the Father
than the prelude to the fourth Gospel i. i. Both Justin and Philo
apply the term #eos to the Logos without the article. Justin dis-
tinctly says that Christians worship Jesus Christ as the Son of the
true God, holding him in the second place (ev SevTepa x^W
e'xovTes) ;9 and this secondary position is systematically defined
through Justin's writings in a very decided way, as it is in the
works of Philo by the contrast of the begotten Logos with the
unbegotten God. Justin speaks of the Word as " the first-born of
the unbegotten God" (TT/JWTOTOKOS T< ayevv>7T< t o #e<o), 10 and the dis-
tinctive appellation of the " unbegotten God " applied to the
Father is most common throughout his writings. 11 We may, in
1 De Proftigis, 21. 2 De Migrat. Abrahaini, 18, Mang., i. 452.
3 Cf. verse u. 4 P. 451.
5 Fragm., i., Mang., ii. 625 ; cf. Leg. Alleg., ii. , 21, Mang., i. 83.
6 Philo, De Somniis, i. 39, Mang., i. 655.
^ Ib., i., 41, Mang.,i. 656. 8 Leg. Alleg.,m., 73, Mang., i. 128.
9 Apol., i. 13, cf. 60, where he shows that Plato gives the second place to
the Logos.
10 Ib., i. 53. " Ib., i. 49 ; ib., ii. 6, 13 ; Dial. 126, 127.
460 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
continuation of this remark, point out another phrase of Justin
which is continually repeated, but is thoroughly opposed both to
the spirit and to the terminology of the fourth Gospel, and which
likewise indicates the secondary consideration in which he held
the Logos. He calls the Word constantly " the first-born of all
created beings " (TT/JWTOTOKOS TMV TTO.VTWV Troika-ret) v, 1 or TT/JWTOTOKOS
Trpo Travrwv TMJ> KTMryuartov, 2 or TT^WTOTOKOS irda"t]<s KTwrews),3 " the
first-born of all creation," echoing the expression of Col. i. 15
(The Son) " who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born
of all creation " (TTJPWTOTOKOS TTOWT^S KTtVews). This is a totally
different view from that of the fourth Gospel, which in so
emphatic a manner enunciates the doctrine : " In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God" a statement which Justin, with Philo, only makes in a very
modified sense.
To return, however, the next representation of the Logos by
Justin is as "Angel." This perpetually recurs in his writings. 4 In
one place, to which we have already referred, he says : "The Word of
God is his Son, as we have already stated, and he is also called Angel
("AyyeAos, or Messenger) and Apostle, for he brings the message
of all we need to know, and is sent an Apostle to declare all the
message contains." 5 In the same chapter reference is again made to
passages quoted for the sake of proving " that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God and Apostle, being aforetime the Word, and having
appeared now in the form of fire and now in the likeness
of incorporeal beings "; 6 and he gives many illustrations J
The passages in which the Logos is called Angel are too
numerous to be more fully dealt with here. It is scarcely
necessary to point out that this representation of the Logos as
Angel is not only foreign to, but opposed to the spirit of, the
fourth Gospel, although it is thoroughly in harmony with
the writings of Philo. Before illustrating this we may inci-
dentally remark that the ascription to the Logos of the name
"Apostle" which occurs in the two passages just quoted above,
as well as in other parts of the writings of Justin, 8 is likewise
opposed to the fourth Gospel, although it is found in earlier
writings, exhibiting a less developed form of the Logos doctrine ;
for the Epistle to the Hebrews, iii. i, has : " Consider the Apostle
and High Priest of our confession, Jesus," etc. (Kcn-avo^o-are TOV
aTrocrroAov Kal dp^ifftfo. T?Js 6jU,oAoyias rj/Jiwv 'I^troriv). We are,
in fact, constantly directed by the remarks of Justin to other
1 Dial. 62, 84, 100, etc. - Ib., 6l, 100, 125, 129, etc. 3 Ib., 85, 138, etc.
t Apol., i. 63 ; Dial. 34, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 6 1, 127 ; cf. Apol., i. 6.
s Apol., i. 63. 6 Ib., i. 63.
^ Cf. Dial. 56-60, 127, 128. 8 Apol., ?.-i2, etc.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 461
sources of the Logos doctrine, and never to the fourth Gospel,
with which his tone and terminology do not agree. Everywhere
in the writings of Philo we meet with the Logos as Angel. He
speaks "of the Angel Word of God" in a sentence already
quoted, 1 and elsewhere in a passage, one of many others, upon
which the lines of Justin which we are now considering (as well
as several similar passages) 2 are in all probability moulded.
Philo calls upon men to " strive earnestly to be fashioned
according to God's first-begotten Word, the eldest Angel, who is
the Archangel bearing many names, for he is called the Begin-
ning (apx 7 ?)? an d Name of God, and Logos, and the Man
according to his image, and the Seer of Israel."3 Elsewhere, in a
remarkable passage, he says : "To his Archangel and eldest
Word, the Father, who created the universe, gave the supreme
gift that having stood on the confine he may separate the
creature from the Creator. The same is an intercessor on behalf
of the ever-wasting mortal to the immortal ; he is also the
ambassador of the Ruler to his subjects. And he rejoices in the
gift, and the majesty of it he describes, saying : ' And I stood in
the midst between the Lord and you ' (Numbers xvi. 48) ; being
neither unbegotten like God, nor begotten like you, but between
the two extremes," etc.* We have been tempted to give more of
this passage than is necessary for our immediate purpose, because
it affords the reader another glimpse of Philo's doctrine of the
Logos, and generally illustrates its position in connection with the
Christian doctrine.
The last of Justin's names which we shall here notice is the
1 Philo, De Somniis, i., 41, Mang., i. 656. See p. 456 f.
2 For instance, in the quotations at p. 456 f. from Dial. 61, and also that
from Dial. 62, in which the Logos is also called the Beginning (dpx~n)- Both
Philo and Justin, no doubt, had in mind Prov. viii. 22. In Dial. 100, for
example, there is a passage, part of which we have quoted, which reads as
follows : " For in one form or another he is spoken of in the writings of the
prophets as Wisdom, and the Day, and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone,
and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel," etc. Now, in the writings of Philo these
passages in the Old Testament are discussed and applied to the Logos, and
to one in particular we may refer as an illustration. Philo says : "I have also
heard of a certain associate of Moses having pronounced the following saying :
'Behold a man whose name is the East (Zech. vi. 12). A most novel
designation if you consider it to be spoken regarding one composed of body
and soul ; but if regarding that incorporeal Being who does not differ from the
divine image, you will agree that the name of the East is perfectly appropriate
to him. For indeed the Father of the Universe caused this eldest son
(irpeofivTOiTov vibv) to rise (a^TXe), whom elsewhere he names his first-
begotten (irpurdyovov)," etc. (De Confus. Ling., 14). Can it be doubted
that Justin follows Philo in such exegesis?
3 De Confus. Ling., 28 ; Mang., i. 427 ; cf. De Migrat. Abrahami, 31,
Mang., i. 463.
4 Quis rerum div. Heres., 42, Mang., i. 5' f-
462 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Logos as " Man " as well as God. In another place Justin
explains that he is sometimes called a Man and human being,
because he appears in these forms as the Father wills. 1 But here
confining ourselves merely to the concrete idea, we find a striking
representation of it in i Tim. ii. 5 : "For there is one God and
one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus "
(eis ya/3 $e6s, eis KOI fieo-iTrjs Oeov KO.L avdpumtav, dv^pawros X/DMTTOS
'Ir/crovs) ; and again in Rom. v. 15 : " by the grace of the one
man Jesus Christ " (TOV evos dvdpdtnrov 'Irjcrov Xpio-rou), as well as
elsewhere. 2 We have already seen in the passage quoted
above from De Confus. Ling., 28, that Philo mentions, among
the many names of the Logos, that of " the man according to (God's)
image" (o KO.T' ei/cova av^/owrros, 3 or "the typical man"). If
we pass to the application of the Logos doctrine to Jesus, we
have the strongest reason for inferring Justin's total independence
of the fourth Gospel. We have frequently pointed out that the title
of Logos is given to Jesus in New Testament writings earlier
than the fourth Gospel. We have remarked that, although the
passages are innumerable in which Justin speaks of the
Word having become man through the Virgin, he never
makes use of the peculiar expression of the fourth Gospel,
"the Word became flesh" (6 Aoyos crapg eyevero). On the
few occasions on which he speaks of the Word having
been made flesh, he uses the tenn cra/aKOTrotT^ets. 4 In one
instance he has o-dpita X lv > 5 an d> speaking of the Eucharist,
Justin once explains that it is the memory of Christ's having
made himself body, trw/mTOTroi-jjo-acrflou. 6 Justin's most common
phrase, however and he repeats it in numberless instances
is that the Logos submitted to be born, and become man
(yeyvr/L/Tpeu uvtfpowrov yevo/xei/ov iVe/Aeivev), by a Virgin, or he uses
variously the expressions : a.vdp<inro<s yeyovc, o.vBpwiros yevo/ievos,
yfv(<r6ai avdpwTrovj In several places he speaks of him as the
first production or offspring (yevvrjpx) of God before all created
beings, as, for instance : " The Logos who is the first offspring of
God " (o fo-Ti TrpwTov yfvvrjfia TOV 6eov) f and again, " and that this
offspring was begotten of the Father absolutely before all creatures
the Word was declaring " (KCU OTI yeyfi/v^o-flcu UTTO TOV
TOI>TO TO yevvrjpM irpb TTOIVTWV aTrXws TWV KTurfJMTtnv o A.oyo? eS^
1 Dial. 128. Seethe quotation p. 456 f. 2 Phil., ii. 8 ; I Cor. xv. 47.
3 Elsewhere Philo says that the Word was the archetypal model after which
man and the human mind were formed. De Exsecrat., 8, Mang., i. 436 ;
De Mundi Opificio, 6, Mang. , i. 6.
4 Apol., i. 66 (twice) ; Dial. 45, 100. s Dial. 48. 6 Ib., 70.
7 Apol., i. 5, 23, 63 ; Apol., ii. 6, 13 ; Dial. 34, 45, 48, 57, 63, 75, 84, 85,
105, 113, 125, 127, etc.
r Apol., i. 21. -9-^Ka/. 129, cf. 62.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 463
We need not say more of the expressions: "first-born"
(TrpooToVoKos), " first-begotten " (Trpwrdyovos), so constantly applied
to the Logos by Justin, in agreement with Philo ; nor to "only
begotten " (/utovoyei/^s), directly derived from Ps. xxii. 20 (Ps. xxi.
20, Sept.}.
It must be apparent to everyone who seriously examines the
subject that Justin's terminology is markedly different from, and
in spirit sometimes opposed to, that of the fourth Gospel, and in
fact that the peculiarities of the Gospel are not found in Justin's
writings at all. 1 On the other hand, his doctrine of the Logos is
precisely that of Philo, 2 and of writings long antecedent to the
fourth Gospel ; and there can be no doubt, we think, that it was
derived from them.
We may now proceed to consider other passages adduced by
Tischendorf to support his assertion that Justin made use of the
fourth Gospel. He says : " There are not lacking some passages
of the Johannine Gospel to which passages in Justin can be
traced. In the Dialogue, ch. 88, he writes of John the Baptist :
' The people believed that he was the Christ, but he cried to them :
I am not the Christ, but the voice of a preacher.' This is con-
nected with John i. 20 and 23; for no other Evangelist has
reported the first words in the Baptist's reply. "3 Now, the passage
in Justin, with its context, reads as follows : " For John sat by
the Jordan (Ka$eb/j,evou ITTI rov 'lopSavov) and preached the
Baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle and
raiment of camel's hair, and eating nothing but locust and wild
honey ; men supposed (v7reXa/A/^avov) him to be the Christ,
wherefore he himself cried to them : "I am not the Christ, but
the voice of one crying : For he shall come (^ct) who is stronger
than I, whose shoes I am not meet (IKCIVOS) to bear.' "* The
1 A passage is sometimes quoted in which Justin reproaches the Jews for
spreading injurious and unjust reports " concerning the only blameless and
righteous Light sent by God to man" {Dial. 17), and this is claimed as an
echo of the Gospel ; cf. John i. 9, viii. 12, xii. 46, etc. Now, here again we
have in Philo the elaborate representation of the Logos as the sun and Light
of the world ; as, for instance, in a long passage in the treatise De Somniis, i.,
13 f., Mang., i. 631 f. , of which we can only give the slightest quotation.
Philo argues that Moses only speaks of the sun by symbols, and that it is easy
to prove this ; " since in the first place God is Light. ' For the Lord is my
Light and my Saviour,' it is said in hymns, and not only Light, but archetype
of every other light nay, rather more ancient and more perfect than archetype,
having the Logos for an examplar. For indeed the examplar was his most
perfect Logos, Light," etc. (De Somniis, i., 13, Mang., i. 632). And again:
" But according to the third meaning he calls the divine Word the sun," and
proceeds to show how by this sun all wickedness is brought to light, and the
sins done secretly and in darkness are made manifest (De Somniis, i., 15,
Mang., i. 634; cf. ib., 19).
2 If the Cohort, ad Graces be assigned to Justin, it directly refers to Philo's
works, c. ix. 3 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. '3. 4 Dial. 88.
464
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
only ground upon which this passage can be compared with
the fourth Gospel is the reply : " I am not the Christ " (OVK dul o
Xpwrros), which in John i. 20 reads : on lyw otx et/u o
Xpurros; and it is perfectly clear that, if the direct negation
occurred in any other Gospel, the difference of the whole passage
in the Dialogue would prevent even an apologist from advancing
any claim to its dependence on that Gospel. In order to appre-
ciate the nature of the two passages, it may be well to collect the
nearest parallels in the Gospels, and compare them with Justin's
narrative :
JUSTIN, DIAL. 88.
Men (ol AvOpwiroi) supposed him to
be the Christ ;
wherefore he cried to them : I am not
the Christ (OVK fi/j.1 6 X
but the voice of one crying :
JOHN i. 19-27.
19. And this is the testimony of
John, when the Jews sent priests and
Levites from Jerusalem to ask him :
Who art thou ?
24. And they were sent by the
Pharisees.
20. And he confessed, and denied
not : and confessed 2 that : I am not
the Christ (8n e'-yuj OVK cl/j.1 o Xpiffrfo).
21. And they asked again: Who
then ? Art thou, Elias ? etc.
22 Who art thou ? etc.
23. He said : I am the voice of
one crying in the desert : Make straight
the way of the Lord, as said the
prophet Isaiah.
25 Why baptisest thou ? etc.
26. John answered them, saying : I
baptise with water, but in the midst
of you standeth one whom ye know
not.
27. Who cometh after me (o 6irtffu
/j.ov fpxo/Jifvos), who is become before
me (8y l-nirpoadev fiov yeyovtv), 3 the
thong of whose shoes I am not worthy
(Aios) to unloose.
The introductory description of John's dress and habits is quite
contrary to the fourth Gospel, but corresponds to some extent with
Matt. iii. 4. It is difficult to conceive two accounts more funda-
mentally different, and the discrepancy becomes more apparent
when we consider the scene and actors in the episode. In Justin,
* Matt. iii. II reads: "but he that cometh after me is stronger than I,
whose shoes I am not worthy to bear " (6 Si dirlffw /xoi> tpx^evos Iffxvp6rep6s
pov tariv, 06 OVK fl/j.1 i/caris T& virod-/ifiaTa fiatr? 600.1). The context is quite
different. Luke iii. 16 more closely resembles the version of the fourth
Gospel in this part with the context of the first Synoptic.
2 The second cal <!)fjio\6yi)ffev is omitted by the Cod. Sin.
3 The Cod. Sinaiticus, as well as most other important MSS., omits this
phrase. ,
For he shall come (?/) who is
stronger than I (6 iffxvporepds nov),
whose shoes I am not meet (t/co.i'ds) to
bear. 1
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 465
it is evident that the hearers of John had received the impression
that he was the Christ, and the Baptist, becoming aware of it,
voluntarily disabused their minds of this idea. In the fourth
Gospel the words of John are extracted from him (" he confessed
and denied not ") by emissaries sent by the Pharisees of Jerusalem
specially to question him on the subject. The account of Justin
betrays no knowledge of any such interrogation. The utter differ-
ence is brought to a climax by the concluding statement of the
fourth Gospel :
JUSTIN.
For John sat by the Jordan and
preached the Baptism of repentance,
wearing, etc.
JOHN i. 28.
These things were done in Bethany
beyond the river Jordan, where John
was baptising.
In fact, the scene in the two narratives is as little the same as their
details. One can scarcely avoid the conclusion, in reading the
fourth Gospel, that it quotes some other account and does not pre-
tend to report the scene direct. For instance, i. 15 : " John beareth
witness of him, and cried, saying, ' This was he of whom I said :
He that cometh after me is become before me, because he was
before me,'" etc. V. 19 : "And this is the testimony of John,
when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him,
Who art thou ? and he confessed and denied not, and confessed
that I am not the Christ," etc. Now, as usual, the Gospel which
Justin uses more nearly approximates to our first Synoptic than
the other Gospels, although it differs in very important points
from that also ; still, taken in connection with the third Synoptic
and Acts xiii. 25, this indicates the great probability of the exist-
ence of other writings combining the particulars as they occur in
Justin. Luke iii. 15 reads : "And as the people were in expecta-
tion, and all mused in their hearts concerning John whether he
were the Christ, 16. John answered, saying to them all : I indeed
baptise you with water, but he that is stronger than I cometh, the
latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose : he shall
baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire," etc.
Whilst with the sole exception of the simple statement of
the Baptist that he was not the Christ, which in all the accounts
is clearly involved in the rest of the reply, there is no analogy
between the parallel in the fourth Gospel and the passage
in Justin, many important circumstances render it certain that
Justin did not derive his narrative from that source. We have
already 1 fully discussed the peculiarities of Justin's account of the
Baptist, and in the context to the very passage before us there are
details quite foreign to our Gospels which show that Justin made
use of another and different work. When Jesus stepped into the
1 P. 199 f.
2H
466 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
water to be baptised a fire was kindled in the Jordan, and the
voice from heaven makes use of words not found in our Gospels ;
but both the incident and the words are known to have been con-
tained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews and other works.
Justin likewise states, in immediate continuation of the passage
before us, that Jesus was considered the son of Joseph the
carpenter, and himself was a carpenter and accustomed to make
ploughs and yokes. 1 The Evangelical work of which Justin made
use was obviously different from our Gospels, therefore, and the
evident conclusion to which any impartial mind must arrive
is, that there is not the slightest ground for affirming that
Justin quoted the passage before us from the fourth Gospel, from
which he so fundamentally differs, but every reason, on the con-
trary, to believe that he derived it from a Gospel different from
ours.
The next argument advanced by Tischendorf is, that on two
occasions he speaks of the restoration of sight to persons born
blind, 2 the only instance of which in our Gospels is that recorded,
John ix. i. The references in Justin are very vague and general.
In the first place he is speaking of the analogies in the life of
Jesus with events believed in connection with mythological
deities, and he says that he would appear to relate acts very
similar to those attributed to vEsculapius when he says that Jesus
"healed the lame and paralytic, and the maimed from birth
(e*c yeverrjs Troi/rjpous), and raised the dead." 3 In the Dialogue,
again referring to ^sculapius, he says that Christ "healed
those who were from birth and according to the flesh blind (TOUS
(K yeverrjs KO.I Kara rrjv (rdpKa Trr/pous), and deaf, and lame." 4 In
the fourth Gospel the born-blind is described as (ix. i) a.vQ pianos
rv<A.os IK jfvfTTJs. There is a variation, it will be observed, in the
term employed by Justin, and that such a remark should be
seized upon as an argument for the use of the fourth Gospel
serves to show the poverty of the evidence for the existence of
that work. Without seeking any further, we might at once reply
that such general references as those of Justin might well be referred
to the common tradition of the Church, which certainly ascribed
all kinds of marvellous cures and miracles to Jesus. It is, more-
over, unreasonable to suppose that the only Gospel in which the
cure of one born blind was narrated was that which is the fourth
in our Canon. Such a miracle may have formed part of a dozen
similar collections extant at the time of Justin, and in no case
could such an allusion be recognised as evidence of the use of the
1 Dial. 88.
2 Apol. , i. 22 ; Dial. 69. On the second occasion Justin seems to apply the
" from their birth" not only to the blind, but to the lame and deaf.
3 Apol., \. 22. 4 Dial. 69.
fourth Gospel. But in the Dialogue, along with this remark,
Justin couples the statement, that although the people saw such
cures " they asserted them to be magical illusion ; for they
also ventured to call him a magician and deceiver of the people." 1
This is not found in our Gospels, but traces of the same tradition
are met with elsewhere, as we have already mentioned ; 2 and it is
probable that Justin either found all these particulars in the
Gospel of which he made use, or that he refers to traditions familiar
to the early Christians.
Tischendorfs next point is that Justin quotes the words of
Zechariah xii. 10, with the same variation from the text of the
Septuagint as John xix. 37 "They shall look on him whom they
pierced " (o^ovrai et? ov c^fKcvrrjaravi instead of firi/3X.e\l/ovTai
Trpbs fjif, dvd' &v KctTojpxr/crai/To), arising out of an emendation
of the translation of the Hebrew original. Tischendorf says :
" Nothing can be more opposed to probability than the suppo-
sition that John and Justin have here, independently of each other,
followed a translation of the Hebrew text which elsewhere has
remained unknown to us."4 The fact is, however, that the trans-
lation which has been followed is not elsewhere unknown. We
meet with the same variation, much earlier, in the only book of
the New Testament which Justin mentions, and with which,
therefore, he was beyond any doubt well acquainted Rev. i. 7 :
" Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him
(oj/'erat avrov), and they which pierced (eeKvr?/crav) him, and
all the tribes of the earth shall bewail him. Yea, Amen." This
is a direct reference to the passage in Zech. xii. 10. It will be
remembered that the quotation in the Gospel, " They shall look
upon him whom they pierced," is made solely in reference to the
thrust of the lance in the side of Jesus, while that of the Apoca-
lypse is a connection of the prophecy with the second coming of
Christ, which, except in a spiritual sense, is opposed to the
fourth Gospel. Justin upon each occasion quotes the whole
passage also in reference to the second coming of Christ as the
Apocalypse does, and this alone settles the point so far as these two
sources are concerned. If Justin derived his variation from either
of the canonical works, therefore, we should be bound to conclude
that it must have been from the Apocalypse. The correction of
1 <f>avTo.ffiav fiayiKriv yiveffdat ZXeyov. Kcu ydp [tdyov elvat avr&v e'r<5X/u.wc
\eyeiv /ecu XaoTrXdvov. Dial. 69.
2 P. 204 f.
3 Justin has, Apol., i. 52, 6\f/ovrai es 6v '%(Kvrri<ra.v. Dial. 14, KCU 8\f/rai 6
Xaos vfM&v /cat yvupiei et's <bv e^eKevT-rjtrav, and, Dial. 32, speaking of the two
comings of Christ ; the first, in which he was pierced (e^eKfvrridt)), "and the
second in which ye shall know whom ye have pierced"; devrepav 8 ore
eVryvuxrecrfle et's &v e^fKevr^ffare.
4 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 34.
468
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the Septuagint version, which has thus been traced back as far as
A.D. 68, when the Apocalypse was composed, was noticed by
Jerome in his Commentary on the text ;' and Aquila, a con-
temporary of Irenaeus, and later Symmachus and Theodotion, as
well as others, similarly adopted e^Kevrrja-av. Ten important
MSS., of the Septuagint, at least, have the reading of Justin and
of the Apocalypse, and these MSS. likewise frequently agree with
the other peculiarities of Justin's text. In all probability, as
Credner, who long ago pointed out all these circumstances, con-
jectured, an emendation of the rendering of the LXX. had early
been made, partly in Christian interest and partly for the critical
improvement of the text, 2 and this amended version was used by
Justin and earlier Christian writers. Ewald 3 and some others sug-
gest that probably CKK^VTUV originally stood in the Septuagint
text. Every consideration is opposed to the dependence of Justin
upon the fourth Gospel for the variation.
The next and last point advanced by Tischendorf is a passage
in Apol., i. 61, which is compared with John iii. 3-5, and in order
to show the exact character of the two passages we shall place
them in parallel columns :
JUSTIN, APOL., i. 61.
For the Christ also said :
Unless ye be born again (dvayewrj-
Bijre) ye shall not enter into the king-
dom of heaven.
Now that it is impossible for those
who have once been born logo (fnfirjvai)
into the matrices of the parents 4 (ets ray
fj-r/rpas TUV TCKOVITUV) is evident to all.
Kai yap 6 Xpurrbs elirev "A? fj.rj
JOHN in. 3-5.
3. Jesus answered and said unto
him : Verily, verily, I say unto thee :
Except a man be born from above
(yevvrjfffi Uvudev) he cannot see the
kingdom of God.
4. Nicodemus saith unto him : How
can a man be born when he is old ?
Can he enter (elfff\0tlv) a second time
into his mother's womb (ets TTJC KoiXiav
rfjs prjTpbs avrov) and be born ?
5. Jesus answered : Verily, verily,
I say unto thee : Except a man be
born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into 5 the kingdom of
God/
3. 'AireKpidr) 'iT/croi'S Kai elirev avrip-
'Afj.rlv d/j.TJv Xe-yw <roi, eo.i> fji-ff rts
1 " Qttod ibi (i Regg. ii. 18) errore interpretations atcidit, etiam hie factum
deprehendimus. Si enim legatur Dacaru, i&KtvTriaav, i.e., cotnpunxerunt sive
confixerunt accipitur : sin autem contrario ordine, literis commulatis Racadu,
dipX^ffo-vro, i.e., saltaverunt intelligitur et ob sitnilitudinem literarum error
est nalus."
3 Credner, Beitrdge, ii., p. 293 f. Cf. Sanday, Gospels in Sec. Cent.,
p. 281.
3 Comm. in Apoc.Joh., 1829, p. 93, anm. I ; cf. Diejoh. Schriften, 1862,
p. 112, anm. I ; Liicke, Offenb. Joh., ii., p. 446 f.
4 Te/coO<ra, a mother, instead of tt-rfr-rip.
5 The Cod. Sinaiticus reads : "he cannot see."
6 The Cod. Sinaiticus has been altered here to-: " of heaven."
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 469
JUSTIN, APOL., i. 61.
dvayevvrj0j}re, ov ^ elffeXOyre els rr)v
j3aai,\elav rdv ovpavCiv. "Ori de Kal
ovvarov es ras /Arpas riv reKovffwv
TOVS #7ra yevvu/j.evovs efj.fiTJva.i, tpavepov
Trafflv tffri.
JOHN in. 3-5.
yevvrfd-fi &vw6ev, ov dvvarai ISeiv TTJV
fiaffiXetav rov 6eov.
4. Aeyei irpbs avrbv 6 NiK68i]fJi.os-
II ws Svvarai avOpUTrosyevvrjOTivai yepuv
&v ; /J.TJ Svvarai els ryv KoiXlav TTJS
/j,T)rpbs avrov Sevrepov elaeXBelv Kal
O~OL, eav JUTJ ris yevvrjO" e vdaros Kal
irvevfjLaros, ov Svvarai elffe\6elv e/s*
TTJV paffiXeiav rov Oeov.' 2
This is the most important passage by which apologists endea-
vour to establish the use of the fourth Gospel by Justin, and it is
that upon which the whole claim may be said to rest. We shall
be able to appreciate the nature of the case by the weakness
of its strongest evidence. The first point . which must have
struck any attentive reader is the singular difference of the
language of Justin, and the absence of the characteristic pecu-
liarities of the Johannine Gospel. The double " verily, verily,"
which occurs twice even in these three verses, and constantly
throughout the Gospel,3 is absent in Justin ; and apart from the
total difference of the form in which the whole passage is given
(the episode of Nicodemus being entirely ignored), and omitting
minor differences, the following linguistic variations occur :
Justin has :
av [ATJ dvayevvTjdfjre instead of eav /XT? ris yevvriOri avu6ev
ov Svvarai Idelv 4
paffi\ela TOV Beov
fji-fj dvvarai
njc K0i\iav
Trjs fj.i)Tpbs avTov
el<re\0eiv
evvrjOTJvai yepwv &v.
01' /j,rj elffe\6riT els
j3acri\eta TUV ovpavuv
O.OVVO.TOV
ras /j.r)Tpas
TUV TeKOVffWV
It is almost impossible to imagine a more complete differ-
ence, both in form and language, and it seems to us that there
does not exist a single linguistic trace by which the passage
in Justin can be connected with the fourth Gospel. The fact that
Justin knows nothing of the expression yewr)6rj <xvw$ev (" born from
above"), upon which the whole statement in the fourth Gospel
1 The Cod. Sinaiticus reads ISelv for elo-e\6etv eh here-
2 The Cod. Sin. has r&v ovpav&v, but rov 6eov is substituted by a later hand.
The former reading is only supported by a very few obscure and unimportant
codices. The Codices Alex. (A) and Vatic. (B), as well as all the most ancient
MSS., read TOV 6eov.
3 Cf. i. 51 ; iii. n ; v. 19, 24, 25 ; vi. 26, 32, 47, 53 ; viii. 34, 51, 58 ; x.
I, 7 ; xii. 24 ; xiii. 16, 20, 21, 38 ; xiv. 12 ; xvi. 20, 23 ; xxi. 18, etc.
4 It is very forced to jump to the end of the fifth verse to get elffe\6eli> els, and
even in that case the Cod. Sinaiticus reads again, precisely as in the third, Idetv.
470 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
turns, but uses a totally different word, dvayei/vT^re (born again),
is of great significance. Tischendorf wishes to translate avtaOev
"anew" (or again), as the version of Luther and the autho-
rised English translation read, and thus render the ai/ayev-
vi]6rjva.i of Justin a fair equivalent for it ; but even this would
not alter the fact that so little does Justin quote the fourth Gospel
that he has not even the test word of the passage. The word
avinOev, however, certainly cannot here be taken to signify any-
thing but " from above " x from God, from heaven and this is
not only its natural meaning, but the term is several times used in
other parts of the fourth Gospel, always with this same sense, 2
and there is nothing which warrants a different interpretation
here. On the contrary, the same signification is manifestly indi-
cated by the context, and forms the point of the whole lesson.
" Except a man be born of water and of Spirit^ he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God. 6. That which hath been born of the
flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is Spirit.
7. Marvel not that I said unto thee : ye must be born from
above " (ycvv^T/rai avw^ev). The explanation of avu>9ev is
given in verse 6. The birth " of the Spirit " is the birth " from
above," which is essential to entrance into the kingdom of God. 4
The sense of the passage in Justin is different and much more
simple. . He is speaking of regeneration through baptism, and the
manner in which converts are consecrated to God when they are
made new (/catvoTrotr/^evres) through Christ. After they are taught
to fast and pray for the remission of their sins, he says: "They are
then taken by us where there is water, that they may be re-
generated (' born again,' avayev^ovTcu), by the same manner of
regeneration ('being born again,' avaycvv^o-ecos) by which we also
were regenerated ('born again,' avayevvr/Otj/jiei'). For in the name
of the Father of the Universe the Lord God, and of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then make the washing
with the water. For the Christ also said, ' Unless ye be born again
), ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'
1 Credner, Beitrdge, i., p. 253; Davidson, Introd. N. T,, ii., p. 375 ; Ilil-
genfeld, Die Ew, Justin's, p. 214 ; Lange, Ev. n. Joh., 1862, p. 84 f. ; Light-
foot, Hone Hebr. et Taint, on John, iii. 3 ; Works, xii., p. 254 f. ; J. B. Lightfoot,
A Fresh Revision of the New Test., 1871, p. 142; Liicke, Comment. Ev.
Joh., i., p. 516 f. ; Meyer, Ev. Joh., 1869, p. 154 f. ; Reuss, Hist. Thtol.
Chrtt., ii., p. 521 f., 523, n. 2 ; Scholten, Die alt. Zeugnisse, p. 36 ; Het Ev.
n. Joh., 1865, pp. 21, 105, 237, 272, 387 ; Spath, Proleslanten Bibel, 1874,
p. 276 f. ; Stemler, Het Ev. v. Joh., 1868, pp. 250, 338, 344, 400; Suicer,
Thesaurus s. v. avuOtv ; de Wette, Ev. u. Br. Joh., 1863, pp. 61 ; Words-
worth, Gk. Test., The Four Gospels, p. 280; Zellcr, Theol. Jahrb., 1855,
p. 140. Cf. Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 193.
2 Cf. i. 31 ; xix. ii, 23. 3 Cf. Ezekiel xxxvi. 25-27.
4 Cf. Lightfoot, Hora Hebr. et Talm. ; Works**\\., p. 256.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 471
Now that it is impossible for those who have once been born to
go into the matrices of the parents is evident to all." And then
he quotes Isaiah i. 16-20, "Wash you, make you clean," etc.,
and proceeds: "And regarding this (Baptism) we have been
taught this reason. Since at our first birth we were born without
our knowledge, and perforce, etc., and brought up in evil habits
and wicked ways, therefore in order that we should not continue
children of necessity and ignorance, but become children of
election and knowledge, and obtain in the water remission of sins
which we had previously committed, the name of the Father of
the Universe and Lord God is pronounced over him who desires
to be born again (avayew^^vcu), and has repented of his
sins," etc. 1 It is clear that, whereas Justin speaks simply of
regeneration by baptism, the fourth Gospel indicates a later
development of the doctrine by spiritualising the idea, and
requiring not only regeneration through the water ("Except a man
be born of water "), but that a man should be born from above
("and of the Spirit"), not merely dvayevvrjOrjvaL, but avwOev
yevvrjOrjvai. The word used by Justin is that which was
commonly employed in the Church for regeneration, and other
instances of it occur in the New Testament. 2
The idea of regeneration, or being born again, as essential to
conversion, was quite familiar to the Jews themselves, and Light-
foot gives instances of this from Talmudic writings : " If any one
become a proselyte he is like a child ' new born.' The Gentile
that is made a proselyte and the servant that is made free he is
like a child new born. "3 This is, of course, based upon the
belief in special privileges granted to the Jews, and the Gentile
convert admitted to a share in the benefits of the Messiah became
a Jew by spiritual new birth. Justin, in giving the words of Jesus,
clearly professed to make an exact quotation 4 : " For Christ also
said : Unless ye be born again," etc. It must be remembered,
however, that Justin is addressing the Roman emperors, who
would not understand the expression that it was necessary to be
" born again " in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. He
therefore explains that he does not mean a physical new birth by
men already born ; and this explanation may be regarded as
natural, under the circumstances, and independent of any written
source. In any case, the striking difference of his language
from that of the fourth Gospel at least forbids the inference
that it must necessarily have been derived from that Gospel.
To argue otherwise would be to assume that sayings of
Jesus which are maintained to be historical were not recorded in
1 Apol., i. 61. 2 Cf. I Peter i. 3, 28.
3 Lightfoot, Works, xii., p. 255 f. 4 Bretschneider, frobabilia, p. 193.
472 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
more than four Gospels, and indeed in this instance were limited
to one. This is not only in itself inadmissible, but historically
untrue, 1 and a moment of consideration must convince every
impartial mind that it cannot legitimately be asserted that an
express quotation of a supposed historical saying must have been
taken from a parallel in one of our Gospels, from which it differs
so materially in language and circumstance, simply because that
Gospel happens to be the only one now surviving which contains
particulars somewhat similar. The express quotation funda-
mentally differs from the fourth Gospel, and the natural explanation
of Justin which follows is not a quotation at all, and likewise
fundamentally differs from the Johannine parallel. Justin not
only ignores the peculiar episode in the fourth Gospel in which
the passage occurs, but neither here nor anywhere throughout his
writings makes any mention of Nicodemus. The accident of
survival is almost the only justification of the affirmation that the
fourth Gospel is the source of Justin's quotation. On the other
hand, we have many strong indications of another source. In
our first Synoptic (xviii. 3) we find traces of another version of
the saying of Jesus, much more nearly corresponding with the
quotation of Justin : "And he said, verily I say unto you : Except
ye be turned and become as the little children ye shall not enter
into the kingdom of heaven." 2 The last phrase of this saying
is literally the same as the quotation of Justin, and gives his
expression, " kingdom of heaven," so characteristic of his Gospel,
and so foreign to the Johannine. We meet with a similar quota-
tion in connection with baptism, still more closely agreeing with
Justin, in the Clementine Homilies, xi. 26 : " Verily I say unto
you : Except ye be born again (dvayevvr^yyTe) by living water in
the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter
into the kingdom of heaven. "3 Here, again, we have both the
dvaytvvrjdTJTe and the /3aqri\,(ia TWV ovpavwv, as well as the
reference only to water in the baptism, and this is strong confirma-
tion of the existence of a version of the passage, different from
the Johannine, from which Justin quotes. As both the author of,
the Clementines and Justin probably made use of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, some most competent critics have, with
reason, adopted the conclusion that the passage we are discussing
Cf. Luke i. i.
ical elirfv, 'AjJ.i)v \{yu vfiiv, tb.v /*) ffrpa^rfre KO.L ytvijffOe ws rh. iraidla, ot> /j.r/
tk rfjv J3afft\elav rwv ovpavtav. Matt, xviii. 3.
3 Horn., xi. 26; cf. Recogtt., vi. 9: "Amen dico vobis, nisi guts denuo
renatus fuerit ex aqua, nan introibit in regna ccclorum." Cf. Clem. Horn.
Epitome, 1 8. In this much later compilation the passage, altered and
manipulated, is of no interest. Uhlhorn, Die Homilien u. Recogn., 1854, p.
43 f. ; Schliemann, Die Clementinen, 1844, p. 334,f.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 473
was probably derived from that Gospel ; at any rate, it cannot be
maintained as a quotation from our fourth Gospel, and it is, there-
fore, of no value as evidence even for its existence. Were it
successfully traced to that work, however, the passage would throw
no light on the authorship and character of the fourth Gospel.
If we turn for a moment from this last of the points of evidence
adduced by Tischendorf for the use of the fourth Gospel by
Justin, to consider how far the circumstances of the history of
Jesus narrated by Justin bear upon this quotation, we have a
striking confirmation of the results we have otherwise attained.
Not only is there a total absence from his writings of the peculiar
terminology and characteristic expressions of the fourth Gospel,
but there is no allusion made to any of the occurrences
exclusively narrated by that Gospel, although many of these, and
many parts of the Johannine discourses of Jesus, would have been
peculiarly suitable for his purpose. We have already pointed out
the remarkable absence of any use of the expressions by which
the Logos doctrine is stated in the prologue. We may now
add that Justin makes no reference to any of the special
miracles of the fourth Gospel. He is apparently quite ignorant
even of the raising of Lazarus. On the other hand, he gives repre-
sentations of the birth, life, and death of Jesus, which are ignored
by the Johannine Gospel, and are opposed to its whole con-
ception of Jesus as the Logos ; and when he refers to circum-
stances which are also narrated in that Gospel, his account is
different from that which it gives. Justin perpetually speaks of
the birth of Jesus by the Virgin of the race of David and the
Patriarchs : his Logos thus becomes man 1 (not "flesh " avtf/acoTro?,
not <rap) ; he is born in a cave in Bethlehem ; 2 he grows in
stature and intellect by the use of ordinary means like other men ;
he is accounted the son of Joseph the carpenter and Mary : he
himself works as a carpenter, and makes ploughs and yokes. 3
When Jesus is baptised by John, a fire is kindled in Jordan ; and
Justin evidently knows nothing of John's express declaration in
the fourth Gospel, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. 4
Justin refers to the change of name of Simon in connection with
his recognition of the Master as " Christ the Son of God," 5 which
is narrated quite differently in the fourth Gospel (i. 40-42),
where such a declaration is put into the mouth of Nathaniel
(i. 49), which Justin ignores. Justin does not mention Nicodemus
either in connection with the statement regarding the necessity of
being " born from above," or with the entombment (xix. 39). He
has the prayer and agony in the garden, 6 which the fourth Gospel
1 Dial. 100, etc. 2 Ib., 78. 3 /., 88.
t Ib., 88. s ib., loo. 6 Jb., 99, 103.
474 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
excludes, as well as the cries on the cross which that Gospel does not
contain. Then, according to Justin, the last supper takes place
on the 1 4th Nisan, 1 whilst the fourth Gospel, ignoring the Pass-
over and last supper, represents the last meal as eaten on the 1 3th
Nisan (John xiii. i f., cf. xviii. 28). He likewise contradicts the
fourth Gospel in limiting the work of Jesus to one year. In fact,
it is impossible for writings, so full of quotations of the words of
Jesus and of allusions to the events of his life, more completely to
ignore or vary from the fourth Gospel throughout ; and if it could
be shown that Justin was acquainted with such a work, it would
follow certainly that he did not consider it an Apostolical or
authoritative composition.
We may add that, as Justin so distinctly and directly refers to
the Apostle John as the author of the Apocalypse, 2 there is con-
firmation of the conclusion, otherwise arrived at, that he did not,
and could not, know the Gospel and also ascribe it to him.
Finally, the description which Justin gives of the manner of teach-
ing of Jesus excludes the idea that he knew the fourth Gospel :
" Brief and concise were the sentences uttered by him ; for he was
no Sophist, but his word was the power of God." 3 No one could
for a moment assert that this description applies to the long and
artificial discourses of the fourth Gospel, whilst, on the other hand,
it eminently describes the style of teaching in the Synoptics, with
which the numerous Gospels in circulation amongst early Christians
were, of course, more nearly allied.
The inevitable conclusion at which we must arrive is that,
far from indicating any acquaintance with the fourth Gospel, the
writings of Justin not only do not furnish the slightest evidence of
its existence, but offer presumptive testimony against its Aposto-
lical origin.
Tischendorf only devotes a short note to Hegesippus,* and does
not pretend to find in the fragments of his writings preserved to
us by Eusebius, or the details of his life which he has recorded,
any evidence for our Gospels. Apologists generally admit that
this source, at least, is barren of all testimony for the fourth
Gospel, but Dr. Westcott cannot renounce so important a witness
without an effort, and he therefore boldly says : " When he
(Hegesippus) speaks of 'the door of Jesus' in his account of the
death of St. James, there can be little doubt that he alludes to the
language of our Lord recorded by St. John." 5 The passage to
1 "And it is written that on the day of the Passover you seized him, and
likewise during the Passover you crucified him" (Dial, in ; cf. Dial. 70;
Matt. xxvi. 2, 17 f., 30, 57).
2 Dial. 81. 3 Apol., i. 14.
4 JVann wurden, u. s. w., p. 19, anm. I.
s On the Canon, p. 182 f. ,
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 475
which Dr. Westcott refers, but which he does not quote, is as
follows : " Certain, therefore, of the seven heretical parties
amongst the people, already described by me in the Memoirs,
inquired of him, what was the door of Jesus ; and he declared this
(TOVTOV Jesus) to be the Saviour. From which some believed
that Jesus is the Christ. But the aforementioned heretics did not
believe either a resurrection, or that he shall come to render to
every one according to his works. As many as believed, how-
ever, did so through James." The rulers, fearing that the people
would cause a tumult from considering Jesus to be the Messiah
(Xptcrros), entreat James to persuade them concerning Jesus, and
prevent their being deceived by him ; and in order that he may
be heard by the multitude, they place James upon a wing of the
temple, and cry to him : " O, just man, whom we all are bound to
believe, inasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the
crucified, declare plainly to us what is the door of Jesus." 1 To
find in this a reference to the fourth Gospel requires a good deal
of apologetic ingenuity. It is perfectly clear that, as an allusion
to John x. 7, 9, " I am the door," the question, " What is the
door of Jesus ?" is mere nonsense, and the reply of James totally
irrelevant. Such a question in reference to the discourse in the
fourth Gospel, moreover, in the mouths of the antagonistic Scribes
and Pharisees, is quite inconceivable, and it is unreasonable to
suppose that it has any connection with it. Various emendations
of the text have been proposed to obviate the difficulty of the
question, but none of these have been adopted, and it has now
been generally accepted that Bvpa is used in an idiomatic sense.
The word is very frequently employed in such a manner, or
symbolically, in the New Testament, 2 and by the Fathers. The
Jews were well acquainted with a similar use of the word in the
Old Testament, in some of the Messianic Psalms, as for instance :
Ps. cxviii. 19, 20 (cxvii. 19, 20, Sefl/.). 19, "Open to me the
gates (7TvA.as) of righteousness ; entering into them, I will give
praise to the Lord " ; 20, " This is the gate (17 7^X77) of the Lord ;
the righteous shall enter into it. "3 Quoting this passage, Clement
of Alexandria remarks : " But explaining the saying of the prophet,
Barnabas adds : Many gates (TACOV) being open, that which is in
righteousness is in Christ, in which all those who enter are
blessed. "4 Grabe explains the passage of Hegesippus by a refer-
1 Eusebius, H. E., ii. 23.
2 Cf. Acts xiv. 27 ; i Cor. xvi. 9 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12 ; Col. iv. 3 ; James v. 9 ;
Rev. iii. 8, 20 ; iv. I.
3 Cf. Ps. xxiv. 7-8 (xxiii. 7-8, Sept.).
4 Strom, vi. 8, 64. This passage is not to be found in the Epistle of
Barnabas.
476 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
ence to the frequent allusions in Scripture to the two ways : one
of light, the other of darkness ; the one leading to life, the other
to death ; as well as the simile of two gates which is coupled with
them, as in Matt. vii. 13 f. He, therefore, explains the question
of the rulers, " What is the door of Jesus ? " as an inquiry into
the judgment of James concerning him : whether he was a teacher
of truth or a deceiver of the people ; whether belief in him was
the way and gate of life and salvation, or of death and perdition. 1
He refers as an illustration to the Epistle of Barnabas, xviii. :
" There are two ways of teaching and of power : one of light, the
other of darkness. But there is a great difference between the
two ways." The Epistle, under the symbol of the two ways,
classifies the whole of the moral law. 2 In the Clementine
Homilies, win. 17, there is a version of the saying, Matt. vii. 13 f.,
derived from another source, in which " way " is more decidedly
even than in our first Synoptic made the equivalent of " gate " :
" Enter ye through the narrow and straitened way (6So) through
which we shall enter into life." Eusebius himself, who has preserved
the fragment, evidently understood it distinctly in the same sense,
and he gives its true meaning in another of his works, where he
paraphrases the question into an inquiry, as to the opinion which
James held concerning Jesus (riva. TTC/H TOV 'Iijo-ov l^ 01 &>av).3
This view is supported by many learned men, and Routh has
pointed out that Ernesti considered he would have been right in
making St&xx 1 *;, doctrine, teaching, the equivalent of Bvpa,
although he admits that Eusebius never uses it in his history
in connection with Christian doctrine. 4 He might, however,
have instanced this passage, in which it is clearly used in this
sense, and so explained by Eusebius. There is evidently
no intention on the part of the Scribes and Pharisees to
ridicule, in asking, "What is the door of Jesus?" but they
desire James to declare plainly to the people the teaching
of Jesus, and his personal pretension. To suppose that the
rulers of the Jews set James upon a wing of the temple, in order
that they might ask him a question, for the benefit of the
1 Spicil. Pair., ., p. 254.
2 In like manner the Clementine Homilies give a peculiar version of Deut.
xxx. 15 : " Behold I have set before thy face the way of life, and the way of
death" (Horn., xviii. 17, cf. vii. 7). We have already shown (p. 150 f.) that
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (i.-vi.) is based upon this text.
3 Demonstrat. Evang., iii. 7 ; Routh, Rel. Sacr., i. , p. 235.
4 "Si ego in Glossis poneretn : Otipa, Sidaxy, rectum esset. Sed respicerem ad loca
Grcecorwn theologorum v. c. Eusebii in Hist. Eccl. ubi non semel Otipa, Xpiffrov
(sic) de doctrina Christiana dicitur." Dissert. De Usu Glossariorum. Routh,
Reliq. Sacra., i., p. 236. Donaldson gives as the most probable meaning;
" To what is it that Jesus is to lead us ? And James' answer is therefore : 'To
salvation'" (Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii., p. l^o, note).
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 477
multitude, based upon a discourse in the fourth Gospel, unknown
to the Synoptics, and even in relation to which such an inquiry
as, " What is the door of Jesus ?" becomes mere ironical
nonsense, surpasses all that we could have imagined even of
apologetic zeal.
We have already said all that is necessary with regard to
Hegesippus, in connection with the Synoptics, and need not add
more here. It is certain that had he written anything interesting
about our Gospels, and, we may say, particularly about the fourth,
the fact would have been recorded by Eusebius. 1
Nor need we add much to our remarks regarding Papias of
Hierapolis. 2 It is perfectly clear that the works of Matthew and
Mark,^ regarding which he records such important particulars, are
not the Gospels in our Canon, which pass under their names ; he
does not seem to have known anything of the third Synoptic ;
and there is no reason to suppose that he referred to the fourth
Gospel or made use of it. He is, therefore, at least, a total blank
so far as the Johannine Gospel and our third Synoptic are
concerned, but he is more than this, and it may, we think, be
concluded that Papias was not acquainted with any such Gospels
which he regarded as Apostolic compositions, or authoritative
documents. Had he said anything regarding the composition or
authorship of the fourth Gospel, Eusebius would certainly have
mentioned the fact ; and this silence of Papias is strong presumptive
evidence against the Johannine Gospel. Tischendorf s argument
in regard to the Phrygian Bishop is mainly directed to this point,
and he maintains that the silence of Eusebius does not make
Papias a witness against the fourth Gospel, and does not involve
the conclusion that he did not know it, inasmuch as it was not,
he affirms, the purpose of Eusebius to record the mention or use
of the books of the New Testament which were not disputed. 4 It
might be contended that this reasoning is opposed to the practice
and express declaration of Eusebius himself, who says : "But in
the course of the history I shall, with the successions (from the
Apostles), carefully intimate what ecclesiastical writers of the
various periods made use of the Antilegomena (or disputed
writings), and which of them, and what has been stated by these
as well regarding the collected (evSta^/cot) and Homologoumena
1 See remarks regarding the Silence of Eusebius ; Preface to Complete ed. ,
p. xviii. f.
2 P. 276 f. ; Preface to Complete ed., p. xxi. f.
3 It is evident that Papias did not regard the works by " Matthew " and
"Mark" which he mentions, as of any authority. Indeed, all that he
reports regarding the latter is merely apologetic, and in deprecation of
criticism.
4 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 112 f.
478 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
(or accepted writings), as regarding those which are not of this
kind." 1 It is not worth while, however, to dwell upon this here.
The argument in the case of Papias stands upon a broader basis.
It is admitted that Eusebius engages carefully to record what
ecclesiastical writers state regarding the Homologoumena, and that
he actually does so. Now Papias has himself expressed the high
value he attached to tradition, and his eagerness in seeking
information from the Presbyters. The statements regarding the
Gospels composed by Matthew and Mark, quoted by Eusebius,
are illustrative at once both of the information collected by
Papias and of that cited by Eusebius. How comes it, then, that
nothing whatever is said about the fourth Gospel, a work so
peculiar and of such exceptional importance, said to be composed
by the Apostle whom Jesus loved ? Is it possible to suppose that,
when Papias collected from the Presbyter the facts which he has
recorded concerning Matthew and Mark, he would not also have
inquired about a Gospel by John, had he known of it ? Is it
possible that he could have had nothing interesting to tell about a
work presenting so many striking and distinctive features ? Had
he collected any information on the subject, he would certainly
have recorded it, and as certainly Eusebius would have quoted
what he said, 2 as he did the account of the other two Gospels, for
he even mentions that Papias made use of the ist Epistle of John
and ist Epistle of Peter, two equally accepted writings. The
legitimate presumption, therefore, is that, as Eusebius did not
mention the fact, he did not find anything regarding the fourth
Gospel in the work of Papias, and that Papias was not acquainted
with it. This presumption is confirmed by the circumstance that
when Eusebius writes, elsewhere (H. E., iii. 24), of the order of
the Gospels, and the composition of John's Gospel, he has no
greater authority to give for his account than vague tradition :
"they say" (<oo-i).
Proceeding from this merely negative argument, Tischendorf
endeavours to show that not only is Papias not a witness against
the fourth Gospel, but that he presents evidence in its favour.
The first reason he advances is that Eusebius states : " The same
(Papias) made use of testimonies out of the first Epistle of John,
and likewise out of that of Peter. "3 On the supposed identity of
the authorship of the Epistle and Gospel, Tischendorf, as in the
case of Polycarp, claims this as evidence for the fourth Gospel.
Eusebius, however, does not quote the passages upon which he
bases this statement, and, knowing his inaccuracy and the hasty
and uncritical manner in which he and the Fathers generally jump
1 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 3 ; cf. iii. 24.
2 Cf. Preface to 6th ed., p. xi. f., xxi. f. * 3 Eusebius, H. ., iii. 39.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 479
at such conclusions, we must reject this as sufficient proof that
Papias really did use the Epistle, and that Eusebius did not
adopt his opinion from a mere superficial analogy of passages ;
but, if it were certain that Papias actually quoted from the Epistle,
it does not in the least follow that he ascribed it to the Apostle
John, and the use of the Epistle would scarcely affect the question
as to the character and authorship of the fourth Gospel.
The next testimony advanced by Tischendorf is, indeed, of an
extraordinary character. There is a Latin MS. (Vat. Alex. 14) in
the Vatican, which Tischendorf assigns te the ninth century, in
which there is a preface, by an unknown hand, to the Gospel
according to John, which commences as follows : " Evangelium
iohannis manifestatum et dafttm est ecclesiis ab iohanne adhuc in
corpore constitute, sicut papias nomine hierapolitanus discipulus
iohannis earns in exotericis id est in extremis quinque libris retulit "
(" The Gospel of John was published and given to the churches
by John whilst he was still in the flesh, as Papias, named of
Hierapolis, an esteemed disciple of John, related in his Exoterics,
that is his last five books "). Tischendorf says : " There can,
therefore, be no more decided declaration made of the testimony
of Papias for the Johannine Gospel." 1 He wishes to end the
quotation here, and only refers to the continuation, which he is
obliged to admit to be untenable, in a note. The passage proceeds :
" Disscripsit vero evangelium dictante iohanne recte " (" He [Papias]
indeed wrote out the Gospel, John duly dictating "); then follows
another passage regarding Marcion, representing him also as a
contemporary of John, which Tischendorf likewise confesses to be
untrue. 2 Now, Tischendorf admits that the writer desires it to be
understood that he derived the information that Papias wrote the
fourth Gospel at the dictation of John likewise from the work of
Papias, and, as it is perfectly impossible, by his own admissions,
that Papias, who was not a contemporary of the Apostle, could
have stated this, the whole passage is clearly fabulous and written
by a person who never saw the book at all. This extraordinary
piece of evidence is so obviously absurd that it is passed over in
silence by other critics, even of the strongest apologetic tendency,
and it stands here a pitiable instance of the arguments to which
destitute criticism can be reduced.
In order to do full justice to the last of the arguments of
Tischendorf, we shall give it in his own words : " Before we leave
Papias, we have still to consider one testimony for the Gospel of
John which Irenaeus, v. 36, 2, quotes out of the very mouth of
the Presbyters, those high authorities of Papias : 'And therefore,
say they, the Lord declared : In my Father's house are many
1 Wann wurden, it. s. w., p. 119. 2 Ib. t p. 119, anm. I.
480 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
mansions ' (John xiv. 2). As the Presbyters set this declaration
in connection with the blessedness of the righteous in the City of
God, in Paradise, in Heaven, according as they bear fruit thirty,
sixty, or one hundred-fold, nothing is more probable than that
Irenaeus takes this whole declaration of the Presbyters, which he
gives, 1-2, like the preceding description of the thousand
years' reign, from the work of Papias. But whether this be its
origin or not, the authority of the Presbyters is in any case higher
than that of Papias," etc. 1 Now in the quotation from Irenaeus
given in this passage Tischendorf renders the oblique construction
of the text by inserting " say they," referring to the Presbyters of
Papias ; and, as he does not give the original, he should at least
have indicated that these words are supplementary. We shall
endeavour as briefly as possible to state the facts of the case.
Irenaeus, with many quotations from Scripture, is arguing that
our bodies are preserved, and that the Saints who have suffered
so much in the flesh shall in that flesh receive the fruits of their
labours. In v. 33, 2, he refers to the saying given in Matt.
xix. 29 (Luke xviii. 29, 30), that whosoever has left lands, etc.,
because of Christ shall receive a hundred-fold in this world, and
in the next, eternal life ; and then, enlarging on the abundance of
the blessings in the Millennial kingdom, he affirms that Creation
will be renovated, and the earth acquire wonderful fertility ; and
he adds, 3, " As the Presbyters who saw John, the disciple of
the Lord, remember that they heard from him, how the Lord
taught concerning those times and said," etc. (" Quemadmodum
presbyteri meminerunt, qui Joannem discipulum Domini viderunt
audisse se ab eo, quemadmodum de temporibus illis docebat Dominus,
et dicebaf," etc.) ; and then he quotes the passage, "The days will
come in which vines will grow each having ten thousand Branches,"
etc. ; and " In like manner that a grain of wheat would produce
ten thousand ears," etc. With regard to these, he says, at the
beginning of the next paragraph, v. 33, 4 : " These things are
testified in writing by Papias, a hearer of John and associate of
Polycarp, an ancient man in the fourth of his books : for there
were five books composed by him. 2 And he added, saying : 'But
these things are credible to believers. And Judas the traitor not
believing, and asking how shall such growths be effected by the
Lord, the Lord said : They who shall come to them shall see.'
Prophesying of these times, therefore, Isaiah says : ' The Wolf
also shall feed with the Lamb,' etc. (quoting Isaiah xi. 6-9) ; and
1 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 119 f.
3 Eusebius has preserved the Greek of this passage (ff. ., iii. 39), and goes
on to contradict the statement of Irenaeus that Papias was a hearer and con-
temporary of the Apostles. Eusebius states that Papias, in his preface, by no
means asserts that he was.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 481
again he says, recapitulating : ' Wolves and lambs shall then feed
together,'" etc. (quoting Isaiah Ixv. 25), and so on, continuing his
argument. It is clear that Irenaeus introduces the quotation from
Papias, and, ending his reference at " They who shall come to
them shall see," he continues, with a quotation from Isaiah, his
own train of reasoning. We give this passage to show the
manner in which Irenseus proceeds. He then continues with the
same subject, quoting (v. 34, 35) Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah,
Daniel, the Apocalypse, and sayings found in the New Testament
bearing upon the Millennium. In c. 35 he argues that the
prophecies he quotes of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Apocalypse
must not be allegorised away, but that they literally describe the
blessings to be enjoyed after the coming of Antichrist and the
resurrection in the New Jerusalem on earth; and he quotes Isaiah
vi. 12, Ix. 5, 21, and a long passage from Baruch iv. 36, v. 9
(which he ascribes to Jeremiah), Isaiah xlix. 16, Galatians iv. 26,
Rev. xxi. 2, xx. 2-15, xxi. 1-6, all descriptive, as he maintains, of
the Millennial kingdom prepared for the saints ; and then, in v. 36,
the last chapter of his work on heresies, as if resuming his
previous argument, he proceeds 1 : "i. And that these things
shall ever remain without end Isaiah says : ' For like as the new
heaven and the new earth which I make remain before me, saith
the Lord, so shall your seed and your name continue,' 2 and, as the
Presbyters say, then those who have been deemed worthy of living
in heaven shall go thither, and others shall enjoy the delights of
Paradise, and others shall possess the glory of the City ; for every-
where the Saviour shall be seen as those who see him shall be
worthy. 2. But that there is this distinction of dwelling (eirat Se
TT]V StacrroAryv ravrrfv T)S ot/ajtrews) of those bearing fruit the
hundred-fold, and of the (bearers) of the sixty-fold, and of the
(bearers of) the thirty-fold : of whom some indeed shall be taken
up into the heavens, some shall live in Paradise, and some shall
inhabit the City, and that for this reason (Sia rovTopropter hoc}
the Lord declared: In the ...... (plural) of my Father are many
mansions (ev rots TOU Trarpos jwv /xoyas etvai 7roAAas).3 For all
1 We have the following passage only in the old Latin version, with frag-
ments of the Greek preserved by Andrew of Ceesarea in his Comment, in Apoc.,
xviii. , Ixiv., and elsewhere.
2 Isaiah Ixvi. 22, Sept.
3 With this may be compared John xiv. 2, tv ry okta TOV Tra.Tp6s pov poval
iro\\ai eicriv. If the passage be maintained to be from the Presbyters, the
variations from the text of the Gospel are important. Doubtless the expres-
sion, TO. TOV ira.Tp6s IJLOV, may mean " my father's house," arid this sense is
ancient, but a wider sense is far from excluded, and the plural is used. In
Luke ii. 49 the very phrase occurs, ev TOJS TOU irar/)6s /JLOV, and in the author-
ised version is translated "about my father's business" (cf. I Tim. iv. 15). The
best commentators are divided in opinion regarding the passage in Luke. It is
21
482 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
things are of God, who prepares for all the fitting habitation, as his
Word says that distribution is made to all by the Father according
as each is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch upon which
they recline who are invited to banquet at the Wedding. The
Presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, state that this is the order
and arrangement of those who are saved, and that by such steps
they advance," 1 etc.
It is impossible for any one who attentively considers the
whole of this passage, and who makes himself acquainted with the
manner in which Irenaeus conducts his argument, and interweaves
it with quotations, to assert that the phrase we are considering
must have been taken from a book referred to three chapters
earlier, and was not introduced by Irenaeus from some other
source. In the passage from the commencement of the second
paragraph Irenaeus enlarges upon, and illustrates, what " the
Presbyters say " regarding the blessedness of the saints, by quoting
the view held as to the distinction between those bearing fruit
thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and one hundred-fold, 2 and the interpretation
given of the saying regarding "many mansions"; but the source of
his quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the exegesis of
his own day. That this is probably the case is shown by the con-
tinuation : " And this is the Couch upon which they recline who
are invited to banquet at the Wedding " an allusion to the
marriage supper upon- which Irenaeus had previously discoursed; 3
immediately after which phrase, introduced by Irenaeus himself, he
says : " The Presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, state that
this is the order and arrangement of those who are saved," etc.
Now, if the preceding passages had been a mere quotation from
the Presbyters of Papias, such a remark would have been out of
place and useless; but, being the exposition of the prevailing views,
Irenaeus confirms it and prepares to wind up the whole subject by
the general statement that the Presbyters, the disciples of the
Apostles, affirm that this is the order and arrangement of those
who are saved, and that by such steps they advance and ascend
through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father,
etc.; and a few sentences after he closes his work.
In no case can it be legitimately affirmed that the citation
of " the Presbyters," and the " Presbyters, disciples of the
Apostles," is a reference to the work of Papias. When quoting
necessary, in a case like the present, to convey the distinct difference between
the words as they stand in Irenseus and the saying in the fourth Gospel. Dr.
Sanday has " In my Father's realm " (Gospels in Sec. Cent., p. 297).
1 Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer., v. 36, i, 2.
2 Matt. xiii. 8 ; Mark iv. 20 ; cf. Matt. xxv. 14-29 ; Luke xix. 12-26 ; xii.
47, 48.
3 Adv. H<er., iv. 36, 5, 6. \
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 483
" the Presbyters who saw John, the disciple of the Lord," three
chapters before, Irenaeus distinctly states that Papias testifies
what he quotes in writing in the fourth of his books ; but
there is nothing to indicate that " the Presbyters " and " the
Presbyters, disciples of the Apostles," subsequently referred to,
after a complete change of context, have anything to do with
Papias. The references to Presbyters in this work of Irenaeus
are very numerous, and when we remember the importance which
the Bishop of Lyons attached to "that tradition which comes from
the Apostles, which is preserved in the Churches by a succession of
Presbyters," 1 the reference before us assumes a very different com-
plexion. In one place, Irenaeus quotes " the divine Presbyter "
(6 #eros Trp(rf3vT-ij<i), "the God-loving Presbyter" (6 8eo(f>i\r}<;
Trp&rfSvTrjs), 2 who wrote verses against the heretic Marcus.
Elsewhere he supports his extraordinary statement that the public
career of Jesus, instead of being limited to a single year, extended
over a period of twenty years, and that he was nearly fifty when
he suffered, 3 by the appeal : "As the gospel and all the Presbyters
testify, who in Asia met with John the disciple of the Lord
(stating) that these things were transmitted to them by John. For
he continued among them till the times of Trajan. "* That these
Presbyters are not quoted from Papias may be inferred from
the fact that Eusebius, who had his work, cites the passage
from Irenaeus without allusion to Papias ; and as he adduces two
witnesses only, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, to prove the
assertion regarding John, he would certainly have referred to the
earlier authority, had the work of Papias contained the statement,
as he does for the stories regarding the daughters of the Apostle
Philip, the miracle in favour of Justus, and other matters.s We
need not refer to Clement, nor to Polycarp, who had been "taught
by Apostles," and the latter of whom Irenaeus knew in his youth. 6
Irenaeus in one place also gives a long account of the teaching of
some one upon the sins of David and other men of old, which he
introduces : " As I have heard from a certain Presbyter, who had
heard it from those who had seen the Apostles, and from those
1 Adv. Hcer., iii. 2, 2 ; cf. i. 10, I ; 27, I, 2 ; ii. 22, 5 ; iii. pncf.
3, 4 ; 21, 3 ; iv. 27, i ; 32, i ; v. 20, 2 ; 30, I.
2 Ib., i. 15, 6. 3 ib., ii. 22, 4, 6.
4 Adv. Hcer., ii. 22, 5 ; cf. Eusebius, H. E., iii. 23. "In Asia" evidently
refers chiefly to Ephesus, as is shown by the passage quoted immediately after
by Eusebius from Adv. Har., iii. 3, 4, "the Church in Ephesus also
where John continued until the times of Trajan, is a witness to the truth of the
apostolic tradition."
5 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 39.
6 Adv. Hcer., iii. 3, 3, 4. Fragment from his Epistle to Florinus pre-
served by Eusebius, H. E., v. 20.
484 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
who learnt from them," 1 etc. Further on, speaking evidently of a
different person, he says : " In this manner also a Presbyter
disciple of the Apostles reasoned regarding the two Testaments ": 2
and quotes fully. In another place Irenseus, after quoting Gen.
ii. 8, " And God planted a Paradise eastward in Eden," etc.,
states : " Wherefore the Presbyters, who are disciples of the
Apostles (01 Trpea-jSvTepot,, TWV aTroo-roXoji/ padijTai) say that
those who were translated had been translated thither," there to
remain, till the consummation of all things, awaiting immortality ;
and Irenaeus explains that it was into this Paradise that Paul was
caught up (2 Cor. xii. 4). 3 It seems highly probable that these
" Presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles," who are quoted on
Paradise, are the same " Presbyters, the disciples of the
Apostles," referred to here on the same subject (v. 36, $ i,
2) ; but there is nothing to connect them with Papias.
He also speaks of the Septuagint translation of the Bible as
the version of the " Presbyters," 1 * and on several occasions he
calls Luke " the follower and disciple of the Apostles " (Sectator
et disdpulus apostolorum)^ and characterises Mark as " the inter-
preter and follower of Peter " (interpres et sectator Petri)f and
refers to both as having learnt from the words of the Apostles.?
Here is, therefore, a wide choice of Presbyters, including even
Evangelists, to whom the reference of Irenasus may with equal
right be ascribed, 8 so that it is unreasonable to claim it as an
allusion to the work of Papias.9 In fact, Dr. Tischendorf and Dr.
Westcott 10 stand almost alone in advancing this passage as evidence
1 Qtiemadmodum audivi a guodam presbytero, qui audierat ab his qui
apostolos viderant, et ab his qui didicerant, etc. (Adv. Har., iv. 27, I ; cf.
2 ; 30, l). This has been variously conjectured to be a reference to Poly-
carp, Papias, and Pothinus, his predecessor at Lyons ; but it is admitted by all
to be impossible to decide upon 'the point.
= Hujustnodi quoque de duobus testamentis senior apostolonun disdpulus
disputdbat, etc. (Adv. Hixr., iv. 32, i).
3 Adv. H<zr.,\. 5, i. 4 Ib., iii. 21, 3, 4.
5 /5., i. 23, I ; iii. 10, I ; 14, I. 6 Ib., iii. 10, 6. ^ Ib., iii. 15, 4.
8 In the New Testament the term Presbyter is even used in reference to
Patriarchs and Prophets (Heb. xi. 2 ; cf. Matt. xv. 2, Mark vii. 3, 5).
9 With regard to the Presbyters quoted by Irenceus generally. Cf. Routh,
Reliq. Sacra, i., p. 47 f.
10 Dr. Westcott affirms : "In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and
St. Mark, Papias appears to have been acquainted with the Gospel of
St. John."( 3 ) He says no more, and offers no evidence for this assertion
in the text. There are two notes, however, on the same page, which
we shall now quote, the second being that to which ( 3 ) above refers. " * No
conclusion can be drawn from Eusebius' silence as to express testimonies of
Papias to the Gospel of St. John, as we are ignorant of his special plan, and
the title of his book shows that it was not intended to include ' all the oracles
of the Lord ' (see p. 6l, note 2)." The second note is : " 3 There is also (! ?)
an allusion to it in the quotation from the ' Elders' found in Irenseus (lib. v.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 485
that either Papias or his Presbyters were acquainted with the
fourth Gospel ; and this renders the statement which is made by
them without any discussion all the more indefensible. Scarcely
a single writer, however apologetic, seriously cites it amongst the
external testimonies for the early existence of the Gospel, and the
few who do refer to the passage merely mention, in order to
abandon, it. So far as the question as to whether the fourth
Gospel was mentioned in the work of Papias is concerned, the
passage has practically never entered into the controversy at all,
the great mass of critics having recognised that it is of no
evidential value, and, by common consent, tacitly excluded
it. It is admitted that the Bishop of Hierapolis cannot be
shown to have known the fourth Gospel, and the majority affirm
that he actually was not acquainted with it. Being, therefore, so
completely detached from Papias, it is obvious that the passage
does not in any way assist the fourth Gospel, but becomes assign-
able to vague tradition, and subject to the cumulative force of
objections, which prohibit an early date being ascribed to so in-
definite a reference.
Before passing on there is one other point to mention : Andrew
of Cassarea, in the preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse,
mentions that Papias maintained "the credibility" (TO dio7rio-Tov)
of that book, or, in other words, its apostolic origin. 1 His
strong millenarian opinions would naturally make such a composi-
tion stand high in his esteem, if indeed it did not materially con-
tribute to the formation of his views, which is still more probable.
Apologists admit the genuineness of this statement ; nay, claim it
as undoubted evidence of the acquaintance of Papias with the
ad. f. ) which probably was taken from Papias (fr. v. Ronth et Nott.). The
Latin passage containing a reference to the Gospel which is published as a
fragment of ' Papias' by Grabe and Routh (fr. xi. ) is taken from the ' Dictionary'
of a media-val Papias quoted by Grabe upon the passage, and not from the
present Papias. The 'Dictionary' exists in MS. both at Oxford and Cambridge.
I am indebted to the kindness of a friend for this explanation of what seemed
to beastrange forgery" (On (he Canon, p. 65). The note 2, p. 61, referred to
in note 2 quoted above, says on this subject : "The passage quoted by Irenseus
from ' the Elders ' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of inter-
pretation " (!), and then follows a quotation, "as the Presbyters say," down
" to many mansions." Dr. Westcott then continues : " Indeed, from the
similar mode of introducing the story of the vine which is afterwards referred
to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this interpretation is one from
Papias' Exposition." We have given the whole of the passages to show how
little evidence there is for the statement which is made. The isolated assertion
in the text, which is all that most readers would see, is supported by no better
testimony than that in the preceding note inserted at the foot of an earlier
page.
1 Andreas, Proleg. in Apocalypsin ; Routh, Rel. Sacra, i., p. 15.
486
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Apocalypse. 1 Dr. Westcott, for instance, says : " He maintained,
moreover, 'the divine inspiration' of the Apocalypse, and com-
mented, at least, upon part of it." 2 He must, therefore, have
recognised the book as the work of the Apostle John, and we shall,
hereafter, show that it is impossible that the author of the Apoca-
lypse was the author of the Gospel ; therefore, in this way also,
Papias is a witness against the Apostolic origin of the fourth
Gospel.
We must now turn to the Clementine Homilies, although, as we
have shown, 3 the uncertainty as to the date of this spurious work,
and the late period which must undoubtedly be assigned to its
composition, render its evidence of very little value for the
canonical Gospels. The passages pointed out in the Homilies as
indicating acquaintance with the fourth Gospel were long advanced
with hesitation, and were generally felt to be inconclusive; but on the
discovery of the concluding portion of the work, and its publica-
tion by Dressel in 1853, it was found to contain a passage which
apologists now claim as decisive evidence of the use of the Gospel,
and which even succeeded in converting some independent critics. 4
Tischendorfs and Dr. Westcott, 6 in the few lines devoted to the
Clementines, do not refer to the earlier proof passages, but rely
entirely upon that last discovered. With a view, however, to
making the whole of the evidence clear, we shall give all of the
supposed allusions to the fourth Gospel, confronting them with the
text. The first is as follows :
HOM. in. 52.
Wherefore he, being the true pro-
phet, said :
I am the gate of life : he coming in
through me cometh in unto life, as
there is no other teaching which is able
to save.
Aid TOVTO avrbs d\T)0r)S &v irpoipr/Tiis
HXeyev
'Eyw ft'ju.i rj TrvXr) rrjs fwTjs- 6 5i' ffjiov
flffepxbfi.tvo'i tlfftpxtrai e/y r-qv J'WTJV
ws owe oOff-qs erfyas TTJS ffufeiv ovva-
JOHN x. 9.
I am the door (of the sheepfold) ; if
anyone enter through me he shall be
saved, and shall go in and shall go out
and shall find pasture.
'Ryu el/j.i i) dfipa.' 5C tfLov i&v TS
ffw0-/iffcrai, Kal elffeXtvfferai.
1 Liicke, Einl. O/enb. Job., 1852, ii., p. 526 ; Ewald, Die Joh. Schriften,
ii., p. 371 f. ; Guericke, Gesammtgesch. N. T., p. 536; Tischendorf, Wann
wurden, u. s. w., p. n 6, etc.
2 On the Canon, p. 65. 3 P. 300 f.
4 Hilgenfeld, who had maintained that \.\\e^C/e/iien(ines did not use the
fourth Gospel, was induced by the passage to which we refer to admit its use.
Cf. Die Ew. Justin' 's, p. 385 f. ; Die Evangelien, p. 346 f. ; Der Kanon, p. 29 ;
Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 534, anm. I ; Zeitschr. wiss. TheoL, 1865, p. 338.
Volkmar is inclined to the same opinion, although not with the same decision.
Theol. Jahrb., 1854, p. 448 f.
5 Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 90 f.
the Canon, p. 252.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 487
The first point which is apparent here is that there is a total
difference both in the language and real meaning of these two
passages. The Homily uses the word TTV\^ instead of the Bvpa
of the Gospel, and speaks of the gate of life instead of the
door of the Sheepfold. We have already 1 discussed the passage
in the Shepherd of Hernias, in which similar reference is made to
the gate (irvX.-^) into the kingdom of God, and need not here
repeat our argument. In Matt. vii. 13, 14 we have the direct
description of the gate (TrvXtj) which leads to life (eis r-r^v ^onp),
and we have elsewhere quoted the Messianic Psalm cxviii. 19, 20:
" This is the gate of the Lord (avrt] i? irvXr) rov Kvpiov) f the
righteous shall enter into it." In another place the author of the
Homilies, referring to a passage parallel to, but differing from,
Matt, xxiii. 2, which we have elsewhere considered, 3 and which is
derived from a Gospel different from ours, says : " Hear them
(Scribes and Pharisees who sit upon Moses's seat), he said, as
entrusted with the key of the kingdom which is knowledge, which
alone is able to open the gate of life (irv\t] TT?S C w %)> through
which alone is the entrance to Eternal life." 4 Now, in the very
next chapter to that in which the saying which we are discussing
occurs, a very few lines after it, indeed, we have the following
passage : " Indeed, he said further : ' I am he concerning whom
Moses prophesied, saying : ' a prophet shall the Lord our God
raise up to you from among your brethren as also (he raised) me ;
hear ye him regarding all things, but whosoever will not hear that
prophet he shall die.' " 5 There is no such saying in the canonical
Gospels or other books of the New Testament attributed to
Jesus, but a quotation from Deuteronomy xviii. 15 f., materially
different from this, occurs twice in the Acts of the Apostles, once
being put into the mouth of Peter applied to Jesus, 6 and the
second time also applied to him, being quoted by Stephen. 7 It is
quite clear that the writer is quoting from uncanonical sources,
and here is another express declaration regarding himself: "I am
he," etc., which is quite in the spirit of the preceding passage
which we are discussing, and probably derived from the same
source. In another place we find the following argument : " But
the way is the manner of life, as also Moses says : ' Behold I have
set before thy face the way of life, and the way of death '; 8 and in
agreement the teacher said : ' Enter ye through the narrow and
straitened way through which ye shall enter into life '; and in
another place, a certain person inquiring, ' What shall I do to
inherit eternal life ?' he intimated the Commandments of the
Law. "9 It has to be observed that the Homilies teach the doctrine
1 P. 438 f. 2 Ps. cxvii. 20, Sept. 3 p. 308 f.
4 Horn., iii. 18. = Ib., iii. 53. 6 Acts iii. 22.
7 Jb., vii. 37. 8 Dent. xxx. 15. 9 Horn., xviii. 17.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
that the spirit in Jesus Christ had already appeared in Adam, and
by a species of transmigration passed through Moses and the
Patriarchs and prophets : " who from the beginning of the world,
changing names and forms, passes through Time(Toi/aiwvaT/3ex t )'
until, attaining his own seasons, being on account of his labours
anointed by the mercy of God, he shall have rest for ever." 1
Just in the same way, therefore, as the Homilies represent Jesus
as quoting a prophecy of Moses, and altering it to a personal
declaration, " I am the prophet," etc., so here again they make
him adopt this saying of Moses and, " being the true prophet,"
declare : " I am the gate or the way of life "inculcating the
same commandments of the law which the Gospel of the Homilies
represents Jesus as coming to confirm and not to abolish. The
whole system of doctrine of the Clementines, as we shall presently
see, indicated here even by the definition of " the true prophet,"
is so fundamentally opposed to that of the fourth Gospel that
there is no reasonable ground for supposing that the author made
use of it ; and this brief saying, varying as it does in language and
sense from the parallel in the Gospel, cannot prove acquaintance
with it. There is good reason to believe that the author of the
fourth Gospel, who most undeniably derived materials from earlier
Evangelical works, may have drawn from a source likewise used
by the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and thence many
analogies might well be presented with quotations from that or
kindred Gospels. We find, further, this community of source in
the fact that in the fourth Gospel, without actual quotation, there
is a reference to Moses, and, no doubt, to the very passage (Deut.
xviii. 15) which the Gospel of the Clementines puts into the
mouth of Jesus, John v. 46 : " For had ye believed Moses ye
would believe me, for he wrote of me." Whilst the Ebionite
Gospel gave prominence to this view of the case, the dogmatic
system of the Logos Gospel did not permit of more than mere
reference to it.
The next passage pointed out as derived from the Johannine
Gospel occurs in the same chapter : " My sheep hear my voice."
Ta
HOM. III. 52.
irp6/3a.Ta. aKOuti rrjs
JOHN x. 27.
Toi Trp6para TO. t/j.a TT)
fi.ov
There was no more common representation amongst the Jews
of the relation between God and his people than that of a Shepherd
and his sheep, 2 nor any more current expression than " hearing
his voice." This brief anonymous saying was in all probability
derived from the same source as the preceding, which cannot be
1 Horn., iii. 20.
2 Cf. Isaiah xl. II ; liii. 6; Ezek. xxxiv. ; Zech^xi. ; Hebrews xiii. 20.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 489
identified with the fourth Gospel. Tradition, and the acknow-
ledged existence of other written records of the teaching of Jesus,
oppose any exclusive claim to this fragmentary saying.
We have already discussed the third passage regarding the new
birth in connection with Justin, 1 and may therefore pass on to the
last and most important passage, to which we have referred as
contained in the concluding portion of the Homilies first published
by Dressel in 1853. We subjoin it in contrast with the parallel in
the fourth Gospel :
HOM. xix. 22. JOHN ix. 1-3.
And as he was passing by, he saw
Wherefore also our Teacher when
we inquired regarding the man blind
from birth and whose sight was
restored by him if this man had
sinned or his parents that he should
a man blind from birth.
2. And his disciples asked him
saying : Rabbi, who sinned, this man
or his parents that he should be born
be born blind, answered in explana- j blind ?
tion : Neither this man sinned at all 3. Jesus answered, Neither this man
nor his parents, but that through ! sinned, nor his parents, but that the
him the power of God might be made j works of God might be made manifest
manifest, healing the sins of ignorance.
in him.
1. Kcu irapdytav eldfv dvffpwirov
rv(f>\bv K yeverijs. 1. Kal Tjp&rrjffav
avrbv ol fj.aO-riral avrov \tyovres-
'Paj38el, rls ij/j-aprev, ovros f) ol yovets
avrov, 'iva rv<f>\bs yevi>r)6rj ; 3. 'A.ireKpl6T)
Ovre oCros ij/j-aprev ovre ol
"Odev Kal 8iddffKa\os rj/j.uiv Trepl rov
<!K yeverrjs Trrjpov Kal dvafi\e\f/avros
Trap' avrov es^erafav epuni\aa.aiv, el
ouros TJfj,aprev 1} ol yovels avrov, 'iva
rv<j>\bs yevvrfOri, aireKplvaro- ovre ovr6s
n TJfj.aprev, ovre ol yovels avrov, dXX'
'iva di' avrov tjtaveptadrj i] Suva/Mis rov > yoveis avrov, dXX' 'iva <pavepti>6rj ra
6fov rijs dyvolas lu/j-tvi) ra afJ.aprrjfj.ara. \ i-pya rov Oeov fv avr(p.
It is necessary that we should consider the context of this passage
in the Homily, the characteristics of which are markedly opposed
to the theory that it was derived from the fourth Gospel. We
must mention that, in the Clementines, the Apostle Peter is repre-
sented as maintaining that the Scriptures are not all true, but are
mixed up with what is false, and that on this account, and in order
to inculcate the necessity of distinguishing between the true and
the false, Jesus taught his disciples, "Be ye approved money-
changers " 2 an injunction not found in our Gospels. One of the
points which Peter denies is the fall of Adam- -a doctrine which,
as Neander remarked, " he must combat as blasphemy." 3 At
1 P. 472 f.
2 Horn., iii. 50, cf. 9, 42 f. ; ii. 38. The author denies that Moses wrote the
Pentateuch (Horn., iii. 47 f.).
3 Horn., iii. 20 f. , 42 f. , viii. 10. "Die Lehre von einem Sundenfalle des
ersten Menschen musste der Verfasser der Clementinen ah Gotteslasterung
bekdmpfen" (Neander, K. G., ii., p. 612 f. ). The Jews at that period held a
similar belief (Eisenmenger, Entd. J-udenthum, i., p. 336). Adam, according
to the Homilies, not only did not sin, but, as a true prophet possessed of the
Spirit of God which afterwards was in Jesus, he was incapable of sin
(Schliemann, Die Clementinen, pp. 130, 176 f., 178 f.).
490 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the part we are considering he is discussing with Simon under
whose detested personality, as we have elsewhere shown, the
Apostle Paul is really attacked and refuting the charges he brings
forward regarding the origin and continuance of evil. The Apostle
Peter, in the course of the discussion, asserts that evil is the same
as pain and death, but that evil does not exist eternally, and,
indeed, does not really exist at all, for pain and death are only
accidents without permanent force pain is merely the disturbance
of harmony, and death nothing but the separation of soul from
body. 1 The passions also must be classed amongst the things
which are accidental, and are not always to exist ; but these,
although capable of abuse, are in reality beneficial to the soul
when properly restrained, and carry out the will of God. The
man who gives them unbridled course ensures his own punish-
ment. 2 Simon inquires why men die prematurely and diseases
periodically come, and also visitations of demons and of madness
and other afflictions ; in reply to which Peter explains that parents,
by following their own pleasure in all things and neglecting proper
sanitary considerations, produce a multitude of evils for their
children, and this either through carelessness or ignorance. 3
Then follows the passage we are discussing : " Wherefore also our
Teacher," etc., and at the end of the quotation lie continues :
" and truly such sufferings ensue in consequence of ignorance ";
and, giving an instance, 4 he proceeds : " Now the sufferings which
you before mentioned are the consequence of ignorance, and
certainly not of an evil act, which has been committed," 5 etc. It
is quite apparent that the peculiar variation from the parallel in
the fourth Gospel in the latter part of the quotation is not
accidental, but is the point upon which the whole propriety of the
quotation depends. In the Gospel of the Clementines the man is
not blind from his birth, " that the works of God might be made
manifest in him " a doctrine which would be revolting to the
author of the Homilies but the calamity has befallen him in
consequence of some error of ignorance on the part of his parents
which brings its punishment ; and " the power of God " is made
manifest in healing the sins of ignorance. The reply of Jesus is a
professed quotation, and it varies very substantially from the parallel
1 Horn., xix. 20.
* Ib. , xix. 21. According to the author of the Clementines, evil is the
consequence of sin, and is, on onre hand, necessary for the punishment of sin ;
but, on the other, beneficial as leading men to improvement and upward pro-
gress. Suffering is represented as wholesome, and intended for the elevation
of man (cf. Horn., ii. 13 ; vii. 2 ; viii. n). Death was originally designed
for man, and was not introduced by Adam's " fall," but is really necessary
to nature, the Homilist considers (cf. Schliemann, Die Clementinen, p. 177,
p. i68f.).
3 Ib., xix. 22. 4 Ib. , xix. 22. 5 Ib., xix. 22.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 491
in the Gospel, presenting evidently a distinctly different version of the
episode. The substitution of Tnjpos for TV</>A,OS in the opening is also
significant, more especially as Justin likewise in his general remark,
which we have discussed, uses the same word. Assuming the passage
in the fourth Gospel to be the account of a historical episode, as
apologists, of course, maintain, the case stands thus : The author
of the Homilies introduces a narrative of a historical incident in
the life of Jesus, which may have been, and probably was,
reported in many early Gospels in language which, though
analogous to, is at the same time decidedly different, in the part,
which is a professed quotation, from that of the fourth Gospel,
and presents another and natural comment upon the central event.
The reference to the historical incident is, of course, no evidence
of dependence on the fourth Gospel, which, although it may
be the only accidentally surviving work which contains the
narrative, had no prescriptive and exclusive property in it ; and so
far from the partial agreement in the narrative proving the use of
the fourth Gospel, the only remarkable point is, that all narratives
of the same event and reports of words actually spoken do not
more perfectly agree, while, on the other hand, the very decided
variation in the reply of Jesus, according to the Homily, from that
given in the fourth Gospel leads to the distinct presumption that
it is not the source of the quotation.
It is unreasonable to assert that such a reference, without
the slightest indication of the source from which the author
derived his information, must be dependent on one particular
work, more especially when the part which is given as distinct
quotation substantially differs from the record in that work. We
have already illustrated this on several occasions, and may once
more offer an instance. If the first Synoptic had unfortunately
perished, like so many other gospels of the early Church, and in
the Clementines we met with the quotation, " Blessed are the poor
in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven " (Ma/capiot 01
7TTa>x ' TU> TrveujuaTt, on aurwi/ rrii> r/ /ifacriAeia TWV oi'pavwv),
apologists would certainly assert, according to the principle upon
which they act in the present case, that this quotation was clear
evidence of the use of Luke vi. 20, " Blessed are ye poor, for
yours is the kingdom of God " (MaKapioi ot Trrto-^oi, on,
vfjierepa tWtv t] /^acriAeia. TO? 0t>v), more especially as a few
codices actually insert TW Trvevfjutri, the slight variations being
merely ascribed to free quotation from memory. In point of fact,
however, the third Synoptic might not at the time have been in
existence, and the quotation might have been derived, as it is,
from Matt. v. 3. Nothing is more certain and undeniable than
the fact that the author of the fourth Gospel made use of materials
derived from oral tradition and earlier records for its composition.
492 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
It is equally undeniable that other gospels had access to the same
materials, and made use of them ; and a comparison of our three
Synoptics renders very evident the community of materials, includ-
ing the use of the one by the other, as well as the diversity of
literary handling to which those materials were subjected. It is
impossible with reason to deny that the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, for instance, as well as other earlier evangelical works
now lost, may have drawn from the same sources as the
fourth Gospel, and that narratives derived from the one may
present analogies with the other whilst still perfectly independent
of it. Whatever private opinion, therefore, any one may form as
to the source of the anonymous quotations which we have been
considering, it is evident that they are totally insufficient to prove
that the author of the Clementine Homilies must have made use of
the fourth Gospel, and consequently they do not establish even
the contemporary existence of that work. If such quotations,
moreover, could be traced with fifty times greater probability to
the fourth Gospel, it is obvious that they could do nothing towards
establishing its historical character and apostolic origin.
Leaving, however, the few and feeble analogies by which apolo-
gists vainly seek to establish the existence of the fourth Gospel
and its use by the author of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, and
considering the question for a moment from a wider point of view,
the results already attained are more than confirmed. The doc-
trines held and strongly enunciated in the Clementines seem to us
to exclude the supposition that the author can have made use of a
work so fundamentally at variance with all his views as the fourth
Gospel, and it is certain that, holding those opinions, he could
hardly have regarded such a Gospel as an apostolic and authorita-
tive document. Space will not permit our entering adequately
into this argument, and we must refer our readers to works more
immediately devoted to the examination of \\\Q Homilies for a close
analysis of their dogmatic teaching ; but we may in the briefest
manner point out some of their more prominent doctrines in
contrast with those of the Johannine Gospel.
One of the leading and most characteristic ideas of the
Clementine Homilies is the essential identity of Judaism and
Christianity. Christ revealed nothing new with regard to God,
but promulgated the very same truth concerning him as
Adam, Moses, and the Patriarchs, and the right belief is that
Moses and Jesus were essentially one and the same. 1 Indeed,
it may be said that the teaching of 'the Homilies is more Jewish
than Christian. In the preliminary Epistle of the Apostle Peter
to the Apostle James, when sending the book, Peter entreats that
1 Horn., xvii. 4; xviii. I4;viii. 6.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 493
James will not give it to any of the Gentiles, 1 and James says :
" Necessarily and rightly our Peter reminded us to take pre-
cautions for the security of the truth, that we should not com-
municate the books of his preachings, sent to us, indiscriminately
to all, but to him who is good and discreet and chosen to teach,
and who is circumcised? being faithful,"3 etc. Clement also is
represented as describing his conversion to Christianity in the
following terms : " For this cause I fled for refuge to the Holy
God and Law of the Jews, with faith in the certain conclusion
that, by the righteous judgment of God, both the Law is pre-
scribed and the soul beyond doubt everywhere receives the
desert of its actions." 4 Peter recommends the inhabitants of
Tyre to follow what are really Jewish rites, and to hear " as the
God-fearing Jews have heard." 5 The Jew has the same truth as
the Christian : " For as there is one teaching by both (Moses and
Jesus), God accepts him who believes either of these." 6 The
Law was in fact given by Adam as a true prophet knowing all
things, and it is called " Eternal," and neither to be abrogated by
enemies nor falsified by the impious.? The author, therefore,
protests against the idea that Christianity is any new thing, and
insists that Jesus came to confirm, not abrogate, the Mosaic Law. 8
On the other hand, the author of the fourth Gospel represents
Christianity in strong contrast and antagonism to Judaism. In
his antithetical system, the religion of Jesus is opposed to
Judaism as well as all other belief, as light to darkness and life to
death.? The Law which Moses gave is treated as merely national,
and neither of general application nor intended to be permanent,
being only addressed to the Jews. It is perpetually referred to
as the "Law of the Jews," "your Law" and the Jewish festivals
as Feasts of the Jews ; and Jesus neither held the one in any
consideration nor did he scruple to show his indifference to the
other. 10 The very name of " the Jews," indeed, is used as an
equivalent for the enemies of Christ. 11 The religion of Jesus is
not only absolute, but it communicates knowledge of the Father
which the Jews did not previously possess. 12 The inferiority of.
Mosaism is everywhere represented : " And out of his fulness all
we received, and grace for grace. Because the Law was given
1 Ep. Petri ad Jacob. , I. 2 Cf. Galatians ii. 7-
3 Contestatio, i. 4 Horn., iv. 22.
5 Ib., vii. 4 ; cf. ii. 19, 20 ; xiii. 4. 6 Ib. , viii. 6, cf. 7.
7 Ib., viii. 10. 8 Ib., iii. 51.
9 John xii. 46 ; i. 4, 5, 7 f. ; iii. 19-21 ; v. 24 ; viii. 12 ; ix. 5 ; xii. 35 f. ;
xiv. 6.
10 Ib., ii. 13 ; iv. 20 f. ; v. i, 16, 18 ; vi. 4 ; vii. 2, 19, 22; viii. I7;ix. 16,
28, 29 ; x. 34 ; xv. 25, etc.
" Ib., vi. 42, 52, etc.
12 Ib., i. 18 ; viii. 19, 31 f., 54, 55 ; xv. 21 f.; xvii. 25, 26.
494 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
through Moses ; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." 1
" Verily, verily I say unto you : Moses did not give you the bread
from Heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from
heaven." 2 The fundamental difference of Christianity from
Judaism will further appear as we proceed.
The most essential principle of the Clementines, again, is Mono-
theism the absolute oneness of God which the author
vehemently maintains as well against the ascription of divinity to
Christ as against heathen Polytheism and the Gnostic theory of
the Demiurge as distinguished from the Supreme God. Christ
not only is not God, but he never asserted himself to be so.3 He
wholly ignores the doctrine of the Logos, and his speculation is
confined to the 2o<ia, the Wisdom of Proverbs viii., etc., and ft,
as we shall see, at the same time a less developed and very
different doctrine from that of the fourth Gospel. 4 The idea of a
hypostatic Trinity seems to be quite unknown to him, and would
have been utterly abhorrent to his mind as sheer Polytheism. On
the other hand, the fourth Gospel proclaims the doctrine of a
hypostatic Trinity in a more advanced form than any other writing
of the New Testament. It is, indeed, the fundamental principle
of the work, as the doctrine of the Logos is its most characteristic
feature. In the beginning the Word not only was with God, but
"the Word was God" (Oebs ty 6 Aoyos).s He is the "only
begotten God " (povoyevr)? 6>os), 6 and his absolutely divine nature
is asserted both by the Evangelist and in express terms in the
discourses of Jesus. 7 Nothing could be more opposed to the
principles of the Clementines.
According to the Homilies, the same Spirit, the 2o<ia,
appeared in Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses,
and finally in Jesus, who are the only " true prophets," and are
called the seven Pillars (OTTO, <TTV\OI) of the world. 8 These
seven persons, therefore, are identical, the same true Prophet and
Spirit " who from the beginning of the world, changing names and
forms, passes through time," 9 and these men were thus essentially
the same as Jesus. As Neander rightly observes, the author of
the Homilies " saw in Jesus a new appearance of that Adam whom
he had ever venerated as the source of all the true and divine in
man." 10 We need not point out how different these views are from
1 John i. 16, 17 ; cf. x. I, 8. - 76., vi. 32 f. 3 Horn., xvi. 15 f.
4 Cf. Dorner, Lehre Pers. Christi, i., p. 334. s John i. I.
6 76., i. 1 8. This is the reading of the Cod. Sinaiticus, of the Cod. Vati-
canus, and Cod. C., as well as of other ancient MSS., and it must be accepted
as the best authenticated.
i 76,, i. 2 ; v. 17 f. ; x. 30 f., 38 ; xiv. 7 f., 23; xvii. 5, 21 f., etc.
8 Horn., iii. 20 f. ; ii. 15 ; viii. 10 ; xvii. 4 ; xviii. 14.
9 76., iii. 20. I0 K. G., ik, p. 622 ; cf. Horn., iii. 18 f.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 495
the Logos doctrine of the fourth Gospel. In other points there is
an equally wide gulf between the Clementines and the fourth
Gospel. According to the author of the Homilies, the chief dogma
of true religion is Monotheism. Belief in Christ, in the specific
Johannine sense, is nowhere inculcated, and where belief is spoken
of it is merely belief in God. No dogmatic importance whatever
is attached to faith in Christ or to his sufferings, death, and resur-
rection, and of the doctrines of Atonement and Redemption there
is nothing in the Homilies everyone must make his own recon-
ciliation with God, and bear the punishment of his own sins. 1 On
the other hand, the representation of Jesus as the Lamb of God
taking away the sins of the world 2 is the very basis of the fourth
Gospel. The passages are innumerable in which belief in Jesus is
insisted upon as essential. " He that believeth in the Son hath
eternal life, but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life,
but the wrath of God abideth on him "3 "for if ye believe not
that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." 4 In fact, the whole of
Christianity, according to the author of the fourth Gospel, is con-
centrated in the possession of faith in Christ. 5 Belief in God
alone is never held to be sufficient ; belief in Christ is necessary
for salvation ; he died for the sins of the world, and is the object
of faith, by which alone forgiveness and justification before God
can be secured. The same discrepancy is apparent in smaller
details. In the Clementines the Apostle Peter is the principal
actor, and is represented as the chief amongst the Apostles. In
the Epistle of Clement to James, which precedes the Homilies,
Peter is described in the following terms : " Simon, who, on
account of his true faith and of the principles of his doctrine,
which were most sure, was appointed to be the foundation of the
Church ; and for this reason his name was by the unerring voice of
Jesus himself changed to Peter ; the first-fruit of our Lord ; the first
of the Apostles ; to whom first the Father revealed the son ; whom
the Christ deservedly pronounced blessed ; the called and chosen
and companion and fellow-traveller (of Jesus) ; the admirable and
approved disciple, who as fittest of all was commanded to
enlighten the West, the darker part of the world, and was enabled
to guide it aright," etc. 6 He is here represented as the Apostle
to the Heathen, the hated Apostle Paul being robbed of that
honourable title ; and he is, in the spirit of this introduction, made
to play, throughout, the first part amongst the Apostles. In the
1 Horn., iii. 6 f. 2 John i. 29 ; cf. iii. 14 f., iv. 42, etc.
3 Ib., iii. 36 ; cf. 16 f. 4 Ib., viii. 24.
5 Ib., iii. 14 f. ; v. 24 f. ; vi. 29, 35 f., 40, 47, 65; vii. 38 ; viii. 24, 51 ;
ix. 25 f. ; x. 9, 28 ; xi. 25 f. ; xii. 47 ; xiv. 6 ; xv. 5 f. ; xvi. 9 ; xvii. 2 f. ;
xx. 31.
6 Ep. Clem. ad. Jacobum, i.
496 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
fourth Gospel, however, he is assigned a place quite secondary to
John, who is the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who leans on his
bosom. 1 We shall only mention one other point. The Homilist,
when attacking the Apostle Paul, under the name of Simon the
Magician, for his boast that he had not been taught by man, but
by a revelation of Jesus Christ, 2 whom he had only seen in a
vision, inquires : " Why, then, did the Teacher remain and
discourse a whole year to us who were awake, if you became his
Apostle after a single hour of instruction ?" 3 As Neander aptly
remarks : " If the author had known from the Johannine
Gospel that the teaching of Christ had continued for several years,
he would certainly have had particularly good reason instead of
one year to set several."* It is obvious that an author with so
vehement an animosity against Paul would assuredly have
strengthened his argument by adopting the more favourable
statement of the fourth Gospel as to the duration of the ministry
of Jesus, had he been acquainted with that work.
Our attention must now be turned to the anonymous com-
position known as the Epistle to Diognetus, general particulars
regarding which we have elsewhere given. 5 This Epistle, it is
admitted, does not contain any quotation from any evangelical
work, but on the strength of some supposed references it is
claimed by apologists as evidence for the existence of the fourth
Gospel. Tischendorf, who only devotes a dozen lines to this
work, states his case as follows : " Although this short apologetic
Epistle contains no precise quotation from any gospel, yet it
has repeated references to evangelical, and particularly to
Johannine, passages. For when the author writes, ch. 6 :
' Christians dwell in the world, but they are not of the world ' ;
and in ch. 10 : ' For God has loved men, for whose sakes he made
the world to whom he sent his only begotten Son,' the
reference to John xvii. 1 1 {' But they are in the world ') ; 14 (' The
world hateth them, for they are not of the world'); 16 ('They
are not of the world as I am not of the world ') ; and to John iii.
1 6 (' God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son '),
is hardly to be mistaken." 6
Dr. Westcott still more emphatically claims the Epistle as
evidence for the fourth Gospel, and we shall, in order impartially
to consider the question, likewise quote his remarks in full upon
1 Cf. John xiii. 23-25 ; xix. 26 f. ; xx. 2 f. ; xxi. 3 f., 7, 20 f.
Gal. i. 12 f. 3 ffom., xvii. 19.
4 K. G. , ii. , p. 624, anm. 1 . 5 P. 320 f.
6 IVann wurden, u. s. w., p. 40. We may mention that neither Tischen-
dorf nor Dr. Westcott gives the Greek of any of the passages pointed out
in the Epistle, nor do they give the original text of the parallels in the
Gospel.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 497
the point; but, as he introduces his own paraphrase of the
context in a manner which does not properly convey its true
nature to a reader who has not the Epistle before him, we shall
take the liberty of putting the actual quotations in italics, and the
rest must be taken as purely the language of Dr. Westcott. We
shall hereafter show also the exact separation which exists between
phrases which are here, with the mere indication of some
omission, brought together to form the supposed references to the
fourth Gospel. Dr. Westcott says : "In one respect the two
parts of the book are united, 1 inasmuch as they both exhibit a
combination of the teaching of St. Paul and St. John. The love
of God, it is said in the letter to Diognetus, is the source of love
in the Christian, who must needs ' love God who thus first loved him '
(n-pottyair^o-avTa), and find an expression for this love by loving
his neighbour, whereby he will be ' an imitator of God.' ' for
God loved men, for whose sakes He made the world, to whom He
subjected all things that are in the earth unto whom (TT/OO?) He
sent His only begotten Son, to whom He promised the kingdom in
heaven (TTJV ev ovpavw /iJao-iXetav), and will give it to those
who love him' God's will is mercy ; ' He sent His Son as wishing
to save (a>s o-<ua>v) and not to condemn,' and as witnesses of
this ' Christians dwell in the world, though they are not of the
world.' " 2 At the close of the paragraph he proceeds : " The
presence of the teaching of St. John is here placed beyond all
doubt. There are, however, no direct references to the Gospels
throughout the letter, nor indeed any allusions to our Lord's
discourses." 3
As we have already stated, the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus
is unknown ; Diognetus, the friend to whom it is addressed, is
equally unknown ; the letter is neither mentioned nor quoted by
any of the Fathers, nor by any ancient writer, and there is no
external evidence as to the date of the composition. It existed
1 This is a reference to the admitted fact that the first ten chapters are by a
different author from the writer of the last two.
2 On the Canon, p. 77. Dr. Westcott continues, referring to the later and
more recent part of the Epistle: "So in the conclusion we read that 'the
Word who was from the beginning at His appearance speaking boldly
manifested the mysteries of the Father to those who were judged faithful by
Him.' And these again to whom the Word speaks, ' from love of that which
is revealed to them,' share their knowledge with others." It is not necessary
to discuss this, both because of the late date of the two chapters and because
there is certainly no reference at all to the Gospel in the words. We must,
however, add that, as the quotation is given, it conveys quite a false impression
of the text. We may just mention that the phrase which Dr. Westcott quotes
as "the Word who was from the beginning" is in the text, " This is he who
was from the beginning" (oDros 6 air dpxw), although "the Word" is in the
context, and no doubt intended.
3 Ib., p. 7 8.
2K
498 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
only in one codex, destroyed at Strasburg during the Franco-
German war, the handwriting of which was referred to the
thirteenth or fourteenth century ; but it is far from certain that it
was so old. The last two chapters are a falsification by a later
writer than the author of the first ten. There is no internal
evidence in this brief didactic composition requiring or even
suggesting its assignment to the second or third centuries ; but,
on the contrary, we venture to assert that there is evidence, both
internal and external, justifying the belief that it was written at a
comparatively recent date. Apart from the uncertainty of date,
however, there is no allusion in it to any Gospel. Even if there
were, the testimony of a letter by an unknown writer at an
unknown period could not have any weight; but, under the actual
circumstances, the Epistle to Diognetus furnishes absolutely no
testimony at all for the apostolical origin and historical character
of the fourth Gospel. 1
The fulness with which we have discussed the supposed testi-
mony of Basilides 2 renders it unnecessary for us to re-enter at any
length into the argument as to his knowledge of the fourth Gospel.
Tischendorf3 and Dr. Westcott 4 assert that two passages namely :
" The true light which lighteth every man came into the world,"
corresponding with John i. 9 ; and : " mine hour is not yet come,"
agreeing with John ii. 4, which are introduced by Hippolytus in
his work against Heresies 5 with a subjectless <f>ij<ri, " he says " are
quotations made in some lost work by Basilides. We have shown
that Hippolytus and other writers of his time were in the habit of
quoting passages from works by the founders of sects and by their
later followers without any distinction, an utterly vague </;cri doing
service equally for all. This is the case in the present instance,
and there is no legitimate reason for assigning these passages to
Basilides himself, but, on the contrary, many considerations which
forbid our doing so, which we have elsewhere detailed.
These remarks most fully apply to Valentinus, whose supposed
quotations we have exhaustively discussed, 6 as well as the one
passage given by Hippolytus containing a sentence found in John
x. 8,7 the only one which can be pointed out. We have distinctly
proved that the quotations in question are not assignable to
Valentinus himself a fact which even apologists admit. There is
no just ground for asserting that his terminology was derived from
1 Readers interested in more minutely discussing the point whether the
Epistle even indicates the existence of the fourth Gospel are referred to the
complete edition, 1879, ii., pp. 355-368, in which the question was argued and
printed in smaller type.
2 P. 322 f. 3 Wann warden, u. s. w., p. 52.
4 On the Canon, p. 256, note 3. 5 vii. 22, 27.
6 P. 330 f. "> Afy Hcer., vi. 35.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 499
the fourth Gospel, the whole having been in current use long
before that Gospel was composed. There is no evidence whatever
that Valentinus was acquainted with such a work.
We must generally remark, however, with regard to Basilides,
Valentinus, and all such Heresiarchs and writers, that, even if it
could be shown, as actually it cannot, that they were acquainted
with the fourth Gospel, the fact would only prove the existence of
the work at a late period in the second century, but would furnish
no evidence of the slightest value regarding its apostolic origin, or
towards establishing its historical value. On the other hand, if,
as apologists assert, these heretics possessed the fourth Gospel,
their deliberate and total rejection of the work furnishes evidence
positively antagonistic to its claims. It is difficult to decide
whether their rejection of the Gospel or their ignorance of its
existence is the more unfavourable alternative.
The dilemma is the very same in the case of Marcion. We
have already fully discussed his knowledge of our Gospels, and
need not add anything here. It is not pretended that he made
any use of the fourth Gospel, and the only ground upon which it
is argued that he supplies evidence even of its existence is the
vague general statement of Tertullian, that Marcion rejected the
Gospels " which are put forth as genuine, and under the name of
Apostles, or, at least, of contemporaries of the Apostles," denying
their truth and integrity, and maintaining the sole authority of his
own Gospel. 1 We have shown how unwarrantable it is to affirm
from such data that Marcion knew, and deliberately repudiated,
the four canonical Gospels. The Fathers, with uncritical haste
and zeal, assumed that the Gospels adopted by the Church at the
close of the second and beginning of the third centuries must
equally have been invested with canonical authority from the first,
and Tertullian took it for granted that Marcion, of whom he knew
very little, must have actually rejected the four Gospels of his own
Canon. Even Dr. Westcott admits that " it is uncertain whether
Tertullian in the passage quoted speaks from a knowledge of what
Marcion may have written on the subject, or simply from his own
point of sight." 2 There is not the slightest evidence that Marcion
knew the fourth Gospel, and, if he did, it would be perfectly inexplic-
able that he did not adopt it as peculiarly favourable to his own views.
If he was acquainted with the work, and, nevertheless, rejected it
as false and adulterated, his testimony is obviously opposed to the
Apostolic origin and historical accuracy of the fourth Gospel, and
the critical acumen which he exhibited in his selection of the
Pauline Epistles renders his judgment of greater weight than that
of most of the Fathers.
1 Adv. Marc., iv. 3, 4. 2 On the Canon, p. 276, note I.
5 oo SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
We have now reached an epoch when no evidence regarding the
fourth Gospel can have much weight, and the remaining witnesses
need not detain us long.
We have already discussed at length the evidence of Tatian in
connection with the Synoptics, 1 and shall presently return to the ques-
tion of the Diatessaron as it affects the fourth Gospel. We have now
briefly to refer to the address to the Greeks (Aoyos 7r/3os"EAA.77vas),
and to ascertain what testimony it bears regarding that Gospel. It
was composed after the death of Justin, and scarcely dates earlier
than the beginning of the last quarter of the second century. No
Gospel and no work of the New Testament is mentioned in this
composition, but Tischendorf 2 and others point out one or two
supposed references to passages in the fourth Gospel. The first
of these in order is one indicated by Dr. Westcott, 3 but to which
Tischendorf does not call attention : "God was in the beginning;
but we have learned that the beginning is the power of Reason
(0ebs fjv fv a/^X??' T *) v ^ ^-PX^I V ^oyov 8vvap.iv Trapei\ij<f>afjiv).
For the Lord of the Universe (SnroT?/s TWV 6Awv) being himself the
substance (woo-rao-is) of all, in that creation had not been accom-
plished was alone, but inasmuch as he was all power, and himself
the subtance of things visible and invisible, all things were
with him (crvv O.VTU> TO. TTOLVTO). With him by means of rational power
the Reason (Aoyos) itself also which was in him subsisted. But by
the will of his simplicity, Reason (Aoyos) springs forth ; but the
Reason (Aoyos) not proceeding in vain, because the first-born work
(e/oyov Trp<DTOTOKov) of the Father. Him we know to be the Beginning
of the world (Touro* la-pev TO? KOO-JMOV rrjv dp^v). But he came into
existence by division, not by cutting off, for that which is cut off is
separated from the first ; but that which is divided, receiving the
choice of administration, did not render him defective from whom
it was taken, etc. And as the Logos (Reason), in the beginning
begotten, begat again our creation, himself for himself creating the
matter (Kui Kaddwep o Aoyos, fv d.p\y yevvrjOtls, dvreyfvvi]<rf rrjv
Ka@' r}[JMS Trotrjo-iv, ai'ros eavro) rrjv vXrjv Srj[j.iovpyrj(Ta<iJ y SO I," etc. 4
1 P. 366 f. 2 Wann wurden, u. s. TV., p. 17.
3 On the Canon, p. 278, note 2. [In the 4th ed., however, Dr. Westcott
puts it within brackets, adding: "This reference is not certain" p. 3iy
n. 2.]
4 Orat. ad Grtecos, 5. As this passage if of some obscurity, we subjoin, for
the sake of impartiality, an independent translation taken from Dr. Donaldson's
able History of Christ. Lit. and Doctrine, Hi., p. 42 : " God was in the begin-
ning, but we have understood that the beginning was a power of reason. For
the Lord of all, Himself being the substance of all, was alone in so far as the
creation had not yet taken place, but as far as He was all power and the
substance of things seen and unseen, all things were with Him : along with
Him also by means of rational power, the reason which was in Him supported
them. But by the will of his simplicity, the reason leaps forth; but the reason,
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 501
It is quite evident that this doctrine of the Logos is not that of
the fourth Gospel, from which it cannot have been derived.
Tatian himself 1 seems to assert that he derived it from the Old
Testament. We have quoted the passage at length that it might
be clearly understood ; and with the opening words, we presume,
for he does not quote at all, but merely indicates the chapter, Dr.
Westcott compares John i. i : "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God " ('Ev o-pxy
7]v 6 Aoyos, K.T.X.). The statement of Tatian is quite different
" God was in the beginning " (0eb? r]v ev dpxy) '> an d he certainly
did not identify the Word with God, so as to transform the
statement of the Gospel into this simple affirmation. In all
probability his formula was merely based upon Genesis i. i : " In
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth " (ev dpxf]
eVoi^o-ev e Beos K.r.X.). 2 The expressions: "But we have
learned that the Beginning (apx 7 ?) was the power of Reason," etc.,
" but the Reason (Aoyos) not proceeding in vain became the first-
born work (epyov TT/XOTOTOKOV) of the Father. Him we know to be
the Beginning (px 7 /) f tne world," recall many early representa-
tions of the Logos, to which we have already referred : Prov. viii.
22 :" The Lord created me the Beginning (o-pxn) of his ways for
his works (ey/x*), 23. Before the ages he established me, in the
beginning (ev apxy) before he made the earth," etc. In the
Apocalypse also the Word is called " the Beginning (apx 1 ']) f the
creation of God," and it will be remembered that Justin gives
testimony from Prov. viii. 2 1 f., " that God begat before all the
creatures a Beginning (dpx>jv}, a certain rational Power (Svvafjuv
AoytKryi/), out of himself," 3 etc., and elsewhere: "As the Logos
declared through Solomon, that this same had been be-
gotten of God, before all created beings, both Beginning (dpx>j),"
etc.4 We need not, however, refer to the numerous passages in
Philo and in Justin, not derived from the fourth Gospel, which
point to a different source for Tatian's doctrine. It is sufficient
that both his opinions and his terminology differ distinctly from
that Gospel. s
not having gone from one who became empty thereby, is the first-born work of
the Father. Him we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came
into existence by sharing (yaepi<r/u<5s), not by cutting oft" ; for that which is cut off is
separated from the first ; but that which is shared, receiving a selection of the
work, did not render Him defective from whom it was taken, etc. And as the
Word begotten in the beginning begot in his turn our creation, He Himself
fashioning the material for Himself, so I, etc." (cf. Dorner, Lehre Pers.
Christi, i., p. 437 f.). ' 12, cf. 20.
2 Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr. , iii., p. 43.
3 Dial. 61. *//>., 62.
5 We have already mentioned that the Gospel according to Peter contained
the doctrine of the Logos.
502 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
The next passage we subjoin in contrast with the parallel in the
fourth Gospel :
ORAT. AD GR/ECOS, xm.
And this, therefore, is (the meaning
of) the saying :
The darkness comprehends not the
light.
Kat TOUTO eftTTiv (Lpa TO
JOHN I. 5.
And the light shineth in the dark-
ness;
and the darkness comprehended it
not.
Kou TO 0wj tv TTJ ffKOTlq. (paivtt, ical
H ffKorla r6 0ws ot) KaraXa^dvei. [ 77 ffKorta avrb ov
The context to this passage in the Oration is as follows : Tatian
is arguing about the immortality of the soul, and he states that
the soul is not in itself immortal, but mortal ; but that, neverthe-
less, it is possible for it not to die. If it do not know the truth, it
dies, but rises again at the end of the world, receiving eternal
death as a punishment. " Again, however, it does not die, though
it be for a time dissolved if it has acquired knowledge of God ;
for, in itself, it is darkness, and there is nothing luminous in it ;
and this, therefore, is (the meaning of) the saying, The darkness
comprehends not the light. For the soul (^x?/) did not itself
save the spirit (Trveupx), but was saved by it, and the light com-
prehended the darkness. The Logos (Reason) truly is the light
of God, but the ignorant soul is darkness ('() Aoyos /v
rrt T& TOV Beov <w?, O-KOTOS 8f 7/ av(.TruTT-f)fJLMV ^v^). For
this reason, if it remain alone, it tends downwards to matter, dying
with the flesh," etc. 1 The source of " the saying " is not men-
tioned, and it is evident that, even if it were taken to be a refer-
ence to the fourth Gospel, nothing would thereby be proved but
the mere existence of the Gospel. " The saying," however, is
distinctly different in language from the parallel in the Gospel, and
it may be from a different Gospel. We have already remarked
that Philo calls the Logos " the light," 2 and, quoting in a peculiar
form Ps. xxvi. i, " For the Lord is my light (<s) and my
Saviour," he goes on to say that, as the sun divides day and night,
so, Moses says, " God divides light and darkness " (TOV #eoi/ </>ws
KOL O-/COTOS Sio/reix 1 ' " ")- 3 When we turn away to things of
sense we use " another light," which is in no way different from
" darkness."'' The constant use of the same similitude of light
and darkness in the canonical Epistless shows how current it was
in the Church ; and nothing is more certain than the fact that it
was neither originated by, nor confined to, the fourth Gospel.
1 Or at. ad Gratcos, 13.
2 De Somniis, i., 13, Mangey, i. 632 ; cf. 14 f., De Mundi of., 9, if>.,
i. 7 (see p. 463, nte I ).
3 De Somniis, i., 13. 4 //>., i., 14.
5 2 Cor. iv. 6; Ephes. v. 8-14; Coloss. i. 12, 13; i Thess. v. 5 ; i Tim.
vi. 16 ; I. Pet. ii. 9; cf. Rev. xxi. 23, 24; xxii.*5.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 503
The third and last passage is as follows :
ORAT. AD GR.ECOS, xix.
We being such as this, do not pursue
us with hatred, but, rejecting the
Demons, follow the one God.
All things were by (vwo) him, and
without him was not anything made.
Tldi>Ta. vw 1 avrov, KCU %w/>ts avrov
ytyovev ovdt %v
JOHN i. 3.
All things were made by (did) him,
and without him was not anything
made that was made.
HdvTa Si avrov eytvero, icai
O.VTOV tytvero ovdt v 8 ytyovtv.
Tatian here speaks of God, and not of the Logos, and in this
respect, as well as in language and context, the passage differs
from the fourth Gospel. The phrase is not introduced as a
quotation, and no reference is made to any Gospel. The purpose
for which the words are used, again, rather points to the first
chapters of Genesis than to the dogmatic prologue enunciating the
doctrine of the Logos. 1 Under all these circumstances, the
source from which the expression may have been derived cannot
with certainty be ascertained, and, as in the preceding instance,
even if it be assumed that the words show acquaintance with the
fourth Gospel, nothing could be proved but the mere existence of
the work about a century and a half after the events which it
records. It is obvious that in no case does Tatian afford the
slightest evidence of the Apostolic origin or historical veracity of
the fourth Gospel.
Dr. Lightfoot points out another passage, 4, Trvevfui. o 0eos,
which he compares with John iv. 24, where the same words
occur. It is right to add that he himself remarks : " If it had
stood alone I should certainly not have regarded it as decisive.
But the epigrammatic form is remarkable, and it is a characteristic
passage of the fourth Gospel." 2 Neither Tischendorf nor Dr.
Westcott refers to it. The fact is, however, that the epigrammatic
form only exists when the phrase is quoted without its context.
" God is a spirit, not pervading matter, but the creator of material
spirits, and of the forms that are in it. He is invisible and impalp-
able," etc. Further on, Tatian says ( 15) : " For the perfect God
is without flesh, but man is flesh," etc. A large part of the oration
is devoted to discussing the nature of God, and the distinction
between spirit (Trveiy/a) and soul (^X^)i an d it is unreasonable
to assert that a man like Tatian could not make the declaration
that God is a spirit without quoting the fourth Gospel.
Returning to the Diatessaron, the position of which in regard
to Tatian we have already fully discussed, we must now briefly
1 Cf. I Cor. viii. 6 ; Ephes. iii. 9 ; Heb. i. 2.
2 Contemp. Rev., 1877, p. 1135.
504 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
consider how it affects the argument as to the date and authorship
of the fourth Gospel. It is needless to point out that no ascrip-
tion of the work to the Apostle could be made in the Harmony.
Let us suppose it to be even demonstrated beyond doubt that the
Diatessaron of Tatian was compiled from our four canonical
Gospels, in what degree does this establish the authenticity of the
fourth Gospel as the work of the Apostle John ? Even according
to apologetic critics, as we have seen, the composition of the
Diatessaron must be assigned to A.D. 1 70, and there are good
reasons for dating it some years later. 1 Of course, the fourth
Gospel must have been in existence before that date if it formed
part of the Diatessaron. It must be remembered, however, that
the Harmony was not an official or ecclesiastical compilation
involving the idea of contents already recognised as canonical by
the Church. On the contrary, the Diatessaron was the work of a
heretic, and, so far from having ecclesiastical sanction on any
grounds, it was- condemned by the Church in the person of
Theodoret, and the copies of it circulating in his diocese were
confiscated. The grounds for this suppression which are stated
are, it is true, the omission of genealogies ; but still the tendency-
was considered mischievous. This judgment was pronounced
little short of 300 years after its composition; but still, as the
work of a heretic and an irresponsible writer, it is not possible to
maintain that the Gospels out of which it was compiled
must previously have long enjoyed the sanction of the
Church.
How long must the fourth Gospel have been in existence before
its supposed use by Tatian becomes reasonable ? It has to be
borne in mind that, in those days of manuscript books, a Gospel
did not issue from the hands of the scribe like a volume from the
University Press, with its author's name and a date on the title-
page. A work of the literary excellence of the fourth Gospel,
evidently pretending to have been written by the Apostle John,
calling himself for no one else did so the " beloved disciple,"
would, in such an age, rapidly attain to acceptance, especially as it
would, for the mass of Christians, if not for all without exception,
have been impossible, even a year after such a manuscript work was
circulated, to say when it had actually been composed. If we
suppose it to have been in circulation twenty or twenty-five years,
which would have been more than ample for the purpose, that
would only carry back the date of the fourth Gospel to the middle
of the second century; or if we even allow thirty or thirty-five
years an age at such a period we do not get back beyond
1 Zahn, for instance, as has already been pointed out, dates it "soon after
A.D. 173" (Forsch., p. 290 f.).
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 505
A.D. 140. More than this, if even so much need be conceded, is
not demanded by the hypothesis that it was used by Tatian, and
its presence in the Diatessaron, whilst giving us no information
whatever as to the authorship or authenticity, would thus in no
way warrant the ascription of the fourth Gospel to the Apostle
John. As evidence for miracles and the reality of Divine revela-
tion it has no real importance.
We have generally discussed the testimony of Dionysius of
Corinth, 1 Melito of Sardis, 2 and Claudius Apollinaris,3 and need
not say more here. The fragments attributed to them neither
mention nor quote the fourth Gospel, but in no case could they
furnish evidence to authenticate the work. The same remarks
apply to Athenagoras. 4 Dr. Westcott only ventures to say that he
" appears to allude to passages in St. Mark and St. John, but they
are all anonymous." 5 The passages in which he speaks of the
Logos, which are those referred to here, are certainly not taken
from the fourth Gospel, and his doctrine is expressed in termino-
logy which is different from that of the Gospel, and is deeply
tinged with Platonism. He appeals to Proverbs viii. 22, already
so frequently quoted by us, for confirmation by the Prophetic
Spirit of his exposition of the Logos doctrine. 6 He nowhere
identifies the Logos with Jesus ; indeed, he does not once make
use of the name of Christ in his works. He does not show the
slightest knowledge of the doctrine of salvation so constantly
enunciated in the fourth Gospel. There can be no doubt, as we
have already shown,? that he considered the Old Testament to
be the only inspired Holy Scriptures. Not only does he not
mention or quote any of our Gospels, but the only instance in
which he makes any reference to sayings of Jesus otherwise than
by the indefinite <r?o-t, " ne says," is one in which he introduces a
saying which is not found in our Gospels by the words : " The
Logos again saying to us :" (irdXw -ij/uv Aeyovros TOV Aoyou),
etc. From the same source, which was obviously not our canoni-
cal Gospels, we have, therefore, reason to conclude that Athenagoras
derived his knowledge of Gospel history and doctrine. We
need not add that this writer affords no testimony as to the origin
or character of the fourth Gospel.
It is scarcely worth while to refer to the Epistle of Vienne and
Lyons, a composition dating at the earliest A.D. 177-178, in which
no direct reference is made to any writing of the New Testament. 8
Acquaintance with the fourth Gospel is argued from the following
passage :
1 P. 381 f. 2 P. 387 f- 3 P 395 f-
4 P. 398 f. 5 On the Canon, p. 103.
6 Leg. pro Christ., 10. ? P. 404. 8 P. 404 f
506
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
EPISTLE, iv.
And thus was fulfilled the saying of
our Lord :
The time shall come in which every
one that killeth you shall think that he
offereth a service unto God.
'EXfVfferai Kaipbs v $ Tras 6 aTro-
KTftvas u/tay, 5<5et \arpeiav
JOHN xvi. 2.
But the hour cometh that every one
that killeth you may think that he
offereth a service unto God.
dXX' HpxcTai &pa iVa Tras 6 diro-
as 6j? \arpelav irpo<r<pipfiv
Such a passage cannot prove the use of the fourth Gospel.
No source is indicated in the Epistle from which the saying of
Jesus, which, of course, apologists assert to be historical, was
derived. It presents decided variations from the parallel in the
fourth Gospel ; and in the Synoptics we find sufficient indications
of similar discourses 1 to render it very probable that other Gospels
may have contained the passage quoted in the Epistle. In no
case could an anonymous reference like this be of any weight as
evidence for the Apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel.
We need not further discuss Ptolemaeus and Heracleon. We
have shown 2 that the date at which these heretics flourished
places them beyond the limits within which we propose to confine
ourselves. In regard to Ptolemaeus, all that is affirmed is that, in
the Epistle to Flora ascribed to him, expressions found in John i.
3 are used. The passage as it is given by Epiphanius is as follows :
" Besides, that the world was created by the same, the Apostle
states (saying all things have been made (yeyovevru) by him and
without him nothing was made)" ("En ye rrjv TOV KOO-/AOU
Srjfjuovpyiav iSiav Aeyet tiVat (are irnvra, 81 avrov yeyoveyai, KOI
Xcopts avrov yeyovev oi58ev) 6 aTroo-roXos). 3 Now, the supposed
quotation is introduced here in a parenthesis interrupting the
sense, and there is every probability that it was added as an illus-
tration by Epiphanius, and was not in the Epistle to Flora at all.
Omitting the parenthesis, the sentence is a very palpable reference
to the Apostle Paul and Coloss. i. 16. In regard to Heracleon, it
is asserted, from the unsupported references of OrigeiV that he
wrote a commentary on the fourth Gospel. Even if this be a fact,
there is not a single word of it preserved by Origen which in the
least degree bears upon the apostolic origin and trustworthiness
of the Gospel. Neither of these heresiarchs, therefore, is of any
value as*a witness for the authenticity of the fourth Gospel.
The heathen Celsus, as we have shown, 5 wrote at a period when
no evidence which he could well give of his own could have been
1 Matt. x. 16-22, xxiv. 9 f. ; Mark xiii. 9- 13 ; Luke xxi. 12-
2 P. 408 f. 3 Epiphanius, H<er.,
2-17.
xxxiii., 3.
4 The passages are quoted by Grabe (Spicil. Pair. , ii. , p. 85 f. ).
5 P. 422 f. \
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 507
of much value in supporting our Gospels. He is pressed into
service, 1 however, because, after alluding to various circumstances
of Gospel history, he says : " These things, therefore, being taken
out of your own writings, we have no need of other testimony, for
you fall upon your own swords "; 2 and in another place he says that
certain Christians " alter the Gospel from its first written form in
three-fold, four-fold, and many-fold ways, and remould it in order
to have the means of contradicting the arguments (of opponents)." 3
This is supposed to refer to the four canonical Gospels. Apart
from the fact that Origen replies to the first of these passages that
Celsus has brought forward much concerning Jesus which is not
in accordance with the narratives of the Gospel, it is unreasonable
to limit the accusation of " many-fold " corruption to four Gospels,
when it is undeniable that the Gospels and writings long current
in the Church were very numerous. In any case, what could such
a statement as this do towards establishing the Apostolic origin
and credibility of the fourth Gospel ?
We might pass over the Canon of Muratori entirely as being
beyond the limit of time to which, we confine ourselves, 4 but the
unknown writer of the fragment gives a legend with regard to the
composition of the fourth Gospel which we may quote here,
although its obviously mythical character renders it of no value
as evidence regarding the authorship of the Gospel. The writer
says :
Quart! cuangcliorum lohannis ex decipolis
Cohortantihus condescipulis et episcopis suis
dixit conieiunate mihi hodie triduo et quid
cuique fuerit reuelalum alterutrum
nobis ennarremus eadem nocte reue
latum Andrew ex apostolis ut recognis
centibus cunctis lohannis suo nomine
cuncta describeret et ideo 5 licit uaria sin
culis euangeliorum libris principia
doceantur nihil tamen differt creden
tium fidei cum uno ac principali spiritu de
clarata sint in omnibus omnia de natiui
tate de passione de resurrectione
de conuersatione cum decipulis suis
ac de gemino eius aduentu
primo in humilitate dispectus quod fo
it 6 secundum potestate regali pre
1 Cf. Tischendorf, Wann -wurden, u. s. w., p. 71 f. ; Westcott, On the
Canon, p. 356.
3 Origen, Contra Cels., ii. 47. 3 Ib., ii. 27. 4 P. 481 f.
5 It is admitted that the whole passage from this point to "futurttm est" is
abrupt and without connection with the context, as well as most confused.
Cf. Tragelles, Can. Mural., p. 36; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr. ,
iii., p. 205.
6 Credner reads here: " qitod ratuin cst " (Zur Gesch. d. Kan., p. 74). Dr.
Westcott reads : " quodfuit " (On the Canon, p. 478).
508 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
clarum quod futurum est 1 quid ergo
mirum si Johannes tarn constanter
sincula etiam in epistulis suis proferat
dicens in semeipsu quee uidimus oculis
nostris et auribus audiuimus et manus
nostrse palpauerunt hrec scripsimus uobis
sic enim non solum uisurem sed et auditorem
sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium domini per ordi
nem profetetur
" The fourth of the Gospels, of John, one of the disciples. To
his fellow disciples and bishops (Episcopis) urging him he said :
' Fast with me to-day for three days, and let us relate to each other
that which shall be revealed to each.' On the same night it was
revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that, with the the super-
vision of all, John should relate all things in his own name. And,
therefore, though various principles (principia) are taught by each
book of the Gospels, nevertheless it makes no difference to the
faith of believers, since, in all, all things are declared by one ruling
Spirit concerning the nativity, concerning the passion, concerning
the resurrection, concerning the Intercourse with the disciples, and
concerning his double advent; the first in lowliness of estate,
which has taken place, the second in regal power and splendour,
which is still future. What wonder, therefore, if John should so
constantly bring forward each thing (singula) also in his Epistles,
saying in regard to himself : The things which we have seen with
our eyes, and have heard with our ears, and our hands have
handled, these things have we written unto you. For thus he
professes himself not only an eye-witness and hearer, but also a
writer of all the wonders of the Lord in order."
It is obvious that in this passage we have an apologetic defence
of the fourth Gospel, which unmistakably implies antecedent
denial of its authority and Apostolic origin. The writer not only
ascribes it to John, but he clothes it with the united authority of
the rest of the Apostles, in a manner which very possibly aims at
explaining the supplementary chapter xxi., with its testimony to
the truth of the preceding narrative. In his zeal, the writer goes
so far as to falsify a passage of the Epistle, and convert it into a
declaration by the author of the letter himself that he had written
the Gospel. " ' The things which we have seen, etc., these things
have we written unto you ' (kcec scripsimus vobis).* For thus he
1 Dr. Tregelles calls attention to the resemblance of this passage to one of
Tertullian (Afol. , 21) : " Duobus enim adventibus eius significatis, frimo,
qui ram expitnctus est in humilitate conditionis humana ; secundo, qui conchi-
dendo seculo imminet in sublimitate divinitatis exserttz : primum non intelli-
gendo, secttndum, quern manifeslius pr&dtcatum sperant unum existimaverunt"
(Can. Mural., p. 36). This is another reason for dating the fragment in the
third century.
a I John i. 1-3.
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE FOURTH GOSPEL 509
professes himself not only an eye-witness and hearer, but also a
writer of all the wonders of the Lord in order." Credner argues
that in speaking of John as " one of the disciples " (ex disapulis),
and of Andrew as " one of the Apostles," the writer intends to
distinguish between John the disciple, who wrote the Gospel and
Epistle, and John the Apostle, who wrote the Apocalypse, and
that it was for this reason that he sought to dignify him by a
special revelation, through the Apostle Andrew, selecting him to
write the Gospel. Credner, therefore, concludes that here we
have an ancient ecclesiastical tradition ascribing the Gospel and
first Epistle to one of the disciples of Jesus different from the
Apostle John. 1 Into this we need not enter, nor is it necessary
for us to demonstrate the mythical nature of the narrative
regarding the origin of the Gospel. We have merely given this
extract to make our statement regarding it complete. Not only is
the evidence of the fragment of no value, from the lateness of its
date and the uncritical character of its author, but a vague and
fabulous tradition recorded by an unknown writer could not, in
any case, furnish testimony calculated to establish the Apostolic
origin and trustworthiness of the fourth Gospel.
1 Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 158 f. ; Theol. Jahrb., 1857, p. 301.
CHAPTER II.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL
THE result of our inquiry into the evidence for the fourth Gospel
is sufficiently decided to render further examination unnecessary.
We have seen that, for a century and a half after the events
recorded in the work, there is not only no testimony connect-
ing the fourth Gospel with the Apostle John, but no certain trace
even of the existence of the Gospel. There has not been the
slightest evidence in any of the writings of the Fathers which we
have examined even of a tradition that the Apostle John had
composed any evangelical work at all, and the claim advanced in
favour of the Christian miracles to contemporaneous evidence of
extraordinary force and veracity by undoubted eye-witnesses so com-
pletely falls to the ground that we might here well bring this part of
our inquiry to a close. There are, however, so many peculiar circum-
stances connected with the fourth Gospel, both in regard to its
authorship and to its relationship to the three Synoptics, which
invite further attention, that we propose briefly to review some of
them. We must carefully restrict ourselves to the limits of our
inquiry, and resist any temptation to enter upon an exhaustive
discussion of the problem presented by the fourth Gospel from a
more general literary point of view.
The endeavour to obtain some positive, or at least negative,
information regarding the author of the fourth Gospel is facilitated
by the fact that several other works in the New Testament Canon
are ascribed to him. These works present such marked and
distinct characteristics that, apart from the fact that their number
extends the range of evidence, they afford an unusual opportunity
of testing the tradition which assigns them all to the Apostle John,
by comparing the clear indications which they give of the
idiosyncrasies of their author with the independent data which we
possess regarding the history and character of the Apostle. It is
asserted by the Church that John the son of Zebedee, one of the
disciples of Jesus, is the composer of no less than five of our
canonical writings, and it would be impossible to select any books
of our New Testament presenting more distinct features, or more
widely divergent views, than are to be found in the Apocalypse on
the one hand, and the Gospel and three Epistles on the other.
Whilst a strong family likeness exists between the Epistles and the
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 511
Gospel, and they exhibit close analogies both in thought and
language, the Apocalypse, on the contrary, is so different
from them in language, in style, in religious views and termi-
nology, that it is almost impossible to believe that the writer
of the one could be the author of the other. The trans-
lators of our New Testament have laboured, and not in
vain, to eliminate as far as possible all individuality of style
and language, and to reduce the various books of which it is
composed to one uniform smoothness of diction. It is,
therefore, impossible for the mere English reader to appreciate
the immense difference which exists between the harsh and
Hebraistic Greek of the Apocalypse and the polished elegance
of the fourth Gospel, and it is to be feared that the rarity
of critical study has prevented any general recognition of the
almost equally striking contrast of thought between the two
works. The remarkable peculiarities which distinguish the
Apocalypse and Gospel of John, however, were very early
appreciated, and almost the first application of critical judgment
to the canonical books of the New Testament is the argument of
Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, about the middle of the third
century, that the author of the fourth Gospel could not be the
writer of the Book of Revelation. 1 The dogmatic predilections
which at that time had begun to turn against the Apocalypse, the
non-fulfilment of the prophecies of which disappointed and
puzzled the early Church, led Dionysius to solve the difficulty by
deciding in favour of the authenticity of the Gospel ; but at least
he recognised the dilemma which has since occupied so much of
Biblical criticism.
It is not necessary to enter upon any exhaustive analysis of the
Apocalypse and Gospel to demonstrate anew that both works
cannot have emanated from the same mind. This has already
been conclusively done by others. Some apologetic writers
greatly influenced, no doubt, by the express declaration of the
Church, and satisfied by analogies which could scarcely fail to
exist between two works dealing with a similar theme together
with a very few independent critics, have asserted the authenticity
of both works. The great majority of critics, however, have fully
admitted the impossibility of recognising a common source for the
fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse of John. The critical question
regarding the two works has, in fact, reduced itself to the dilemma
which may be expressed as follows, in the words of Liicke :
" Either the Gospel and the first Epistle are genuine writings of
the Apostle John, and, in that case, the Apocalypse is no genuine
work of that Apostle, or the inverse." 2 After an elaborate
1 Eusehius, H. E., vii. 25. * Einl. Offenb. Johannes, ii., p. 504.
512 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
comparison of the two works, the same writer, who certainly will
not be suspected of wilfully subversive criticism, resumes : " The
difference between the language, way of expression, and mode of
thought and doctrine of the Apocalypse and the rest of the
Johannine writings, is so comprehensive and intense, so indi-
vidual and so radical ; the affinity and agreement, on the contrary,
are so vague, and in details so fragmentary and uncertain
(zuriickweichend}, that the Apostle John, if he really be the author
of the Gospel and of the Epistle which we here assume cannot
have composed the Apocalypse either before or after the Gospel
and the Epistle. If all critical experience and rules in such
literary questions are not deceptive, it is certain that the Evangelist
and Apocalyptist are two different persons of the name of John," 1
etc.
De Wette, another conservative critic, speaks with equal decision.
After an able comparison of the two works, he says : " From all
this it follows (and in New Testament criticism no result is more
certain) that the Apostle John, if he be the author of the fourth
Gospel and of the Johannine Epistles, did not write the Apoca-
lypse ; or, if the Apocalypse be his work, that he is not the author
of the other writings." 2 Ewald is equally positive : " Above all "
he says, " we should err in tracing this work (the Gospel) to th'e
Apostle if the Apocalypse of the New Testament were by him.
That this much earlier writing cannot have been composed by the
author of the latter is an axiom which I consider I have already
(in 1826-28) so convincingly demonstrated that it would be super-
fluous now to return to it, especially as, since then, all men capable
of forming a judgment are of the same opinion, and what has
been brought forward by a few writers against it too clearly depends
upon influences foreign to science." 3 We may, therefore, consider
the point generally admitted, and proceed, very briefly, to discuss
the question upon this basis.
The external evidence that the Apostle John wrote the Apoca-
lypse is more ancient than that for the authorship of any book of
the New Testament, excepting some of the Epistles of Paul, and
this is admitted even by critics who ultimately deny the authenti-
city of the work. Passing over the very probable statement of
Andrew of Caesarea,* that Papias recognised the Apocalypse as an
inspired work, and the inference drawn from this fact that he
referred it to the Apostle, we at once proceed to Justin Martyr,
who affirms in the clearest and most positive manner the Apostolic
1 Einl. Offenb.Joh., ii., p. 744 f. 2 Einl. N.T.,\ 189 e., p. 422. +
3 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., v. , p. 179.
4 It is generally asserted both by Apologists and others that this testimony
is valid in favour of the recognition by Papias of the authenticity of the
Apocalypse. ,
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 513
origin of the work. He speaks to Tryphon of " a certain man
whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who pro-
phesied by a revelation made to him," of the millennium and
subsequent general resurrection and judgment. 1 The statement
of Justin is all the more important from the fact that he does not
name any other writing of the New Testament, and that the Old
Testament was still for him the only Holy Scripture. The genuine-
ness of this testimony is not called in question by any one.
Eusebius states that Melito of Sardis wrote a work on the Apoca-
lypse of John, 2 and Jerome mentions the treatise. 3 There can be
no doubt that had Melito thrown the slightest doubt on the
Apostolic origin of the Apocalypse, Eusebius, whose dogmatic
views led him to depreciate that writing, would have referred to
the fact. Eusebius also mentions that Apollonius, a Presbyter of
Ephesus, quoted the Apocalypse against the Montanists, and there
is reason to suppose that he did so as an Apostolic work. 4 Euse-
bius further states that Theophilus of Antioch made use of testi-
mony from the Apocalypse of John ; 5 but although, as Eusebius
does not mention anything to the contrary, it is probable that
Theophilus really recognised the book to be by John the Apostle,
the uncritical haste of Eusebius renders his vague statement of
little value. We do not think it worth while to quote the evidence
of later writers. Although Irenaeus, who repeatedly assigns the
Apocalypse to John, the disciple of the Lord, 6 is cited by Apolo-
gists as a very important witness, more especially from his inter-
course with Polycarp, we do not attribute any value to his testi-
mony, both from the late date at which he wrote and from the
uncritical and credulous character of his mind. Although he
appeals to the testimony of those " who saw John face to face "
with regard to the number of the name of the Beast, his own
utter ignorance of the interpretation shows how little information
he can have derived from Polycarp.? The same remarks apply
still more strongly to Tertullian, who most unhesitatingly assigns
the Apocalypse to the Apostle John. 8 It would be useless more
particularly to refer to later evidence, or quote even the decided
testimony in its favour of Clement of Alexandria,^ or Origen. 10
The first doubt cast upon the authenticity of the Apocalypse
occurs in the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, one of the
disciples of Origen, in the middle of the third century. He men-
tions that some had objected to the whole work as without sense
1 Dial. 8 1 ; cf. Eusebius, H. E., iv. 18. 2 Eusebius, H. E., iv. 26.
3 De Vir. III., 24. 4 Eusebius, H. E., v. 18.
5 Ib., iv. 24. 6 Adv. Har., iv. 20, II ; 21, 3 ; 30, 4, etc.
7 Ib., v. 30. 8 Adv. Marc., iii. 14, 24, etc. 9 Stromata,\\. 13. 106, 141.
10 Eusebius, H. E., vi. 25, in Joann. Opp., iv., p. 17.
2L
5 i4 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
or reason, and as displaying such dense ignorance that it was
impossible that an Apostle, or even one in the Church, could have
written it, and they assigned it to Cerinthus, who held the doctrine
of the reign of Christ on earth. 1 These objections, it is obvious,
are merely dogmatic, and do not affect to be historical. They are,
in fact, a good illustration of the method by which the Canon was
formed. If the doctrine of any writing met with the approval of
the early Church, it was accepted with unhesitating faith, and its
pretension to Apostolic origin was admitted as a natural conse-
quence ; but if, on the other hand, the doctrine of the writing was
not clearly that of the community, it was rejected without further
examination. It is an undeniable fact that not a single trace
exists of the application of historical criticism to any book of the
New Testament in the early ages of Christianity. The case of
the Apocalypse is most intelligible : So long as the expectation
and hope of a second advent and of a personal reign of the risen
and glorified Christ, of the prevalence of which we have abundant
testimony in the Pauline Epistles and other early works, continued
to animate the Church, the Apocalypse which excited and fostered
them was a popular volume ; but as years passed away and the
general longing of Christians, eagerly marking the signs of the
times, was again and again disappointed, and the hope of a
millennium began either to be abandoned or indefinitely postponed,
the Apocalypse proportionately lost favour, or was regarded as an
incomprehensible book misleading the world by illusory pro-
mises. Its history is that of a highly dogmatic treatise esteemed
or contemned in proportion to the ebb and flow of opinion
regarding the doctrines which it expresses.
The objections of Dionysius, resting first upon dogmatic grounds
and his inability to understand the Apocalyptic utterances of the
book, took the shape we have mentioned of a critical dilemma :
The author of the Gospel could not at the same time be the
author of the Apocalypse. Dogmatic predilection decided the
question in favour of the apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel,
and the reasoning by which that decision is arrived at has, there-
fore, no critical force or value. The fact still remains that Justin
Martyr distinctly refers to the Apocalypse as the work of the
Apostle John, and no similar testimony exists in support of the
' claims of the fourth Gospel.
As another most important point, we may mention that there is
probably not another work of the New Testament the precise date
of the composition of which, within a very few weeks, can so
positively be affirmed. No result of criticism rests upon a more
secure basis and is now more universally accepted by all competent
1 Eusebius, H. ., vii. 24.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 515
critics than the fact that the Apocalypse was written in
A.D. 68-69. The writer distinctly and repeatedly mentions his
name : i. i, "The revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant
John"; i. 4, "John to the seven churches which are in Asia"; 1
and he states that the work was written in the island of Patmos,
where he was " on account of the Word of God and the testimony
of Jesus." 2 Ewald, who decides in the most arbitrary manner
against the authenticity of the Apocalypse and in favour of the
[ohannine authorship of the Gospel, objects that the author,
although he certainly calls himself John, does not assume to be
an Apostle, but merely terms himself the servant (<5ovAos) of
Christ like other true Christians, and distinctly classes himself
among the Prophets,3 and not among the Apostles.-* We find,
however, that Paul, who was not apt to waive his claims to the
Apostolate, was content to call himself " Paul, a servant (SouAos)
of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle," in writing to the
Romans; (i. i) and the superscription of the Epistle to the
Philippians is : " Paul and Timothy, servants (SouAoi) of Christ
Jesus." 5 There was, moreover, reason why the author of the
Book of Revelation, a work the form of which was decidedly based
upon that of Daniel and other Jewish Apocalytic writings, should
rather adopt the' character of Prophet than the less suitable desig-
nation of Apostle upon such an occasion. It is clear that he
counted fully upon being generally known under the simple desig-
nation of "John," and when we consider the unmistakable terms
of authority with which he addresses the Seven Churches it is
scarcely possible to deny that the writer either was the Apostle
or distinctly desired to assume his personality. It is not necessary
for us here to enter into any discussion regarding the " Presbyter
John," for it is generally admitted that even he could not have
had at that time any position in Asia Minor which could have
warranted such a tone. If the name of Apostle, therefore, be
not directly assumed and it was not necessary to assume it the
authority of one is undeniably inferred.
Ewald argues that, on the contrary, the author could not
more clearly express that he was not one of the Twelve than
when he imagines (Apoc., xxi. 14) the names of the " twelve
apostles of the Lamb " shining upon the twelve foundation-stones
of the wall of the future heavenly Jerusalem. He considers that
no intelligent person could thus publicly glorify himself or
1 Cf. i. 9 ; xxii. 8. 2 i. 9, dla rbv \6yov rov 6fov Kal ryv /j.aprvpiav 'lyffov
3 Cf. i. 1-3, 9 f. ; xix. 9 f. ; xxii. 6-9, 10, 16 f., 18 f.
4 Ewald, Diejoh. Schr., ii., p. 55 f.; Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., v., p. 179 f.
5 We do not refer to the opening of the Epistle to Titus, nor to that which
commences "James, a servant (5ou\os) of God," etc., nor to the so-called
" Epistle of Jude," all being too much disputed or apocryphal.
5i6 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
anticipate the honour which God alone can bestow. " Can
any one seriously believe," he indignantly inquires, " that one of
the Twelve, yea, that even he whom we know as the most delicate
and refined amongst them, could have written this of himself P" 1
In the first place, we must remark that in this discussion it
is not permissible to speak of our knowing John the Apostle
as distinguished above all the rest of the Twelve for such qualities.
Nowhere do we find such a representation of him except in the
fourth Gospel, if even there, but, as we shall presently see, rather
the contrary, and the fourth Gospel cannot here be received
as evidence. We might point out that the symbolical repre-
sentation of the heavenly Jerusalem is held to be practically
objective, a revelation of things that " must shortly come to pass,"
and not a mere subjective sketch coloured according to the
phantasy of the writer. Passing on, however, it must be apparent
that the whole account of the heavenly city is typical, and that
in basing its walls upon the Twelve he does not glorify himself
personally, but simply gives its place to the idea which was
symbolised when Jesus is represented as selecting twelve disciples,
the number of the twelve tribes, upon whose preaching the
spiritual city was to be built. The Jewish belief in a special
preference of the Jews before all nations doubtless suggested this,
and it forms a leading feature in the strong Hebraistic form of
the writer's Christianity. The heavenly city is simply a glorified
Jerusalem ; the twelve Apostles, representatives of the twelve
tribes, set apart for the regeneration of Israel, are the foundation-
stones of the New City with its twelve tribes of Israel, 2 for whom
the city is more particularly provided. For 144,000 of Israel are
first sealed, 12,000 of each of the twelve tribes, before the Seer
beholds the great multitude of all nations and tribes and peoples. 3
The whole description is a mere allegory characterised by the
strongest Jewish dogmatism, and it is of singular value for the
purpose of identifying the author.
Moreover, the apparent glorification of the Twelve is more than
justified by the promise which Jesus is represented by the
Synoptics 4 as making to them in person. When Peter, in the
name of the Twelve, asks what is reserved for those who have
forsaken all and followed him, Jesus replies : " Verily I say unto
you that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the
Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall be
set upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." 5
Ewald himself, in his distribution of the materials of our existing
1 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., v. , p. 180 f ; cf. Die. Joh. Schriften, 1862, ii., p. 56 f.
2 Apoc., xxi. 12. , 3 Ib., vii. 4-9.
4 Matt. xix. 27, 28 ; Luke xii. 28-30. 5 Matt. xix. 28.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 517
first Synoptic to the supposed original sources, assigns this passage
to the very oldest Gospel. 1 What impropriety is there, and what
improbability, therefore, that an Apostle, in an apocalyptic allegory,
should represent the names of the twelve Apostles as inscribed
upon the twelve foundation-stones of the spiritual Jerusalem, as
the names of the twelve tribes of Israel were inscribed upon
the twelve gates of the city ? On the contrary, it is pro-
bable under the circumstances that an Apostle should make
such a representation, and, in view of the facts regarding the
Apostle John himself which we have from the Synoptics, it is
particularly in harmony with his character ; and these characteristics
directly tend to establish his identity with the author.
" How much less is it credible of the Apostle John," says
Ewald elsewhere, pursuing the same argument, " who as a writer
is so incomparably modest and delicate in feeling, and does not
in a single one of the writings really emanating from him name
himself as the author, or even proclaim his own praise." 2 This is
merely sentimental assumption of facts, to which we shall hereafter
allude ; but, if the " incomparable modesty " of which he speaks
really existed, nothing could more conclusively separate the author
of the fourth Gospel from the son of Zebedee whom we know in
the Synoptics, or more support the claims of the Apocalypse. In
the first place, we must assert that, in writing a serious history of
the life and teaching of Jesus, full of marvellous events and
astounding doctrines, the omission of his name by an Apostle can
not only not be recognised as genuine modesty, but must be con-
demned as culpable neglect. It is perfectly incredible that an
Apostle could have written such a work without attaching his
name as the guarantee of his intimate acquaintance with the events
and statements he records. What would be thought of a historian
who published a history without a single reference to recognised
authorities, and yet who did not declare even his own name as
some evidence of his truth? The fact is that the first two Synoptics
bear no author's name because they are not the work of any one
man, but the collected materials of many ; the third Synoptic only
pretends to be a compilation for private use ; and the fourth Gospel
bears no simple signature because it is neither the work of an
Apostle, nor of an eye-witness of the events and hearer of the
teaching it records.
If it be considered incredible that an Apostle could, even
in an Allegory, represent the names of the Twelve as written
on the foundation-stones of the New Jerusalem, and the incom-
parable modesty and delicacy of feeling of the assumed author of
the fourth Gospel be contrasted with it so much to the disadvan-
1 Die drei ersten Ew., p. 23. 2 Die Joh. Schr., ii., p. 56 f-
5i8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
tage of the writer of the Apocalypse, we ask whether this reference
to the collective Twelve can be considered at all on a par with the
self-glorification of the disguised author of the Gospel, who, not
content with the simple indication of himself as John, a servant of
Jesus Christ, and sharing distinction equally with the rest of the
Twelve, assumes to himself alone a pre-eminence in the favour
and affection of his Master, as well as a distinction amongst his
fellow disciples, of which we first hear from himself, and which is
anything but corroborated by the three Synoptics ? The supposed
author of the fourth Gospel, it is true, does not plainly mention
his name, but he distinguishes himself as "the disciple whom
Jesus loved," and represents himself as " leaning on Jesus' breast
at supper." 1 This distinction assumed for himself, and this
preference over the other disciples in the love of him whom he
represents as God, is much greater self-glorification than that of
the author of the Apocalypse. We shall presently see how far
Ewald is right in saying, moreover, that the author does not
clearly indicate the person for whom, at least, he desires to be
mistaken.
We must conclude that these objections have no weight,
and that there is no internal evidence against the supposition
that the "John" who announces himself as the author of the
Apocalypse was the Apostle. On the contrary, the tone of
authority adopted throughout, and the evident certainty that his
identity would everywhere be recognised, denote a position in the
Church which no other person of the name of John could well
have held at the time when the Apocalypse was written. The
external evidence, therefore, which indicates the Apostle John as
the author of the Apocalypse is quite in harmony with the internal
testimony of the book itself. We have already pointed out the
strong colouring of Judaism in the views of the writer. Its
imagery is thoroughly Jewish, and its allegorical representations
are entirely based upon Jewish traditions and hopes. The
heavenly City is a New Jerusalem ; its twelve gates are dedicated
to the twelve tribes of Israel ; God and the Lamb are the Temple
of it ; and the sealed of the twelve tribes have the precedence over
the nations, and stand with the Lamb on Mount Zion (xiv. i)
having his name and his Father's written on their foreheads. The
language in which the book is written is the most Hebraistic
Greek of the New Testament, as its contents are the most deeply
tinged with Judaism. If, finally, we seek for some traces of the
character of the writer, we see in every page the impress of an
impetuous fiery spirit, whose symbol is the Eagle, breathing forth
vengeance against the enemies of the Messiah and impatient till it
1 John xiii. 23 ; xix. 26, 27 ; xx. 2f, ; cf. xxi. 20 f.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 519
be accomplished, and the whole of the visions of the Apocalypse
proceed to the accompaniment of the rolling thunders of God's
wrath.
We may now turn to examine such historical data as exist re-
garding John the son of Zebedee, and to inquire whether they
accord better with the character and opinions of the author of the
Apocalypse or of the Evangelist. John and his brother James are
represented by the Synoptics as being the sons of Zebedee and
Salome. They were fishermen on the sea of Galilee, and at the
call of Jesus they left their ship and their father and followed him. 1
Their fiery and impetuous character led Jesus to give them the
surname of Boav?//3ys, " Sons of thunder," 2 an epithet justified by
several incidents which are related regarding them. Upon one
occasion, John sees one casting out devils in his master's name,
and in an intolerant spirit forbids him because he did not follow
them, for which he is rebuked by Jesus.3 Another time, when
the inhabitants of a Samaritan village would not receive them,
John and James angrily turn to Jesus and say : " Lord, wilt thou
that we command fire t > come down from heaven, and consume
them, even as Elijah did ?"* A remarkable episode will have
presented itself already to the mind of every reader, which the
second synoptic Gospel narrates as follows : Mark x. 35. " And
James and John the sons of Zebedee come unto him saying unto
him : Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever
we shall ask thee. 36. And he said unto them : What would ye
that I should do for you ? 37. They said unto him : Grant that
we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand
in thy glory. 38. But Jesus said to them : Ye know not what ye
ask : can ye drink the cup that I drink ? or be baptised with the
baptism that I am baptised with ? 39. And they said unto him :
We can. And Jesus said unto them : The cup that I drink ye
shall drink ; and with the baptism that I am baptised withal shall
ye be baptised : 40. But to sit on my right hand or on my left
hand is not mine to give, but for whom it has been prepared.
41. And when the ten heard it they began to be much displeased
with James and John." It is difficult to say whether the effrontery
and selfishness of the request, or the assurance with which the
brethren assert their power to emulate the Master, is more striking
in this scene. Apparently, the grossness of the proceeding already
began to be felt when our first Gospel was edited, for it represents
the request as made by the mother of James and John ; but that
is a very slight decrease of the offence, inasmuch as the brethren
are obviously consenting, if not inciting, parties to the prayer, and
1 Matt. iv. 21 f. ; Mark i. 19 f. ; Luke v. 19 f.
2 Mark iii. 17. 3 /#. t J x . 38 f. ; Luke ix. 49 f. 4 Lukeix. 54 f.
520 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
utter their " We can " with the same absence of " incomparable
modesty." 1 After the death of Jesus, John remained in Jerusalem, 2
and chiefly confined his ministry to the city and its neighbour-
hood. 3 The account which Hegesippus gives of James the
brother of Jesus who was appointed overseer of the Church in
Jerusalem will not be forgotten, 4 and we refer to it merely in
illustration of primitive Christianity. However mythical elements
are worked up into the narrative, one point is undoubted fact, that
the Christians of that community were but a sect of Judaism,
merely superadding to Mosaic doctrines belief in the actual advent
of the Messiah whom Moses and the prophets had foretold ; and
we find, in the Acts of the Apostles, Peter and John represented
as "going up into the Temple at the hour of prayer," 5 like other
Jews. In the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians we have most
valuable evidence with regard to the Apostle John. Paul found
him still in Jerusalem on the occasion of the visit referred to in
that letter, about A.D. 50-53. We need not quote at length the
important passage, Gal. ii. i f., but the fact is undeniable, and
stands upon stronger evidence than almost any other particular
regarding the early Church, being distinctly and directly stated by
Paul himself : that the three "pillar" Apostles representing the
Church there were James, Peter, and John. Peter is markedly
termed the Apostle of the circumcision, and the differences
between him and Paul are evidence of the opposition of their
views. James and John are clearly represented as sharing the
views of Peter, and, whilst Paul finally agrees with them that he is
to go to the Gentiles, the three o-ruXot elect to continue their
ministry to the circumcision. 6 Here is John, therefore, clearly
devoted to the Apostleship of the circumcision as opposed to Paul,
whose views, as we gather from the whole of Paul's account, were
little more than tolerated by the a-TvXot. Before leaving New
Testament data, we may here point out the statement in the Acts
of the Apostles that Peter and John were known to be "unlettered
and ignorant men "? (av@ptTroi a-ypa/n/wxToi KOL iSiwrai). Later
tradition mentions one or two circumstances regarding John to
which we may briefly refer. Irenaeus states : " There are those
who heard him (Polycarp) say that John, the disciple of the Lord,
going to bathe at Ephesus and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed
forth from the bath-house without bathing, but crying out : ' Let
us fly lest the bath-house fall down : Cerinthus, the enemy of the
truth, being within it.' So great was the care which the Apostles
and their disciples took not to hold even verbal intercourse with
1 Matt. xx. 20 f. 2 Acts 1.13; in. I. 3 76., viii. 25 ; xV. I f.
4 Eusebius, H. ., ii. 23 ; cf. p. 268 f. s Acts iii. 1. f.
6 Gal. ii. 8-9. , 7 Acts iv. 13.
521
any of the corrupters of the truth," 1 etc. Polycrates, who was
Bishop of Ephesus about the beginning of the third century, states
that the Apostle John wore the mitre and petalon of the high
priest (o? eyfrt)6i) te/ocus TO TreraXov 7r<op?;Keos), 2 a tradition which
agrees with the Jewish tendencies of the Apostle of the circum-
cision as Paul describes him. 3
Now, if we compare these data regarding John the son of
Zebedee with the character of John, the author of the Apocalypse,
as we trace it in the work itself, it is impossible not to be struck
by the singular agreement. The Hebraistic Greek and abrupt
inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of Galilee,
and the fierce and intolerant spirit which pervades the book is
precisely that which formerly forbade the working of miracles,
even in the name of the Master, b'y any not of the immediate
circle of Jesus, and which desired to consume an inhospitable
village with fire from heaven. 4 The Judaistic form of Christianity
which is represented throughout the Apocalypse, and the Jewish
elements which enter so largely into its whole composition, are
precisely those which we might expect from John the Apostle of
the circumcision, and the associate of James and of Peter in the
very centre of Judaism. Parts of the Apocalypse, indeed, derive
a new significance when we remember the opposition which
the Apostle of the Gentiles met with from the Apostles of
the circumcision, as plainly declared by Paul in his Epistle
to the Galatians ii. i f., and apparent in other parts of his
writings.
We have already seen the scarcely disguised attack which is
made on Paul in the Clementine Homilies under the name of
Simon the Magician, the Apostle Peter following him from city to
city for the purpose of denouncing and refuting his teaching.
There can be no doubt that the animosity against Paul which was
1 Irenasus, Adv. Htzr., iii. 3, 4 ; Eusebius, H. E., iv. 14.
2 Eusebius, H. E,, iii. 31.
3 We need not refer to any of the other legends regarding John, but it maybe
well to mention the tradition common amongst the Fathers which assigned to
him the cognomen of " the Virgin." One Codex gives as the superscription of
the Apocalypse : " roO dyiov ^vSo^ordrov diro<rTo\ov rat evayyeXiffrov irapdtvov
rjya-infjfj.fvov ltiri.<TTir)6lov 'ludvvov 6(o\6yov" ; and we know that it is reported in
early writings that, of all the Apostles, only John and the Apostle Paul
remained unmarried ; whence probably, in part, this title. In connection with
this, we may point to the importance attached to virginity in the Apocalypse,
xiv. 4 ; cf. Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeit. , ii. , p. 254 ; Lucke, Comm. ub. d.
Br.Joh., 1836, p. 32 f. ; Credner, Einl. N. 7\, i., p. 21.
4 The very objection of Ewald regarding the glorification of the Twelve, if
true, would be singularly in keeping with the audacious request of John and
his brother, to sit on the right and left hand of the glorified Jesus, for we find
none of the " incomparable modesty" which the imaginative critic attributes
to the author of the fourth Gospel in the John of the Synoptics.
522 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
felt by the Ebionitic party, to which John as well as Peter
belonged, was extreme, and when the novelty of the doctrine of
justification by faith alone, taught by him, is considered, it is very
comprehensible. In the Apocalypse we find undeniable traces of
it which accord with what Paul himself says, and with the un-
doubted tradition of the early Church. Not only is Paul silently
excluded from the number of the Apostles, which might be intelli-
gible when the typical nature of the number twelve is considered,
but allusion is undoubtedly made to him in the Epistles to. the
Churches. It is clear that Paul is referred to in the address to the
Church of Ephesus : " And thou didst try them which say that
they are Apostles and are not, and didst find them false "; r and
also in the words to the Church of Smyrna : " But I have a few
things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the
teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block
before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols," 2 etc.,
as well as elsewhere. Without dwelling on this point, however,
we think it must be apparent to every unprejudiced person that
the Apocalypse singularly corresponds in every respect language,
construction, and thought with what we are told of the character
of the Apostle John by the Synoptic Gospels and by tradition, and
that the internal evidence, therefore, accords with the external in
attributing the composition of the Apocalypse to that Apostle.
We may without hesitation affirm, at least, that with the exception
of one or two of the Epistles of Paul there is no work of the New
Testament which is supported by such close evidence.
We need not discuss the tradition as to the residence of the
Apostle John in Asia Minor, regarding which much might be
said. Those who accept the authenticity of the Apocalypse of
course admit its composition in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, 3
and see in this the confirmation of the widespread tradition that the
Apostle spent a considerable period of the latter part of his life in
that city. We may merely mention, in passing, that a historical basis
for the tradition has occasionally been disputed, and has latterly
again been denied by some able critics. The evidence for this, as
for everything else connected with the early ages of Christianity, is
extremely unsatisfactory. Nor need we trouble ourselves with the
dispute as to the Presbyter John, to whom many ascribe the
composition, on the one hand, of the Apocalypse, and, on the
other, of the Gospel, according as they finally accept the one or
the other alternative of the critical dilemma which we have
explained.
If we proceed to compare the character of the Apostle John, as
we have it depicted in the Synoptics and other writings to which
1 Apoc., ii. 2. 2 76., ii. 14, iii. . 3 Ib., i. 9.
523
we have referred, with that of the author of the fourth Gospel, and
to contrast the peculiarities of both, we have a very different result.
Instead of the Hebraistic Greek and harsh diction which might
be expected from the unlettered and ignorant fisherman of Galilee,
we find, in the fourth Gospel, the purest and least Hebraistic
Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of the third Synoptic,
perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and beauty of com-
position whose charm has captivated the world, and in too many
cases prevented the calm exercise of judgment. Instead of the
fierce and intolerant temper of the Son of thunder, we find a
spirit breathing forth nothing but gentleness and love. Instead of
the Judaistic Christianity of the Apostle of Circumcision who
merely tolerates Paul, we find a mind which has so completely
detached itself from Judaism that the writer makes the very
appellation of " Jew " equivalent to that of an enemy of the
truth. Not only are the customs and feasts of the Jews dis-
regarded and spoken of as observances of a people with whom the
writer has no concern, but he anticipates the day when neither on
Mount Gerizim nor yet at Jerusalem men shall worship the
Father, but when it shall be recognised that the only true worship
is that which is offered in spirit and in truth. Faith in Jesus Christ
and the merits of his death is the only way by which man can
attain to eternal life, and the Mosaic Law is practically abolished.
We venture to assert that, taking the portrait of John the son of
Zebedee, which is drawn in the Synoptics and the Epistle of Paul
to the Galatians, supplemented by later tradition, to which we
have referred, and comparing it with that of the writer of the
fourth Gospel, no unprejudiced mind can fail to recognise that
there are not two features alike.
It is the misfortune of this case that the beauty of the Gospel
under trial has too frequently influenced the decision of the
judges, and men who have, in other matters, exhibited sound
critical judgment, in this abandon themselves to sheer sentimen-
tality, and indulge in rhapsodies when reasons would be more
appropriate. Bearing in mind that we have given the whole of
the data regarding John the son of Zebedee furnished by New
Testament writings excluding merely the fourth Gospel itself,
which, of course, cannot at present be received in evidence as
well as the only traditional information possessing, from its date
and character, any appreciable value, it will become apparent that
every argument which proceeds on the assumption that John was
the beloved disciple, and possessed of characteristics quite
different from those we meet with in the writings to which we have
referred, is worthless and a mere petitio principii. We can,,
therefore, appreciate the state of the case when, for instance, we
find an able man like Credner commencing his inquiry as to who
5 2 4 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
was the author of the fourth Gospel with such words as the
following : " Were we entirely without historical data regarding
the author of the fourth Gospel, who is not named in the writing
itself, we should still, from internal grounds in the Gospel itself
from the nature of the language, from the freshness and perspi-
cacity of the narrative, from the exactness and precision of the
statements, from the peculiar manner of the mention of the
Baptist and of the sons of Zebedee, from the love and fervour
rising to ecstasy which the writer manifests towards Jesus, from
the irresistible charm which is poured out over the whole ideally-
composed evangelical history, from the philosophical considerations
with which the Gospel begins be led to the result : that the
author of such a Gospel can only be a native of Palestine, can
only be a direct eye-witness, can only be an Apostle, can only be
a favourite of Jesus, can only be that John whom Jesus held
captivated to himself by the whole heavenly spell of his teaching,
that John who rested on the bosom of Jesus, stood beneath his
cross, and whose later residence in a city like Ephesus proves
that philosophical speculation not merely attracted him, but that
he also knew how to maintain his place amongst philosophically
cultivated Greeks." 1 It is almost impossible to proceed further
in building up theory on baseless assumption ; but we shall
hereafter see that he is kept in countenance by Ewald,
who outstrips him in the boldness and minuteness of his
conjectures. We must now more carefully examine the details of
the case.
The language in which the Gospel is written, as we have
already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other
Gospels, with the exception of parts of the Gospel according to
Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was
almost invariably the case with Hellenistic Greek ; but its
composition is distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and
beauty, and in this respect it is assigned the first rank among
the Gospels. It may be remarked that the connection which
Credner finds between the language and the Apostle John arises
out of the supposition that long residence in Ephesus had enabled
him to acquire that facility of composition in the Greek language
which is one of its characteristics. Ewald, who exaggerates the
Hebraism of the work, resorts nevertheless to the conjecture,
which we shall hereafter more fully consider, that the Gospel was
written from dictation by young friends of John in Ephesus, who
put the aged Apostle's thoughts, in many places, into purer Greek
as they wrote them down. 2 The arbitrary nature of such an
explanation, adopted in one shape or another by many apologists,
1 Credner, Einl. N. T.,\., p. 208. , 2 Diejoh. Schr.^ i. p. 50 f.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 525
requires no remark ; but we shall at every turn meet with similar
assumptions advanced to overcome difficulties. Now, although
there is no certain information as to the time when, if ever, the
Apostle removed into Asia Minor, it is at least pretty certain that
he did not leave Palestine before A.D. 60.' We find him still at
Jerusalem about A.D. 50-53, when Paul went thither, and he had
not at that time any intention of leaving ; but, on the contrary,
his dedication of himself to the ministry of the circumcision is
distinctly mentioned by the Apostle. 2 The " unlettered and
ignorant " fisherman of Galilee, therefore, had obviously attained
an age when habits of thought and expression have become fixed,
and when a new language cannot without great difficulty be
acquired. If we consider the Apocalypse to be his work, we find
positive evidence of such markedly different thought and language
actually existing when the Apostle must have been between sixty
and seventy years of age, that it is quite impossible to conceive
that he could have subsequently acquired the language and
mental characteristics of the fourth Gospel. It would be perfectly
absurd, so far as language goes, to find in the fourth Gospel the
slightest indication of the Apostle John, of whose language we
have no information except from the Apocalypse, a composition
which, if accepted as written by the Apostle, would at once exclude
all consideration of the Gospel as his work.
There are many circumstances, however, which seem clearly to
indicate that the author of the fourth Gospel was neither a
native of Palestine nor a Jew, and to some of these we must briefly
refer. The philosophical statements with which the Gospel com-
mences, it will be admitted, are anything but characteristic of the
Son of thunder, the ignorant and unlearned fisherman of
Galilee who, to a comparatively advanced period of life, continued
preaching in his native country to his brethren of the circumcision.
Attempts have been made to trace the Logos doctrine of the fourth
Gospel to the purely Hebraic source of the Old Testament, but
every impartial mind must perceive that here there is no direct and
simple transformation of the theory of Wisdom of the Proverbs
and Old Testament Apocrypha, and no mere development of the
later Memra of the Targums, but a very advanced application
to Christianity of Alexandrian philosophy, with which we have
become familiar through the writings of Philo, to which reference
has so frequently been made. It is quite true that a decided step
beyond the doctrine of Philo is made when the Logos is
1 It is almost certain that John did not remove to Asia Minor during Paul's
time. There is no trace of his being there in the Pauline Epistles (cf. de
Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 221).
2 Gal. ii. 9.
526 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
represented as <rap eyei/ero in the person of Jesus ; but this argu-
ment is equally applicable to the Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, and
that step had already been taken before the composition of the
Gospel. In the Alexandrian philosophy everything was prepared
for the final application of the doctrine, and nothing is more clear
than the fact that the writer of the fourth Gospel was well
acquainted with the teaching of the Alexandrian school, from
which he derived his philosophy, and its elaborate and systematic
application to Jesus alone indicates a late development of Christian
doctrine, which we maintain could not have been attained by the
Judaistic son of Zebedee. 1
We have already on several occasions referred to the attitude
which the writer of the fourth Gospel assumes towards the Jews.
Apart from the fact that he places Christianity generally in strong
antagonism to Judaism, as light to darkness, truth to a lie, and
presents the doctrine of a hypostatic Trinity in the most developed
form to be found in the New Testament, in striking contrast to the
three Synoptics, and in contradiction to Hebrew Monotheism, he
writes at all times as one who not only is not a Jew himself, but has
nothing to do with their laws and customs. He speaks everywhere
of the feasts " of the Jews," " the passover of the Jews," " the
manner of the purifying of the Jews," " the Jews' feast of taber-
nacles," "as the manner of the Jews is to bury," "the Jews' prepara-
tion day," and so on. 2 The Law of Moses is spoken of as " your
law," " their law," as of a people with which the writer was not
connected. 3 Moreover, the Jews are represented as continually
in virulent opposition to Jesus, and seeking to kill him ; and the
word " Jew " is the unfailing indication of the enemies of the truth,
and the persecutors of the Christ. 4 The Jews are not once spoken
of as the favoured people of God, but they are denounced as
"children of the devil," who is " the father of lies and a murderer
from the beginning." 5 The author makes Caiaphas and the chief
priests and Pharisees speak of the Jewish people not as o Aaos,
but as rb e#vos, the term employed by the Jews to designate the
Gentiles. 6 We need scarcely point out that the Jesus of the fourth
1 Most critics agree that the characteristics of the fourth Gospel render the
supposition that it was the work of an old man untenable.
2 John ii. 6, 13 ; v. I ; vi. 4 ; vii. 2 ; xix. 40, 42, etc.
3 Ib., viii. 17 ; x. 34 ; xv. 25, etc.
4 Ib., v. 16, 18; vii. 23, 19 f. ; viii. 40, 59; ix. 22, 28; xviii. 31 f. ;
xix. 12 f.
5 Ib. , viii. 44.
6 ri> tOvoi is applied to the Jewish people fourteen times in the New Testa-
ment. It is so used five times in the fourth Gospel (xi. 48, 50, 51, 52, xviii. 35),
and elsewhere, with one exception, only by the author of the third Synoptic
and Acts (Luke vii. 5, xxiii. 2 ; Acts x. 22, xxiv. 3, 10, 17, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 19),
who is almost universally believed to have beena Gentile convert and not a
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 527
Gospel is no longer of the race of David, but the Son of God.
The expectation of the Jews that the Messiah should be of the
seed of David is entirely set aside, and the genealogies of the first
and third Synoptics tracing his descent are not only ignored, but
the whole idea absolutely excluded.
Then the writer calls Annas the high priest, although at the
same time Caiaphas is represented as holding that office. 1 The
expression which he uses is : " Caiaphas being the high priest that
year " (dpxieptvs &v TOV Iviavrov e/cetvou). This statement,
made more than once, indicates the belief that the office was
merely annual, which is erroneous. Josephus states with regard
to Caiaphas that he was high priest for ten years, from A.D. 25~36. 2
Ewald and others argue that the expression " that year " refers to
the year in which the death of Jesus, so memorable to the writer,
took place, and that it does not exclude the possibility of his
having been high priest for successive years also. 3 This explana-
tion, however, is quite arbitrary and insufficient, and this is shown
by the additional error in representing Annas as also high priest
at the same time. The Synoptists know nothing of the prelimi-
nary examination before Annas, and the reason given by the writer
of the fourth Gospel why the soldiers first took Jesus to Annas :
"for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was high priest that
same year,"* is inadmissible. The assertion is a clear mistake, and
it probably originated in a stranger, writing of facts and institutions
with which he was not well acquainted, being misled by an error
equally committed by the author of the third Gospel and of the
Acts of the Apostles. In Luke iii. 2 the word of God is said to
come to John the Baptist, " in the high priesthood of Annas and
Caiaphas " (ri dpxtepews "Avva KCU Kcua<a) ; and again, in
Acts iv. 6, Annas is spoken of as the high priest when Peter and
John healed the lame man at the gate of the Temple which was
called " Beautiful," and Caiaphas is mentioned immediately after :
" And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alex-
Jew. The exception referred to is I Pet. ii. 9, where, however, the use is
justified : Zdvos &yioi>, Xadj ei'j Trtpnroi-qcriv. The word \a6s is only twice used
in the fourth Gospel, once in xi. 50, where ZOvos occurs in the same verse, and
again in xviii. 14, where the same words of Caiaphas, xi. 50, are quoted. It
is found in viii. 2, but that episode does not belong to the fourth Gospel, but is
probably taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Ewald himself
points out that the saying of Caiaphas is the purest Greek, and this is another
proof that it could not proceed from the son of Zebedee. It could still less be,
as it stands, an original speech in Greek of the high priest to the Jewish
Council a point which does not require remark (cf. Ewald, Die Joh. Sckr.,
i. , p. 325, anm. i).
1 John xi. 49, 51 ; xviii. 13, 16, 19, 22, 24.
2 Antiq. xviii. 2, 2 ; 4, 3 ; cf. Matt. xxvi. 3, 57.
3 Die Joh. Schr., i., p. 326, anm. i ; Liicke, Comment. Ev. Joh., ii. , p. 484.
4 John xviii. 13.
528 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
ander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest."
Such statements, erroneous in themselves and not understood by
the author of the fourth Gospel, may have led to the confusion in
the narrative. Annas had previously been high priest, as we know
from Josephus, 1 but nothing is more certain than the fact that the
title was not continued after the office was resigned ; and Ishmael,
Eleazar, and Simon, who succeeded Annas and separated his term
of office from that of Caiaphas, did not subsequently bear the title.
The narrative is a mistake, and such an error could not have been
committed by a native of Palestine, and much less by an acquain-
tance of the high priest. 2
There are also several geographical errors committed which
denote a foreigner. In i. 28 the writer speaks of a " Bethany
beyond Jordan, where John was baptising." The substitution of
" Bethabara," mentioned by Origen, which has erroneously crept
into the vulgar text, is, of course, repudiated by critics, " Bethany "
standing in all the older codices. The alteration was evidently
proposed to obviate the difficulty that, even in Origen's time, there
did not exist any trace of a Bethany beyond Jordan in Peraea.
The place could not be the Bethany near Jerusalem, and it is sup-
posed that the writer either mistook its position or, inventing a
second Bethany, which he described as "beyond Jordan," dis-
played an ignorance of the locality improbable either in a Jew or a
Palestinian. 3 Again, in iii. 23, the" writer says that "John was
1 Antiq., xviii. 2, I.
2 John xviii. 15. The author says, in relating the case of restoration of sight
to a blind man, that Jesus desired him : (ix. 7) " Go wash in the pool of
Siloam," and adds: "which is by interpretation : Sent." The writer evidently
wishes to ascribe a prophetical character to the name, and thus increase the
significance of the miracle ; but the explanation of the Hebrew name, it is
contended, is forced and incorrect (Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 93; Davidson,
Int. N. T., ii., p. 428; cf. Gesenius, Lex. Hebr., 1847, p. 925), and betrays
a superficial knowledge of the language. At the best, the interpretation is a
mere conceit, and Liicke (Ev. Joh., ii. , p. 381) refuses to be persuaded that the
parenthesis is by John at all, and prefers the conjecture that it is a gloss of some
ancient allegorical interpreter introduced into the text. Other critics (Kuinoel,
Com. in N. T., 1817, iii., p. 445 ; Tholuck, Com. Ev. Joh. 5/<? Atijl., 1837,
p. 194 ; cf. Neander, Leben J. C. "Jte Ausg. p. 398, anm. I ; Farrar, Life of
Christ, ii., p. 81, n. 3) express similar views ; but this explanation is resisted
by the evidence of MSS. As the balance of opinion pronounces the interpreta-
tion within grammatical possibility, and the interpolation of the phrase may be
equally possible, the objection must not be pressed.
3 Baur, Unters. kan. Ew., p. 331 ; Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 95 f. ;
Davidson, Int. N. T., ii., p. 427; Schenkel, Das Charakt. Jesu, p. 354;
Scholten, Het Ev. Joh., p. 207. Keim (Jes. v. Naz., i., p. 495, iii., p. 66,
anm. 2) does not consider the events connected with the place historical. The
reference is suggestively discussed by Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 2iof. ; Beitrage,
p. 256 f. ; Caspari, Chron. Geogr. Einl., 1869, p. 79 f. ; Ebrard, Ev. Joh.,
p. 68 f. ; Ewald, Gesch. V. hr., v., p. 262, anm. I ; Farrar, Life of Christ, i.,
p. 140, n. i ; Grove, in Smith's Diet, of Bible, i.,*p. 194 f. ; Hengstenberg, Ev.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 529
baptising in yEnon, near to Salim, because there was much water
there." This /Enon, near to Salim, was in Judasa, as is clearly
stated in the previous verse. The place, however, was quite
unknown even in the third century, and the nearest locality which
could be indicated as possible was in the north of Samaria, and,
therefore, differed from the statements in iii. 22, iv. 3.' /Enon
signifies " springs," and the question arises whether the writer of
the fourth Gospel, not knowing the real meaning of the word, did
not simply mistake it for the name of a place. 2 In any case, there
seems to be here another error into which the author of the fourth
Gospel, had he been the Apostle John, could not have fallen.
The account of the miracle of the pool of Bethesda is a remark-
able one for many reasons. The words which most pointedly relate
the miraculous phenomena characterising the pool are rejected by
many critics as an interpolation. In the following extract we put
them in italics : v. 3. " In these (five porches) lay a multitude of
the sick, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the ivater. 4.
for an angel went down at certain seasons into the pool and was
troubling the ^vater : he, therefore, who first went in after the
troubling of the water was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
We maintain, however, that the obnoxious passage is no spurious
interpolation, but that there is ample evidence, external and
internal, to substantiate its claim to a place in the text. It is true
that the whole passage is omitted by the Sinaitic and Vatican
Codices, and by C ; that A 1 , L, 18, and others, omit the last
phrase of verse 3, and that D, 33, which contain that phrase, omit
the whole of verse 4, together with 157, 314 and some other MSS.;
that in many codices in which the passage is found it is marked
by an asterisk or obelus, and that it presents considerable variation
in readings. It is also true that it is omitted by Cureton's Syriac,
by the Thebaic, and by most of the Memphitic versions. But, on
the other hand, it exists in the Alexandrian Codex, C 3 , E, F. G,
H, I, K, L, M, U, V, T, A, and other MSS.,3 and it forms part of
the Peschito, Jerusalem Syriac, Vulgate, Watkin's Memphitic,
/Ethiopic, and Armenian versions. More important still is the
Joh., i., p. 83 f. ; Holtzmann, in Schenkel's Bib. Lex., i., p. 420 f. ; Meyer,
Ev. Joh., p. 103 f. ; Winer, Bibl. Realworterb., i., p. 167. The itinerary
indicated in the following passages should be borne in mind : John i. 18, 43,
ii. i, x. 40, xi. 1-18. The recent apologetic attempt to identify this Bethany
with Tell Anihje, " ndrrische weise" as Keim contemptuously terms Caspari's
proceeding, has signally failed.
1 According to Eusebius and Jerome, it was shown in their day, near Salem
and the Jordan, eight miles south of Scythopolis ; but few critics adopt this
site, which is, in fact, excluded by the statements of the evangelist himself.
2 Scholten, Het Ev. Joh., p. 435.
3 The italicised words in verse 3, as we have already pointed out, are only by
the second hand in A, but they are originally given in D and 33.
2M
530 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
fact that it existed in the ancient Latin version of Tertullian, who
refers to the passage ; l and it is quoted by Didymus, Chrysostorn,
Cyril, Ambrose, Theophylact, Euthymius, and other Fathers. Its
presence in the Alexandrian Codex alone might not compensate
for the omission of the passage by the Sinaitic and Vatican
Codices and C, D ; but when the Alexandrian MS. is supported by
the version used by Tertullian, which is a couple of centuries
older than any of the other authorities, as well as by the Peschito,
not to mention other codices, the balance of external evidence is
distinctly in its favour.
The internal evidence is altogether on the side of the authen-
ticity of the passage. It is true that there are a considerable
number of et7ra A.cyo/u,i/a in the few lines : 6/c8ex "$ at 5 KI'VJ/O-IS,
Ta/xxx?}, vocnjfJLa, Kare^ea-dat, and perhaps SryTrore ; but it
must be remembered that the phenomena described are excep-
tional, and may well explain exceptional phraseology. On the
other hand, vynys is specially a Johannine word, used v. 4 and
six times more in the fourth Gospel, but only five times in the rest
of the New Testament ; and vyn/s with yivr6tat occurs in v. 4, 6,
9, 14, and with voieiv in v. n, 15, vii. 23, and nowhere else.
Tapdtrcreiv also may be indicated as employed in v. 4, 7, and five
times more in other parts of the Gospel, and only eleven times in
the rest of the New Testament ; and the use of rapa^ in v. 4 is
thus perhaps naturally accounted for. The context, however, for-
bids the removal of this passage. It is in the highest degree im-
probable that verse 3 could have ended with " withered " (^/pwv);
and although many critics wish to retain the last phrase in verse 3,
in order to explain verse 7, this only shows the necessity, without
justifying the arbitrary maintenance of these words ; whilst verse 4,
which is still better attested, is excluded to get rid of the incon-
venient angel. It is evident that the expression, "when the
water was troubled" (orav rapax^y TO i58wp), of the undoubted
verse 7 is unintelligible without the explanation that the angel " was
troubling the water" (erdpaa-o-e rb voatp) of verse 4, and also
that the statement of verse 7, " but while I am coming, another
goeth down before me " (fv $ 8e ep^opMi yw, dAAos TT/DO
IIJMV Kara/itatVci), absolutely requires the account : "he, there-
fore, who first went in, etc." (o o5v uy>wTos e'/ji/3us K. T. A..) of
verse 4. The argument that the interpolation was made to explain
the statement in verse 7 is untenable, for that statement necessarily
presupposes the account in the verses under discussion, and can-
not be severed from it. Even if the information that the water
1 Angelum aquis intervenire, sinovum videtur, exemplum futuri praecucurrit.
Piscinam Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat. Observabant, qui
valet udinem querebantur ; nam si quis praevenerat descendere illuc, queri post
lavacruw desinebat (De Baptismo, 5).
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 531
was " troubled " at certain seasons only could have been dispensed
with, it is obvious that the explanation of the condition of healing,
given in verse 4, is indispensable to the appreciation of the lame
man's complaint in verse 7, for without knowing that priority was
essential the reason for the protracted waiting is inconceivable. It
is also argued that the passage about the angel may have been
interpolated to bring out the presence of supernatural agency ; but
it is much more reasonable to believe that attempts have been
made to omit these verses, of which there is such ancient attesta-
tion, in order to eliminate an embarrassing excess of supernatural
agency, and get rid of the difficulty presented by the fact, for
which even Tertullian 1 endeavoured to account, that the supposed
pool had ceased to exhibit any miraculous phenomena. This
natural explanation is illustrated by the alacrity with which Apolo-
gists at the present day abandon the obnoxious passage. 2 The
combined force of the external and internal evidence cannot, we
think, be fairly resisted. 3
Now, not only is the pool of Bethesda totally unknown at the
present day, but, although possessed of such miraculous properties,
it was not known even to Josephus, or any other writer of that
time. It is inconceivable that, were the narrative genuine, the
phenomena could have been unknown and unmentioned by the
Jewish historian.* There is here evidently the narrative neither of
an Apostle nor of an eye-witness.
Another very significant mistake occurs in the account of the
conversation with the Samaritan woman, which is said to have
taken place (iv. 5) near "a city of Samaria which is called
Sychar." It is evident that there was no such place and
apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.
1 Adv. Judteos, 13.
2 " The Biblical critic is glad that he can remove these words from the
record, and cannot be called upon to explain them " (Rev. H. W. Watkins,
M.A. , in A New Test. Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles
John Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, i.,p. 416).
3 Without pretending to give an exhaustive list, we may mention the views
of the following critics : In favour of the authenticity : Von Ammon, Bengel,
Burton, Baumgarten-Crusius, Grotius, Hahn, Hengstenberg, Hilgenfeld, Hof-
mann,Lachmann, Lampe, Lange, McClellan, Reuss, Scholz, Scrivener (doubtful),
Sepp, Stier, Strauss, Tittmann, Webster and Wilkinson, Weisse, Wetstein,
Wordsworth. Ebrard and Ewald are disposed to accept verse 3, and to reject
verse 4 only. Against the authenticity : Alford, Bseumlein, Bruckner,
Davidson, Farrar, Godet, Griesbach, Kuinoel, Lightfoot, Liicke, Luthardt,
Meyer, Milligan, Neander, Olshausen, Sanday, Scholten, Semler, Spath,
Stemler, Storr, Tischendorf, Tholuck, Tregelles, Trench, Weizsacker, West-
cott, and Hort. The following are doubtful: Holtzmann, Schulz, Theile,
de Wette.
4 Cf. Liicke, Com. Ev. /oh., ii., p. 16 f. ; Ewald, Die Joh. Schr., i.,
p. 200 f.
532 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
The common conjecture has been that the town of Sichem is
intended, but this is rightly rejected by Delitzsch 1 and Ewald. 2
Credner,3 not unsupported by others, and borne out in particular
by the theory of Ewald, conjectures that Sychar is a corruption of
Sichem, introduced into the Gospel by a Greek secretary to whom
this part of the Gospel was dictated, and who mistook the
Apostle's pronunciation of the final syllable. We constantly meet
with this elastic explanation of difficulties in the Gospel, but its
mere enunciation displays at once the reality of the difficulties and
the imaginary nature of the explanation. Hengstenberg adopts
the view, and presses it with pious earnestness, that the term is a
mere nickname for the city of Sichem, and that, by so slight a
change in the pronunciation, the Apostle called the place a
city of Lies a play upon words which he does not consider
unworthy.* The only support which this latter theory can secure
from internal evidence is to be derived from the fact that the
whole discourse with the woman is ideal. Hengstenberg 5
conjectures that the five husbands of the woman are typical of the
Gods of the five nations with which the King of Assyria peopled
Samaria, 2 Kings xvii. 24-41, and which they worshipped
instead of the God of Israel; and as the actual God of the
Samaritans was not recognised as the true God by the Jews, nor
their worship of him on Mount Gerizim held to be valid, he
considers that under the name of the City of Sychar their whole
religion, past and present, was denounced as a lie. There can be
little doubt that the episode is allegorical, but such a defence of
the geographical error, the reality of which is everywhere felt,
whilst it is quite insufficient on the one hand, effectually destroys
the historical character of the Gospel on the other. The inferences
from all of the foregoing examples are strengthened by the fact
that, in the quotations from the Old Testament, the fourth Gospel
in the main follows the Septuagint version, or shows its influence,
and nowhere can be shown directly to translate from the
Hebrew.
These instances might be multiplied, but we must proceed to
examine more closely the indications given in the Gospel as
to the identity of its author. We need not point out that the
writer nowhere clearly states who he is, nor mentions his name ;
but expressions are frequently used which evidently show the
desire that a particular person should be understood. He
1 Talmudische Stud. Zeitschr. gesammt. luth. Theol. it. Kirche, 1856,
p. 240 f.
2 Die Joh. Schr., i., p. 181, anm. I ; Gesch. V. Isr.,\., p. 348, anm. I ;
Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., viii., p. 255 f.
3 Einl. N. T.,\., p. 264.
4 Das Ev. des heil.Joh., 1867, i., p. 244. , 5 Ib., i., p. 262 f.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 533
generally calls himself " the other disciple," or " the disciple
whom Jesus loved." 1 It is universally understood that he
represents himself as having previously been a disciple of John
the Baptist (i. 35 f.), and also that he is " the other disciple "
who was acquainted with the high priest (xviii. 15, 16), if not
an actual relative, as Ewald and others assert. 2 The assumption
that the disciple thus indicated is John rests principally on the
fact that, whilst the author mentions the other Apostles, he seems
studiously to avoid directly naming John, and also that he never
distinguishes John the Baptist by the appellation 6 /&x7n-rT^s,
whilst he carefully distinguishes the two disciples of the name of
Judas, and always speaks of the Apostle Peter as " Simon Peter,"
or " Peter," but rarely as " Simon " only. Without pausing to
consider the slightness of this evidence, it is obvious that,
supposing the disciple indicated to be John the son of Zebedee,
the fourth Gospel gives a representation of him quite different
from the Synoptics and other writings. In the fourth Gospel
(i. 35 f.) the calling of the Apostle is described in a peculiar
manner. John (the Baptist) is standing with two of his disciples,
and points out Jesus to them as "the Lamb of God," whereupon
the two disciples follow Jesus, and, finding out where he lives,
abide with him that day and subsequently attach themselves to
his person. In verse 40 it is stated : " One of the two which
heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's
brother." We are left to imagine who was the other, and the
answer of critics is, John. Now, the " calling " of John is related
in a totally different manner in the Synoptics -Jesus, walking by
the Sea of Galilee, sees " two brethren, Simon called Peter and
Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were
fishers, and he saith unto them : Follow me, and I will make
you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets and
followed him. And when he had gone from thence, he saw other
two brethren, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother,
in the ship with Zebedee their father mending their nets ; and
he called them. And they immediately left the ship and their
father and followed him. "3 These accounts are in complete
contradiction to each other, and both cannot be true. We see,
from the first introduction of " the other disciple " on the scene,
in the fourth Gospel, the evident design to give him the prece-
dence before Peter and the rest of the Apostles. We have above
given the account of the first two Synoptists of the calling of
1 John i. 35 f. ; xiii. 23 ; xix. 26, 35 ; xx. 2.
2 Ewald, Die. Joh. Sc/ir., i., p. 400; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 151. Ewald
considers the relationship to have been on the mother's side. Hengstenberg
contradicts that strange assumption (Das Ev. heil. Joh., iii., p. 196).
3 Matt. iv. 18-22 ; Mark i. 16-20.
534 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Peter, according to which he is the first of the disciples who is
selected, and he is directly invited by Jesus to follow him and
become, with his brother Andrew, " fishers of men." James and
John are not called till later in the day, and without the record
of any special address. In the third Gospel the calling of Peter
is introduced with still more important details. Jesus enters the
boat of Simon and bids him push out into the Lake and let down
his net, and the miraculous draught of fishes is taken : "When
Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus's knees saying : Depart
from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished,
and all that were with him, at the draught of fishes which they
had taken." The calling of the sons of Zebedee becomes even
less important here, for the account simply continues : " And so
were also James and John, the sons of Zebedee, who were partners
with Simon." Jesus then addresses his invitation to Simon, and
the account concludes : "And when they had brought their boats
to land, they forsook all, and followed him." 1 In the fourth
Gospel the calling of the two disciples of John is first narrated,
as we have seen, and the first call of Peter is from his brother
Andrew, and not from Jesus himself. " He (Andrew) first findeth
his own brother Simon, and saith unto him : We have found the
Messias (which is, being interpreted, Christ), and he brought him
to Jesus. Jesus looked on him and said : Thou art Simon, the
son of Jonas ; 2 thou shalt be called Cephas (which is, by inter-
pretation, Peter)." 3 This explanation of the manner in which the
cognomen Peter is given, we need not point out, is likewise
contradictory to the Synoptics, and betrays the same purpose of
suppressing the prominence of Peter.
The fourth Gospel states that "the other disciple," who is
declared to be John, the author of the Gospel, was known to the
high priest, another trait amongst many others elevating him above
the son of Zebedee as he is depicted elsewhere in the New
Testament. The account which the fourth Gospel gives of the
trial of Jesus is in very many important particulars at variance
with that of the Synoptics. We need only mention here the
point that the latter know nothing of the preliminary examina-
tion by Annas. We shall not discuss the question as to where
the denial of Peter is represented as taking place in the fourth
Gospel, but may merely say that no other disciple but Peter is
mentioned in the Synoptics as having followed Jesus ; and Peter
1 Luke v. i-n.
2 The author apparently considered that Jonas and John were the same
name another indication of a foreigner. Although some of the oldest codices
read John here and in xxi. 15-17, there is great authority for the reading Jona,
which is considered by a majority of critics th original.
3 John i. 41-42.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 535
enters without difficulty into the high priest's palace. 1 In the
fourth Gospel, Peter is made to wait without at the door until
John, who is a friend of the high priest and freely enters, obtains
permission for Peter to go in another instance of the precedence
which is systematically given to John. The Synoptics do not in
this particular case give any support to the statement in the
fourth Gospel, and certainly in nothing that is said of John
elsewhere do they render his acquaintance with the high priest in
the least degree probable. It is, on the contrary, improbable in
the extreme that "the young fisherman of Galilee, who shows very
little enlightenment in the anecdotes told of him in the Synoptics,
and who is described as an " unlettered and ignorant " man in the
Acts of the Apostles, could have any acquaintance with the high
priest. Ewald, who on the strength of the word yvwo-ros, 2 at
once elevates him into a relation of the high priest, sees in the
statement of Polycrates that late in life he wore the priestly
iriraXov a confirmation of the supposition that he was of the
high priest's race and family. 3 The evident Judaistic tendency
which made John wear the priestly mitre may distinguish
him as author of the Apocalypse, but it is fatal to the theory
which makes him author of the fourth Gospel, in which there is
so complete a severance from Judaism.
A much more important point is the designation of the
author of the fourth Gospel, who is identified with the Apostle
John, as " the disciple whom Jesus loved." It is scarcely too
much to say that this suggestive appellation alone has done more
than any arguments to ensure the recognition of the work, and to
overcome doubts as to its authenticity. Religious sentimentality,
evoked by the influence of this tender epithet, has been blind to
historical incongruities, and has been willing to accept, with little
question, from the " beloved disciple " a portrait of Jesus totally
unlike that of the Synoptics, and to elevate the dogmatic mysticism
and artificial discourses of the one over the pure morality and
simple eloquence of the other. It is impossible to reflect seriously
upon this representation of the relations between one of the dis-
ciples and Jesus without the conviction that every record of the
life of the great Teacher must have borne distinct traces of the
preference, and that the disciple so honoured must have attracted
the notice of every early writer acquainted with the facts. If we
seek for any evidence, however, that John was distinguished with
such special affection that he lay on the breast of Jesus at
supper that even the Apostle Peter recognised his superior
t. xxvi. 58, 69 ; Mark xiv. 54, 56 ; Luke xxii. 54 f.
2 John xviii. 15.
3 Diejoh. Schr., i., p. 400, anm. i ; Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 15.
536 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
intimacy and influence, 1 and that he received at the foot of the
cross the care of his mother from the dying Jesus, 2 we seek in
vain. The synoptic Gospels, which minutely record the details of
the last supper and of the crucifixion, so far from reporting any
such circumstances or such distinction of John, do not even mention
his name ; and Peter everywhere has precedence before the sons of
Zebedee. Almost the only occasions upon which any prominence
is given to them are episodes in which they incur the Master's dis-
pleasure, and the cognomen of " Sons of thunder " has certainly
no suggestion in it of special affection, nor of personal qualities
likely to attract the great Teacher. The selfish ambition of the
brothers who desire to sit on thrones on his right and on his left,
and the intolerant temper which would have called down fire from
heaven to consume a Samaritan village, much rather contradict
than support the representation of the fourth Gospel. Upon one
occasion, indeed, Jesus, in rebuking them, adds : " Ye know not
what manner of spirit ye are of. "3 It is perfectly undeniable that
John nowhere has any such position accorded to him in the
Synoptics as this designation in the fourth Gospel implies. In the
lists of the disciples he is always put in the fourth place, 4 and in
the first two Gospels his only distinguishing designation is that of
" the brother of James," or one of the sons of Zebedee. The
Apostle Peter, in all of the Synoptics, is the leader of the disciples.
He it is who alone is represented as the mouthpiece of the Twelve,
or as holding conversation with Jesus ; and the only occasions on
which the sons of Zebedee address Jesus are those to which we
have referred, upon which his displeasure was incurred. The
angel who appears to the women after the resurrection desires
them to tell his disciples " and Peter " that Jesus will meet them
in Galilee ; 5 but there is no message for any " disciple whom he
loved." If Peter, James, and John accompany the Master to the
mount of transfiguration, and are witnesses of his agony in the
garden, regarding which, however, the fourth Gospel is totally
silent, the two brethren remain in the background, and Peter
alone acts a prominent part. If we turn to the Epistles of Paul,
we do not find a single trace of acquaintance with the fact that
Jesus honoured John with any special affection, and the oppor-
tunity of referring to such a distinction was not wanting when he
writes to the Galatians of his visit to the " Pillar " Apostles
1 John xiii. 23-26. 2 Ib,, xix. 25-27.
3 Luke ix. 55. These words are omitted from some of the oldest MSS.,
but they are in Cod. D (Bezte) and many other very important texts, as well
as in some of the oldest versions, besides being quoted by the Fathers. They
were probably omitted after the claim of John to be the " beloved disciple
became admitted.
4 Matt. x. 2-4 ; Mark iii. 16-19 5 Luke vi. i4|6. 5 Mark xvi. 7.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 537
in Jerusalem. Here again we find no prominence given to
John, but the contrary, his name still being mentioned last and
without any special comment. In none of the Pauline or other
Epistles is there any allusion, however distant, to any disciple
whom Jesus specially loved. The Apocalypse, which, if any book
of the New Testament can be traced to him, must be ascribed to
the Apostle John, makes no claim to such a distinction. In
none of the Apocryphal Gospels is there the slightest indication
of knowledge of the fact, and, if we come to the Fathers even, it
is a striking circumstance that there is not a trace of it in any
early work, and not the most remote indication of any independent
tradition that Jesus distinguished John, or any other individual
disciple, with peculiar friendship. The Roman Clement, in refer-
ring to the example of the Apostles, only mentions Peter and
Paul. 1 Polycarp, who is described as a disciple of the Apostle
John, apparently knows nothing of his having been especially
loved by Jesus. Pseudo-Ignatius does not refer to him at all in
the Syriac Epistles, or in either version of the seven Epistles. 2
Papias, in describing his interest in hearing what the Apostles said,
gives John no prominence : " I inquired minutely after the words
of the Presbyters : What Andrew or what Peter said, or what
Philip or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or
what any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion
and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say," 3 etc.
As a fact, it is undenied and undeniable that the representation
of John, or of any other disciple, as specially beloved by Jesus
is limited solely and entirely to the fourth Gospel, and that there
is not even a trace of independent tradition to support the claim;
whilst, on the other hand, the total silence of the earlier Gospels
and of the other New Testament writings on the point, and indeed
their data of a positive and unmistakable character oppose rather
than support the correctness of the later and mere personal asser-
tion. Those who abandon sober criticism, and indulge in senti-
mental rhapsodies on the impossibility of the author of the fourth
Gospel being any other than "the disciple whom Jesus loved,"
strangely ignore the fact that we have no reason whatever, except
the assurance of the author himself, to believe that Jesus specially
loved any disciple, and much less John, the son of Zebedee.
Indeed, the statements of the fourth Gospel itself on the subject
are so indirect and intentionally vague that it is not absolutely
1 Ad Corinth., v.
- Indeed, in the universally-repudiated Epistles, beyond the fact that two are
addressed to John, in which he is not called " the disciple whom Jesus loved,"
the only mention of him is the statement, "John was banished to Patmos"
(Ad Tars., iii.).
3 Eusebius, H. ., iii. 39.
538 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
clear what disciple is indicated as " the beloved," and it has even
been maintained that not John the son of Zebedee, but Andrew
the brother of Simon Peter, was " the disciple whom Jesus loved,"
and consequently the supposed author of the fourth Gospel. 1
We have hitherto refrained from referring to one of the most
singular features of the fourth Gospel, the chapter xxi., which is
by many cited as the most ancient testimony for the authenticity
of the work, and which requires particular consideration. It is
obvious that the Gospel is brought to a conclusion by verses
30, 31 of chapter xx., and critics are universally agreed at least that,
whoever may be its author, chapter xxi. is a supplement only
added after an interval. By whom was it written ? As may be
supposed, critics have given very different replies to this important
question. Many affirm, and with much probability, that chapter
xxi. was subsequently added to the Gospel by the author himself.
A few, however, exclude the last two verses, which they consider
to have been added by another hand. A much larger number
assert that the whole chapter is an ancient appendix to the Gospel
by a writer who was not the author of the Gospel. A few likewise
reject the last two verses of the preceding chapter. In this
supplement (v. 20) "the disciple whom Jesus loved, who also
leaned on his breast at the supper and said : Lord, which is he
that betrayeth thee ?" is (v. 24) identified with the author of the
Gospel.
We may here state the theory of Ewald with regard to the com-
position of the fourth Gospel, which is largely deduced from
considerations connected with the last chapter, and which,
although more audaciously minute in its positive and arbitrary
statement of details than any other with which we are acquainted,
introduces more or less the explanations generally given regarding
the composition of chapter xxi. Out of all the indications in the
work, Ewald decides :
" i. That the Gospel, completed at the end of chapter xx.,
was composed by the apostle about the year 80, with the free help
of friends, not to be immediately circulated throughout the world,
but to remain limited to the narrower circle of friends until his
death, and only then to be published as his legacy to the whole of
Christendom. In this position it remained ten years, or even
longer.
" 2. As the preconceived opinion regarding the life or death of
the Apostle (xxi. 23) had perniciously spread itself throughout the
whole of Christendom, the Apostle himself decided, even before
his death, to counteract it in the right way by giving a correct
statement of the circumstances. The same friends, therefore,
1 Liitzelberger, Die kirchl. Tradition u$ar d. Apost. Joh. , p. 199 f.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 539
assisted him to design the very important supplement, chapter
xxi., and this could still be very easily added, as the book was not
yet published. His friends proceeded, nevertheless, somewhat
more freely in its composition than previously in writing the book
itself, and allowed their own hand more clearly to gleam through,
although here, as in the rest of the work, they conformed to the
will of the Apostle, and did not, even in the supplement, openly
declare his name as the author. As the supplement, however, was
to form a closely connected part of the whole work, they gave at
its end (verses 24 f.), as it now seemed to them suitable, a new
conclusion to the augmented work.
" 3. As the Apostle himself desired that the preconceived opinion
regarding him, which had been spread abroad to the prejudice of
Christendom, should be contradicted as soon as possible, and even
before his death, he now so far departed from his earlier wish that
he permitted the circulation of his Gospel before his death. We
can accept this with all certainty, and have therein trustworthy
testimony regarding the whole original history of our book.
"4. When the Gospel was thus published it was for the first time
gradually named after our Apostle, even in its external superscrip-
tion : a nomination which had then become all the more necessary
and permanent for the purpose of distinction, as it was united in
one whole with the other Gospels. The world, however, has at all
times known it only under this wholly right title, and could in no
way otherwise know it and otherwise name it." 1
In addressing ourselves to each of these points in detail, we
shall be able to discuss the principal questions connected with
the fourth Gospel.
The theory of Ewald, that the fourth Gospel was written down
with the assistance of friends in Ephesus, has been imagined solely
to conciliate certain phenomena presented throughout the Gospel,
and notably in the last chapter, with the foregone conclusion that
it was written by the Apostle John. It is apparent that there is
not a single word in the work itself explaining such a mode of
composition, and that the hypothesis proceeds purely from the
ingenious imagination of the critic. The character of the
language, the manner in which the writer is indirectly indicated in
the third person, and the reference, even in the body of the work
(xix. 35), to the testimony of a third person, combined with the
similarity of the style of the supplementary chapter, which is an
obvious addition intended, however, to be understood as written
by a different hand, have rendered these conjectures necessary to
reconcile such obvious incongruities with the ascription of the
work to the Apostle. The substantial identity of the style and
1 Diejoh. Schr., i., p. 56 f. ; cf. Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., iii., p. 171 f.
540 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
vocabulary of chapter xxi. with the rest of the Gospel is asserted
by a multitude of the most competent critics. Ewald, whilst he
recognises the great similarity, maintains at the same time a real
dissimilarity, for which he accounts in the manner just quoted.
The language, Ewald admits, agrees fully in many rare nuances
with that of the rest of the Gospel, but he does not take the
trouble to prove the decided dissimilarities which, he asserts, like-
wise exist. A less difference than that which he finds might, he
thinks, be explained by the interval which had elapsed between
the writing of the work and of the supplement, but "the wonderful
similarity, in the midst of even greater dissimilarity, of the whole
tone and particularly of the style of the composition is not thereby
accounted for. This, therefore, leads us," he continues, " to the
opinion : The Apostle made use, for writing down his words, of
the hand and even of the skill of a trusted friend who later, on his
own authority (fiir sich allein), wrote the supplement. The great
similarity, as well as dissimilarity, of the style of both parts in this
way becomes intelligible : the trusted friend (probably a Presbyter
in Ephesus) adopted much of the language and mode of expression
of the youthful old Apostle, without, however, where he wrote
more in his own person, being carefully solicitous of imitating
them. But even through this contrast, and the definite declara-
tion in v. 24, the Apostolical origin of the book itself becomes all
the more clearly apparent ; and thus the supplement proves from
the most diverse sides how certainly this Gospel was written by
the trusted disciple." 1 Elsewhere Ewald more clearly explains
the share in the work which he assigns to the Apostle's disciple :
"The proposition that the Apostle composed in a unique way our
likewise unique Gospel is to be understood only with the impor-
tant limitation upon which I have always laid so much stress j for
John himself did not compose this work quite so directly as Paul
did most of his Epistles, but the young friend who wrote it down
from his lips, and who, in the later appendix, chapter xxi., comes
forward in the most open way, without desiring in the slightest to
conceal his separate identity, does his work at other times some-
what freely, in that he never introduces the narrator speaking of
himself and his participation in the events with ' I ' or ' we,' but
only indirectly indicates his presence at such events, and, towards
the end, in preference refers to him, from his altogether peculiar
relation to Christ, as ' the disciple whom the Lord loved,' so that,
in one passage, in regard to an important historical testimony
(xix. 35), he even speaks of him as of a third person." Ewald
then maintains that the agreement between the Gospel and the
Epistles, and more especially the first, which he affirms, without
1 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., iii., 185^-51, p. 173.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 541
vouchsafing a word of evidence, to have been written down by a
different hand, proves that we have substantially only the Apostle's
very peculiar composition, and that his friend as much as possible
gave his own words. 1
It is obvious from this elaborate explanation, which we need
scarcely say is composed of mere assumptions, that, in order to
connect the Apostle John with the Gospel, Ewald is obliged to
assign him a very peculiar position in regard to it : he recognises
that some of the characteristics of the work exclude the supposition
that the Apostle could himself have written the Gospel, so he
represents him as dictating it, and his secretary as taking con-
siderable liberties with the composition as he writes it down, and
even as introducing references of his own ; as, for instance, in the
passage to which he refers, where, in regard to the statement that
at the Crucifixion a soldier pierced the side of the already dead
Jesus and that forthwith there came out blood and water (xix. 35),
it is said : " And he that saw it hath borne witness, and his
witness is true ; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye may
believe." 2 It is perfectly clear that the writer refers to the testi-
mony of another person the friend who is writing down the
narrative, says Ewald, refers to the Apostle who is actually dic-
tating it. Again, in the last chapter, as elsewhere throughout the
work, "the disciple whom Jesus loved," who is the author, is
spoken of in the third person, and also in verse 24: "This is
the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these
things " (KGU ypa^as ravra). This, according to Ewald, is the
same secretary, now writing in his own person. The similarity
between this declaration and the appeal to the testimony of another
person, in xix. 35, is certainly complete, and there can be no doubt
that both proceed from the same pen ; but beyond the assertion
of Ewald there is not the slightest evidence that a secretary wrote
the Gospel from the dictation of another, and ventured to inter-
rupt the narrative by such a reference to testimony, which, upon
the supposition that the Apostle John was known as the actual
author, is singularly out of place. If John wrote the Gospel, why
should he appeal in utterly vague terms to his own testimony, and
upon such a point, when the mere fact that he himself wrote the
statement was the most direct testimony in itself? An author
who composed a work which he desired to ascribe to a " disciple
whom Jesus loved " might have made such a reference as xix. 35,
in his anxiety to support this affirmation, without supposing
1 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., x., 1859-60, p. 87 f.
2 We do not go into any discussion on the use of the word dKeivbs. We
believe that the reference is distinctly to another ; but even if taken to be to
himself in the third person, the passage is not less extraordinary, and the
argument holds.
542 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
that he had realty compromised his design, and might have
naturally added such a statement as that in the last two verses ; but
nothing but the foregone conclusion that the Apostle John was
the real author could have suggested such an explanation of these
passages. It is throughout assumed by Ewald and others that
John wrote in the first instance, at least, specially for a narrow
circle of friends, and the proof of this is considered to be the state-
ment of the object with which it was written : " that ye may
believe," 1 etc. a phrase, we may remark, which is identical with
that of the very verse (xix. 35) with which the secretary is supposed
to have had so much to do. It is very remarkable, upon this
hypothesis, that in xix. 35 it is considered necessary even for this
narrow circle, who knew the Apostle so well, to make such an
appeal, as well as to attach at its close (xxi. 24), for the benefit of
the world in general as Ewald will have it, a certificate of the
trustworthiness of the Gospel.
Upon no hypothesis which supposes the Apostle John the
author of the fourth Gospel is such an explanation credible. That
the Apostle himself could have written of himself the words in
xix. 35 is impossible. After having stated so much that is
more surprising and contradictory to all experience without refer-
ence to any witness, it would indeed have been strange had he
here appealed to himself as to a separate individual ; and, on the
other hand, it is quite inadmissible to assume that a friend to
whom he is dictating should interrupt the narrative to introduce a
passage so inappropriate to the work, and so unnecessary for any
circle acquainted with the Apostolic author. If, as Ewald argues,
the peculiarities of his style of composition were so well known
that it was unnecessary for the writer more clearly to designate
himself either for the first readers or for the Christian world, the
passages we are discussing are all the more inappropriate. That
any guarantee of the truth of the Gospel should have been
thought desirable for readers who knew the work to be com-
posed by the Apostle John, and who believed him to be "the
disciple whom Jesus loved," is inconceivable, and that any anony-
mous and quite indirect testimony to its genuineness should either
have been considered necessary or of any value is still more
incredible. It is impossible that nameless Presbyters of Ephesus
could venture to accredit a Gospel written by the Apostle John ;
and any intended attestation must have taken the simple and
direct course of stating that the work had been composed by the
Apostle. The peculiarities we are discussing seem to us explicable
only upon the supposition that the unknown writer of the Gospel
desired that it should be understood to be written by a certain
1 John xx. 31.,
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 543
disciple whom Jesus loved, but did not choose distinctly to name
him or directly to make such an affirmation.
It is, we assert, impossible that an Apostle who composed a
history of the life and teaching of Jesus could have failed to attach
his name, naturally and simply, as testimony of the trustworthiness
of his statements, and of his fitness as an eye-witness to compose
such a record. As the writer of the fourth Gospel does not state
his name, Ewald ascribes the omission to the " incomparable
modesty and delicacy of feeling " of the Apostle John. We must
further briefly examine the validity of this explanation. It is
universally admitted, and by Ewald himself, that although the
writer does not directly name himself, he very clearly indicates
that he is " the other disciple " and " the disciple whom Jesus
loved." We must affirm that such a mode of indicating himself
is incomparably less modest than the simple statement of his name,
and it is indeed a glorification of himself beyond anything in the
Apocalypse. But not only is the explanation thus discredited, but,
in comparing the details of the Gospel with those of the Synoptics,
we find still more certainly how little modesty had to do with the
suppression of his name. In the Synoptics a very marked prece-
dence of the rest of the disciples is ascribed to the Apostle Peter ;
and the sons of Zebedee are represented in all of them as holding
a subordinate place. This representation is confirmed by the
Pauline Epistles and by tradition. In the fourth Gospel a very
different account is given, and the author studiously elevates the
Apostle John that is to say, according to the theory that he is
the writer of the Gospel, himself in every way above the Apostle
Peter. Apart from the general pre-eminence claimed for himself
in the very name of " the disciple whom Jesus loved," we have
seen that he deprives Peter in his own favour of the honour of
being the first of the disciples who was called ; he suppresses
the account of the circumstances under which that Apostle
was named Peter, and gives another and trifling version of the
incident, reporting elsewhere indeed in a very subdued and
modified form, and without the commendation of the Master, the
recognition of the divinity of Jesus, which, in the first Gospel, is
the cause of his change of name. 1 He is the intimate friend of
the Master, and even Peter has to beg him to ask at the Supper
who was the betrayer. He describes himself as the friend of the
High Priest, and while Peter is excluded, he not only is able to enter
into his palace, but he is the means of introducing Peter. The
denial of Peter is given without mitigation, but his bitter repen-
tance is not mentioned. He it is who is singled out by the dying
Jesus and entrusted with the charge of his mother. He outruns
1 Matt. xvi. 13-19 ; cf. Mark viii. 29, Luke ix. 20.
544 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Peter in their race to the Sepulchre, and in the final appearance of
Jesus (xxi. 15) the more important position is assigned to the
disciple whom Jesus loved. It is, therefore, absurd to speak of the
incomparable modesty of the writer, who, if he does not give his
name, not only clearly indicates himself, but throughout assumes
a pre-eminence which is not supported by the authority of the
Synoptics and other writings, but is heard of alone from his own
narrative.
Ewald argues that chap. xxi. must have been written, and the
Gospel as we have it, therefore, have been completed, before the
death of the Apostle John. He considers the supplement to have
been added specially to contradict the report regarding John
(xxi. 23). " The supplement must have been written whilst John
still lived," he asserts, " for only before his death was it worth
while to contradict such a false hope: and if his death had
actually taken place, the result itself would have already refuted so
erroneous an interpretation of the words of Christ, and it would
then have been much more appropriate to explain afresh the sense
of the words, ' till I come.' Moreover, there is no reference here
to the death as having already occurred, although a small addition
to that effect in verse 24 would have been so easy. But if we were
to suppose that John had long been dead when this was written,
the whole rectification as it is given would be utterly without sense." 1
On the contrary, we affirm that the whole history of the first two
centuries renders it certain that the Apostle was already dead, and
that the explanation was not a rectification of false hopes during
his lifetime, but an explanation of the failure of expectations which
had already taken place, and probably excited some scandal. We
know how the early Church looked for the immediate coming of
the glorified Christ, and how such hopes sustained persecuted
Christians in their sorrow and suffering. This is very clearly
expressed in i Thess. iv: 15-18, where the expectation of the
second coming within the lifetime of the writer and readers of the
Epistle is confidently stated, and elsewhere, and even in i John ii.
1 8, the belief that the " last times " had arrived is expressed. The
history of the Apocalypse in relation to the Canon illustrates the
case. So long as the belief in the early consummation of all
things continued strong, the Apocalypse was the favourite writing
of the early Church ; but when time went on, and the second
coming of Christ did not take place, the opinion of Christendom
regarding the work changed, and disappointment, as well as the
desire to explain the non-fulfilment of prophecies upon which so
much hope had been based, led many to reject the Apocalypse
as an unintelligible and fallacious book. We venture to conjecture
1 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss\, iii., 1839-51, p. 173.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 545
that the tradition that John should not die until the second coming
of Jesus may have originated with the Apocalypse, where that
event is announced to John as immediately to take place, xxii.
7, 10, 12, and the words with which the book ends are of this
nature, and express the expectation of the writer, 20 : " He which
testineth these things saith : Surely I come quickly. Amen. Come,
Lord Jesus." It was not in the spirit of the age to hesitate about
such anticipations, and so long as the Apostle lived such a
tradition would scarcely have required or received contradiction
from anyone, the belief being universal that the coming of Jesus
might take place any day, and assuredly would not be long
delayed. When the Apostle was dead, however, and the tradition
that it had been foretold that he should live until the coming of
the Lord exercised men's minds, and doubt and disappointment at
the non-fulfilment of what may have been regarded as prophecy
produced a prejudicial effect upon Christendom, it seemed to the
writer of this Gospel a desirable thing to point out that too much
stress had been laid upon the tradition, and that the words which
had been relied upon in the first instance did not justify the
expectations which had been formed from them. This also con-
tradicts the hypothesis that the Apostle John was the author of the
Gospel.
Such a passage as xix. 35, received in any natural sense, or
interpreted in any way which can be supported by evidence, shows
that the writer of the Gospel was not an eye-witness of the events
recorded, but appeals to the testimony of others. It is generally
admitted that the expressions in ch. i. 14 are of universal applica-
tion, and capable of being adopted by all Christians, and, conse-
quently, that they do not imply any direct claim on the part of the
writer to personal knowledge of Jesus. We must now examine
whether the Gospel itself bears special marks of having been
written by an eye-witness, and how far in this respect it bears out
the assertion that it was written by the Apostle John. It is con-
stantly asserted that the minuteness of the details in the fourth
Gospel indicates that it must have been written by one who was
present at the scenes he records. With regard to this point we
need only generally remark that in the works of imagination of
which the world is full, and the singular realism of many of which
is recognised by all, we have the most minute and natural details
of scenes which never occurred, and of conversations which never
took place, the actors in which never actually existed. Ewald
admits that it is undeniable that the fourth Gospel was written
with .a fixed purpose, and with artistic design ; and, indeed, he
goes further, and recognises that the Apostle could not possibly so
long have recollected the discourses of Jesus and verbally repro-
duced them, so that, in fact, we have only, at best, a substantial
2N
546 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
report of the matter of those discourses coloured by the mind of
the author himself. 1 Details of scenes at which we were not
present may be admirably supplied by imagination, and, as we
cannot compare what is here described as taking place with what
actually took place, the argument that the author must have been
an eye-witness because he gives such details is without validity.
Moreover, the details of the fourth Gospel in many cases do not
agree with those of the three Synoptics, and it is an undoubted
fact that the author of the fourth Gospel gives the details of scenes
at which the Apostle John was not present, and reports the dis-
courses and conversations on such occasions with the very same
minuteness as those at which he is said to have been present ; as,
for instance, the interview between Jesus and the woman of
Samaria. It is undeniable that the writer had other Gospels
before him when he composed his work, and that he made use of
other materials than his own.
It is by no means difficult, however, to point out very clear
indications that the author was not an eye-witness, but constructed
his scenes and discourses artistically and for effect. We shall not,
at present, dwell upon the almost uniform artifice adopted in
most of the dialogues, in which the listeners either -misunderstand
altogether the words of Jesus, or interpret them in a foolish and
material way, and thus afford him an opportunity of enlarging
upon the theme. For instance, Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews,
misunderstands the expression of Jesus, that in order to see the
kingdom of God a man must be born from above, and asks :
" How can a man be born when he is old ? can he enter a second
time into his mother's womb and be born ?" 2 Now, as it is well
known, and as we have already shown, the common expression
used in regard to a proselyte to Judaism was that of being born
again, with which every Jew, and more especially every " ruler of
the Jews," must have been well acquainted. The stupidity which
he displays in his conversation with Jesus, and with which the
author endowed all who came in contact with him, in order by
the contrast to mark more strongly the superiority of the Master,
even draws from Jesus the remark, "Art thou the teacher of Israel,
and understandest not these things ?" 3 There can be no doubt
that the scene was ideal, and it is scarcely possible that a Jew
could have written it. In the Synoptics, Jesus is reported as
quoting against the people of his own city, Nazareth, who rejected
him, the proverb, "A prophet has no honour in his own country. "+
The appropriateness of the remark here is obvious. The author
of the fourth Gospel, however, shows clearly that he was neither
1 Jahrb, bibl. Wiss., x., p. 91 f. * 76., iii. 4. 3 /#., Hi. IO .
4 Matt. xiii. 57 ; Mark vi. 44 Luke iv. 24.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 547
an eye-witness nor acquainted with the subject or country when
he introduces this proverb in a different place. Jesus is repre-
sented as staying two days at Sychar after his conversation with
the Samaritan woman. " Now after the two days he departed
thence into Galilee. For (yap) Jesus himself testified that a
prophet hath no honour in his own country. When, therefore
(ouv), he came into Galilee, the Galilaeans received him, having
seen all the things that he did in Jerusalem at the feast for they
also went unto the feast." 1 It is manifest that the quotation
here is quite out of place, and none of the ingenious but untenable
explanations of apologists can make it appropriate. He is made
to go into Galilee, which was his country, because a prophet has
no honour in his country, and the Galilaeans are represented as
receiving him, which is a contradiction of the proverb. The
writer evidently misunderstood the facts of the case or deliberately
desired to deny the connection of Jesus with Nazareth and Galilee,
in accordance with his evident intention of associating the Logos
only with the Holy City. We must not pause to show that the
author is generally unjust to the Galilaeans, and displays an
ignorance regarding them very unlike what we should expect from
the fisherman of Galilee. 2 We have already alluded to the
artificial character of the conversation with the woman of Samaria,
which, although given with so much detail, occurred at a place
totally unknown (perhaps allegorically called the " City of Lies "),
at which the Apostle John was not present, and the substance of
which was typical of Samaria and its five nations and false
gods. The continuation in the Gospel is as unreal as the
conversation.
Another instance displaying personal ignorance is the insertion
into a discourse at the Last Supper, and without any appropriate
connection with the context, the passage : " Verily, verily, I say
unto you : he that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me,
and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." 3 In
the Synoptics this sentence is naturally represented as part of the
address to the disciples who are to be sent forth to preach the
Gospel ; 4 but it is clear that its insertion here is a mistake. 5
Again, a very obvious slip, which betrays that what was intended
for realistic detail is nothing but a reminiscence of some earlier
1 John iv. 43-45.
2 We may merely refer to the remark of the Pharisees : Search the Scriptures
and see, "for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet" (vii. 52). The Pharisees
could not have been ignorant of the fact that the prophets Jonah and Nahum
were Galilseans, and the son of Zebedee could not have committed such an error
(cf. Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 99 f. ).
3 John xiii. 20. 4 Matt. x. 40 ; cf. xviii. 5 ; Luke x. 16, cf. ix. 48.
5 This is recognised by de Wette (Einl. N. T., p. 211 c).
548 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Gospel misapplied, occurs in a later part of the discourses very
inappropriately introduced as being delivered on the same occasion.
At the end of xiv. 31 Jesus is represented, after saying that he
would no more talk much with the disciples, as suddenly breaking
off with the words : " Arise, let us go hence " ('Eyeipeo-fte
ayw/i.ei' (vrevOev). They do not, however, arise and go thence, %
but, on the contrary, Jesus at once commences another long
discourse : " I am the true vine," etc. The expression is merely
introduced artistically to close one discourse, and enable the
writer to begin another ; and the idea is taken from some earlier
work. For instance, in our first Synoptic, at the close of the
Agony in the Garden, which the fourth Gospel ignores altogether,
Jesus says to the awakened disciples : " Rise, let us go" ('Kyeip&rde
ayw/Aei/). 1 We need not go on. with these illustrations, but the
fact that the author is not an eye-witness recording scenes which
he beheld and discourses which he heard, but a writer composing
an ideal Gospel on a fixed plan, will become more palpable as we
proceed.'
It is not necessary to enter upon any argument to prove the
fundamental difference which exists in every respect between the
Synoptics and the fourth Gospel. This is admitted even by
Apologists, whose efforts to reconcile the discordant elements are
totally unsuccessful. " It is impossible to pass from the synoptic
Gospels to that of St. John," says Dr. Westcott, " without feeling
that the transition involves the passage from one world of thought
to another. No familiarity with the general teaching of the
Gospels, no wide conception of the character of the Saviour, is
sufficient to destroy the contrast which exists in form and spirit
between the earlier and later narratives." 2 The difference
between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, not only as regards
the teaching of Jesus but also the facts of the narrative, is so
great that it is impossible to harmonise them, and no one who
seriously considers the matter can fail to see that both cannot
be accepted as correct. If we believe that the Synoptics give a
truthful representation of the life and teaching of Jesus, it follows
of necessity that, in whatever category we may decide to place
the fourth Gospel, it must be rejected as a historical work. The
theories which are most in favour as regards it may place the
Gospel in a high position as an ideal composition, but sober
criticism must infallibly pronounce that they exclude it altogether
from the province of history. There is no option but to accept it
as The only genuine report of the sayings and doings of Jesus,
1 Matt. xxvi. 46 ; Mark xiv. 42. De Wette likewise admits this mistaken
reminiscence (Einl. N. 7'., p. 211 c).
3 Inlrod. to Study of the Gospels, p. 249. \
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 549
rejecting the Synoptics, or to remove it at once to another depart-
ment of literature. The Synoptics certainly contradict each other
in many minor details, but they are not in fundamental disagree-
ment with each other, and evidently present the same portrait of
Jesus and the same view of his teaching derived from the same
sources.
The vast difference which exists between the representation of
Jesus in the fourth Gospel and in the Synoptics is too well recognised
to require minute demonstration. We must, however, point out
some of the distinctive features. We need not do more here than
refer to the fact that, whilst the Synoptics relate the circumstances
of the birth of Jesus (two of them at least), and give some history
of his family and origin, the fourth Gospel, ignoring all this,
introduces the great Teacher at once as the Logos who from the
beginning was with God and was himself God. The keynote is
struck from the first, and in the philosophical prelude to the
Gospel we have the announcement to those who have ears to
hear, that here we need expect no simple history, but an artistic
demonstration of the philosophical postulate. According to the
Synoptics, Jesus is baptised by John, and as he goes out of the
water the Holy Ghost descends upon him like a dove. The
fourth Gospel says nothing of the baptism, and makes John the
Baptist narrate vaguely that he saw the Holy Ghost descend like
a dove and rest upon Jesus, as a sign previously indicated to him
by God by which to recognise the Lamb of God. 1 From the
very first, John the Baptist, in the fourth Gospel, recognises and
declares Jesus to be " the Christ," 2 " the Lamb of God which
taketh away the sins of the world." 3 According to the Synoptics,
John comes preaching the baptism of repentance, and so far is
he from making such declarations, or forming such distinct
opinions concerning Jesus, that even after he has been cast into
prison and just before his death when, in fact, his preaching was
at an end he is represented as sending disciples to Jesus, on
hearing in prison of his works, to ask him : "Art thou he that
should come, or look we for another ?"4 Jesus carries on his
ministry and baptises simultaneously with John, according to the
fourth Gospel ; but his public career, according to the Synoptics,
does not begin until after the Baptist's has concluded, and John
is cast into prison. s The Synoptics clearly represent the ministry
of Jesus as having been limited to a single year, 6 and his preaching
1 John i. 32-33. " Ib., i. 15-27. 3 Ib., i. 29.
4 Matt. xi. 2 f.; cf. Luke vii. 18 f.
5 John iii. 22 ; Matt. iv. 12, 17 ; Mark i. 14 ; Luke iii. 20, 23 ; iv. I f.
6 Apologists discover indications of a three years' ministry in Matt. xiii. 37,
Luke xiii. 34: " How often," etc.; and also in Luke xiii. 32 f., "to-day, to-
morrow, and the third day."
550 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
is confined to Galilee and Jerusalem, where his career culminates
at the fatal Passover. The fourth Gospel distributes the teaching
of Jesus between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend
at least over three years, and refers to three Passovers spent by
Jesus at Jerusalem. 1 The Fathers felt this difficulty and expended
a good deal of apologetic ingenuity upon it ; but no one is now
content with the explanation of Eusebius, that the Synoptics
merely intended to write the history of Jesus during the one year
after the imprisonment of the Baptist, whilst the fourth Evangelist
recounted the events of the time not recorded by the others a
theory which is totally contradicted by the four Gospels them-
selves. 2
The fourth Gospel represents the expulsion of the money-
changers by Jesus as taking place at the very outset of his career, 3
when he could not have been known, and when such a proceeding
is incredible ; whilst the Synoptics place it at the very close of his
ministry, after his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, when, if ever,
such an act which might have contributed to the final catastrophe
becomes conceivable. 4 The variation from the parallels in the
Synoptics, moreover, is exceedingly instructive, and further indi-
cates the amplification of a later writer imperfectly acquainted
with the circumstances. The first and second Synoptics, in
addition to the general expression, "those buying and selling in
the Temple," mention only that Jesus overthrew the tables of the
money-changers and the seats of those selling doves. The third
Synoptist does not even give these particulars. The author of
the fourth Gospel, however, not only makes Jesus expel the sellers
of doves and the money-changers, but adds : " those selling oxen
and sheep." Now, not only is there not the slightest evidence
that sheep and oxen were bought and sold in the Temple, but it
is obvious that there was no room there to do so. On the con-
trary, it is known that the 'market for cattle was not only distant
from the Temple, but even from the city. The author himself
betrays the foreign element in his account by making Jesus address
his words, when driving them all out, only "to them selling doves."
Why single these out and seem to exclude the sellers of sheep and
oxen? He has apparently forgotten his own interpolation. In
the first Gospel the connection of the words of Jesus with the
narrative suggests an explanation: xxi. 12 " and overthrew the
tables of the money-changers, and the seats of those selling doves,
and saith to them" etc. Upon the occasion of this episode the
1 John ii. 13 ; vi. 40 f. ; vii. 2 ; xiii. I.
2 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 24. We have already referred to the theory of
Irenaeus, which is at variance with all the Gospels, and extends the career of
Jesus to many years of public life.
3 John ii. 14 f. * Matt. xxi. 12 f. ; Mark xi. 15 f. ; Luke xix. 45 f.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 551
fourth Gospel represents Jesus as replying to the demand of the
Jews for a sign why he did such things : " Destroy this temple,
and within three days I will raise it up," which the Jews very
naturally understand in a material sense, and which even the
disciples only comprehended and believed "after the resurrec-
tion." The Synoptists not only know nothing of this, but repre-
sent the saying as the testimony which the false witnesses bare
against Jesus. 1 No such charge is brought against Jesus at all in
the fourth Gospel. So little do the Synoptists know of the con-
versation of Jesus with the Samaritan woman and his sojourn for
two days at Sychar that, in his instructions to his disciples in the
first Gospel, Jesus positively forbids them either to go to the
Gentiles or to enter into any city of the Samaritans. 2
The fourth Gospel has very few miracles in common with the
Synoptics, and those few present notable variations. After the
feeding of the five thousand, Jesus, according to the Synoptics,
constrains his disciples to enter a ship and to go to the other side
of the Lake of Gennesaret, whilst he himself goes up a mountain
apart to pray. A storm arises, and Jesus appears walking to them
over the sea, whereat the disciples are troubled ; but Peter says to
him: " Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee over the water ";
and on his going out of the ship over the water, and beginning to
sink, he cries, " Lord, save me "; Jesus stretched out his hand and
caught him ; and when they had come into the ship the wind
ceased, and they that were in the ship came and worshipped him,
saying, " Of a truth thou art the Son of God."3 The fourth
Gospel, instead of representing Jesus as retiring to the mountain
to pray, which would have been opposed to the author's idea of
the Logos, makes the motive for going thither the knowledge of
Jesus that the people " would come and take him by force that
they might make him a king."-* The writer altogether ignores the
episode of Peter walking on the sea, and adds a new miracle by
stating that, as soon as Jesus was received on board, "the ship was
at the land whither they were going." 5 The Synoptics go on to
describe the devout excitement and faith of all the country round ;
but the fourth Gospel, limiting the effect on the multitude in the
first instance to curiosity as to how Jesus had crossed the lake,
represents Jesus as upbraiding them for following him, not because
they saw miracles, but because they had eaten of the loaves and
been filled, 6 and makes him deliver one of those long dogmatic
discourses, interrupted by, and based upon, the remarks of the
crowd, which so peculiarly distinguish the fourth Gospel.
1 John ii. 1 8 f. ; Matt. xxvi. 60 f. ; cf. xxvii. 39 f. ; Mark xiv. 57 f. ;
xv. 29.
2 Matt. x. 5. 3 Matt. xiv. 22, 23 ; cf. Mark vi. 46 f.
4 John vi. 15. 5 Ib., vi. 17-21. 6 If>., vi. 26.
552 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Without dwelling upon such details of miracles, however, we
proceed with our slight comparison. Whilst the fourth Gospel
from the very commencement asserts the foreknowledge of Jesus
as to who should betray him, and makes him inform the Twelve
that one of them is a devil, alluding to Judas Iscariot, 1 the Synop-
tists represent Jesus as having so little foreknowledge that Judas
should betray him that, shortly before the end, and indeed,
according to the third Gospel, only at the last supper, Jesus
promises that the disciples shall sit upon twelve thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel, 2 and it is only at the last supper, after
Judas has actually arranged with the chief priests, and apparently
from knowledge of the fact, that Jesus, for the first time, speaks of
his betrayal by him. 3 On his way to Jerusalem, two days before
the Passover,* Jesus comes to Bethany, where, according to the
Synoptics, being in the house of Simon the leper, a woman with
an alabaster box of very precious ointment came and poured the
ointment upon his head, much to the indignation of the disciples,
who say : " To what purpose is this waste ? For this might have
been sold for much, and given to the poor." 5 In the fourth
Gospel the episode takes place six days before the Passover, 6 in
the house of Lazarus, and it is his sister Mary who takes a pound
of very costly ointment, but she anoints the feet of Jesus and
wipes them with her hair. It is Judas Iscariot, and not the
disciples, who says : " Why was not this ointment sold for three
hundred pence and given to the poor ?" And Jesus makes a
similar reply to that in the Synoptics, showing the identity of the
occurrence described so differently.?
The Synoptics represent most clearly that Jesus on the evening
of the 1 4th Nisan, after the custom of the Jews, ate the Passover
with his disciples, 8 and that he was arrested in the first hours of
the 1 5th Nisan, the day on which he was put to death. Nothing
can be more distinct than the statement that the last supper was
the Paschal feast. " They made ready the Passover (^rot/jiao-av
TO Trauma), and, when the hour was come, he sat down and
the Apostles with him, and he said to them : With desire I
desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer " ('E7ri0i>/up
TOVTO TO Trov^a. <j>a.ytiv fj.ed' VfiMV TT/OO TOV fj.e
1 John vi. 64, 70, 71 ; cf. ii. 25.
- Matt. xix. 28 ; cf. xvii. 22 f. ; cf. Mark ix. 30 f., x. 32 f. ; Luke xxii. 30 ;
cf. ix. 22 f., 44 f. ; xviii. 31 f.
3 Matt. xxvi. 21 f., cf. 14 f. ; Mark xiv. 18 f., cf. 10 f. ; Luke xxii. 21 f.,
cf. 3 f-
4 Mark xiv. I. 5 Matt. xxvi. 6-13; Mark xiv. 3-9.
6 John xii. I. 1 Ib., xii. i f. ; cf. xi. 2.
8 Matt. xxvi. 17 f., 19, 36 f., 47 f. ; Mark xiv. 12 f., 16 f. ; Luke xxii. 7 f.,
13 f-
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 553
The fourth Gospel, however, in accordance with the
principle which is dominant throughout, represents the last repast
which Jesus eats with his disciples as a common supper (Sewrvov),
which takes place not on the i4th, but on the i3th Nisan, the
day " before the feast of the Passover " (irpb T% copras TOV
Tracrxo,), 2 and his death takes place on the i4th, the day on which
the Paschal lamb was slain. Jesus is delivered by Pilate to the
Jews to be crucified about the sixth hour of " the preparation of
the Passover " (fiv irapaa-K^vrj TOV TracT^a), 3 and because it was
"the preparation," the legs of the two men crucified with Jesus
were broken that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the
great day of the feast.* The fourth Gospel totally ignores the
institution of the Christian festival at the last supper, but, instead,
represents Jesus as washing the feet of the disciples, enjoining
them also to wash each other's feet : " For I gave you an example
that ye should do according as I did to you." 5 The Synoptics
have no knowledge of this incident. Immediately after the
warning to Peter of his future denial, Jesus goes out with the
disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane, and, taking Peter and the
two sons of Zebedee apart, began to be sorrowful and very
depressed, and, as he prayed in his agony that if possible the cup
might pass from him, an angel comforts him. Instead of this,
the fourth Gospel represents Jesus as delivering, after the warning
to Peter, the longest discourses in the Gospel : " Let not your
heart be troubled," etc. ; " I am the true vine," 6 etc.; and
although said to be written by one of the sons of Zebedee who
were with Jesus on the occasion, the fourth Gospel does not
mention the agony in the garden, but, on the contrary, makes
Jesus utter the long prayer xvii. 1-26, in a calm and even
exulting spirit very far removed from the sorrow and depression
of the more natural scene in Gethsemane. The prayer, like the
rest of the prayers in the Gospel, is a mere didactic and dogmatic
address for the benefit of the hearers.
The arrest of Jesus presents a similar contrast. In the Synop-
tics, Judas comes with a multitude from the chief priests and
elders of the people armed, with swords and staves, and, indicating
his Master by a kiss, Jesus is simply arrested, and, after the slight
resistance of one of the disciples, is led away.? In the fourth
Gospel the case is very different. Judas comes with a band of
men from the chief priests and Pharisees, with lanterns and torches
and weapons, and Jesus " knowing all things which were coming
- I Luke xxii. 13, 15 ; cf. Matt. xxvi. 19 f. ; Mark xiv. 16 f.
" John xiii. I. 3 Ib. , xix. 14.
4 Ib., xix. 31 f. 5 Ib., xiii. 12, 15.
6 Ib. , xiv. 1-31 ; xv. 1-27 ; xvi. 1-33; xvii. 1-26.
7 Matt. xxvi. 47 f. ; Mark xiv. 43 f. ; Luke xxii. 47 f.
554 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
to pass " himself goes towards them and asks : " Whom seek
ye ?" Judas plays no active part, and no kiss is given. The
fourth Evangelist is, as ever, bent on showing that all which
happens to the Logos is predetermined by himself and voluntarily
encountered. As soon as Jesus replies, " I am he," the whole
band of soldiers go backwards and fall to the ground an incident
thoroughly in the spirit of the early apocryphal Gospels still
extant, and of an evidently legendary character. He is then led
away first to Annas, who sends him to Caiaphas, whilst the
Synoptics naturally know nothing of Annas, who was not the high
priest and had no authority. We need not follow the trial, which
is fundamentally different in the Synoptics and fourth Gospel ;
and we have already pointed out that, in the Synoptics, Jesus is
crucified on the i5th Nisan, whereas in the fourth Gospel he is
put to death the spiritual Paschal lamb on the i4th Nisan.
According to the fourth Gospel, Jesus bears his own cross to
Calvary, 1 but the Synoptics represent it as being borne by Simon
of Gyrene. 2 As a very singular illustration of the inaccuracy of all
the Gospels, we may point to the circumstance that no two of
them agree even about so simple a matter of fact as the inscription
on the cross, assuming that there was one at all. They give it
respectively as follows : " ThiS is Jesus the King of the Jews " ;
" The King of the Jews " ; " This (is) the King of the Jews " ;
and the fourth Gospel : " Jesus the Nazarene the King of the
Jews." 3 The occurrences during the Crucifixion are profoundly
different in the fourth Gospel from those narrated in the Synoptics.
In the latter, only the women are represented as beholding afar
off,* but " the beloved disciple " is added in the fourth Gospel,
and, instead of being far off, they are close to the cross ; and for
the last cries of Jesus reported in the Synoptics we have the
episode in which Jesus confides his mother to the disciple's care.
We need not at present compare the other details of the Crucifixion
and Resurrection, which are differently reported by each of the
Gospels.
We have only indicated a few of the more salient differences
between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, which are rendered
much more striking, in the Gospels themselves, by the profound
dissimilarity of the sentiments uttered by Jesus. We merely point
out, in passing, the omission of important episodes from the fourth
Gospel, such as the Temptation in the wilderness ; the Trans-
1 John xix. 17. * Matt, xxvii. 32 ; Mark xv. 21 ; Luke xxii. 26.
3 08r<5s fffnv 'iTjaoOs 6 /ScwnXeys T&V 'Lovdaiuv. Matt xxvii. 37 ; '0 /3acri\ei>s
T&V 'lovSaluv. Mark xv. 26 ; '0 ^acrtXe^y r(av 'lovdaluv o5ros. Luke xxiii. 38 ;
Irjcrovs 6 Nafupcuos 6 /3a(nXei>s rCiv 'lovdalwv. John xix. 19.
4 Matt, xxvii. 55 f. ; Mark xv. 40 f. ; Luke xxiii. 49. In this last place all
his acquaintance are added. *.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 555
figuration, at which, according to the Synoptics, the sons of
Zebedee were present ; the last Supper ; the agony in the garden ;
the mournful cries on the cross ; and, we may add, the Ascension ;
and if we turn to the miracles of Jesus, we find that almost all of
those narrated by the Synoptics are ignored, whilst an almost
entirely new series is introduced. There is not a single instance
of the cure of demoniacal possession in any form recorded in the
fourth Gospel. Indeed, the number of miracles is reduced in that
Gospel to a few typical cases ; and although at the close it is
generally said that Jesus did many other signs in the presence of
his disciples, these alone are written with the declared purpose :
" that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God." 1
We may briefly refer in detail to one miracle of the fourth
Gospel the raising of Lazarus. The extraordinary fact that the
Synoptists are utterly ignorant of this the greatest of the miracles
attributed to Jesus has been too frequently discussed to require
much comment here. It will be remembered that, as the case of
the daughter of Jairus is, by the express declaration of Jesus, one
of mere suspension of consciousness, 2 the only instance in which a
dead person is distinctly said, in any of the Synoptics, to have
been restored to life by Jesus is that of the son of the widow of
Nain. 3 It is, therefore, quite impossible to suppose that the
Synoptists could have known of the raising of Lazarus and wilfully
omitted it. It is equally impossible to believe that the authors
o, the synoptic Gospels, from whatever sources they may have
drawn their materials, could have been ignorant of such a miracle
had it really taken place. This astounding miracle, according to
the fourth Gospel, created such general excitement that it was one
of the leading events which led to the arrest and crucifixion of
Jesus. 4 If, therefore, the Synoptics had any connection with the
writers to whom they are referred, the raising of Lazarus must have
been personally known to their reputed authors either directly
or through the Apostles who are supposed to have inspired them,
or even if they have any claim to contemporary origin the tradition
of the greatest miracle of Jesus must have been fresh throughout
the Church, if such a wonder had ever been performed. The total
ignorance of such a miracle displayed by the whole of the works
of the New Testament, therefore, forms the strongest presumptive
evidence that the narrative in the fourth Gospel is a mere
imaginary scene, illustrative of the dogma, " I am the resurrection
and the life," upon which it is based. This conclusion is con-
firmed by the peculiarities of the narrative itself. When Jesus
1 John xx. 30 f. - Matt. ix. 24 ; Mark v. 39 ; Luke viii. 52.
3 Luke vii. n f. 4 John xi. 45 f., 53 ; xii. 9 f., 17 f.
556 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
first hears, from the message of the sisters, that Lazarus whom he
loved was sick, he declares, xi. 4 : " This sickness is not unto
death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be
glorified thereby "; and v. 6 : " When, therefore (ovv), he heard
that he was sick, at that time he continued two days in the place
where he was." After that interval he proposes to go into Judaea,
and explains to the disciples, v. 1 1 : " Our friend Lazarus is fallen
asleep; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep." The
disciples reply, with the stupidity with which the fourth Evangelist
endows all those who hold colloquy with Jesus, v. 12 : " Lord, if
he is fallen asleep, he will recover. Howbeit, Jesus spake of his
death ; but they thought that he was speaking of the taking of rest
in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly : Lazarus is dead,
and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent
that ye may believe." The artificial nature of all this introductory
matter will not have escaped the reader, and it is further illustrated
by that which follows. Arrived at Bethany, they find that Lazarus
has lain in the grave already four days. Martha says to Jesus
(v. 21 f.) : " Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not
died. And I know that even now whatsoever thou shall ask of
God, God will give thee. Jesus saith unto her : Thy brother shall
rise again." Martha, of course, as usual, misunderstands this
saying as applying to "the resurrection at the last day," in order to
introduce the reply : " I am the resurrection and the life," etc.
When they come to the house, and Jesus -sees Mary and the Jews
weeping, "he groaned in spirit and troubled himself," and on
reaching the grave itself (v. 35 f.), " Jesus wept : Then said the
Jews : Behold how he loved him !" Now this representation,
which has ever since been the admiration of Christendom, presents
the very strongest marks of unreality. Jesus, who loves Lazarus
so much, disregards the urgent message of the sisters, and, whilst
openly declaring that his sickness is not unto death, intentionally
lingers until his friend dies. When he does go to Bethany, and is
on the very point of restoring Lazarus to life and dissipating the
grief of his family and friends, he actually weeps and groans in
his spirit. There is so total an absence of reason for such grief at
such a moment that these tears, to any sober reader, are unmistak-
ably mere theatrical adjuncts of a scene elaborated out of the
imagination of the writer. The suggestion of the bystanders
(v. 37), that he might have prevented the death, is not more
probable than the continuation (v. 38) : " Jesus, therefore, again
groaning in himself, cometh to the grave." There, having ordered
the stone to be removed, he delivers a prayer avowedly intended
merely for the bystanders (v. 41 f.) : " And Jesus lifted up his
eyes and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me, and
I knew that thou hearest me always : tjut for the sake of the
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 557
multitude which stand around I said this, that they may believe
that thou hast sent me." This prayer is as evidently artificial as
the rest of the details of the miracle ; but, as in other elaborately
arranged scenic representations, the charm is altogether dispelled
when closer examination shows the character of the dramatic
elements. A careful consideration of the narrative and of all the
facts of the case must, we think, lead to the conclusion that this
miracle is not even a historical tradition of the life of Jesus, but is
wholly an ideal composition by the author of the fourth Gospel.
This being the case, the other miracles of the Gospel need not
detain us.
If the historical part of the fourth Gospel be in irreconcilable
contradiction to the Synoptics, the didactic is infinitely more so.
The teaching of the one is totally different from that of the
others in spirit, form, and terminology ; and, although there are
undoubtedly fine sayings throughout the work, in the prolix dis-
courses of the fourth Gospel there is not a single characteristic of
the simple eloquence of the Sermon on the Mount. In the diffuse
mysticism of the Logos we can scarcely recognise a trace of
the terse practical wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth. It must be
apparent even to the most superficial observer that, in the fourth
Gospel, we are introduced to a perfectly new system of instruction,
and to an order of ideas of which there is not a vestige in the
Synoptics. Instead of short and concise lessons, full of striking
truth and point, we find nothing but long and involved dogmatic
discourses of little practical utility. The limpid spontaneity of
that earlier teaching, with its fresh illustrations and profound
sentences, uttered without effort and untinged by art, is exchanged
for diffuse addresses and artificial dialogues, in which labour and
design are everywhere apparent. From pure and living morality,
couched in brief, incisive sayings which enter the heart and dwell
upon the ear, we turn to elaborate philosophical orations
without clearness or order, and to doctrinal announcements
unknown to the Synoptics. To the inquiry, " What shall I do to
inherit eternal life ?" Jesus replies, in the Synoptics, " Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind ; and thy neighbour as thyself this do,
and thou shalt live." 1 In the fourth Gospel, to the question,
" What must we do that we may work the works of God?" Jesus
answers, "This is the work of God, that ye should believe in him
whom he sent." 2 The teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics is almost
wholly moral, and in the fourth Gospel it is almost wholly dog-
matic. If Christianity consist of the doctrines preached in the
fourth Gospel, it is not too much to say that the Synoptics do not
1 Luke x. 25-28 ; cf. Mark xix. 16 f. ; xxii. 36-40. ' 2 John vi. 28, 29.
558 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
teach Christianity at all. The extraordinary phenomenon is pre-
sented of three Gospels, each professing to be complete in itself,
and to convey the good tidings of salvation to man, which have
actually omitted the doctrines which are the condition of that
salvation. The fourth Gospel practically expounds a new religion.
It is undeniable that morality and precepts of love and charity for
the conduct of life are the staple of the teaching of Jesus in the
Synoptics, and that dogma occupies so small a place that it is
regarded as a subordinate and secondary consideration. In the
fourth Gospel, however, dogma is the one thing needful, and forms
the whole substance of the preaching of the Logos. The burden
of his teaching is, "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life,
but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath
of God abideth on him." 1 It is scarcely possible to put the con-
trast between the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel in too strong a
light. If we possessed the Synoptics without the fourth Gospel,
we should have the exposition of pure morality based on perfect
love to God and man. If we had the fourth Gospel without the
Synoptics, we should have little more than a system of dogmatic
theology without morality. Not only is the doctrine and the termi-
nology of the Jesus of the fourth Gospel quite different from that
of the Jesus of the Synoptics, but so is the teaching of John the
Baptist. In the Synoptics he comes preaching the Baptism of
repentance, 2 and, like the Master, inculcating principles of
morality ; 3 but in the fourth Gospel he has adopted the peculiar
views of the author, proclaims " the lamb of God which taketh
away the sins of the world," 4 and bears witness that he is "the
Son of God." 5 We hear of the Paraclete for the first time in the
fourth Gospel.
It is so impossible to ignore the distinct individuality of the
Jesus of the fourth Gospel, and of his teaching, that even Apolo-
gists are obliged to admit tha* the peculiarities of the author have
coloured the portrait, and introduced an element of subjectivity
into the discourses. It was impossible, they confess, that the
Apostle could remember verbally such long orations for half a
century, and at best that they can only be accepted as substan-
tially correct reports of the teaching of Jesus. " Above all," says
Ewald, " the discourses of Christ and of others in this Gospel are
clothed as by an entirely new colour : on this account also scepti-
cism has desired to conclude that the Apostle cannot have com-
posed the Gospel ; and yet no conclusion is more unfounded.
When the Apostle at so late a period determined to compose the
work, it was 'certainly impossible for him to reproduce all the
1 John iii. 36. 2 Matt. iii. I f. ; Mark i. 4 f. ; Luke iii. 2 f.
3 Luke iii. 8, 10 f. 4 John i. 29, 36. * 5 Ib. t i. 34.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 559
words exactly as they were spoken, if he did not perhaps desire
not merely to recall a few memorable sentences, but, in longer dis-
cussions of more weighty subjects, to charm back all the animation
with which they were once given. So he availed himself of that
freedom in their revivification which is quite intelligible in itself,
and sufficiently warranted by the precedent of so many great
examples of antiquity ; and where the discourses extend to greater
length, there entered involuntarily into the structure much of that
fundamental conception and language regarding the manifestation
of Christ which had long become deeply rooted in the Apostle's
soul. But as certainly as these discourses bear upon them the
colouring of the Apostle's mind, so certainly do they agree in their
substantial contents with his best recollections because the
Spruchsammlung proves that the discourses of Christ in certain
moments really could rise to the full elevation, which in John
surprises us throughout more than in Matthew. To deny the
apostolical authorship of the Gospel for such reasons, therefore,
were pure folly, and in the highest degree unjust. Moreover, the
circumstance that, in the drawing up of such discourses, we some-
times see him reproduce or further develop sayings which had
already been recorded in the older Gospels, can prove nothing
against the apostolical origin of the Gospel, as he was indeed at
perfect liberty, if he pleased, to make use of the contents of such
older writings when he considered it desirable, and when they
came to the help of his own memory of those long passed
days : for he certainly retained many or all of such expres-
sions also in his own memory." 1 Elsewhere, he describes the
work as "glorified Gospel history," composed out of "glorified
recollection." 2
Another strenuous defender of the authenticity of the fourth
Gospel wrote of it as follows : " Nevertheless, everything is recon-
cilable," says Gfrorer, " if one accept the testimony of the elders
as true. For as John must have written the Gospel as an old
man, that is to say not before the year 90-95 of our era, there is
an interval of more than half a century between the time when
the events which he relates really happened and the time of the
composition of his book space enough certainly to make a few
mistakes conceivable, even pre-supposing a good memory and
unshaken love of truth. Let us imagine, for instance, that to-day
(in 1841) an old man of eighty to ninety years of age should write
down from mere memory the occurrences of the American War
(of Independence), in which he himself in his early youth played
1 Jahrb. bibl. Wiss. , x. , p. 90 f.
2 " Verklarte evangelische Gescfiickte" "verklcirte erinnerung" (Jahrb.
bibl. Wtss., iii., pp. 163, 166).
560 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
a part. Certainly in his narrative, even though it might otherwise
be true, many traits would be found which would not agree with
the original event. Moreover, another particular circumstance
must be added in connection with the fourth Gospel. Two-thirds
of it consist of discourses, which John places in the mouth of
Jesus Christ. Now, every day's experience proves that oral
impressions are much more fleeting than those of sight. The
happiest memory scarcely retains long orations after three or
four years ; how, then, could John with verbal accuracy report
the discourses of Jesus after fifty or sixty years ! We must be
content if he truly render the chief contents and spirit of them,
and that he does this, as a rule, can be proved. It has been
shown above that already, before Christ, a very peculiar philosophy
of religion had been formed among the Egyptian Jews, which
found its way into Palestine through the Essenes, and also
numbered numerous adherents amongst the Jews of the adjacent
countries of Syria and Asia Minor. The Apostle Paul professed
this : not less the Evangelist John. Undoubtedly, the latter
allowed this Theosophy to exercise a strong influence upon his
representation of the life-history of Jesus," 1 etc.
All such admissions, whilst they are absolutely requisite to
explain the undeniable phenomena of the fourth Gospel, have
one obvious consequence : The fourth Gospel, by whomsoever
written even if it could be traced to the Apostle John himself
has no real historical value, being at best the " glorified
recollections " of an old man, written down half a century after
the events recorded. The absolute difference between the
teaching of this Gospel and of the Synoptics becomes perfectly
intelligible when the long discourses are recognised to be the
result of Alexandrian philosophy artistically interwoven with
developed Pauline Christianity, and put into the mouth of Jesus.
It will have been remarked that along with the admission of great
subjectivity in the report of the discourses, and the plea that
nothing beyond the mere substance of the original teaching can
reasonably be looked for, there is, in the extracts we have given,
an assertion that there actually is a faithful reproduction in this
Gospel of the original substance. There is not a shadow of proof
of this, but, on the contrary, the strongest reason for denying the
fact ; for, unless it be admitted that the Synoptics have so
completely omitted the whole doctrinal part of the teaching of
Jesus, have so carefully avoided the very peculiar terminology of
the Logos Gospel, and have conveyed so unhistorical and
erroneous an impression of the life and religious system of Jesus
that, without the fourth Gospel, we should not actually have had
1 Gfrorer, Allg, K. G., 1841, i., p. 172 f.
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 561
an idea of his fundamental doctrines, we must inevitably recognise
that the fourth Gospel cannot possibly be a true reproduction of
his teaching. It is impossible that Jesus can have had two such
diametrically opposed systems of teaching one purely moral, the
other wholly dogmatic ; one expressed in wonderfully terse, clear,
brief sayings and parables ; the other in long, involved, and diffuse
discourses ; one clothed in the great language of humanity, the
other concealed in obscure philosophic terminology and that
these should have been kept so distinct as they are in the
Synoptics on the one hand, and the fourth Gospel on the other.
The tradition of Justin Martyr applies solely to the system of the
Synoptics : " Brief and concise were the sentences uttered by him,
for he was no Sophist, but his word was the power of God." 1
We have already pointed out the evident traces of artificial
construction in the discourses and dialogues of the fourth Gospel,
and the more closely these are examined the more clear does it
become that they are not genuine reports of the teaching of Jesus,
but mere ideal compositions by the author of the fourth Gospel.
The speeches of John the Baptist, the discourses of Jesus, and
the reflections of the Evangelist himself, 2 are marked by the same
peculiarity of style and proceed from the same mind. It is
scarcely possible to determine where the one begins and the other
ends. 3 It is quite clear, for instance, that the author himself
without a break continues the words which he puts into the mouth
of Jesus, in the colloquy with Nicodemus, but it is not easy to
determine where. The whole dialogue is artificial in the extreme,
and is certainly not genuine ; and this is apparent not only from
the replies attributed to the "teacher of Israel," but to the
irrelevant manner in which the reflections loosely ramble from the
new birth to the dogmatic statements in the thirteenth and
following verses, which are the never-failing resource of the
Evangelist when other subjects are exhausted. The sentiments
and almost the words attributed to Jesus, or added by the
writer, to which we are now referring, iii. 12 f., we find again in
the very same chapter, either put into the mouth of John the
Baptist, or as reflections of the author, verses 31-36, for again
we add that it is difficult anywhere to discriminate the speaker.
Indeed, while the Synoptics are rich in the abundance of practical
counsel and profound moral insight, as well as in . variety of
illustrative parables, it is remarkable how much sameness there is
in all the discourses of the fourth Gospel, a very few ideas being
constantly reproduced. Whilst the teaching of Jesus in the
Synoptics is singularly universal and impersonal, in the fourth
Gospel it is purely personal, and rarely passes beyond the declaration
1 Apol., i. 14. 2 John i. 1-18, etc. 3 Cf. ik., i. 15 f. ; iii. 27 f., 10-21.
20
562 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
of his own dignity, and the inculcation of belief in him as the
only means of salvation. There are certainly some sayings of rare
beauty which tradition or earlier records may have preserved, but
these may easily be distinguished from the mass of the work. A
very distinct trace of ideal composition is found in xvii. 3 : " And
this is eternal life, to know thee the only true God and him whom
thou didst send, even Jesus Christ." Even Apologists admit that
it is impossible that Jesus could speak of himself as "Jesus Christ."
We need not, however, proceed further with such analysis. We
believe that no one can calmly and impartially examine the fourth
Gospel without being convinced of its artificial character. If some
portions possess real charm, it is of a purely ideal kind, and their
attraction consists chiefly in the presence of a certain vague but
suggestive mysticism. The natural longing of humanity for any
revelation regarding a future state has not been appealed to in
vain. That the diffuse and often monotonous discourses Of
this Gospel should ever have been preferred to the grand
simplicity of the teaching of the Synoptics, illustrated by such
parables as the wise and foolish virgins, the sower, and the
Prodigal Son, and culminating in the Sermon on the Mount, each
sentence of which is so full of truth and beauty, is little to the
credit of critical sense and judgment.
The elaborate explanations by which the phenomena of the
fourth Gospel are reconciled with the assumption that it was com-
posed by the Apostle John are in vain, and there is not a single
item of evidence within the first century and a half which does
not agree with internal testimony in opposing the supposition. To
one point we must briefly refer in connection with this state-
ment. It is asserted that the Gospel and Epistles or at least
the first Epistle of the Canon ascribed to the Apostle John
are by one author, although this is not without contradiction, and
very many of those who agree as to the identity of authorship by
no means admit the author to have been the Apostle John. It is
argued, therefore, that the use of the Epistle by Polycarp and
Papias is evidence of the apostolic origin of the Gospel. We have,
however, seen that not only is it very uncertain that Polycarp
made use of the Epistle at all, but that he does not in any case
mention its author's name. There is not a particle of evidence
that he ascribed the Epistle, even supposing he knew it, to the
Apostle John. With regard to Papias, the only authority for the
assertion that he knew the Epistle is the statement of Eusebius
already quoted and discussed, that " He used testimonies
out of John's first Epistle." 1 There is no evidence, even
supposing the statement of Eusebius to be correct, that he
1 H.E. t v. 8. .
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 563
ascribed it to the Apostle. The earliest undoubted references to
the Epistle, in fact, are by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, so
that this evidence is of little avail for the Gospel. There is no
name attached to the first Epistle, and the second and third have
the superscription of " the Presbyter," which, applying the argu-
ment of Ewald regarding the author of the Apocalypse, ought to be
conclusive against their being written by an Apostle. As all three are
evidently by the same writer, and intended to be understood as by the
author of the Gospel, and that writer does not pretend to bean Apostle
but calls himself a simple Presbyter, the Epistles likewise give pre-
sumptive evidence against the Apostolic authorship of the Gospel.
There is another important testimony against the Johannine
origin of the fourth Gospel to which we must briefly refer. We
have pointed out that, according to the fourth Gospel, Jesus did
not eat the Paschal Supper with his disciples, but that, being
arrested on the i3th Nisan, he was put to death on the i4th, the
actual day upon which the Paschal lamb was sacrificed. The
Synoptics, on the contrary, represent that Jesus ate the Passover
with his disciples on the evening of the i4th, and was crucified on
the 1 5th Nisan. The difference of opinion indicated by these contra-
dictory accounts actually prevailed in various Churches, and in the
second half of the second century a violent discussion arose as to
the day upon which " The true Passover of the Lord " should be
celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it should
be observed on the i4th Nisan the day on which, according to
the Synoptics, Jesus himself celebrated the Passover and instituted
the Christian festival ; whilst the Roman Church as well as most
other Christians following the fourth Gospel, which represents
Jesus as not celebrating the last Passover, but being himself slain
upon the i4th Nisan, the true Paschal lamb had abandoned the
day of the Jewish feast altogether, and celebrated the Christian
festival on Easter Sunday, upon which the Resurrection was sup-
posed to have taken place. Polycarp, who went to Rome to
represent the Churches of Asia Minor in the discussions upon the
subject, could not be induced to give up the celebration on the
1 4th Nisan, the day which, according to tradition, had always been
observed, and he appealed to the practice of the Apostle John
himself in support of that date. Eusebius quotes from Irenseus
the statement of the case : " For neither could Anicetus persuade
Polycarp not to observe it (the i4th Nisan), because he had ever
observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and with the rest
of the Apostles with whom he consorted." 1 Towards the end of
1 Oifre yap 6 'AvlK-rjTos rbv H.o\VKO.pirov Treiaai t8vva.ro /J.TJ rripeiv, Are /xercl
'ludvvov TOV /j,a9rjTOv TOV KvpLov i]/Jiuv, Kal ruiv \oiiruv a.iroar6\wv oh ffvvdtt-
rpi^ev, del TeTTifnjKora, K.T.\. Irenseus, Adv. Hcer., iii. 3, 4 ; Eusebius,
H. E., v. 24.
564 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the century Polycrates, the Bishop of Ephesus, likewise appeals to
the practice of " John who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord,"
as well as of the Apostle Philip and his daughters, and of Polycarp
and others, in support of the same day. "All these observed the
1 4th day of the Passover, according to the Gospel, deviating from
it in no respect, but following according to the rule of the faith." 1
Now it is evident that, according to this undoubted testimony, the
Apostle John, by his own practice, ratified the account of the
Synoptics, and contradicted the data of the fourth Gospel ; and
upon the supposition that he so long lived in Asia Minor it is
probable that his authority largely contributed to establish the
observance of the i4th Nisan there. We must, therefore, either
admit that the Apostle John by his practice reversed the statement
of his own Gospel, or that he was not its author, which of course
is the natural conclusion. Without going further into the discus-
sion, which would detain us too long, it is clear that the Paschal
controversy is opposed to the supposition that the Apostle John
was the author of the fourth Gospel.
We have seen that, whilst there is not one particle of evidence
during a century and a half after the events recorded in the fourth
Gospel that it was composed by the son of Zebedee, there is, on
the contrary, the strongest reason for believing that he did not
write it. The first writer who quotes a passage of the Gospel with
the mention of his name is Theophilus of Antioch, who gives the
few words, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God," as spoken by " John," whom he considers amongst the
divinely inspired (oi 7rvu/*aTo<opoi), 2 though even he does not
distinguish him as the Apostle. We have seen the legendary
nature of the late traditions regarding the composition of the
Gospel, of which a specimen was given in the defence of it in the
Canon of Muratori, and we must not further quote them. The
first writer who distinctly' classes the four Gospels together is
Irenaeus ; and the reasons which he gives for the existence of
precisely that number in the Canon of the Church illustrate the
thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers, and the slight
dependence which can be placed upon their judgment. " But
neither can the Gospels be more in number than they are," says
Irenaeus, " nor, on the other hand, can they be fewer. For as
there are four quarters of the world in which we are, and four
general winds (KaOoXiKa TrvevfMTa), and the Church is dissemi-
nated throughout all the world, and the Gospel is the pillar and
1 OCrot TrdvTej ^T^prjffav rty i]/j.{pav TT}S TeffffaptffKaidtKdrrjs TOV irdffxa Karct
ri> etiayyt\iov , fj.r)5ti> Tra.pfKJ3aivovTes, d\\A /card, rbv Ka.v6va TTJS 7r{<rrews cU'oAon-
dovrres. Eusebius, H. ., v. 24.
2 Ad Autolyc., ii., 22. Tischendorf dates this work about A.D. i8o(H /r ann
wurden, u, s. iv., p. 16, anm. i).
AUTHORSHIP AND CHARACTER OF FOURTH GOSPEL 565
prop of the Church and the spirit of life, it is right that she should
have four pillars on all sides breathing out immortality and revivi-
fying men. From which it is manifest that the Word, the maker
of all, he who sitteth upon the Cherubim and containeth all
things, who was manifested to man, has given to us the Gospel
four-formed but possessed by one spirit ; as David also says,
supplicating his advent : ' Thou that sittest between the Cherubim,
shine forth.' For the Cherubim also are four-faced, and their
faces are symbols of the working of the Son of God and the
Gospels, therefore, are in harmony with these amongst which
Christ is seated. For the Gospel according to John relates his
first effectual and glorious generation from the Father, saying : ' In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God,' and 'all things were made by him, and
without him nothing was made.' On this account also this
Gospel is full of all trustworthiness, for such is his person. 1 But
the Gospel according to Luke, being as it were of priestly char-
acter, opened with Zacharias the priest sacrificing to God
But Matthew narrates his generation as a man, saying : ' The
book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son
of Abraham,' and ' the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.'
This Gospel, therefore, is anthropomorphic, and on this account
a man, humble and mild in character, is presented throughout the
Gospel. But Mark makes his commencement after a prophetic
Spirit coming down from on high unto men, saying : ' The begin-
ning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the
prophet '; indicating the winged form of the Gospel ; and for this
reason he makes a compendious and precursory declaration, for
this is the prophetic character Such, therefore, as was the
course of the Son of God, such also is the form of the living
creatures ; and such as is the form of the living creatures, such
also is the character of the Gospel. For quadriform are the living
creatures, quadriform is the Gospel, and quadriform the course of
the Lord. And on this account four covenants were given to the
human race These things being thus : vain and ignorant and,
moreover, audacious are those who set aside the form of the
Gospel, and declare the aspects of the Gospels as either more or
less than has been said." 2 As such principles of criticism presided
over the formation of the Canon, it is not singular that so many of
the decisions of the Fathers have been reversed. Irenaeus him-
self mentioned the existence of heretics who rejected the fourth
1 The Greek of this rather unintelligible sentence is not preserved. The
Latin version reads as follows : Propter hoc et omni fidticia plenum est Evan-
geliuni istud ; tails est enitn persona ejus.
- Irenaeus, Adv. H<er., iii. n, 8, 9.
566 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Gospel, 1 and Epiphanius 2 refers to the Alogi, who equally denied
its authenticity ; but it is not needful for us further to discuss this
point. Enough has been said to show that the testimony of the
fourth Gospel is of no value towards establishing the truth of
miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation.
1 Adv. Htr.> iii. 2, 9. 2 Har., li. 3, 4, 28.
PART IV.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
CHAPTER I.
THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
BEFORE we proceed to examine the evidence for miracles and
the reality of Divine Revelation which is furnished by the last
historical book of the New Testament, entitled the " Acts of the
Apostles," it is well that we should briefly recall to mind some
characteristics of the document, which most materially affect the
value of any testimony emanating from it. Whilst generally assert-
ing the resurrection of Jesus, and his bodily ascension, regarding
which indeed it adds fresh details, this work presents to us a new
cycle of miracles, and so profusely introduces supernatural agency
into the history of the early Church that, in comparison with it,
the Gospels seem almost sober narratives. The Apostles are
instructed and comforted by visions and revelations, and they, and
all who believe, are filled with the Holy Spirit and speak with
other tongues. The Apostles are delivered from prison and from
bonds by angels or by an earthquake. Men fall dead or are
smitten with blindness at their rebuke. They heal the sick, raise
the dead, and handkerchiefs brought from their bodies cure
diseases and expel evil spirits.
As a general rule, any document so full of miraculous episodes
and supernatural occurrences would, without hesitation, be
characterised as fabulous and incredible, and would not, by any
sober-minded reader, be for a moment accepted as historical.
There is no other testimony for these miracles. Let the reader
endeavour to form some conception of the nature and amount of
evidence necessary to establish the truth of statements antece-
dently so incredible, and compare it with the testimony of this
solitary and anonymous document, the character and value of
which we shall now proceed more closely to examine.
567
568
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
ACTS xx. 35.
and to remember the words of
the Lord Jesus, that he himself said :
It is more blessed to give than to
receive.
fj.vrjfj.oveveiv re T&V \6yuv TOV
Kvplov 'If]ffov, on. ctirr6s elirev ~Ma.Kd.pi6v
effTiv fjiS.\\ov Stdovai r)
It is generally admitted, and indeed it is undeniable, that no
distinct and unequivocal reference to the Acts of the Apostles, and
to Luke as their author, occurs in the writings of Fathers before
one by Irenaeus 1 about the end of the second century. Passages
are, however, pointed out in early writings as indicating the use
and consequent existence of our document, all of which we shall
now examine.
Several of these occur in the Rpistle to the Corinthians,
ascribed to Clement of Rome. The first, immediately compared
with the passage to which it is supposed to be a reference, is as
follows :
EPISTLE, c. n.
Ye were all humble-minded, not
boasting at all, subjecting yourselves
rather than subjecting others, more
gladly giving than receiving,
lldires re ('Taireivofppove'iTe , fjL-rjSev d\a-
fovev6fj.evoi, virora.ffcr6fj.evoi, /j.d\\ov rj
viroTacrffovTes, ijdt.ov di86vTS J) Xa/x-
fidvovTes
The words of the Epistle are not a quotation, but merely occur
in the course of an address. They do not take the form of an
axiom, but are a comment on the conduct of the Corinthians,
which may have been suggested either by written or oral tradition,
or by moral maxims long before current in heathen philosophy. 2
It is unnecessary to enter minutely into this, however, or to
indicate the linguistic differences between the two passages, for
one point alone settles the question. In the Acts the saying,
" It is more blessed to give than to receive," is distinctly intro-
duced as a quotation of " words of the Lord Jesus," and the exhor-
tation " to remember " them conveys the inference that they were
well known. They must either have formed part of Gospels now
no longer extant, as they are not found in ours, or have been
familiar as the unwritten tradition of sayings of the Master. In
either case, if the passage in the Epistle be a reference to these
words at all, it cannot reasonably be maintained that it must
necessarily have been derived from a work which itself distinctly
quotes the words from another source. The slight coinci-
dence in the expression, without indication that any particular
1 Adv. H(er., iii. 14, I, 2.
2 EC s-otetV ijSi6i> e'tm TOV irdffx.eiv. Epicur. ap. Plut. , Afar., p. 778 c.
Errat enim si quis beneficium libentius accipit quant reddit. Seneca, Epist.,
Ixxxi. 17. MaXXd? effTi TOV i\ev6eplov TO dtd6vai oh Set i) \afj.Sdveiv odev del,
Kai /ATI \a/J.fidveiv 66ev ov Set. TTJS ydp dpeTijs /uaXXov r6 e(5 iroieiv ^ TO ev
irdcrxeiv. Aristotle, Eth. Nicoin., iv. I. AupeicrOat Kai 8id6vai KPCITTOV r)
Xa/j-fidveiv. Artemidor., Oneirocr.,\\. 3. Cf. Vv^tstein, ./V. 7', Gr.,l. c.
CLEMENT OF ROME 569
passage is in the mind of the author, and without any mention of
the Acts, is no evidence of the existence of that work.
A few critics point to some parts of the following passage as
showing acquaintance with Acts : " Through jealousy Paul also
pointed out the way to the prize of patience, having borne chains
seven times, having been put to flight, having been stoned ; having
become a preacher both in the East and in the West, he gained
the noble renown due to his faith ; having taught the whole world
righteousness, and come to the extremity of the West, and having
suffered martyrdom by command of the rulers, he was thus re-
moved from the world and went to the holy place, having become
a most eminent example of patience." 1 The slightest impartial
consideration, however, must convince any one that this passage
does not indicate the use of the Acts of the Apostles. The
Epistle speaks of seven imprisonments, of some of which the Acts
make no mention, and this must, therefore, have been derived
from another source. The reference to his " coming to the
extremity of the West " (rep/m -njs Sucrews), whatever interpre-
tation be put upon it, and to his death, obviously carries the
history further than the Acts, and cannot have been derived from
that document.
The last passage which, it is affirmed, shows acquaintance with
the Acts of the Apostles is the following : " But what shall we say
regarding David who hath obtained a good report (rt ry
/xepxpTvpT^evw Aavet'S) ? unto whom (vrpos ov) God said : ' I found
a man after mine own heart, David the son of Jesse : in ever-
lasting mercy I anointed him.' " 2 This is said to be derived from
Acts xiii. 22 : ''And when he removed him he raised up to them
David for king ; to whom also he gave testimony ($ xal ttirtv
pxpTv/oryo-as) : I found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine
own heart, who will do all my will."3 The passage, however, is
compounded of two quotations loosely made from the Septuagint
version of the Old Testament, from which all the quotations in the
Epistle are taken. Ps. Ixxxviii. 20 : "I found David my servant ;
in holy mercy I anointed him. "4 And i Sam. xiii. 14: "A man
after his own heart." 5 Clement of Alexandria quotes this passage
from the Epistle, and for " in everlasting mercy " reads " with holy
oil " (ey eAauo ayj)) as m the Psalm. 6 Although, therefore,
' C. v. 2 C. xviii.
3 Kcu /uera<rT7jcras avrbv ijyeipev rbv Aaveld avrois els /3a<rtX^a, y /cat elirev
/AapTvpricras- ESpo^ AauetS rbv TOV 'leffffal, dvSpa KO.TCL TTJV icapdlav /J.ov, 8s TrotTjcrei
iravra ra fleXT^ara fjLov. Acts xiii. 22.
4 EOpoi' AautS rbv do\i\6v /J.QV, ev eXeet ayi({i ?xP lcra <MHw. The Alexandrian
MS. reads tv eXa/y a/yt'y /uoi'. The quotation given is the reading of the
Vatican Codex.
3 ttvOpwrrov Kara, rrjv KapSiav avrov.
6 Stroniata, iv. 17.
570 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
our Alexandrian MS. of the Epistle has the reading which we have
given above, even if we suppose that the Alexandrian Clement may
have found a more correct version in his MS., the argument would
not be affected. The whole similarity lies in the insertion of " the
son of Jesse," but this was a most common addition to any mention
of David, and by the completion of the passage from the Psalm,
the admission of " who will do all my will," the peculiar phrase of
the Acts, as well as the difference of introductory expressions, any
connection between the two is severed, and it is apparent that the
quotation of the Epistle may legitimately be referred to the Sep-
tuagint, with which it agrees much more closely than with the Acts.
In no case could such slight coincidences prove acquaintance with
the Acts of the Apostles. 1
Only one passage of the Epistle of Barnabas is referred to by
any one as indicating acquaintance with the Acts. It is as follows,
c. 7 : " If therefore the son of God, being Lord, and about to
judge quick and dead (*c<* jaeAAwi/ Kpivtw wvras KOI ve/cpoi's),
suffered," etc. This is compared with Acts x. 42 "and to
testify that it is he who has been appointed by God judge of
quick and dead " (ort ai'ros &mv o wpur/JLevos VTTO TOV 6eov K^ITTJS
WVTOJV /ecu i/eKpwv). Lardner, who compares the expression of the
Epistle with Acts, equally compares it with that in 2 Tim. iv. i
"and Christ Jesus who is about to judge the quick and dead"
(/zeAAovTos Kpivf.iv {covras KGU VCK^OI'S), to which it is more
commonly referred, 2 and i Pet. iv. 5 "to him who is ready
to judge quick and dead " (Kplvai wi/ras /ecu ve/epovs). He
adds, however : " It is not possible to say what text he refers to,
though that in Timothy has the same words. But perhaps there
is no proof that he refers to any. This was an article known to
every common Christian ; whereas this writer (whoever he be)
was able to teach the Christian religion, and that without respect
to any written gospels or .epistles." 3 It is scarcely necessary to
add anything to this. There is, of course, no trace of the use of
Acts in the Epistle.
It is asserted that there is a " clear allusion "* to Acts in the
1 Alford, Greek Test. , ii. , Proleg. , p. 20 ; Eichhorn, Einl. N. T. , p. 72 f. ;
Hilgenfeld, Ap. Vater, p. 108 ; Neudecker, Einl. N. T., p. 357, antn. 2;
Zeller, Apg. , p. 9. Dr. Westcott does not claim any (On the Canon, 1875,
p. 48, note 2). Dr. Lightfoot simply assigns the reference to the Psalm and
i Sam. xiii. 14.
2 Cf. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 48, n. 2. (The references to Dr. Westcott's
work on the Canon up to the present point are always to the 2nd ed., 1866,
and those henceforward to the 4th ed. , 1875, except where otherwise specified.)
3 Credibility, etc., Works, 1788, ii. , p. 17. Dr. Lightfoot does not suggest
any reference here to Acts.
4 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 198 f,
THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS
S7i
Shepherd of Hermas. The passages may be compared as
follows :
Vis. iv. 2. ACTS iv. 12.
and didst open thy heart to the
Lord, believing that by no other
couldst thou be saved than by the
great and glorious name.
And there is salvation in no other :
for neither is there any other name
under the heaven that has been given
among men whereby we must be
saved.
Kal OVK ZffTiv ev aXXit) ovSevl i) truTijpla-
ovde yap ovo/j,d effTiv erepov virb rbv
ovpavbv Tb deSo/Afvov iv avdvpuirot.* ev
</ Set ffwOijvai r)fj.as.
Kal TT}v Kapdlav <rov -ijvoi^as Trpbs
TOV Kvpiov, TrtcTTewras ort 5t' ovdevbs
8vvr] ffuOrjvai. el /XTJ 5ta TOV fieydXov Kal
evo6!~ov 6v6/j,aTos.
The slightest comparison of these passages suffices to show that
the one is not dependent on the other. The Old Testament is
full of passages in which the name of the Lord is magnified as
the only source of safety and salvation. In the Pauline Epistles
likewise there are numerous passages of a similar tenour. For
instance, the passage from Joel ii. 32 is quoted Rom. x. 13 :
" For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be
saved " (Has yap os av eTTtKaAecrr^Tat TO 6'vo/xa Kvpiov o"a>$ryo~Ta<,). 1
There was, in fact, no formula more current either amongst the
Jews or in the early Church ; and there is no legitimate ground
for tracing such an expression to the Acts of the Apostles.
The only other passage which is quoted 2 as indicating acquain-
tance with Acts is the following, which we at once contrast with
the supposed parallel :
SlMIL. IX. 28.
But ye who suffer on account of
the name ought to praise God, that
God deemed ye worthy to bear his
name, and that all your sins may be
redeemed.
vfieis 5e ol TrdvxovTes evfKev TOV 6v6fJ.a-
ros do^dfciv 6<J>et\eTe TOV Oeov, Sn
d^iovs y/aas riy/i<raTO 6 Oebs 'iva TOVTOV
TO &VO/AO. /3a<TTdfr)T, /cat Tracrat u/xw at
ACTS v. 41.
So they departed rejoicing from the
presence of the council that they were
counted worthy to suffer shame for
the name.
fj,v
airb
ovv eiropeuovTo xap
wpofftbirov TOV ffvvedpLov, STI KO.TIJ^I
Orjffav vwfp TOV 6v6fiaTos em//.a<r#?7'cu.
Here again a formula is employed which is common throughout
the New Testament, and which, applied as it is here to those who
were persecuted, we have reason to believe was in general use in
the early Church. It is almost unnecessary to point out any
examples. Everywhere " the name " of God or of Jesus is the
1 The same passage is quoted, Acts ii. 21. Cf. Ephes. i. 20, 21 ; Philip.
ii. 9 f. ; i John v. 1 3 f.
2 Lardner, Works, ii. , p. 56. This is not advanced by Kirchhofer, nor does
Dr. Westcott refer to it. Even Hefele does not suggest a reference.
572 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
symbol used to represent the concrete idea, and in the heavenly
Jerusalem of the Apocalypse the servants of God and of the Lamb
are to have " his name " on their foreheads. The one expression,
however, which is peculiar in the passage: "counted worthy "-
in the Acts Ka-n^toJ^o-aj/, and in the Stiepherd aiovs -^y-ija-aTo
is a perfectly natural and simple one, the use of which cannot
be exclusively conceded to the Acts of the Apostles. It is found
frequently in the Pauline Epistles, as for instance in 2 Thes. i. 5,
where, after saying that they give thanks to God for them and
glory in the churches of God for the patience and faith with which
the Thessalonians endure persecutions, the writer continues :
"which is a token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may
be counted worthy (Kara^uaO^va.^ of the kingdom of God, for
which ye also suffer (irao-y^re) " ; and again, in the same chapter,
v. n, 12, "Wherefore we also pray always for you that our God
may count you worthy (a^iokn/) of the calling, and fulfil all good
pleasure of goodness and work of faith with power ; that the name
of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you (fvSogacrdfj TO ovofw. TOV
Kvpiov rf/jMv 'Irja-ov ev iy/Ii/)," etc. The passage we are
examining cannot be traced to the " Acts of the Apostles." It
must be obvious to all that the Shepherd of Hermas does not
present any evidence even of the existence of the Acts at the time
it was written.
Only two passages in the Epistles of Pseudo-Ignatius are pointed
out as indicating acquaintance with the Acts, and even these are
not advanced by many critics. We have already so fully discussed
these Epistles that no more need now be said. We must pro-
nounce them spurious in all their recensions, and incapable of
affording evidence upon any point earlier than towards the end of
the second century. We might, therefore, altogether refuse to
examine the passages ; but, in order to show the exact nature of
the case made out by apologists, we shall briefly refer to them.
We at once compare the first with its supposed parallel 1 :
EP. TO SMYRN. in. ACTS x. 41.
But after the resurrection he did : ...... even to us who did eat and drink
eat and drink with them, as in the
flesh, although spiritually united to the
Father.
Merck, S rriv dvdffTaffiv <rvvt<j>ayev
atrois
fattf&oi T< warpt.
with him after he rose from the dead.
r)/jitv arrives ffvv<f>dyofji.ev Kai
ffweirlofiev aiV< fj-era. rb a.va.ffTr)va.i
avrbv 4x veKwv
There is nothing in this passage which bears any peculiar
analogy to the Acts, for the statement is a simple reference to a
1 Dr. Westcott does not claim either this or the second (On the Canon, p. 48,
note 2), and Hefele merely suggests comparison with Acts (Pair. Af., p. 103,
p. 98).
THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES 573
tradition which is also embodied both in the third Synoptic 1 and
in the fourth Gospel ; 2 and the mere use of the common words
c^ayetv and Trtvetv could not prove anything. The passage
occurs in the Epistle immediately after a quotation, said by Jerome
to be taken from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, relating
an appearance of Jesus to " those who were with Peter," in which
Jesus is represented as making them handle him in order to con-
vince them that he is not an incorporeal spirit. 3 The quotation
bears considerable affinity to the narrative in the third Synoptic
(xxiv. 39), at the close of which Jesus is represented as eating
with the disciples. It is highly probable that the Gospel from
which the writer of the Epistle quoted contained the same detail,
to which this would naturally be a direct descriptive reference. In
any case, it affords no evidence of the existence of the Acts of the
Apostles.
The second passage, which is still more rarely advanced, is as
follows :
EP. TO PHILAD. n. ACTS xx. 29.
For many wolves (which appear) , I know that after my departing
worthy of belief, make captive by j grievous wolves will enter in among
evil pleasure the runners in the course j you, not sparing the flock. .
of God.
TroXXot yap \VKOL a^i6irLa'Toi rjdovrj j tyw oWa tin etcre\eijcrovrai pera rty
Ka/cfj a.lxfAaXtaTlfrovcni' TOVS deo8p6fj.ovs. &(f)i^lv fj.ov MKOL /3a/>ej et's v/xay, /U.TJ
i <f>eid6/J.evoi rov iroi/j,vlov.
The only point of coincidence between these two passages is the
use of the word " wolves." In the Epistle the expression is
TroAAot X.VKOI. d^LOTTKTToi, whilst in Acts it is X.VKOL (3apeis. Now,
the image is substantially found in the Sermon on the Mount, one
form of which is given in the first Synoptic, vii. 15, 16, and
which undeniably must have formed part of many of the Gospels
which are mentioned by the writer of the third Synoptic. We find
Justin Martyr twice quoting another form of the saying, " For
many (TroAAo!;) shall arrive in my name, outwardly, indeed, clothed
in sheep's skins, but inwardly being ravening wolves (X.VKOI
a/37rayes)." 4 The use of the .term as applied to men was certainly
common in the early Church. The idea expressed in the Epistle
is more closely found in 2 Timothy iii. i f., in the description of
those who are to come in the last days, and who will (v. 6) " creep
into the houses and make captive (ou'xptA.coTi'ovTes) silly women
laden with sins, led away with divers lusts." The passage cannot
be traced to the Acts, and the Ignatian Epistles, spurious though
they be, do not present any evidence of the existence of that
work.
1 Luke xxiv. 42 f. 2 John xxi. 12 f. 3 Quoted p. 173 f.
4 See discussion of the quotation, p. 228, note I, p. 238 f.
574
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
El'ISTLE I.
Whom God raised (ifyfipfv), having
loosed the pains of hell ($dov).
Only two sentences are pointed out in the Epistle of Polycarp
as denoting acquaintance with the Acts. The first and only
one of these on which much stress is laid is the following :
ACTS ii. 24.
Whom God raised up (dv^ffrijffev),
having loosed the pains of death
(6a.va.Tov).
It will be obvious to all that, along with much similarity, there
is likewise divergence between these sentences. In the first
phrase the use of r/yei/oev in the Epistle separates it from the
supposed parallel, in which the word is dwrr^o-ev. The passages
in the Pauline Epistles corresponding with it are numerous
(e.g., 2 Cor. iv. 14, Ephes. i. 20). The second member of the
sentence, which is of course the more "important, is in reality, we
contend, a reference to the very Psalm quoted in Acts immediately
after the verse before us, couched in not unusual phraseology.
Psalm xvi. 10 (Sept. xv.) reads : " For thou wilt not leave my soul
in hell " ($8?; v). 1 In Ps. xviii. 5 (Sept. xvii. 5) we have, "The
pains of hell (woTves u8ov) compassed me about." 2 The differ-
ence between the <5o7vas TO? $.8ov of the Epistle and the w&Ivas TOV
6a.va.Tov of the Acts is so distinct that, finding a closer parallel in
the Psalms to which reference is obviously made in both works, it is
quite impossible to trace the phrase necessarily to the Acts. Such
a passage cannot prove the use of that work, but, if it could, we
might inquire what evidence for the authorship and trustworthiness
of the Acts could be deduced from the circumstance ?3
The second passage, referred to by a few writers, is as
follows :
El'ISTLE VIII.
Let us therefore become imitators of
his patience, and if we suffer -for his
name, let us praise him.
atirou- K0.1 tai>
avrov,
dia
6vo/j.a
ACTS v. 41.
So they departed from the presence
of the Council, rejoicing that they were
counted worthy to suffer shame for the
name.
Ol fi^v ovv tiropevovTO xaipovTes airb
Trpocrwtrov TOV ffvvedpiov, fin KaTrj^iib-
ffrjirav virtp TOV 6v6fia.Tos cm/uacrtf^at.
It is not necessary to do more than contrast these passages to
show how little the Epistle, of Polycarp can witness for the
Acts of the Apostles. We have already examined another
supposed reference to this very passage, and the expressions in the
Epistle, whilst scarcely presenting a single point of linguistic
analogy to the sentence in the Acts, only tend to show how
1 Cod. E. reads $dov.
3 In the Sept. version of Job xxxix. 2 the expression w$ivas 5t ainuv
3 For the date and character of the Epistle see* discussion, p. 175 f.
JUSTIN MARTYR 575
common and natural such language was in the early Church in
connection with persecution. Whilst we constantly meet with the
thought expressed by the writer of the Epistle throughout the
writings of the New Testament, we may more particularly point
to the first Petrine epistle for further instances of this tone of
exhortation to those suffering persecution for the cause. For
instance, i Pet. ii. 19 f., and again iii. 14,' "But if ye even suffer
(TTdicrxoiTe) for righteousness' sake, blessed are ye." In the next
chapter the tone is still more closely analogous. Speaking of
persecutions, the writer says, iv. 13, " but according as ye
are partakers of Christ's sufferings rejoice," etc. 14. " If ye are
reproached in Christ's name (ev oVopxri X.), blessed are ye, for the
spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you." 15. " For let none
of you suffer (Traa-^eroi] as a murderer," etc. 16. "But if as a
Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him praise God in this
name (So^a^eroj Se TOV $eov ev TU> dvojuan TOI>T<JJ)," etc. Nothing
but evidential destitution could rely upon the expression in the
Epistle of Poly carp to show acquaintance with Acts.
Few Apologists point out with confidence any passages
from the voluminous writings of Justin Martyr, as indicating
the use of the Acts of the Apostles. We may, however,
quote such expressions as are advanced. The first of these
is the following : " For the Jews, having the prophecies and
ever expecting the Christ to come, knew him not (rjjvorjcrav) ;
and not only so, but they also maltreated him. But the Gentiles,
who had never heard anything regarding the Christ until his
Apostles, having gone forth from Jerusalem, declared the things
concerning him, and delivered the prophecies, having been filled
with joy and faith, renounced their idols and dedicated themselves
to the unbegotten God through the Christ." 2 This is compared
with Acts xiii. 27, " For they that dwell at Jerusalem and their
rulers not knowing this (man) (TOVTOV ayvo?yo-avTes), nor yet
the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day,
fulfilled them by their judgment of him," etc. 48. " But the
Gentiles, hearing, rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord,"
etc. We may at once proceed to give the next passage. In the
Dialogue ivith Trypho, Justin has by quotations from the prophets
endeavoured to show that the sufferings of Christ and also the
glory of his second advent had been foretold, and Trypho replies :
" Supposing these things to have been as thou sayest, and that it
was foretold that Christ was to suffer (on Tra^rbs X/owrrb? Trpoe-
(frrjTevOri ^eAAeiv ttvat), and has been called a Stone, and after
his first coming, in which it had been announced that he was to
1 Ver. 13, according to some MSS. , reads : "And who is he that will harm
you, if ye become imitators (/cu/uT/rai) of the good T
2 Apol., i. 49.
576 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
suffer, should come in glory, and become judge of all, and eternal
king and priest," etc.;' and in another place : " For if it had been
obscurely declared by the prophets that the Christ should suffer
(TraBr/Tos yev^o-o/xevos 6 Xpwrros ) and after these things be
lord of all," etc. 2 This is compared with Acts xxvi. 22, "
saying nothing except those things which the prophets and Moses
said were to come to pass, (23) whether the Christ should suffer
(et wadrjTbs 6 X/owrros), whether, the first out of the resurrec-
tion from the dead, he is about to proclaim light unto the people
and to the Gentiles." It is only necessary to quote these passages
to show how unreasonable it is to maintain that they show the use
of the Acts by Justin. He simply sets forth from the prophets,
direct, the doctrines which formed the great text of the early
Church. Some of the warmest supporters of the Canon admit the
" uncertainty " of such coincidences, and do not think it worth
while to advance them. There are one or two still more distant
analogies sometimes pointed out which do not require more parti-
cular notice. 3 There is no evidence whatever that Justin was
acquainted with the Acts of the Apostles. 4
Some writers claim Hegesippus as evidence for the existence of
the Acts, on the strength of the following passages in the fragment
of his book preserved by Eusebius. He puts into the mouth of
James the Just, whilst being martyred, the expression: " I beseech
(thee) Lord God, Father, forgive them, for they know not what
they do." This is compared with the words said to have been
uttered by the martyr Stephen, Acts vii. 60, " Lord, lay not this
sin to their charge." The passage is more commonly advanced as
showing acquaintance with Luke xxiii. 34, and we have already
discussed it.s Lardner apparently desires it to do double duty,
but it is scarcely worth while seriously to refer to the claim here.
The passage more generally relied upon, though that also is
only advanced by a few, 6 is the following, "This man was a faithful
1 Dial. 36. " Dial. 76.
3 Apol., i. 50, cf. Acts i. 8 f.; Apol., \. 40, cf. Acts iv. 27 ; Apol., ii. 10, cf.
Acts xvii. 23 ; Dial. 8, cf. Acts xxvi. 29 ; Dial. 20, cf. Acts x. 14 ; Dial. 68,
cf. Acts ii. 30.
4 Credner, Einl. N. T., i. I, p. 274; Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doct.,
ii. , p. 329 ; Eichhorn, Einl. N. T., ii., p. 75 ; Meyer, Apostefgesch., p. i f. ;
Zeller, Apostelgesch., p. 49 f. Dean Alford says : " Nor are there any refer-
ences in Justin Martyr, which, fairly considered, belong to this book" (Greek
Test., 1871, Proleg.,\i., p. 20). Dr. Westcott says : "The references to the
Acts are uncertain " ; and he merely illustrates this by referring to the
first of the passages discussed in the text (On the Canon, 1875, p. 168,
note 3). 5 P. 273 f.
6 Lardner, Credibility, Works, ii. 142; Westcott, On the Canon, 4th ed.,
p. 205. Dr. Westcott, however, merely says : "There are forms of expression
corresponding to passages in and in the Ac^ which can scarcely be attributed
to chance."
JUSTIN MARTYR 577
witness both to Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ "'
OVTOS aXij&rjS TovSouois re xut "EXA^cri yeytvijrai, on
o Xpto-ros etmv}. This is compared with Acts xx.
21, where Paul is represented as saying of himself, " testi-
fying fully both to Jews and Greeks repentance toward God, and
faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ " (Ata/jwx^rvpojaeKos 'lou&uots
re KUI "EA.A.?jcru' -n/y eis Oeov [terfwouw, KO.I ITUTTIV eis TOV
Kvpiov fiiJMv' I. X.). The two passages are totally different
both in sense and language, and that the use of Acts is
deduced from so distant an analogy only serves to show the
slightness of the evidence with which Apologists have to be
content.
Papias need not long detain us, for it is freely admitted by
most divines that he does not afford evidence of any value that
he was acquainted with the Acts. For the sake of completeness
we may, however, refer to the points which are sometimes
mentioned. A fragment of the work of Papias is preserved
giving an account of the death of Judas, which differs materially
both from the account in the first Synoptic and in Acts i. 18 f. 2
Judas is represented as having gone about the world a great
example of impiety, for, his body having swollen so much that he
could not pass where a waggon easily passed, he was crushed by
the waggon so that his entrails emptied out (wore TO, ey/cara avrov
eKKevwQ-ijvai). Apollinaris of Laodicsea quotes this passage to
show that Judas did not die when he hung himself, but subse-
quently met with another fate, in this way reconciling the state-
ments in the Gospel and Acts. 3 He does not say that Papias
used the story for this purpose, and it is fundamentally con-
tradictory to the account in Acts i. 18, 19: "Now this man
purchased a field with the reward of the unrighteousness, and
falling headlong burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels
gushed OUt " (/cat e^e^vdy] iravra. TO. (nrXdy^va auTOi>). It is
scarcely necessary to argue that the passage does not indicate any
acquaintance with Acts, 4 as some few critics are inclined to assert. 5
1 Eusebius, H. E., ii. 23. 2 P. 296 f. 3 R O uth, Reliq. Sacr., i., p. 25 f.
4 Overbeck, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1867, p. 39 f. Cf. Steitz, Th. Stud. u.
Krit., 1868, p. 87 f. ; Meyer, Die Apostelgesch., p. 2, anm.* * Dr. Westcott
says : " In his account of the fate of Judas Iscariot there is a remarkable
divergence from the narrative in Matt, xxvii. 5 and Acts i. 18" (On the
Canon, 4th ed. , p. 77, n. i).
s Zahn, Th. Stud. u. Krit., 1866, p. 680 f. Dr. Lightfoot says: "But
there are indications, however indecisive, that Papias did use the writings of
St. Luke." And further on, after quoting the passage about Judas, and
mentioning the view of Apollinaris that it reconciles the accounts in the first
Gospel and in the Acts, he continues : " It is too much to assume that Papias
himself repeated the tradition with this aim, but the resemblance to the
account in the Acts is worthy of notice "( Contemporary Rev. , August, 1876,
P- 4I5)-
2P
578 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
The next analogy pointed out is derived from the statement of
Eusebius that Papias mentions a wonderful story which he had
heard from the daughters of Philip (whom Eusebius calls "the
Apostle ") regarding a dead man raised to life. 1 In Acts xxi. 8, 9,
it is stated that Philip the evangelist had four daughters. It is
hardly conceivable that this should be advanced as an indication
that Papias knew the Acts. The last point is that Eusebius says :
" And again (he narrates) another marvel regarding Justus who
was surnamed Barsabas ; how he drank a baneful poison and by
the grace of the Lord sustained no harm. But that this Justus,
after the Ascension of the Saviour, the holy apostles appointed
with Matthias, and that they prayed (on the occasion) of the
filling up of their number by lot instead of the traitor Judas, the
scripture of the Acts thus relates : 'And they appointed two,
Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
And they prayed and said,' etc." 2 Whatever argument can be
deduced from this obviously rests entirely upon the fact that
Papias is said to have referred to Justus who was named Barsabas,
for of course the last sentence is added by Eusebius himself, and
has nothing to do with Papias. This is fairly admitted by Lardner
and others. Lardner says : " Papias does undoubtedly give some
confirmation to the history of the Acts of the Apostles, in what
he says of Philip ; and especially in what he says of Justus, called
Barsabas. But I think it cannot be affirmed that he did particu-
larly mention, or refer to, the book of the Acts. For I reckon
it is Eusebius himself who adds that quotation out of the Acts,
upon occasion of what Papias had written of the before-mentioned
Barsabas." 3 There is no evidence worthy of attention that Papias
was acquainted with the Acts.
No one seriously pretends that the Clementine Homilies afford
any evidence of the use or existence of the Acts ; and few, if any,
claim the Epistle to Diognetus as testimony for it. 4 We may,
however, quote the only passage which is pointed out : " these
who hold the view that they present them (offerings) to God as
1 H. E., iii. 39. 2 H. ., iii. 39.
3 Credibility, etc., Works, ii., p. 133. Kirchhofer makes a similar state-
ment, Quellens., p. 163, anm. i. Dr. Lightfoot says: "Other points of
affinity to the Acts are his mention of Justus Barsabas, and his relations
with the daughters of Philip" (Contemp. Rev., August, 1876, p. 415). Such
"indications" he may indeed well characterise as "indecisive." Dr.
Westcott says : ' ' Dr. Lightfoot notices some slight indications of Papias'
use of the writings of St. Luke (in the article quoted above), but I do not
think that much stress can be laid on them" (On the Canon, 4th ed. , p. 77,
note i).
4 Dr. Westcott merely speaks of " coincidences of language more or less
evident with the Acts," etc., referring to c. iii. (Acts xvii. 24, 25) as "worthy
of remark" (Canon, p. 91); but he does not include it in the Synopsis of
Historical Evidence, p. 584.
BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS : TATIAN 579
needing them might more rightly esteem it foolishness and not
worship of God. For he who made the heaven and the earth, and
all things in them, and who supplies to us all whatever we need,
can himself be in need of none of those things which he himself
presents to those who imagine that they give (to him)." 1 This is
compared with Acts xvii. 24 : "The God that made the world
and all things in it, he being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth
not in temples made with hands ; (25) neither is served by men's
hand as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to
all life and breath and all things." There is nothing here but a
coincidence of sense, though with much variation between the two
passages ; but the Epistle argues from a different context, and this
illustration is obvious enough to be common to any moralist.
There is not a single reason which points to the Acts as the source
of the writer's argument.
^Basilides and Valentinus are not claimed at all by Apologists as
witnesses for the existence of the Acts of the Apostles, nor is
Marcion, whose canon, however, of which it formed no part, is
rather adverse to the work than merely negative. Tertullian
taunts Marcion for receiving Paul as an apostle, although his name
is not mentioned in the Gospel, and yet not receiving the Acts of
the Apostles in which alone his history is narrated ; 2 but it does
not in the least degree follow from this that Marcion knew the
work and deliberately rejected it.
A passage of Tatian's Oration to the Greeks is pointed out by
some 3 as showing his acquaintance with the Acts. It is as follows :
" I am not willing to worship the creation made by him for us.
Sun and moon are made for us ; how, therefore, shall I worship
my own servants ? How can I declare stocks and stones to be
gods? But neither should the unnameable (avtovo/Macrrov)
God be presented with bribes ; for he who is without need of any-
thing (TTO.VTMV ctvevSer}?) must not be calumniated by us as
needy (evSe?^)." 4 This is compared with Acts xvii. 24, 25,
quoted above, and it only serves to show how common such
language was. Lardner himself says of the passage : " This is
much the same thought, and applied to the same purpose, with
Paul's, Acts xvii. 25, as though he needeth anything. But it is a
character of the Deity so obvious that I think it cannot determine
us to suppose he had an eye to those words of the Apostle." 5 The
language, indeed, is quite different, and shows no acquaintance
with the Acts. Eusebius states that the Severians who more fully
1 Rp. ad Diognetum, c. iii. 2 Adv. Marc., \. I f.
3 Kirchhofer, Quellem., p. 166 ; Lardner mentions, merely to disclaim,
it. Credibility, etc. , Works, ii. , p. 1 39 f. Dr. Westcott does not advance
it at all.
4 Orat. ad Graecos, c. iv. 5 Credibility, etc., Works, ii., p. 139 f.
580 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
established Tatian's heresy rejected both the Epistles of Paul and
the Acts of the Apostles. 1
Dionysius of Corinth is rarely adduced by anyone as testimony
for the Acts. The only ground upon which he is at all referred to
is a statement of Eusebius in mentioning his Epistles. Speaking
of his Epistle to the Athenians, Eusebius says : " He relates,
moreover, that Dionysius the Areopagite who was converted to
the faith by Paul the Apostle, according to the account given in
the Acts, was appointed the first bishop of the Church of the
Athenians." 2 Even Apologists admit that it is doubtful how far
Dionysius referred to the Acts, 3 the mention of the book here
being most obviously made by Eusebius himself.
Melito of Sardis is not appealed to by any writer in connection
with our work, nor can Claudius Apollinaris be pressed into this
service. Athenagoras is supposed by some to refer to the very
same passage in Acts xvii. 24, 25, which we have discussed when
dealing with the work of Tatian. Athenagoras says : " The
Creator and Father of the universe is not in need of blood, nor of
the steam of burnt sacrifices, nor of the fragrance of flowers and
of incense, he himself being the perfect fragrance, inwardly and
outwardly without need." 4 And further on : " And you kings
indeed build palaces for yourselves ; but the world is not made as
being needed by God." 5 These passages occur in the course of a
defence of Christians for not offering sacrifices, and both in
language and context they are quite independent of the Acts of
the Apostles.
In the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, giving an
account of the persecution against them, it is said that the victims
were praying for those from whom they suffered cruelties : " like
Stephen the perfect martyr : ' Lord, lay not this sin to their
charge.' But if he was supplicating for those who stoned him,
how much more for the brethren ?" 6 The prayer here quoted
agrees with that ascribed to Stephen in Acts vii. 60. There is no
mention of the Acts of the Apostles in the Epistle, and the
source from which the writers obtained their information about
Stephen is of course not stated. If there really was a martyr of
the name of Stephen, and if these words were actually spoken by
him, the tradition of the fact, and the memory of his noble saying,
may well have remained in the Church, or have been recorded in
writings then current ; from one of which, indeed, eminent critics
1 Eusebius, H. ., iv. 29. 2 Ib., iv. 23.
3 Lardner, Credibility, etc. , Works, ii. , p. 1 34 ; Kirchhofer, Quellens. ,
p. 163. Dr. Westcott naturally does not refer to the passage at all.
4 Leg. pro Christ. , xiii. s /. } X vi.
6 Eusebius, H. ., v. 2. ,
THE CANON OF MURATORI 581
conjecture that the author of Acts derived his materials, 1 and in
this case the passage obviously does not prove the use of the Acts.
If, on the other hand, there never was such a martyr by whom
these words were spoken, and the whole story must be considered
an original invention by the author of Acts, then in that case, and
in that case only, the passage does show the use of the Acts. 2
Supposing that the use of Acts be held to be thus indicated,
what does this prove ? Merely that the Acts of the Apostles were
in existence in the year 177-178, when the Epistle of Vienne and
Lyons was written. No light whatever would thus be thrown
upon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility
nor its sufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would
be in the slightest degree established.
Ptolemaeus and Heracleon need not detain us, as it is not alleged
that they show acquaintance with the Acts, nor is Celsus claimed
as testimony for the book.
The Canon of Muratori contains a very corrupt paragraph
regarding the Acts of the Apostles. We have already discussed
the date and character of this fragment, 3 and need not further
speak of it here. The sentence in which we are now interested
reads in the original as follows :
" 'Ada autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libra scribta sunt lucas
obtime theofile conprindit quia sub pr&sentia eius singula gerebantur
sicute et semote passionem petri euidenter declarat sed et profectionem
pauli ab urbes ad spania proficescentis."
It is probable that in addition to its corruption some words may
have been lost from the concluding phrase of this passage, but the
following may perhaps sufficiently represent its general sense :
" But the Acts of all the Apostles were written in one book. Luke
included (in his work) to the excellent Theophilus only the things
which occurred in his own presence, as he evidently shows by
omitting the martyrdom of Peter and also the setting forth of Paul
from the city to Spain."
Whilst this passage may prove the existence of the Acts about
the end of the second century, and that the authorship of the work
1 Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 341 f., p. 347 f. ; Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Isr., vi.,
1858, p. 37, p. 191 f. ; Gfrorer, Die heil. Sage, 1838, i., p. 404, p. 409 f. ;
Meyer, Aposlelge sch. , p. 12 ; Neander, Pftanzung. u. s. w. chr. Kirche, $te Attfl.,
p. 65, anm. 2 ; Schwanbeck, Quellen d. Schr. des Lukas, 1847, i., p. 250 f. ;
De Wette, Einl. N. T. , p. 249 f. , etc.
2 Dr. Lightfoot, speaking of the passage we are discussing, says : "Will he
(author of .V. A'.) boldly maintain that the writers had before them another Acts
containing words identical with our Acts, just as he supposes, etc Or will
he allow this account to have been taken from Acts vii. 60, with which it
coincides?" (Contemp. Review, August, 1876, p. 410). The question is here
answered.
3 P. 427 f.
582 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
was ascribed to Luke, it has no further value. No weight can be
attached to the statement of the unknown writer beyond that of
merely testifying to the currency of such a tradition, and even the
few words quoted show how uncritical he was. Nothing could be
less appropriate to the work before us than the assertion that it
contains the Acts of all the Apostles ; for it must be apparent to
all, and we shall hereafter have to refer to the point, that it very
singularly omits all record of the acts of most of the Apostles,
occupies itself chiefly with those of Peter and Paul, and devotes
considerable attention to Stephen and to others who were not
Apostles at all. We shall further have occasion to show that the
writer does anything but confine himself to the events of which
he was an eye-witness, and we may merely remark in passing, as a
matter which scarcely concerns us here, that the instances given
by the unknown writer of the fragment to support his assertion
are not only irrelevant, but singularly devoid themselves of
historical attestation.
Irenaeus 1 assigns the Acts of the Apostles to Luke, as do
Clement of Alexandria, 2 Tertullian, 3 and Origen, 4 although without
any statements giving special weight to their mention of him as
the author in any way counterbalancing the late date of their
testimony. Beyond showing that tradition, at the end of the
second century and beginning of the third, associated the name of
Luke with this writing and the third Gospel, the evidence of these
Fathers is of no value to us. We have already incidentally men-
tioned that some heretics either ignored or rejected the book, and
to the Marcionites and Severians we may now add the Ebionites 5
and Manichaeans. 6 Chrysostom complains that in his day the
Acts of the Apostles were so neglected that many were ignorant
of the existence of the book and of its authors.? Doubts as to
its authorship were expressed in the ninth century, for Photius
states that some ascribed the work to Clement of Rome, others to
Barnabas, and others to Luke the Evangelist. 8
If we turn to the document itself, we find that it professes to
be the second portion of a work written for the information of an
unknown person named Theophilus, the first part being the
Gospel, which, in our canonical New Testament, bears the name
of " Gospel according to Luke." The narrative is a continuation
1 Adv. Har., iii. 14, 1,2; 15, i, etc.
2 Slrom., v. 12 ; Adiimbr. in t Petr. Ep. 3 De Jejunio, x.
4 Contra Cels., vi. 12. 5 Epiphanius, Ifter., xxx. 16.
6 August., Epist. 237 ; ed. Betted., ii., p. 644 ; De Util. Cred., ii. 7, T. viii.,
p. 36; cf. Beausobre, Hist, de Manichee, i , p. 293 f..
i Horn. i. in Act. Apost.
8 Tbv 5 <rvyypa.<f>;0. TLJV w/>dew ol n*v KXijuejTa \tyovji rbv 'Pw/XTjs, &\\oi
8 Bapvdfiav, KO.I &\\oi A.OVKO.V rbv euayyeXiTT/iv. Photius, Amphiloch.
H5-
CONCLUSION FROM EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 583
of the third Synoptic, but the actual title of "Acts of the
Apostles," or " Acts of Apostles " (irpa.^^ TWV aTroo-roAwv,
7rpaets aTrcxrroAcov), 1 attached to this (5euT/3os Xoyos is a later
addition, and formed no part of the original document. The
author's name is not given in any of the earlier MSS., and the
work is entirely anonymous. That in the prologue to the Acts
the writer clearly assumes to be the author of the Gospel does not
in any way identify him, inasmuch as the third Synoptic itself
is anonymous. The tradition assigning both works to Luke,
the follower of Paul, as we have seen, is first met with towards
the end of the second century, and very little weight can be
attached to it. There are too many instances of early writings,
several of which indeed have secured a place in our canon, to
which distinguished names have been erroneously ascribed. Such
tradition is notoriously liable to error.
We shall presently return to the question of the authorship of
the third Synoptic and Acts of the Apostles, but at present we
may so far anticipate as to say that there are good reasons for
affirming that they could not have been written by Luke, the
follower of Paul.
Confining ourselves here to the actual evidence before us, we
arrive at a clear and unavoidable conclusion regarding the Acts of
the Apostles. After examining all the early Christian literature,
and taking every passage which is referred to as indicating the use
of the book, we see that there is no certain trace even of its exist-
ence till towards the end of the second century ; and, whilst the
writing itself is anonymous, we find no authority but late tradition
assigning it to Luke or to any other author. We are without
evidence of any value as to its accuracy or trustworthiness,
and, as we shall presently see, the epistles of Paul, so far from
accrediting it, tend to cast the most serious doubt upon its whole
character. This evidence we have yet to examine, when consider-
ing the contents of the Acts, and we base our present remarks
solely on the external testimony for the date and authorship of the
book. The position, therefore, is simply this : We are asked to
believe in the reality of a great number of miraculous and super-
natural occurrences which, obviously, are antecedently incredible,
upon the assurance of an anonymous work of whose existence
there is no distinct evidence till more than a century after the
events narrated, and to which an author's name against which
there are strong objections is first ascribed by tradition towards
the end of the second century. Of the writer to whom the work
is thus attributed we know nothing beyond the casual mention of
1 The Cod. Sin. reads simply TTjodfeis. Cod. D. (Bezce) has irpi^ a
(Acting of Apostles).
584 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
his name in some Pauline Epistles. If it were admitted that this
Luke did actually write the book, we should not be justified in
believing the reality of such stupendous miracles upon his bare
statement. As the case stands, however, even taken in its most
favourable aspect, the question scarcely demands serious attention,
and our discussion might at once be ended by the unhesitating
rejection of the Acts of the Apostles as sufficient, or even
plausible, evidence for the miracles which it narrates.
CHAPTER II.
EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AUTHORSHIP
IF we proceed further to discuss the document before us, it is
from no doubt as to the certainty of the conclusion at which we
have now arrived, but from the belief that closer examination of
the contents of the Acts may enable us to test this result, and
more fully understand the nature of the work and the character
of its evidence. Not only will it be instructive to consider a little
closely the contents of the Acts, and to endeavour from the details
of the narrative itself to form a judgment regarding its historical
value, but we have, in addition, external testimony of very material
importance which we may bring to bear upon it. We happily
possess some undoubted Epistles which afford us no little
information concerning the history, character, and teaching of the
Apostle Paul, and we are thus enabled to compare the statements
in the work before us with contemporary evidence of great value.
It is unnecessary to say that, wherever the statements of the
unknown author of the Acts are at variance with these Epistles,
we must prefer the statements of the Apostle. The importance to
our inquiry of such further examination as we now propose to
undertake consists chiefly in the light which it may throw on the
credibility of the work. If it be found that such portions as we
are able to investigate are inaccurate and untrustworthy, it will
become still more apparent that the evidence of such a document
for miracles cannot even be entertained. It may be well also
to discuss more fully the authorship of the Acts, and to this we
shall first address ourselves.
It must, however, be borne in mind that it js quite foreign to
our purpose to enter into any exhaustive discussion of the literary
problem presented by the Acts of the Apostles. We shall confine
ourselves to such points as seem sufficient, or best fitted, to test
the character of the composition ; and we shall not hesitate to pass
without attention questions of mere literary interest, and strictly
limit our examination to these more prominent features.
It is generally admitted, although not altogether without
exception, that the author of our third synoptic Gospel likewise
composed the Acts of the Apostles. The linguistic and other
peculiarities which distinguish the Gospel are equally prominent in
the Acts. This fact, whilst apparently offering greatly increased
585
586 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
facilities for identifying the author, and actually affording valuable
material for estimating his work, does not, as we have already
remarked, really do much towards solving the problem of the
authorship, inasmuch as the Gospel, like its continuation, is
anonymous, and we possess no more precise or direct evidence in
connection with the one than in the case of the other. We have
already so fully examined the testimony for the third Gospel that
it is unnecessary for us to recur to it. From about the end of the
second century we find the Gospel and Acts of the Apostles
ascribed by ecclesiastical writers to Luke, the companion of the
Apostle Paul. The fallibility of tradition, and the singular phase
of literary morality exhibited during the early ages of Christianity,
render such testimony of little or no value, and in the almost
total absence of the critical faculty a rank crop of pseudonym ic
writings sprang up and flourished during that period. Some of
the earlier chapters of this work have given abundant illustra-
tions of this fact. It is certain, with regard to the works we
are considering, that Irenaeus is the earliest writer known who
ascribes them to Luke, and that even tradition, therefore, cannot
be traced beyond the last quarter of the second century. The
question is : Does internal evidence confirm or contradict this
tradition ?
Luke, the traditional author, is not mentioned by name in the
Acts of the Apostles. In the Epistle to Philemon his name
occurs, with those of others, who send greeting, verse 23 : " There
salute thee, Epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus ; 24.
Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow-labourers." In the
Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 14, mention is also made of him :
" Luke, the beloved physician, salutes you, and Demas." And,
again, in the 2 Epistle to Timothy, iv. 10 : " For Demas forsook
me, having loved this present world, and departed into Thessa-
lonica, Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia : 1 1 . Only Luke
is with me."
He is not mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament / and
his name is not again met with till Irenseus ascribes to him the
authorship of the Gospel and Acts. There is nothing in these
Pauline Epistles confirming the statement of the Fathers, but it is
highly probable that these references to him largely contributed to
suggest his name as the author of the Acts, its very omission from
the work itself protecting him from objections connected with the
passages in the first person to which other followers of Paul
were exposed. Irenaeus evidently knew nothing about him, except
what he learnt from these Epistles, and derives from his theory
1 It is now universally admitted that the " Lucius " referred to in Acts xiii. i
and Rom. xvi. 21 is a different person; although their identity was suggested
by Origen and the Alexandrian Clement.
EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AUTHORSHIP 587
that Luke wrote the Acts, and speaks as an eye-witness in the
passages where the first person is used. From these he argues
that Luke was inseparable from Paul, and was his fellow-worker in
the Gospel ; and he refers, in proof of this, to Acts xvi. 8 f., 1 13 f.,
xx. 5 f., and the later chapters, all the details of which he supposes
Luke to have carefully written down. He then continues : " But
that he was not only a follower, but likewise a fellow-worker of the
Apostles, but particularly of Paul, Paul himself has also clearly
shown in the Epistles, saying ...... "; and he quotes 2 Tim. iv. 10,
n, ending, "Only Luke is with me," and then adds, "whence
he shows that he was always with him and inseparable from him,"
etc. 2 The reasoning of the zealous Father deduces a great deal
from very little, it will be observed, and in this elastic way tradition
"enlarged its borders" and assumed unsubstantial dimensions.
Later writers have no more intimate knowledge of Luke, although
Eusebius states that he was born at Antioch,3 a tradition likewise
reproduced by Jerome. 4 Jerome further identifies Luke with
"the brother, whose praise in the Gospel is throughout all the
churches," mentioned in 2 Cor. viii. 18, as accompanying Titus to
Corinth. 5 At a later period, when the Church required an early
artist for its service, Luke the physician was honoured with the
additional title of painter. 6 Epiphanius, 7 followed later by some
other writers, represented him to have been one of the seventy-
1 The words " they came down to Troas " (Karffi-qa-av ei's TpwdSa) are here
translated " we came to Troas " (nos venimus in Troadeni).
- " Quoniam non solum prosecutor, sed et cooperarius fuerit apostolorum,
maxime autem Fault, et ipse autem Paulus manifestavit in epistolis, dicens :
' Deinas me dereliquit, et abiit Thessalonicam, Crescens in Galatiam, Titus in
Dalmatiam. Lucas est mecum solus? Unde ostendit, quod semper jututus ei
et inseparabilis fuerit ab eo" (Adv. Hcer., iii. 14, i).
3 H. E., iii. 4. 4 De vir. ill., 7.
5 This view was held by Origen, Ambrose, and others of the Fathers,
who, moreover, suppose Paul to refer to the work of Luke when he speaks of
"his Gospel" (also cf. Eusebius, H. E., iii. 4), an opinion exploded by
Grotius. Grotius and Olshausen both identify "the brother" with Luke.
Many of the Fathers and later writers have variously conjectured him to have
been Barnabas, Silas, Mark, Trophimus, Gaius, and others. This is mere
guess-work ; but Luke is scarcely seriously advanced in later times. Dr.
Wordsworth, however, not only does so, but maintains that Paul quotes Luke's
Gospel in his Epistles, in one place (i Tim. v. 18) designating it as Scripture
(Greek Test., Four Gospels, p. 163, p. 170).
6 Nicephorus, H. E., ii. 43. Dr. Wordsworth, who speaks of " this divine
book," the Acts of the Apostles, with great euthusiasm, says in one place :
" The Acts of the Apostles is a portraiture of the Church ; it is an Historical
Picture delineated by the Holy Ghost guiding the hand of the Evangelical
Painter St. Luke" (Greek Test., Int. to Acts, 1874, p. 4).
7 ffcer. li. ii ; Theophylact (ad Luc. xxiv. 1 8) suggests the view considered
probable by Lange (Leben Jesu, i., p. 252) that Luke was one of the two
disciples of the journey to Emmaus. This is the way in which tradition
works.
588 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
two disciples, whose mission he alone of all New Testament
writers mentions. The view of the Fathers, arising out of the
application of their tradition to the features presented by the
Gospel and Acts, was that Luke composed his Gospel, of the
events of which he was not an eye-witness, from information
derived from others, and his Acts of the Apostles from what he
himself, at least in the parts in which the first person is employed,
had witnessed. 1 It is generally supposed that Luke was not born
a Jew, but was a Gentile Christian.
Some writers endeavour to find a confirmation of the tradition,
that the Gospel and Acts were written by Luke " the beloved
physician," by the supposed use of peculiarly technical medical
terms ; but very little weight is attached by any one to this feeble
evidence, which is repudiated by most serious critics, and it need
not detain us.
As there is no indication, either in the Gospel or the Acts, of
the author's identity proceeding from himself and tradition does
not offer any alternative security what testimony can be produced
in support of the ascription of these writings to "Luke"? To
this question Ewald shall reply. " In fact," he says, " we possess
only one ground for it, but this is fully sufficient. It lies in the
designation of the third Gospel as that ' according to Luke '
which is found in all MSS. of the four Gospels. For the quota-
tions of this particular Gospel under the distinct name of Luke in
the extant writings of the Fathers begin so late that they cannot
be compared in antiquity with that superscription ; and those
known to us may probably themselves only go back to this super-
scription. We thus depend almost alone on this superscription." 2
Ewald generally does consider his own arbitrary conjectures "fully
sufficient," but it is doubtful whether in this case any one who
examines this evidence will agree with him. He himself goes on
to admit, with all other" critics, that the superscriptions to our
Gospels do not proceed from the authors themselves, but were
added by those who collected them, or by later readers to distin-
guish them. There was no author's name attached to Marcion's
Gospel, as we learn from Tertullian.3 Chrysostom very distinctly
asserts that the Evangelists did not inscribe their names at the
head of their works,** and he recognises that, but for the authority
of the primitive Church which added those names, the superscrip-
tions could not have proved the authorship of the Gospels. He
conjectures that the sole superscription which may have been placed
' Cf. Eusebius, //. E. , iii. 4; Hieron., de vir. ill. 7. We need not discuss
the views which attributes to Luke the translation or authorship of the Ep. to the
Hebrews.
a Ewald, fahrb. bibl. IViss., 1857, 1858, ix,, p. 55.
3 Adv. Marc., iv. 2. 4 Hoin. . in. Epist. ad. Rom.
EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AUTHORSHIP 589
by the author of the first Synoptic was simply euayyeAiov. 1 It
might be argued, and indeed has been, that the inscription Kara
A.OVKOLV, " according to Luke," instead of tuayyeAtov Aovxa,
" Gospel of Luke," does not actually indicate that " Luke " wrote
the work, any more than the superscription to the Gospels,
" according to the Hebrews " (KO.O' 'E/J/xxious), " according to
the Egyptians" (/car 3 AtyuTTTtovs), has reference to authorship.
The Epistles, on the contrary, are directly connected with their
writers, in the genitive, IlavXov, Herpov, and so on. This point,
however, we merely mention en passant. By his own admission,
therefore, the superscription is simply tradition in another form ;
but, instead of carrying us further back, the superscription on the
most ancient extant MSS., as for instance the Sinaitic and Vatican
Codices of the Gospels, does not on the most sanguine estimate of
their age date earlier than the fourth century. As for the Acts of
the Apostles, the book is not ascribed to Luke in a single uncial
MS., and it only begins to appear in various forms in later codices.
The variation in the titles of the Gospels and Acts in different
MSS. alone shows the uncertainty of the superscription. It is clear
that the " one ground " upon which Ewald admits that the
evidence for Luke's authorship is based is nothing but sand, and
cannot support his tower. He is on the slightest consideration
thrown back upon the quotations of the Fathers, which begin too
late for the purpose ; and it must be acknowledged that the ascrip-
tion of the third Gospel and Acts to Luke rests solely upon late
and unsupported tradition.
Let it be remembered that, with the exception of the three
passages in the Pauline Epistles quoted above, we know absolutely
nothing about Luke. As we have mentioned, it has even been
doubted whether the designation, " the beloved physician," in the
Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 14, does not distinguish a different
Luke from the person of that name in the Epistles to Philemon
and Timothy. If this were the case, our information would be
further reduced ; but supposing that the same Luke is referred to,
what does our information amount to? Nothing but the
fact that a person named Luke was represented by the writer
of these letters, 2 whoever he was, to have been with Paul in Rome,
and that he was known to the Church of Colossae. There is no
evidence that this Luke had been a travelling companion of
1 Horn. i. in Matt. Grotius considers that the ancient heading was euayyeXiov
'ITJCTOU KptffTov, as in some MSS. of our second Synoptic (Annot. in JV. T.,
i., p. 7)- So also Bertholdt, Einl., iii., p. 1095, and others.
2 We cannot discuss the authenticity of these Epistles in this place, nor
is it very important that we should do so. Neither can we pause to consider
whether they were written in Rome, as a majority of critics think, or else-
where.
590 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Paul, or that he ever wrote a line concerning him or had com-
posed a Gospel. He is not mentioned in Epistles written
during this journey, and the rarity and meagreness of the refer-
ences to him would much rather indicate that he had not taken
any distinguished part in the proclamation of the Gospel. If
Luke be 6 tarpon 6 aya.7r?/Tos, and be numbered amongst the
Apostle's a-vvepyoi, Tychicus is equally " the beloved brother and
faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord." 1 Onesimus the
" faithful and beloved brother," 2 and Aristarchus, Mark the cousin
of Barnabas, Justus and others, are likewise his a-wepyoi.3 There
is no evidence, in fact, that Paul was acquainted with Luke earlier
than during his imprisonment in Rome, and he seems markedly
excluded from the Apostle's work and company by such passages
as 2 Cor. i. 19. The simple theory that Luke wrote the Acts
supplies all the rest of the tradition of the Fathers, as we have seen
in the case of Irenaeus, and to this mere tradition we are confined
in the total absence of more ancient testimony.
The traditional view, which long continued to prevail undisturbed,
and has been widely held up to our own day, represents Luke as
the author of the Acts, and, in the passages where the first person
is employed, considers that he indicates himself as an actor and
eye-witness. These passages, where ^//.eis is introduced, present
a curious problem which has largely occupied the attention of
critics, and it has been the point most firmly disputed in the long
controversy regarding the authorship of the Acts. Into this
literary labyrinth we must not be tempted to enter beyond a very
short way ; for, however interesting the question may be in itself,
we are left so completely to conjecture that no result is possible
which can materially affect our inquiry, and we shall only refer to
it sufficiently to illustrate the uncertainty which prevails regarding
the authorship. We shall, however, supply abundant references
for those who care more minutely to pursue the subject.
After the narrative of the Acts has, through fifteen chapters,
proceeded uninterruptedly in the third person, an abrupt change
to the first person plural occurs in the sixteenth chapter. Paul,
and at least Timothy, are represented as going through Phrygia
and Galatia, and at length " they came down to Troas," where a
vision appears to Paul beseeching him to come over into Mace-
donia. Then, xvi. 10, proceeds : " And after he saw the vision,
immediately we endeavoured (e^rvyo-a/xev) to go forth into
Macedonia, concluding that God had called us (*?/><) to preach
1 6 6.yairriTbs 6.5t\<f>bs /cat irurrfa didi<ovos Kal criWoi/Xos iv Kvply. Coloss.
iv. 7.
2 Coloss. iv. 9. 3 73., iv. 10, II ; Philem. 23, 24.
4 It is unnecessary to discuss whether xiv. 22 belongs to the ii/j.f'is sections
or not. "
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PERSONAL SECTIONS 591
the Gospel unto them." After verse 17 the direct form of narra-
tive is as suddenly dropped as it was taken up, and does not
reappear until xx. 5, when, without explanation, it is resumed and
continued for ten verses. It is then again abandoned, and recom-
menced in xxi. 1-18, and xxvii. i, xxviii. 16.
It is argued by those who adopt the traditional view that it
would be an instance of unparalleled negligence, in so careful a
writer as the author of the third Synoptic and Acts, to have com-
posed these sections from documents lying before him, written by
others, leaving them in the form of a narrative in the first person,
whilst the rest of his work was written in the third, and that, with-
out doubt, he would have assimilated such portions to the form of
the rest. On the other hand, he himself makes distinct use
of the first person in Luke i. 1-3 and Acts i. i, and consequently
prepares the reader to expect that, where it is desirable, he will
resume the direct mode of communication ; and in support of
this supposition it is asserted that the very same peculiarities of
style and language exist in the ^eis passages as in the rest of
the work. The adoption of the direct form of narrative, in short,
merely indicates that the author himself was present and an eye-
witness of what he relates, and that writing as he did for the
information of Theophilus, who was well aware of his personal
participation in the journeys he records, it was not necessary for
him to give any explanation of his occasional use of the first
person.
Is the abrupt and singular introduction of the first person in
these particular sections of his work, without a word of explana-
tion, more intelligible and reasonable upon the traditional theory
of their being by the author himself as an eye-witness ? On the
contrary, it is maintained, the phenomenon on that hypothesis
becomes much more inexplicable. On examining the ^eis
sections it will be observed that they consist almost entirely of an
itinerary of journeys, and that, while the chronology of the rest of
the Acts is notably uncertain and indefinite, these passages enter
into the minutest details of daily movements (xvi. u, 12; xx. 6,
7, n, 15; xxi. i, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 18 ; xxvii. 2; xxyiii. 7, 12, 14);
of the route pursued, and places through which often they
merely pass (xvi. n, 12 ; xx. 5, 6, 13, 15 ; xxi. 1-3, 7 ; xxvii. 2 f.;
xxviii. 11-15), an d record the most trifling circumstances (xvi. 12;
xx. 13; xxi. 2, 3, 15; xxviii. 2, u). The distinguishing feature
of these sections, in fact, is generally asserted to be the stamp which
they bear, above all other parts of the Acts, of intimate personal
knowledge of the circumstances related.
Is it not, however, exceedingly remarkable that the author of
the Acts should intrude his own personality merely to record these
minute details of voyages and journeys that his appearance as
592 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
an eye-witness should be almost wholly limited to the itinerary of
Paul's journeys and to portions of his history which are of very
subordinate interest ? The voyage and shipwreck are thus
narrated with singular minuteness of detail, but if we consider
the matter for a moment, it will become apparent that this
elaboration of the narrative is altogether disproportionate to
the importance of the voyage in the history of the early
Church. The traditional view, indeed, is fatal to the claims
of the Acts as testimony for the great mass of miracles it contains,
for the author is only an eye-witness of what is comparatively un-
important and commonplace. The writer's intimate acquaintance
with the history of Paul, and his claim to participation in his work,
begin and end with his actual journeys. With very few excep-
tions, as soon as the Apostle stops anywhere, he ceases to speak
as an eye-witness, and relapses into vagueness and the third person.
At the very time when minuteness of detail would have been most
interesting, he ceases to be minute. A very long and important
period of Paul's life is covered by the narrative between xvi. 10,
where the T^eis sections begin, and xxviii. 16, where they end;
but, although the author goes with such extraordinary detail into
the journeys to which they are confined, how bare and unsatisfac-
tory is the account of the rest of Paul's career during that time !
How eventful that career must have been we learn from 2 Cor. xi.
23-26. In any case, the author who could be so minute in his
record of an itinerary, apparently could not, or would not, be
minute in his account of more important matters in his history.
In the few verses, ix. 1-30, chiefly occupied by an account of
Paul's conversion, is comprised all that the author has to tell of
three years of the Apostle's life, and into xi. iQ-xiv. are com-
pressed the events of fourteen years of his history (cf. Gal. ii. i).
If the author of those portions be the same writer who is so
minute in his daily itinerary in the TJ/teis sections, his sins of
omission and commission are of a very startling character. To
say nothing more severe here, upon the traditional theory he is an
elaborate trifler.
Does the use of the first person in Luke i. 1-3 and Acts. i. i in
any way justify or prepare the way for the sudden and unexplained
introduction of the first person in the sixteenth chapter ? Certainly
not. The ryw in these passages is used solely in the personal
address to Theophilus, is limited to the brief explanation contained
in what may be called the dedication or preface, and is at once
dropped when the history begins. If the prologue of the Gospel
be applied to the Acts, moreover, the use of earlier documents is
at once implied, which would rather justify the supposition that
these passages are part of some diary, from which the general
editor made extracts. Besides, there is no explanation in the Acts
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PERSONAL SECTIONS 593
which, in the slightest degree, connects the cyw with the rj/xeis-
To argue that explanation was unnecessary, as Theophilus and
early readers were well acquainted with the fact that the author
was a fellow-traveller with the Apostle, and, therefore, at once
understood the meaning of " We," would destroy the utility of the
direct form of communication altogether ; for, if Theophilus knew
this, there was obviously no need to introduce the first person at
all in so abrupt and singular a way, more especially to chronicle
minute details of journeys which possess comparatively little
interest. Moreover, writing for Theophilus, we might reasonably
expect that he should have stated where and when he became
associated with Paul, and explained the reasons why he again left
and rejoined him. Ewald suggests that possibly the author
intended to have indicated his name more distinctly at the end of
his work ; l but this merely shows that, argue as he will, he feels
the necessity for such an explanation. The conjecture is negatived,
however, by the fact that no name is subsequently added. As in
the case of the fourth Gospel, of course, the "incomparable
modesty " theory is suggested as the reason why the author does
not mention his own name, and explain the adoption of the first
person in the ?}/xeis passages ; but to base theories such as this
upon the modesty or elevated views of a perfectly unknown
writer is obviously too arbitrary a proceeding to be permissible.
There is, besides, exceedingly little modesty in a writer forcing
himself so unnecessarily into notice, for he does not represent
himself as taking any active part in the events narrated ; and, as
the mere chronicler of days of sailing and arriving, he might well
have remained impersonal to the end.
On the other hand, supposing the general editor of the Acts to
have made use of written sources of information, and, amongst
others, of the diary of a companion of the Apostle Paul, it is not so
strange that, for one reason or another, he should have allowed the
original direct form of communication to stand whilst incorpo-
rating parts of it with his work. Instances have been pointed out
in which a similar retention of the first or third person, in a
narrative generally written otherwise, is accepted as the indication
of a different written source, as, for instance, in Ezra vii. 27-ix. ;
Nehemiah viii.-x. ; in the Book of Tobit i. 1-3, iii. 7 f., and
other places ; 2 and Schwanbeck has pointed out many instances of
a similar kind amongst the chroniclers of the Middle Ages.3
There are various ways in which the retention of the first person
in these sections, supposing them to have been derived from some
1 Gesch. d. V. /jr., vi. , p. 34, anm. I ; Jahrb. bibl. IViss., ix. , p. 5 2 -
2 Ewald, Gesch. d. V. hr., 1864, i., p. 278; Hilgenfeld, Einl. N. T.,
p. 607.
3 Quellen d. Schr. des Lukas, i. , p. 188 f.
2Q
594 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
other written source, might be explained. The simple suppo-
sition that the author, either through carelessness or oversight,
allowed the ^ets to stand is not excluded ; and, indeed, some
critics maintain both the .ihird Gospel and the Acts to be
composed of materials derived from various sources and put
together with little care or adjustment. The author might
also have inserted these fragments of the diary of a fellow-
traveller of Paul, and retained the original form of the document
to strengthen the apparent credibility of his own narrative ; or, as
many critics believe, he may have allowed the first person of the
original document to remain, in order himself to assume the
character of eye-witness, and of companion of the Apostle. As
we shall see in the course of our examination of the Acts, the
general procedure of the author is by no means of a character to
discredit such an explanation.
We shall not enter into any discussion of the sources from
which critics maintain that the author compiled his work. It is
sufficient to say that, whilst some profess to find definite traces
of many documents, few if any deny that the writer made
more or less use of earlier materials. It is quite true that the
characteristics of the general author's style are found throughout
the whole work. The Acts are no mere aggregate of scraps
collected and rudely joined together, but the work of one author,
in the sense that whatever materials he may have used for its
composition were carefully assimilated, and subjected to thorough
and systematic revision to adapt them to his purpose. But how-
ever completely this process was carried out, and his materials
interpenetrated by his own peculiarities of style and language, he
did not succeed in entirely obliterating the traces of independent
written sources. Some writers maintain that there is a very
apparent difference between the first twelve chapters and the
remainder of the work, and profess to detect a much more
Hebraistic character in the language of the earlier portion,
although this is not received without demur. As regards the
T//Ats sections, whilst it is admitted that these fragments have
in any case been much manipulated by the general editor, and
largely contain his general characteristics of language, it is at the
same time affirmed that they present distinct foreign peculiarities,
which betray a borrowed document. Even critics who maintain
the rj/xeis sections to be by the same writer who composed the
rest of the book point out the peculiarly natural character and
minute knowledge displayed in these passages, as distinguishing
them from the rest of the Acts. This, of course, they attribute to
the fact that the author there relates his personal experiences ;
but even with this explanation it is apparent that all who maintain
the traditional view do recognise peculiarities in these sections,
THE AUTHOR NOT A COMPANION OF PAUL 595
by which they justify the ascription of them to an eye-witness.
For the reasons which have been very briefly indicated, therefore,
and upon other strong grounds, some of which will be presently
stated, a very large mass of the ablest critics have concluded that
the r?^s sections were not composed by the author of the
rest of the Acts, but that they are part of the diary of some com-
panion of the Apostle Paul, of which the author of Acts made
use for his work, and that the general writer of the work, and con-
sequently of the third Synoptic, was not Luke at all.
A careful study of the contents of the Acts cannot, we think,
leave any doubt that the work could not have been written by any
companion or intimate friend of the Apostle Paul. In here
briefly indicating some of the reasons for this statement, we shall
be under the necessity of anticipating, without much explanation
or argument, points which will be more fully discussed further on,
and which now, stated without preparation, may not be sufficiently
clear to some readers. They may hereafter seem more conclusive.
It is unreasonable to suppose that a friend or companion could
have written so unhistorical and defective a history of the Apostle's
life and teaching. The Pauline Epistles are nowhere directly
referred to, but where we can compare the narrative and represen-
tations of Acts with the statements of the Apostle they are strik-
ingly contradictory. His teaching in the one scarcely presents a
trace of the strong and clearly denned doctrines of the other, and
the character and conduct of the Paul of Acts are altogether dif-
ferent from those of Paul of the Epistles. According to Paul
himself (Gal. i. 16-18), after his conversion he communicated not
with flesh and blood, neither went up to Jerusalem to those who
were apostles before him, but immediately went away into Arabia,
and returned to Damascus, and only after three years he went up
to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and abode with him fifteen days,
during which visit none other of the Apostles did he see " save
James, the brother of the Lord." If assurance of the correctness
of these details were required, Paul gives it by adding (v. 20) :
" Now the things which I am writing to you, behold before God I
lie not." According to Acts (ix. 19-30), however, the facts are
quite different. Paul immediately begins to preach in Damascus,
does not visit Arabia at all, but, on the contrary, goes to Jerusalem,
where, under the protection of Barnabas (v. 26, 27), he is intro-
duced to the Apostles, and " was with them going in and out."
According to Paul (Gal. i. 22), his face was after that unknown
unto the churches of Judaea, whereas, according to Acts, not only
was he "going in and out" at Jerusalem with the Apostles, but
(ix. 29) preached boldly in the name of the Lord, and (Acts xxvi.
20) " in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judaea " he
urged to repentance. According to Paul (Gal. ii. i f.), after fourteen
596 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
years he went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus,
"according to a revelation," and "privately" communicated his
Gospel "to those who seemed to be something," as, with some
irony, he calls the Apostles. In words still breathing irritation
and determined independence, Paul relates to the Galatians the
particulars of that visit how great pressure had been exerted to
compel Titus, though a Greek, to be circumcised, " that they
might bring us into bondage," to whom "not even for an hour
did we yield the required subjection." He protests, with proud
independence, that the Gospel which he preaches was not received
from man (Gal. i. u, 12), but revealed to him by God (verses 15,
1 6); and during this visit (ii. 6, 7) "from those seeming to be
something (TWV SOKOVVTUV emu TI), whatsoever they were it
maketh no matter to me God accepteth not man's person for
to me those who seemed (01 SOKOWTCS) communicated nothing
additional." According to Acts, after his conversion Paul is
taught by a man named Ananias what he must do (ix. 6, xxii. 10);
he makes visits to Jerusalem (xi. 30, xii. 25, etc.), which are ex-
cluded by Paul's own explicit statements ; and a widely different
report is given (xv. i f.) of the second visit. Paul does not go,
"according to a revelation," but is deputed by the Church of
Antioch, with Barnabas, in consequence of disputes regarding the
circumcision of Gentiles, to lay the case before the Apostles and
Elders at Jerusalem. It is almost impossible in the account here
given of proceedings characterised throughout by perfect harmony,
forbearance, and unanimity of views, to recognise the visit de-
scribed by Paul. Instead of being private, the scene is a general
council of the Church. The fiery independence of Paul is trans-
formed into meekness and submission. There is not a word of
the endeavour to compel him to have Titus circumcised all is
peace and undisturbed goodwill. Peter pleads the cause of Paul,
and is more Pauline in his- sentiments than Paul himself, and in
the very presence of Paul claims to have been selected by God to
be the Apostle of the Gentiles (xv. 7-1 1). Not a syllable is said of
the scene at Antioch shortly after (Gal. ii. 1 1 f.), so singularly at
variance with the proceedings of the council, when Paul withstood
Cephas to the face. Then, who would recognise the Paul of the
Epistles in the Paul of Acts, who makes such repeated journeys to
Jerusalem to attend Jewish feasts (xviii. 21,' xix. 21, xx. 16, xxiv.
ii, 17, 18); who, in his journeys, halts on the days when a Jew
may not travel (xx. 5, 6) ; who shaves his head at Cenchrea
because of a vow (xviii. 18); who, at the recommendation of the
Apostles, performs that astonishing act of Nazariteship in the
1 The Sinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrian, with other ancient codices, omit :
' ' I must by all means keep this feast that comethjn Jerusalem. "
THE AUTHOR NOT A COMPANION OF PAUL 597
Temple (xxi. 23), and afterwards follows it up by a defence of such
" excellent dissembling " (xxiii. 6, xxiv. 1 1 f.) ; who circumcises
Timothy, the son of a Greek and of a Jewess, with his own hands
(xvi. 1-3, cf. Gal. v. 2) ; and who is so little the apostle of the
uncircumcision that he only tardily goes to the Gentiles when
rejected by the Jews (cf. xviii. 6). Paul is not only robbed of the
honour of being the first Apostle of the Gentiles, which is con-
ferred upon Peter, but the writer seems to avoid even calling him
an apostle at all, the only occasions upon which he does so being
indirect (xiv. 4, 14) ; and the title equally applied to Barnabas,
whose claim to it is more than doubted. The passages in which
this occurs, moreover, are not above suspicion, " the Apostles "
being omitted in Cod. D. (Bezae) from xiv. 14. The former verse
in that codex has important variations from other MSS.
If we cannot believe that the representation actually given of
Paul in the Acts could proceed from a friend or companion of the
Apostle, it is equally impossible that such a person could have
written his history with so many extraordinary imperfections and
omissions. We have already pointed out that between chs. ix.-xiv.
are compressed the events of seventeen of the most active years
of the Apostle's life, and also that a long period is comprised
within the 17/^15 sections, during which such minute details of
the daily itinerary are given. The incidents reported, however,
are quite disproportionate to those which are omitted. We have
no record, for instance, of his visit to Arabia at so interesting a
portion of his career (Gal. i. 17), although the particulars of his
conversion are repeated with singular variations no less than three
times (ix., xxii., xxvi.) ; nor of his preaching in Illyria (Rom.
xv. 19); nor of the incident referred to in Rom. xvi. 3, 4.
The momentous adventures in the cause of the Gospel
spoken of in 2 Cor. xi. 23 f. receive scarcely any illustration in
Acts, nor is any notice taken of his fighting with wild beasts at
Ephesus (i Cor. xv. 32), which would have formed an episode full
of serious interest. What, again, was "the affliction which
happened in Asia," which so overburdened even so energetic a
nature as that of the Apostle that "he despaired even of
life"? (2 Cor. ii. 8 f.). Some light upon these points might
reasonably have been expected from a companion of Paul. Then,
xvii. 14-16, xviii. 5, contradict i Thess. iii. i, 2, in a way scarcely
possible in such a companion, present with the Apostle at Athens ;
and in like manner the representation in xxviii. 17-22 is incon-
sistent with such a person, ignoring as it does the fact that there
already was a Christian Church in Rome (Ep. to Romans). We
do not refer to the miraculous elements so thickly spread over the
narrative of the Acts, and especially in the episode xvi. 25 f., which
is inserted in the first ^/ACIS section, as irreconcilable with the
598 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
character of an eye-witness, because it is precisely the miraculous
portion of the book which is on its trial ; but we may ask whether
it would have been possible for such a friend, acquainted with the
Apostle's representations in i Cor. xiv. 2 f., cf. xii.-xiv., and the
phenomena there described, to speak of the gift of "tongues " at
Pentecost as the power of speaking different languages (ii. 4-11,
cf. x. 46, xix. 6) ?
It will readily be understood that we have here merely rapidly,
and by way of illustration, referred to a few of the points which
seem to preclude the admission that the general author of the Acts
could be an eye-witness, or companion of the Apostle Paul ; and
this will become more apparent as we proceed, and more closely
examine the contents of the book. Who that author was, there
are now no means of ascertaining. The majority of critics who
have most profoundly examined the problem presented by the
Acts, however, and who do not admit Luke to be the general
author, are agreed that the author compiled the r^ets sections from
a diary' kept by some companion of the Apostle Paul during the
journeys and voyages to which they relate, but opinion is very
divided as to the person to whom that diary must be ascribed. It
is, of course, recognised that the various theories regarding his
identity are merely based upon conjecture, but they have long
severely exercised critical ingenuity. A considerable party adopt
the conclusion that the diary was probably written by Luke. This
theory has certainly the advantage of whatever support may be
derived from tradition ; and it has been conjectured, not without
probability, that this diary, being either written by, or originally
attributed to, Luke, may possibly have been the source from which,
in course of time, the whole of the Acts, and consequently the
Gospel, came to be ascribed to Luke. The selection of a com-
paratively less known name than that of Timothy, Titus, or Silas,
for instance, may thus be explained ; but, besides, it has the great
advantage that, the name of Luke never being mentioned in the
Acts, he is not exposed to criticism, which has found serious
objections to the claims of other better known followers of
Paul.
There are many critics who find difficulties in the way of
accepting Luke as the author of the " we " sections, and who
adopt the theory that they were probably composed by Timothy.
It is argued that, if Luke had been the writer of this diary,
he must have been in very close relations to Paul, having
been his companion during the Apostle's second mission, as
well as during the later European journey, and finally during
the eventful voyage of Paul as a prisoner from Csesarea to
Rome. Under these circumstances, it is natural to expect
that Paul should mention him in hi^ earlier epistles, written
THEORIES REGARDING THE AUTHORSHIP 599
before the Roman imprisonment, but this he nowhere does. For
instance, no reference is made to Luke in either of the letters
to the Corinthians, nor in those to the Thessalonians ; but,
on the other hand, Timothy's name, together with that of Silvanus
(or Silas), is joined to Paul's in the two letters to the Thessalonians,
besides being mentioned in the body of the first Epistle (iii. 2, 6);
and he is repeatedly and affectionately spoken of in the earlier
letter to the Corinthians (i Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10), and his name is
likewise combined with the Apostle's in the second Epistle
(2 Cor. i. i), as well as mentioned in the body of the letter, along
with that of Silvanus, as a fellow-preacher with Paul. In the
Epistle to the Philippians, later, the name of Luke does not appear,
although, had he been the companion of the Apostle from Troas,
he must have been known to the Philippians ; but, on the other
hand, Timothy is again associated in the opening greeting of that
Epistle. Timothy is known to have been a fellow-worker with the
Apostle, and to have accompanied him in his missionary journeys;
and he is repeatedly mentioned in the Acts as the companion of
Paul, and the first occasion is precisely where the ^/ieis sections
commence. 1 In connection with Acts xv. 40, xvi. 3, 10, it is
considered that Luke is quite excluded from the possibility of
being the companion who wrote the diary we are discussing, by
the Apostle's own words in 2 Cor. i. 19 : "For the Son of God,
Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us, by me and
.Silvanus and Timothy," etc. The eye-witness who wrote the
journal from which the rj/xets sections are taken must have been
with the Apostle in Corinth, and, it is of course always asserted,
must have been one of his crvvepyoi., and preached the Gospel. Is
it possible, on the supposition that this fellow-labourer was Luke,
that the Apostle could in so marked a manner have excluded his
name by clearly defining that "us" only meant himself and
Silvanus and Timothy ? Mayerhoff 2 has gone even further than
the critics we have referred to, and maintains Timothy to be the
author of the third Synoptic and of Acts.
We may add that some writers have conjectured Silas to
be the author of the >j/*eis sections, and others have referred them
to Titus. It is evident that, whether the ij/nets sections be by the
unknown author of the rest of the Acts or be part of a diary by
some unknown companion of Paul, introduced into the work by
the general editor, they do not solve the problem as to the identity
of the author, who remains absolutely unknown.
It may be well here to state various other reasons which seem to
confirm this result, and to indicate a later date than is usually
1 xvi. I f. ; cf. xvii. 14, 15 ; xviii. 5 ; xix. 22 ; xx. 4.
2 Einl. petr. Schriften, p. 6 f.
6oo SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
assigned to the composition both of the third Gospel and the
Acts of the Apostles.
We learn from the prologue to the Gospel, i. 1-3, that, before
it was composed, a considerable evangelical literature had already
come into existence. It seems evident, from the expressions
used, that the generation of those who, as eye-witnesses, delivered
(Tra/oeoWav) the reports upon which the Gospel narratives were
based, had already passed away, and at least a second generation
had undertaken to put them into writing, to which, at the very
most, the writer may, in accordance with his own words, have
belonged. It must be observed, however, that the passage by no
means limits us to close proximity in time between the writer and
those who delivered the substance of the Gospel narratives ; but,
on the contrary, in representing that " many " had previously
undertaken to set them forth, a considerable lapse of time is
necessarily implied. When we look further into the Gospel, we
find unmistakable indications that the work was written long after
the destruction of Jerusalem, and that variations introduced into
the eschatological speeches put into the mouth of Jesus were
modifications after the event. Let the reader carefully compare
Matthew xxiv. 15 f., Mark xiii. 14 f., with Luke xxi. 20 f., where
it is said, verse 20, " And when ye shall see Jerusalem, compassed
with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is at hand ";
and in verse 24, " And they shall fall by the edge of the sword,
and shall be led captive into all the nations, and Jerusalem shall
be trodden by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be
fulfilled." 1 We have here a much more precise statement of facts
than the mysterious reference in the other Synoptics written
at an early period after the fall of the Holy City. The destruction
of Jerusalem not only has taken place, but the place has
long been trodden by the Gentiles. Had its fall only been
recent, there would have -been no motive for postponing the
fulfilment of the prophecy ; but a long time had passed away, and
there was no immediate prospect of change, so the accomplishment
was assigned to the vague epoch when " the times of the Gentiles "
should be "fulfilled." In the first two Synoptics the second
advent and the end of all things are closely connected with the
destruction of Jerusalem, whereas in the third they are carefully
separated. The first Gospel says, xxiv. 29, "And immediately
after the tribulation of those days " the end shall come.
1 In Matt. xxiv. 3 the disciples inquire : " When shall these things be? and
what the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world ?" In Luke xxi. 7 :
" When shall these things be ? and what the sign when these are about to
come to pass ?" The words quoted in the text from xxi. 24 are those which,
according to several, determine that the work cannot have been written
after the rebuilding of ALlia Capitolina.
INDICATIONS OF DATE 601
The second Synoptic has, xiii. 24, " But in these days (fv
rats i^epais), after that tribulation," etc.; but the third Gospel no
longer connects these events with the second coming (cf. Luke
xxi. 25), but rather seems to oppose the representation of the first
Synoptic ; for, after referring to the wars and tumults (Luke
xxi. 9), the writer adds, " but the end is not immediately (OVK
ei'#eo>s) "; and earlier (xvii. 20 f.), to the question of the Pharisees,
when the kingdom of God should come, Jesus replies : " The
kingdom of God cometh not with observation, nor shall they say,
Lo here, lo there ! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
The passage in Matt. x. 23, " But when they persecute you in
this city, flee into the other ; for verily I say unto you, ye shall
not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be
come," which might have seemed suitable in some primitive Gospel,
from which probably our first synoptist derived it, has now lost
all significance, and is altogether omitted by the third, although he
evidently wishes to give the discourses of Jesus with the greatest
fulness. In the fourth Gospel, still more, all such sayings are
omitted, as no longer applicable through lapse of time. The
third synoptist likewise omits such details of that which is to take
place after the coming of the Son of Man as are given in the
other two Gospels (Matt. xxiv. 30, 31 ; Mark xiii. 27); and even
the words of the first and second Synoptics, Matt. xxiv. 33,
" When ye shall see all these things, know that he is near at the
doors" (cf. Mark xiii. 29), are modified into (xxi. 28), "And
when these things begin to come to pass, look up and lift up your
heads, for your redemption draweth near"; ver. 31, "When ye
shall see these things coming to pass, know that the kingdom of God
is near." It is difficult impartially to note such altogether peculiar
and characteristic alterations of these eschatological sayings,
without recognising that they proceed from a marked change in
the historical circumstances at the time of the writer, which
rendered such modifications necessary to preserve the significance
of the prophecies. That these variations arose from such
influence, and are indicative of a later period, is a fact recognised
by able critics of all schools. We might add various other
passages which show, by their modifications, an advanced stage of
Christian development. For instance, the third Synoptic has,
vi. 2 1 : " Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled ;
blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh. 22. Blessed
are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate
you from their company, and shall reproach, and cast out your
name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake" (cf. Matt. v. 4, 6, n).
It is scarcely possible to ignore the special application of
these passages to Christians who had already been subjected to
persecutions and reproach, not only in the insertion of the
602 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
significant vw, but still more in verse 22 compared with
Matt. v. ii. 1 And, again, a similar modification exists in
Luke xii. 3. The first Gospel (x. 27) has, "What I tell you in
the darkness speak in the light ; and what ye hear in the ear,
preach upon the housetops." This is altogether omitted by the
second synoptist, and it had so little significance left for the third,
when Christianity, which had once been taught secretly and in
private, had long been so widely preached that even the passage
Matt. x. 23 had to be erased, that it was altered to (xii. 3) :
" Therefore, whatsoever ye said (ciTrare) in the darkness shall be
heard in the light ; and that which ye spake (eAaA-yyo-are) in the
ear in the closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops."
Along with these alterations and modifications which directly
tend to push back the limits of the prophecies, and yet to
leave room for their long-delayed fulfilment, the third synoptist
still retains the final indication of the first and second Gospels, 2
xxi. 32 : " Verily I say unto you that this generation (?) yevta avrrj)
shall not pass away till all be fulfilled." Whilst the ablest critics,
therefore, to a great extent agree that the variations elsewhere
introduced by the third synoptist demonstrate the standpoint of a
later age, a difference of opinion arises as to how far back the
writer could be removed from the destruction of Jerusalem, with-
out exceeding the line drawn, in the verse just quoted, by the
words " this generation." On the one hand, it is maintained that
many of that generation, who had been direct eye-witnesses of the
appearance of Jesus, must still have been alive when this was
written to justify the expression. How did the writer interpret the
traditional yeved avrrj, which he still retained, within which the
second advent was to take place ? As he omitted Matt. x. 23 and
modified in such a manner the eschatological prophecies, it is
obvious that, if he intelligently retained the term "this generation,"
he must have understood it in its widest sense, and this we shall
find he was justified in doing by the practice of the time. It has
been, we think, clearly proved by Baur and others 3 that the word
yeved was understood to express the duration of the longest life,
like the I>atin saculum.* Baur rightly argues that the generation
would not be considered as " passed away " so long as even one of
. bib/. Wiss., iii. , p. 144.
2 Cf. Matt. xxiv. 34 ; Mark xiii. 30.
3 Baur, Theol.Jahrb., 1849, p. 317 f.; Hilgenfekl, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 367 f.;
Die Evangelien, p. 212; Einl. N. 7\, p. 609; Zeller, Theol. Jahrb., 1852,
p. 229 ; Die Apostelgesch. , p. 467.
4 Baur quotes Censorinus, a writer of the third century : " Saculum est
spatium vita humana longissinmw partu et morte definitum. Quare qui annos
triginta saculutn p-utarunt, multum videntnr errasse " (De die Nat, , c. 17; Theol.
Jahrb., 1849, p. 318, anm. i).
INDICATIONS OF DATE 603
that generation remained alive. Now, the fact is, as he points out,
that if the Apostle John was still living at the beginning of Trajan's
reign, the date of his death being commonly set A.D. 99-100,
many who read John xxi. 23 long after that period may very
probably have supposed him to be still alive. Indeed, that passage
of the fourth Gospel, indicative of a belief in the advent within
the lifetime of the Apostle, has a direct bearing upon the interpre-
tation which we are discussing. According to Hegesippus, 1 again,
Symeon of Jerusalem was martyred under Trajan A.D. 107, at the
age of 120 years, he says, and he was one of the " generation " in
question, as was also Ignatius, if the tradition regarding him is to
be believed, who died a martyr A.D. 115-116. Then Quadratus,
who presented an Apology to the Emperor Hadrian about
A.D. 126, states, in a fragment preserved by Eusebius, that some of
those who were healed by Jesus were still living in his own times. 2
A writer at the end of the first quarter of the second century,
therefore, might consider that the generation had not yet passed
away. Hilgenfeld 3 points out that Irena^us, in the last book of
his great work, written at the very end of the second century,
speaking of the Apocalyptic vision, says : " For it is not a long
time ago it was seen, but nearly in our own generation (yevea),
towards the end of Domitian's (f 96) reign. "4 Irenseus, therefore,
speaks of something which he supposes to happen about a century
before, as all but in his own yevta, and it must be noted that
the phrase dAAa (TX^OV en-i T/}S i;/aeT/>as yeveas is rendered
in the ancient Latin version : "sed pene sub nostro saculo." Another
instance occurs in the remarks of Hegesippus preserved by
Eusebius. Hegesippus says that the Church remained pure from
heresy till the generation (yevea) of those who had heard the
Apostles had passed away,s and this he dates in the reign of
Trajan. The expression in Luke xxi. 32 is not, we think, in con-
tradiction with the late date to which other potent considerations
seem to assign the third Synoptic. It will be seen that the internal
evidence supplied by the Acts of the Apostles still further confirms
the indications of a late date in the Gospel itself.
The Acts of the Apostles being the Sei're/aos Adyos, of course,
it was composed later than the Gospel ; and there is good reason
for believing that a considerable interval occurred before the
second work was written. According to the traditional view, some
ten years probably elapsed between the production of the two
works, and the interval could certainly not well be less. It will be
remembered that the author not only repeats particulars of the
1 Eusebius, H. ., iii., 32. 2 Ib., iv. 3. 3 j)i e Evu. Justin's, p. 367 f.
4 Irenseus, Adv. ffa-r., v. 30, 3 ; Eusebius, H. E., iii. 18; v. 8.
5 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 32.
6o 4 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Ascension, but that the account of it which is given in Acts i. 3-9
differs materially from that of the Gospel. The names of the
Twelve, moreover, are detailed (i. 13), although they had already
been given in the former work, vi. 14-16. One or two curious
modifications are further made, which certainly indicate a more
advanced period. The author represents the disciples as asking
the risen Jesus (i. 6) : " Lord, dost thou at this time restore the
kingdom to Israel ?" To which answer is made : " It is not for
you to know times or seasons which the Father appointed by his
own authority. But ye shall receive power through the coming
upon you of the Holy Ghost, and ye shall be my witnesses both in
Jerusalem and in all Judaea and in Samaria, and unto the utter-
most parts of the earth." Having spoken this, Jesus is immedi-
ately lifted up, and a cloud receives him out of their sight. We
believe that the chief motive for which this singular episode was
introduced was to correct the anticipations raised by the eschato-
logical prophecies in chap. xxi. of the Gospel. These prophecies
had already been modified, as we have seen, to suit the altered
circumstances of the times, and the inconvenient expression
" this generation " is quietly removed. There is no longer any
definite limitation in the statement, " It is not for you to know
times or seasons," accompanied by the vista of testimony to be
borne, "unto the uttermost parts of the earth." We are here,
unmistakably, in the second century, to which also the whole
character of the Acts leads us.
There is an allusion to Gaza in the Acts which has been much
discussed, and also advanced as an indication of date. In the
account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch the angel is
represented as saying to Philip (viii. 26) : " Arise and go toward
the south, unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem to Gaza,
which is desert (avrrj rriv e/>?//Aos)." The city of Gaza, after
having been taken and destroyed by Alexander the Great, was
rebuilt by the pro-consul Gabinius 1 (c. 58 B.C.), but it was again
destroyed, by the Jews themselves, shortly before the siege of
Jerusalem. 2 The expression, " this is desert," may grammatically
be applied either to the " way " or to " Gaza " itself. Those who
consider that e/ar/fios refers to Gaza, of course understand the
word as describing the devastated condition of the place, and
some of them argue that, as the latest date referred to in Acts, the
two years' imprisonment of Paul, carries the history up to A.D. 64,
and the destruction of Gaza took place about A.D. 66 probably
somewhat later the description was applied to Gaza by the author
as a parenthetic allusion, its destruction being quite recent at the
time when the Acts were written. On the other side, it is
1 Josephus, Anliq., xiv. 5, 3. ,/3. Bell. Jud., ii. 18, I.
USE OF JOSEPHUS BY THE AUTHOR 605
contended that, as there was more than one way as there still is
from Jerusalem to Gaza, the angel simply indicated the particular
way by which Philip was to go so as to meet the Ethiopian : "this
way is desert," and consequently little frequented. Applied to the
way and identifying it, the description has direct and perfectly
simple significance ; whereas, understood as a reference to the state
of Gaza itself, it is certainly an unnecessary display of local or
historical knowledge. The majority of critics connect epr/pjs with
6805, and not with Gaza ;* but in any case the expression
has really no value for the establishment of a date, for, even
supposing the words applied to Gaza, there is no limit to the time
when such a reference might have been made. A writer at the
middle of the second century, for instance, describing an episode
supposed to occur near Gaza, and knowing of its destruction from
Josephus, or possibly having it suggested by some older legend,
might have inserted the detail, whether applied to Gaza or to the
road to it, as a dash of local colouring.
We now arrive at the point which suggested the present discus-
sion : the apparent indications of contact between Luke and
Josephus. Holtzmann and others 2 have pointed out that the
author of the Gospel and Acts has been very sensibly influenced
by the works of Josephus, which were certainly largely circulated
in Rome, where most critics conjecture that our two canonical
books were written. Supposing the use of the writings of the
Jewish historian to be demonstrated, it is obvious that we have a
very important fact to guide us in determining an epoch beyond
which the composition of the third Synoptic cannot be set. It
must be borne in mind, in considering such evidence as we can
afford space to quote, that indications of the use of an original
historian, using his own characteristic expressions, and largely
relating his own experiences, may be accepted in quite a different
way from supposed indications of the use of Gospels like ours,
which not only almost literally reproduce the same matter, showing
their mutual dependence upon each other and upon common
sources of which we positively know the earlier existence, but
profess to give a historical record of sayings and doings which
might have been, and in all probability were, similarly reported
in a dozen different works, or handed down by common tradition.
It is recognised by almost all modern writers that the author of
the third Synoptic and Acts was not a Jew, but a Gentile Christian.
Where did he get such knowledge of Jewish history as he
1 Some able critics are disposed to consider the words aOr-r) eVrtc Hpijuos a mere
gloss which has crept into the text. We need not discuss the argument that it
distinguished the particular Gaza intended.
- Holtzmann, Zeitschr. Wiss. Theol., 1873, p. 89 f. ; Krenkel, Zeitschr.
IViss. TheoL, 1873, p. 141 f. ; Hausrath, N. T. Zeitgesch. iii., p. 423 f.
606 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
displays ? The reply is : he got it from the works of Josephus.
The whole of the historical personages introduced into his two
books, as well as the references to contemporary events, are found
in those works, and, although sometimes erroneously employed
and distorted from his pious point of view, there still remain
singular coincidences of expression and of sequence, which show
the effect upon the author's memory of his study of Josephus.
The high priests, Annas, Caiaphas, and Ananias ; Gamaliel ; the
two Herods ; Agrippa and Philip, together with Herodias, Berenice,
and Drusilla ; and the Roman Procurators, Felix and Festus ;'
Simon the Magician, 2 and the Egyptian (Acts xxi. 38), Theudas,
and Judas the Galilaean, as well as others, seen to be derived from
this source, together with such facts as the enrolment under
Cyrenius, and the great famine (Acts xi. 28). 3 Josephus furnishes
the material for drawing the character of Ananias, who com-
manded those who stood by to smite (rwrreiv) Paul on the
mouth, and was characterised by the apostle in such strong terms ;
1 The whole of the preceding personages, indeed, figure largely in the first
five chapters of Book xviii. of the Antiquities. The condensed references in
Luke iii. I, 2, do not represent many pages of Josephus. It is curious to
compare iii. I, iv fret 5 TrfireKaiSfKdTif) TTJS Jiyefiovias fififplov Kcu'<rapos
Kal TCTpapxovvros rrjs FaXtXafas 'tlp&dov, 3>i\linrov B TOV dde\<pov avrov
rerpapxovvros TTJS 'Irovpaias Kai Tpaxwitlridos x^/xts, f.r.X., with the following
of Josephus : rore 5 Kal 3?i\unros (Hpudov 5 TJV ddf\<$>6s) reXeurp rbv fiiov,
eiKO(TT(f) futv tviavrif TTJS Tifieplov apxys TjyyffdfjLevos 5 avrbs eirra Kal
rpiaKOvra rrjs Tpax^vindos Kal TavXavinSos, K.T.\., Antiq. xviii. 4,
6 " Now at that time also Philip, who was Herod's brother, died, in the
twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after having for thirty-seven years
governed the region of Trachonitis and Gaulonitis," etc. Lysanias of Abylene
is referred to in Antiq. xix. 5, i; xx. 7, I ; and Annas and Caiaphas in an
earlier paragraph of the same chapter we have just quoted (xviii. 4, 3 ; cf. 2,
I, 2, etc.). The story of Herodias is told in the next chapter (xviii. 5, I
f. ; cf. 7, I ; cf. Luke iii. 19 f. ). From Antiq. xx. 7, 2, may be learnt why
Felix trembled, when he came with his wife Drusilla, and Paul discoursed to
him of righteousness and temperance (Acts xxiv. 24 f. ). Berenice is mentioned
in the very same section (Antiq. xx. 7, 2, cf. Acts xxiv. 23). In Acts xxiv.
27 Festus is introduced : " But after two years Porcius Festus came in Felix'
room" (Sier/as 5 ir\r)pia6eia-rjy ZXapev diddoxov 6 <&TJ\t IldpKiov ^rjffrov). He is
introduced by Josephus: "But Porcius Festus having been sent by Nero in
Felix' room" (llopKiov dt ^<TTOV diad6xov 4>7jXiKt irf/j.<f>()frTOS viro Nepwcos,
K.r.X. ). Antiq., xx. 8, 9.
2 We shall not here discuss the historical reality of Simon the magician, cf.
Acts viii. 9 f. , but in Josephus there is likewise Simon a magician, who helps
Felix to marry Drusilla. The author of Acts introduces him, viii. 9 : " But a
certain man named Simon (6v6/j.aTi 'Zii/j.uv) using sorcery (nayetiuv)
boasting himself to be some great person (\4ywv elval nva eavrbv /ttyav)."
Josephus says: " And one of his friends, named Simon CSl/j.uv <Wju<m)
who pretended to be a sorcerer (/j.dyoi> elvai ffKijTrrdfj-evov)," etc., Antiq., xx. 7,
2.
3 The third synoptist is the only evangelist who records the excursion to
Emmaus, and it may be mentioned that the name of this village, even, may
have been derived from Josephus, Antiq., xiii. f,. 3 ; De Bella Jttd., v. 2, 3.
USE OF JOSEPHUS BY THE AUTHOR 607
and Josephus even states that the servants of the high priest
smote (rvirTfiv) those priests who would not give up their tithes
(xx. 9, 2 f.). 1
The manner in which the author of Acts deals with Theudas
and Judas the Galilsean is very instructive. Not only does he
commit a palpable anachronism in placing the name of Theudas
in the mouth of Gamaliel, as that popular leader did not appear
till many years after the time when Gamaliel is represented as
speaking, but he also commits a second anachronism by making
Judas come after Theudas, and that he does so his /U,TU TOUTOV,
"after this man," leaves no doubt. How did this error originate?
Simply from imperfect reading or recollection of Josephus, who
mentions Theudas, and then, in the next paragraph, the sons of
Judas the Galilaean ; and as Josephus proceeds to describe the
Judas whom he means, the author of Acts has confused the father
with the sons. A little examination of the passage, we think,
shows beyond doubt that this is the source of the reference. The
author of Acts makes Gamaliel say (v. 36) : " For before those
days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody (OevSas,
Aeywv emu rtva eairroV), to whom a number of men, about four
hundred, joined themselves ; who was slain (6? avj/pe^), and all,
as many as were persuaded by him (*<u Travres 6'a-oi eirdQovro
currw), were dispersed (SieXvOrja-av), and brought to nought."
Josephus says : "A certain man, a magician, named Theudas,
persuades the great multitude (TreiOei TOV TrActo-rov o^Aov)
to follow him to the river Jordan ; for he boasted that he was
a prophet (Tr/ao^T^s yap eAeyev emu) Fadus, however,
attacking them unexpectedly, slew many and took many prisoners;
Theudas also being taken prisoner, they cut off his head," etc. 2
A few lines further down Josephus continues : " But, besides
these, the sons of Judas, the Galilsean, also were slain (01 TrcuSes
'lovBa TOV FaAiAatou avv/pe^r/crav), (I mean), of the (Judas)
who drew away the people (TOV Aaov aVoo-rc/o-avTos) from the
Romans, when Cyrenius assessed," etc. 3 In Acts, Gamaliel, after
speaking of Theudas, as quoted above, goes on to say : " After
this man (/^tra TOVTOV], rose up Judas the Galilaean ('Iov8as 6
FaAtAatos) in the days of the enrolment, and drew away
people (a7reo-T?7o-ev Aaov) after him ; he also perished, and all, as
many as were persuaded (iTre/^ovro) by him, were scattered
(Steo-KopTTio-^T/o-av)." This account of the fate of Judas and his
followers differs from that elsewhere given by Josephus, 4 and to
which he refers in the section above quoted ; but this confirms the
1 Hausrath, N. T. Zeitgesch. xii. p. 425 f., cf. p. 32. 2 Antiq. xx. 5, i.
3 Ib. xx. 5, $ 2 ; cf. xviii. i, i, 6 ; De Bellojud., ii. 8, i ; Luke ii. 2.
4 Antiq. xviii. i, i, 6.
608 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
belief that the author of Acts took it, as has been said, from this
chapter, applying to Judas himself the statement made regarding
his sons. 1
Not only does the author of Acts know the history of Felix and
Drusilla, but in saying (xxiv. 26) that Felix sent frequently for
Paul, hoping that money would be given to him, he merely
follows the suggestion of Josephus, who openly accuses Felix both
of treachery and bribery. 2 From the same chapter is derived
another incident. In Acts xxi. 38 the chief captain, who takes
Paul prisoner at Jerusalem after the riot in the temple, says to him:
" Art not thou that Egyptian who before these days madest an
uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness (ets TI]V e/o?/p>v) the four
thousand men of the sicarii (TMV a-iKapitav] ?" Josephus relates the
story of the unnamed Egyptian in two of his works. He describes 3
how robbers and impostors filled Jerusalem with violence, and he
states that these robbers were called sicarii (o-ixapiot), giving an
explanation of the origin of the word.* These impostors persuaded
the multitude to follow them into the wilderness (s T?)V ep;/juav).s
About this time, he says, there came out of Egypt one " boasting
that he was a prophet " (Tr/ao^r^s etvcu Aeywv), and induced
a multitude to follow him. Felix attacks the Egyptian (rbv
AiyujTTiov), and slays four hundred, taking two hundred prisoners,
but the Egyptian himself escapes. A little lower down Josephus
says that Festus sent soldiers against a number of the sicarii, who
had been induced by a certain impostor to follow him " as far as
the desert " (/^x/ 31 T ^ s ep^ias). 6 In his work on the Jewish wars
he gives a similar account.
The exordium of the orator Tertullus (Acts xxiv. 2, 3), who
appears, with the Jews, to accuse Paul after his removal to
Caesarea, is a clear, though hyperbolic, reference to the efforts of
Felix to put down these sicarii and impostors, described by
Josephus in connection with the passage above quoted.?
The author of Acts further seems to show his use of the works
of Josephus in his estimate (xiii. 20) of 450 years as the period of
the Judges of Israel, which is a round statement of the data of
Josephus, Antiq., xiii. 3, i, in opposition to the reckoning of
i Kings vi. i ; and again in the next verse, xiii. 21, the author
1 Holtzmann, Zeitschr. Wiss. Theol., 1873, p. 80 f.
2 Antiq. , xx. 8, 5. Cf. Hausrath, N. T. Zeitgesch., iii., p. 426.
3 Antiq., xx. 8. * /., xx. 8, 5, 6, 10.
5 T6c 6x^ov Hirei6oi> avrois efc rr)v fpr)jj.la.v %Trf<rdai, ib. , 6.
6 Antiq., xx. 8, 5, 6, 10 ; De Bella Jud. , ii. 13, 3, 4, 5 ; Holtzmann,
Zeitschr. Wiss. Theol., 1873, p. 91.
? Antiq., xx. 8; De Bella Jud. , ii. 13; Holtzmann, Zeitschr. Wiss. Theol.,
1873, p. 91.
USE OF JOSEPHUS BY THE AUTHOR 609
says that Saul reigned forty years, which is nowhere else stated
than. by Josephus, Antiq., vi. 14, 9.*
In the prophecies of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke xix. 43, xxi.
43 f.), is it not probable that the author profits by his knowledge
of the works of Josephus? His reference (xxi. n) to the omens
which are to presage that event, "and there shall be fearful sights
and great signs (o-^/xeta /^eyaAa) from heaven," appears to us an
unmistakable echo of the account given by the Jewish historian of
the signs (o-r^eta), the extraordinary appearances in the heavens,
and the wonderful occurrences which took place in the Temple
before the siege of the Holy City. 2 Other reminiscences of the
same writer may perhaps be traced in the same chapter, as, for
instance, xxi. 5 : "and as some were remarking of the Temple
that it was adorned with goodly stones and offerings (on
Allots /caAots KOI uvadijpMcrLv Ke/cocr^Tai), etc." Josephus describes
the Temple as built of stones which were " white and strong," and
he says that it was adorned with many-coloured veils (TrotKtAois
e/zTreruo-pwri KeKoVpjTo), and, giving an account of the golden
vine which ornamented the pillars, he adds that none seemed to
have so adorned (eTrt/ceKoo-pfKevcu) the Temple as Herod. After
saying that round the whole were hung up the spoils taken from
barbarous peoples, Josephus states : " and all these King Herod
offered (dvtOijKe) to the Temple." 3
There are many other points which might be quoted as indicating
the use of Josephus ; but we have already devoted too much space
to this question, and must now conclude. There is one other
indication, however, which seems to show that the author of our
third Synoptic and Acts was acquainted with, and influenced by,
the works of the Jewish historian. M. Renan has pointed out the
dedication to Theophilus, which he rightly considers altogether
foreign to Syrian and Palestinian habits, as recalling the dedication
of the works of Josephus to Epaphroditus, and probably showing
a Roman practice. 4 We consider that it indicates much more.
The third Gospel and Acts are dedicated to the " most excellent
Theophilus " (K/ocmo-re 6eo<iAe), for whose information they
were written. 5 Josephus dedicates his work on the Antiquities to
the " most excellent Epaphroditus " (/cpa-rio-re 'ETra^/aoSire), 6 for
whose information, also, the work was written. 7 He still more
1 Holtzmann, Zeitschr. Wiss. Theol., 1873, P- 9 2 5 Hausrath, N. T.
Zeitgesch., iii., p. 426, anm. 4 ; cf. Hales, Analysis of Chronology, 1830, i., p.
300.
2 DcBellofueL, vi. 5, 3,4,
3 Antiq., xv. n, 3; Holtzmann, Zeitschr. Wiss. Theol., 1873, P- 9 2 -
4 Les Evangiles, et la Seconde Gtntration Ckrftienne, p. 255 f.
5 Luke i. 3, 4 ; Acts i. i.
6 Vita, 76. The amplification dvdpwv is of no importance.
7 Antiq. Proa' in., 2.
2R
6io SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
directly dedicates to the same " most excellent Epaphroditus "
(Kparia-Tf 'E?ra<.) his work against Apion, and he begins the
second book : " Now in the former book, most esteemed
Epaphroditus, regarding, etc. (Ax fikv ovv rov irporepov 6t/3\iov,
Ti/AitoTare [AOL 'ETra^pdSiTe, irepi K. r. A..) ...... I also made
(firoiri(rdfj.rjv) a refutation, etc." 1 Our author begins his second
work (Acts i. i) : "The former treatise I made, O Theophilus,
regarding all, etc. (T6v p-ev irpMrov Xoyov tTrot^tra/^v irepl
TravTwv, <5 QeotptXf, K. r. X.)." It is, we think, impossible to
examine carefully the commencement of the first book against
Apion, and the statement of the reasons which induced him to
write his history, without perceiving the influence which Josephus
had exercised over the mind and language of our canonical writer,
and how closely that introduction is imitated in the prologue to the
Gospel and Acts, in which the author speaks in the first person,
and probably displays himself more directly than elsewhere. It
is much too long to quote, and only a very inadequate idea of the
similarity of tone and expression in many parts can be conveyed
by the few words which can be extracted here. Speaking of Greek
literature he says : " Certainly those taking in hand (Tri\eipr)<TavTe<i)
to write histories," etc. A few lines lower down he refers to the
boasting of the Greeks that they are the only people versed in
ancient times, and accurately delivering the truth regarding them
(ds /AOVOVS fTrurrap.evovs ra dp^aia KOI dXi'jOeiav Trepl avrutv
uK/31/Jws Tra/raSiSoiras). 2 He speaks of writing history from
the beginning of most distant times (c p.a.KpoT(ir(av avwOev
XpoVwv) amongst the Egyptians and Babylonians, and he
says it was undertaken (eyKfxeipurp,evoi.) by the priests ; the
records of the Jews, also, were written with great accuracy (p-era
7roAA.7}s aK/3t/3tas). 3 Going on to speak more particularly of
himself, Josephus says :
" But certain worthless men have taken in hand (eirtKexftp'nKCLffiv) to
calumniate my history ...... he who undertakes the delivery (irap&doffiv) of facts
to others ought himself in the first place to know them accurately (a\'/)t/3tDs),
either from having followed the events (ira.pT]KO\ov6i]K6TaTouyfyov6<rii>), or from
having ascertained them by inquiry of those who knew them ....... But I write
the history of the war, as an actor in many of the occurrences, and eye-witness
of most (irXelffTwv 5' airrdjrTTys yev6)j.fvos) ....... Must they not, therefore, be con-
sidered audacious who have taken in hand (tVi/rex"/"?*^ 7 " 05 ) to contend with me
regarding the truth of my history ?" 4
If we linguistically examine the prologue to the Gospel,
addressed to the "most excellent Theophilus," we find some
instructive peculiarities. In the first verse, we have the verb
(irixeipfiv, which is nowhere else used in the Gospel, only
twice in Acts (ix. 29; xix. 13), and not at all in the rest of
' Contra Apionem, ii. I. 2 Ib., i., 3. \ 3 /., 6. Ib., i. 10.
USE OF JOSEPHUS BY THE AUTHOR
the New Testament. In the introduction to his work against
Apion, however, addressed by Josephus to the " most excellent
Epaphroditus," it is employed four times in the first eleven
paragraphs, 1 and we do not here refer to any other part.
AuT07m/s is not met with anywhere in the New Testament
except in Luke i. 2, but it is likewise found in close connection
with the other parallels in the work against Apion. 2 Except in
Luke i. 3, irapu.KoX.ov9f.lv does not occur in any part of that
Gospel or of Acts, and only in three other places of the New
Testament. 3 It is found in the same section as the above, and
further in two other passages just quoted. 4 'A/cpt/^ws occurs in
Luke i. 3 and Acts xviii. 25, but nowhere else in the two books,
and, besides, only once in the rest of the New Testament ; 5 but
it also is met with twice in the sections against Apion referred to, 6
which probably suggested the whole prologue.
We have left very many important analogies unmentioned
which merit examination ; but those which have been pointed out,
we think, leave little doubt that the author of the third Synoptic
and Acts was acquainted with, and made use of, the works of
Josephus. Now, the history of the Jewish war was written about
A.D. 75, the Antiquities about A.D. 93, the Life at a still later period,
and last of all the work against Apion, probably at the very end of
the first century. If, then, it be admitted, as we think it must be,
that the author of the third Gospel made use of these works of
Josephus, we have at once the beginning of the second century as
the very earliest date at which the third Synoptic could have been
written, and the Acts of the Apostles must necessarily be assigned
to a still later date. At what precise period of the second century
they were composed we cannot here pause to consider, even if
the materials for determining the point exist ; but the reasons now
given, and many other considerations, point surely to a date when
it is scarcely possible that the Acts of the Apostles could have
been written by a companion of the Apostle Paul, and much less
the third Gospel of our canon. ?
We have said enough to enable the reader to understand the
1 2, 10 twice, II ; eyx fl P ^ v ' s a l- so used in 6. 2 i., 10.
3 Mark xvi. 1751 Tim. iv. 6 ; 2 Tim. iii. 10.
4 Contra Apion. , i. , IO, 23 ; ii. I ; KaraKoXovDew also occurs, 3, and in
Luke xxiii. 55, Acts xvi. 17.
5 Matt. ii. 8 ; aKpipforepov is found once, in Acts xviii. 26.
6 Contra Apion., 3, 10.
7 The argument from page 600 to this point is extracted from an article by
the author which appeared in the fortnightly Review, October 1st, 1877, p.
496 f. An able work has since appeared, Josephus und Lucas, by Max
Krenkel (Leipzig, 1894), in which the influence of the Jewish historian upon
the author of the third Gospel and Acts of the Apostles is exhaustively
examined and, we consider, fully established.
612 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
nature of the problem regarding the author of the third Synoptic
and of the Acts of the Apostles; and whilst for our purpose much
less would have sufficed, it is evident that the materials do not
exist for identifying him. The stupendous miracles related in these
two works, therefore, rest upon the evidence of an unknown
writer, who from internal evidence must have composed them very
long after the events recorded. Externally, there is no proof even
of the existence of the Acts until towards the end of the second
century, when also for the first time we hear of a vague theory as
to the name and identity of the supposed author a theory which
declares Luke not to have himself been an eye-witness of the
occurrences related in the Gospel, and which reduces his participa-
tion even in the events narrated in the Acts to a very small and
modest compass, leaving the great mass of the miracles described
in the work without even his personal attestation. The theory
we have seen to be not only unsupported by evidence, but to
be contradicted by many potent circumstances. We propose
now, without exhaustively examining the contents of the
Acts, which would itself require a separate treatise, at least to
consider some of its main points sufficiently to form a fair
judgment of the historical value of the work, although the facts
which we have already ascertained are clearly fatal to the document
as adequate testimony for miracles, and the reality of Divine
Revelation.
CHAPTER III.
HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE WORK : DESIGN AND
COMPOSITION
THE historical value of the Acts of the Apostles has very long
been the subject of vehement discussion, and the course of the
controversy has certainly not been favourable to the position of
the work. For a considerable time the traditional view continued
to prevail, aud little or no doubt of the absolute credibility of the
narrative was ever expressed. When the spirit of independent and
enlightened criticism was finally aroused, it had to contend with
opinions which habit had rendered stereotype, and prejudices
which took the form of hereditary belief. A large body of eminent
critics, after an exhaustive investigation of the Acts, have
now declared that the work is not historically accurate, and cannot
be accepted as a true account of the Acts and teaching of the
Apostles.
The author of the Acts has been charged with having written
the work with a distinct design to which he subordinated historical
truth, and in this view many critics have joined who ultimately
do not accuse him absolutely of falsifying history, but merely of
making a deliberate selection of his materials with the view of
placing events in the light most suitable for his purpose. Most of
those who make this charge maintain that, in carrying out
the original purpose of the Acts, the writer so freely manipu-
lated whatever materials he had before him, and so dealt with
facts whether by omission, transformation, or invention, that the
historical value of his narrative has been destroyed or at least
seriously affected. On the other hand, many apologetic writers
altogether deny the existence of any design on the part of
the author such as is here indicated, which could have led him to
suppress or distort facts ; and whilst some of them advance very
varied and fanciful theories as to the historical plan upon
which the writer proceeds, and in accordance with which the
peculiarities of his narrative are explained, they generally accept
the work as the genuine history of the Acts of the Apostles so far
a the author possessed certain information. The design most
generally ascribed to the writer of the Acts may, with many minor
variations, be said to be apologetic and conciliatory : an attempt
613
6i4 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
to reconcile the two parties in the early Church by representing
the difference between the views of Peter and Paul as slight and
unimportant, Pauline sentiments being freely placed in the mouth
of Peter, and the Apostle of the Gentiles being represented as an
orthodox adherent of the Church of Jerusalem, with scarcely such
advanced views of Christian universality as Peter ; or else, an effort
of Gentile Christianity to bring itself into closer union with the
primitive Church, surrendering, in so doing, all its distinctive
features and its Pauline origin, and representing the universalism
by which it existed, as a principle adopted and promulgated from
the very first by P'eter and the Twelve. It is not necessary
for us to enter upon any minute discussion of this point, nor
is it requisite, for the purposes of our inquiry, to determine
whether the peculiar character of the writing which we are examin-
ing is the result ef a perfectly definite purpose controlling the
whole narrative and modifying every detail, or naturally arises from
the fact that it is the work of a pious member of the Church
writing long after the events related, and imbuing his materials,
whether of legend or ecclesiastical tradition, with his own
thoroughly orthodox views : history freely composed for Christian
edification. We shall not endeavour to construct any theory to
account for the phenomena before us, nor to discover the secret
motives or intentions of the writer, but, taking them as they are,
we shall simply examine some of the more important portions of
the narrative, with a view to determine whether the work can in
any serious sense be regarded as credible history.
No one can examine the contents of the Acts without per-
ceiving that some secret motive or influence did certainly govern
the writer's mind, and guide him in the selection of topics, and
this is betrayed by many peculiarities in his narrative. Quite
apart from any attempt to discover precisely what that motive was,
it is desirable that we should briefly point out some of these
peculiarities. It is evident that every man who writes a history
must commence with a distinct plan, and that the choice of
subjects to be introduced or omitted must proceed upon a certain
principle. This is, of course, an invariable rule wherever there is
order and arrangement. No one has ever questioned that in the
Acts of the Apostles both order and arrangement have been
deliberately adopted, and the question naturally arises, What was
the plan of the author ? and upon what principle did he select,
from the mass of facts which might have been related regarding
the Church in the Apostolic ages, precisely those which he has
inserted, to the exclusion of the rest ? What title will adequately
represent the contents of the book ? for it is admitted by almost
all critics that the actual name which the book bears neither was
given to it by its author nor properly describes its intention and
THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE AUTHOR 615
subject. 1 The extreme difficulty which has been felt in answering
these questions, and in constructing any hypothesis which may
fairly correspond with the actual contents of the Acts, constitutes
one of the most striking commentaries on the work, and, although
we cannot here detail the extremely varied views of critics upon
the subject, they are well worthy of study. No one now advances
the theory which was anciently current that the author simply
narrated that of which he was an eye-witness. 2 Its present title,
Tr/oa^eis rwv aTroo-roXwi/, would lead us to expect an account
of the doings of the Apostles in general, but we have nothing like
this in the book. Peter and Paul occupy the principal parts of
the narrative, and the other Apostles are scarcely mentioned.
James is introduced as an actor in the famous Council, and
represented as head of the Church in Jerusalem ; but it is much
disputed that he was either an Apostle, or one of the Twelve.
The death of James the brother of John is just mentioned. John
is represented on several occasions during the earlier part
of the narrative as the companion of Peter, without being
prominently brought forward ; and the rest of the Twelve are left
in complete obscurity. It is not a history of the labours of Peter
and Paul, for not only is considerable importance given to the
episodes of Stephen and Philip the Evangelist, but the account
of the two great Apostles is singularly fragmentary. After a
brief chronicle of the labours of Peter, he suddenly disappears
from the scene, and we hear of him no more. Paul then becomes
the prominent figure in the drama ; but we have already pointed
out how defective is the information given regarding him, and he
is also abandoned as soon as he is brought to Rome : of his
subsequent career and martyrdom nothing whatever is said. The
work is not, as Luther suggested, a gloss on the Epistles of Paul
and the inculcation of his doctrine of righteousness through faith,
for the narrative of the Acts, so far as we can compare it with the
Epistles, which are nowhere named in it, is generally in contra-
diction to them, and the doctrine of justification by faith is
conspicuous by its absence. It is not a history of the first
Christian missions, for it ignores entirely the labours of most of
the Apostles, omits all mention of some of the most interesting
missionary journeys, and does not even give a report of the
introduction of Christianity into Rome. It is not in any sense
a Paulinian history of the Church, for if, on the one side, it
describes the Apostles of the Circumcision as promulgating the
1 Perhaps the perfectly vague designation of the book, "Acts,"
the Cod. Sinaiticus, may be taken as the closest because most vague descrip-
tion of its contents.
2 Cf. Hieron. , De vir. ill., 7; Eusebius, H. ., iii. 4; Can. Mtirat, ed,
Tregelles, p. 18 f.
616 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
universalism which Paul preached, it robs him of his originality,
dwarfs his influence upon the development of Christianity, and is,
on the other hand, too defective to represent Church history,
whether from a Paulinian or any other standpoint. The favourite
theory, that the writer designed to relate the story of the spread
of Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome, can scarcely be main-
tained, although it certainly has the advantage of a vagueness of
proportions equally suitable to the largest and most limited
treatment of history. But, in such a case, we have a drama with
the main incident omitted ; for the introduction of the Gospel
into Rome is not described at all, and, whilst the author could
not consider the personal arrival at Rome of the Apostle Paul the
climax of his history, he at once closes his account where the final
episode ought to have commenced.
From all points of view, and upon any hypothesis, the Acts of
the Apostles is so obviously incomplete as a history, so fragmentary
and defective as biography, that critics have to the present day
failed in framing any theory which could satisfactorily account for
its anomalies, and have almost been forced to explain them by
supposing a partial, apologetic or conciliatory, design, which
removes the work from the region of veritable history. The
whole interest of the narrative, of course, centres in the two
representative Apostles, Peter and Paul, who alternately fill the
scene. It is difficult to say, however, whether the account of
the Apostle of the Circumcision or of Paul is the more capriciously
partial and incomplete. After his miraculous liberation from the
prison into which he had been cast by Herod, the doings of Peter
are left unchronicled, and, although he is reintroduced for a
moment to plead the cause of the Gentiles at the Council in
Jerusalem, he then finally retires from the scene, to give place to
Paul. The omissions from the history of Paul are very remarkable,
and all the more so from the extreme and unnecessary detail of
the itinerary of some of his journeys, and neither the blanks on
the one hand, nor the excessive minuteness on the other, are to be
explained by any theory connected with personal knowledge on
the part of Theophilus. Of the general history of the primitive
Church, and the life and labours of the Twelve, we are told little or
nothing. According to the author, the propagation of the Gospel
was carried on more by angelic agency than apostolic enthusiasm.
There is a liberal infusion of miraculous episodes in the story,
but a surprising scarcity of facts. Even where the author is best
informed, as in the second part of the Acts, the narrative of Paul's
labours and missionary journeys, while presenting striking omissions,
is really minute and detailed only in regard to points of no
practical interest, leaving both the distinctive teaching of the
Apostle and the internal economy of tha^ Church almost entirely
PARALLELISM BETWEEN PETER AND PAUL 617
unrepresented. Does this defective narrative of the Acts of the
Apostles proceed from poverty of information or from the arbitrary
selection of materials for a special purpose ? As we proceed it
will become increasingly evident that, limited although the writer's
materials are, the form into which they have been moulded has
undoubtedly been determined either by a dominant theory or a
deliberate design, neither of which is consistent with the composi-
tion of sober history.
This is particularly apparent in the representation which is given
of the two principal personages of the narrative. Critics have long
clearly recognised that the author of the Acts has carefully
arranged his materials so as to present as close a parallelism as
possible between the Apostles Peter and Paul. We shall presently
see how closely he assimilates their teaching, ascribing the views
of Paul to Peter, and putting Petrine sentiments in the mouth of
Paul ; but here we shall merely refer to points of general history.
If Peter has a certain pre-eminence as a distinguished member of
the original Apostolic body, the equal claim of Paul to the
honours of the Apostolate, whilst never directly advanced, is
prominently suggested by the narration, no less than three times,
of the circumstances of his conversion and direct call to the office
by the glorified Jesus. The first miracle ascribed to Peter is the
healing of " a certain man lame from his mother's womb " (rts dvrjp
XwAos fK KoiAtas pppos avToii) at the Beautiful gate of the Temple, 1
and the first wonder performed by Paul is also the healing of " a
certain man lame from his mother's womb " (ns avrjp x w ^s
ex KotAtas /w/T/o5s OU'TOU) at Lystra ; 2 Ananias and Sapphira are
punished through the instrumentality of Peter, 3 and Elymas is
smitten with blindness at the word of Paul ;4 the sick are laid in
the streets that the shadow of Peter may fall upon them, and they
are healed, as are also those vexed with unclean spirits ; 5 hand-
kerchiefs or aprons are taken to the sick from the body of Paul,
and they are healed, and the evil spirits go out of them ; 6 Peter
withstands Simon the sorcerer,? as Paul does the sorcerer Elymas
and the exorcists at Ephesus ; 8 if Peter heals the paralytic ^Eneas
at Lydda,9 Paul restores to health the fever-stricken father of
Publius at Melita ; 10 Peter raises from the dead Tabitha, a disciple
at Joppa, 11 and Paul restores to life the disciple Eutychus at
Troas ; 12 Cornelius falls at the feet of Peter, and worships him,
Peter preventing him, and saying : " Rise up ! I myself also am a
man"; 1 ^ and in like manner the people of Lystra would have done
sacrifice to Paul, and he prevents them, crying out : "We also are
' iii. 2 f. - xiv. 8 f. 3 v. I f. 4 xiii. 1 1 f.
5 v. 12, 15 f. 6 xix. II, 12. 7 viii. 20 f. 8 xiii. II f., xix. 13 f.
9 ix. 33 f. I0 xxviii. 8. " ix. 36 f. I2 xx. 9 f.
13 x. 25, 26.
618 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
men of like passions with you "j 1 Peter lays his hands on the
people of Samaria, and they receive the Holy Ghost and the gift
of tongues, 2 and Paul does the same for believers at Ephesus ;3
Peter is brought before the council,* and so is Paul ; s the one is
imprisoned and twice released by an angel, 6 and the other is
delivered from his bonds by a great earthquake ; 7 if Peter be
scourged by order of the council, 8 Paul is beaten with many
stripes at the command of the magistrates of Philippi.9 It is
maintained that the desire to equalise the sufferings of the two
Apostles in the cause of the Gospel, as he has equalised their
miraculous displays, probably led the author to omit all mention
of those perils and persecutions to which the Apostle Paul refers
in support of his protest that he had laboured and suffered more
than all the rest. 10 If Paul was called by a vision to the ministry
of the Gentiles, 11 so Peter is represented as having been equally
directed by a vision to baptise the Gentile Cornelius ; 12 the double
vision of Peter and Cornelius has its parallel in the double vision
of Paul and Ananias. It is impossible to deny the measured
equality thus preserved between the two Apostles, or to ignore
the fact that parallelism like this is the result of premeditation,
and cannot claim the character of impartial history.
The speeches form an important element in the Acts of the
Apostles, and we shall how briefly examine them, reserving,
however, for future consideration their dogmatic aspect. Few if
any writers, however apologetic, maintain that these discourses
can possibly have been spoken exactly as they are recorded in the
Acts. The utmost that is asserted is that they are substantially
historical, and fairly represent the original speeches. They
were derived, it is alleged, either from written sources or oral
tradition, and many, especially in the second part, are supposed
to have been delivered in the presence of the author of the work.
This view is held, of course, with a greater or less degree of
assurance as to the closeness of the relation which our record
bears to the original addresses ; but, without here very closely
scrutinising hesitation or reticence, our statement fairly renders
the apologetic position. A large body of able critics deny
the historical character of these speeches, and consider them
merely free compositions by the author of the Acts, at the best
being on a par with the speeches which many ancient writers
place in the mouths of their historical personages, and giving only
what the writer supposed that the speaker would say under the
1 xiv. 13 f.,cf. xxviii. 6. 2 viii. 14 f., x. 44 f., etc. 3 xix. I f.
4 v. 21 f. 5 xxii. 30, xxiii. if. 6 v. 19, xii. 6 f.
i xvi. 26. * v. 40. * xvi. 22 f.
10 2 Cor. xi. 23 f., I Cor. xv. 10 ; Stap, Etudes sur les Origines, etc., p. 124 f.
" ix. 6, 15 f. I2 x. 9 f., xi. I f.,*xv. 7.
THE SPEECHES IN THE ACTS 619
circumstances. That the writer may have made use of such
materials as were within his reach, or endeavoured to embody the
ideas which tradition may broadly have preserved, is admitted
as possible ; but that these discourses can seriously be accepted
as conveying a correct report of anything actually spoken by the
persons in whose mouths they are put is, of course, denied. It
is, obviously, extremely improbable that any of these speeches
could have been written down at the time. Taking even the
supposed case that the author of the Acts was Luke, and was
present when some of the speeches of Paul were delivered, it is
difficult to imagine that he immediately recorded his recollection
of them, and more than this he could not have done. He must
continually have been in the habit of hearing the preaching of
Paul, and therefore could not have had the inducement of novelty
to make him write down what he heard. The idea of recording
them for posterity could not have occurred to such a person, with
the belief in the approaching end of all things then prevalent.
The author of the Acts was not the companion of Paul, however,
and the contents of the speeches, as we shall presently see, are
not of a character to make it in the least degree likely that they
could have been written down for separate circulation. Many of
the speeches in the Acts, moreover, were delivered under circum-
stances which render it specially unlikely that they could have
been reported with any accuracy. At no time an easy task
correctly to record a discourse of any length, it is doubly difficult
when those speeches, like many in Acts, we're spoken under
circumstances of great danger or excitement. The experience of
modern times, before the application of systems of shorthand,
may show how imperfectly speeches were taken down, even where
there was deliberate preparation and set purpose to do so ; and if
it be suggested that some celebrated orations of the last century
have so been preserved, it is undeniable that what has been
handed down to us is either a mere copy of the previously
written speech, or does not represent the original, but is almost
a subsequent composition, preserving little more than some
faint echoes of the real utterance. The probability that a
correct record of speeches made under such circumstances
in the middle of the first century could have been kept seems
exceedingly small. Even if it could be shown that the author
of the Acts took these speeches substantially from earlier
documents, it would not materially tend to establish their
authenticity ; for the question would still remain perfectly open
as to the closeness of those documents to the original discourses ;
but in the absence of all evidence, whether as to the existence or
origin of any such records, the conjecture of their possible existence
can have no weight. We have nothing but internal testimony to
620 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
examine, and that, we shall see, is totally opposed to the claim to
historical value made for those discourses.
Apologists scarcely maintain that we have in the Acts a record
of the original speeches in their completeness, but in claiming sub-
stantial accuracy most of them include the supposition at least of
careful condensation. The longest discourse in the Acts would
not have taken more than six or seven minutes to deliver, and it is
impossible to suppose that what is there given can have been the
whole speech delivered on many of the occasions described. For
instance, is it probable that King Agrippa, who desires to hear
Paul, and who comes " with great pomp " with Berenice to do so,
should only have been favoured with a speech lasting five minutes ?
The author himself tells us that Paul was not always so brief in
his addresses as one might suppose from the specimens here
presented. 1 It is remarkable, however, that not the slightest
intimation is given that the speeches are only substantially
reported or are abridged, and their form and character are
evidently designed to convey the impression of complete
discourses. If the reader examine any of these speeches, it will
be clear that they are concise compositions, betraying no marks
of abridgment, and having no fragmentary looseness, but, on the
contrary, that they are highly artificial and finished productions,
with a continuous argument. Many of them are singularly
inadequate to produce the impressions described ; but at least
it is not possible to discover that material omissions have
been made, or that their- periods were originally expanded
by large, or even any, amplification. If these speeches be
regarded as complete, and with little or no condensation, another
strong element is added to the suspicion as to their authenticity,
for such extreme baldness and brevity in the declaration of a new
religion, requiring both explanation and argument, cannot be
conceived, and in the case of Paul, with whose system of teaching
and doctrine we are well acquainted through his Epistles, it is
impossible to accept such meagre and one-sided addresses as
representations of his manner. The statement that the discourses
are abridged, and a mere resumt of those originally delivered,
rests upon no authority, is a mere conjecture to account for
an existing difficulty, and is in contradiction to the actual form
of the speeches in Acts. Regarded as complete, their incongruity
is intensified ; but, considered as abridged, they have lost in the
process all representative character and historical fitness.
It has been argued, indeed, that the different speeches bear
evidence to their genuineness from their suitability to the speakers,
and to the circumstances under which they are said to have been
1 xx. 7-9. (
THE SPEECHES COMPOSED BY THE AUTHOR 621
delivered ; but the existence of anything but the most superficial
semblance of idiosyncratic character must be denied. The
similarity of form, manner, and matter in all the speeches is most
remarkable, as will presently be made more apparent, and the
whole of the doctrine enunciated amounts to little more than the
repetition, in slightly varying words, of the brief exhortation to
repentance and belief in Jesus, the Christ, that salvation may be
obtained, with references to the ancient history of the Jews,
singularly alike in all discourses. Very little artistic skill is
necessary to secure a certain suitability of the word to the action
and the action to the word ; and evidence is certainly reduced to
a very low ebb when such agreement as is presented in the Acts is
made an argument for authenticity. Not only is the consistency
of the sentiments uttered by the principal speakers, as com-
pared with what is known of their opinions and character, utterly
disputed, but it must be evident that the literary skill of the
author of the Acts was quite equal to so simple a task as preserv-
ing at least such superficial fitness as he displays.
It has been freely admitted by critics of all schools that the
author's own peculiarities of style and language are apparent in all the
speeches of the Acts. We may point out a few general instances
of this nature which are worthy of attention. The author intro-
duces the speeches of different persons with the same expression,
" he opened his mouth," or something similar. Philip "opened
his mouth " (dvoias TO o-To/m avrou) 1 and addressed the Ethio-
pian (viii. 35). Peter "opened his mouth (and) said" (di/oia?
TO cTTo/xa, tTirtv), when he delivered his discourse before the
baptism of Cornelius (x. 34). Again, he uses it of Paul : " And
when Paul was about to open his mouth (/xeAXovTo? dvoiyeiv TO
o-TOjua) Gallic said," etc. (xviii. 14). The words with which the
speech of Peter at Pentecost is introduced deserve more attention :
" Peter lifted up his voice and said unto them " (ewypev -njv
(fxovrjv avrov, Kal a.ire(f>6fya.TO CU'TOI?) (ii. 14). The verb
u.-iro(j>0eyyf(rdai occurs again (ii. 4) in the account of the descent
of the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues, and it is put into the
mouth of Paul (xxvi. 25) in his reply to Festus ; but it occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament. The favourite formula with
which all speeches open is, "Men (and) Brethren" (avS/oe?
uStAc^ot), or avSpes coupled with some other term, as " Men
(and) Israelites " (dvSpes 'lo-pa^Aen-ai), or simply di/Spes with-
out addition. "AvSpes dSeX^ot occurs no less than thirteen
times. It is used thrice by Peter, 2 six times by Paul, 3 as well as
1 It is to be remarked, however, that the same expression occurs in the first
Synoptic (Matt. v. 2, xiii. 35, xvii. 27), and only once in Luke i. 64. It is
also quoted Acts viii. 32 from the Ixx. version of Isaiah liii. "].
2 i. 16 ; ii. 29; xv. 7. 3 xiii. 26, 38 ; xxii. I ; xxiii. I, 6 ; xxviii. 17.
622 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
by Stephen, 1 James, 2 the believers at Pentecost, 3 and the rulers of
the Synagogue. 4 The angels at the Ascension address the disciples
as " Men (and) Galileans " (av&pfs raAiAttioi).s Peter makes use
of avSpes 'laYxu/AeiTat twice, 6 and it is likewise employed by
Paul,? by Gamaliel, 8 and by the Jews of Asia.9 Peter addresses
those assembled at Pentecost as avS/aes 'lovSaioi. 10 Paul opens
his Athenian speech with av<5/>es 'A&jveuoi, 11 and the town-clerk
begins his short appeal to the craftsmen of Ephesus : avS/ots
'E</>riot. 12 Stephen begins his speech to the Council with "Men,
Brethren, and Fathers, hear" (avSpcs aSeA^ot *ai Trare/aes,
aKoware), and Paul uses the very same words in addressing
the multitude from the stairs of the Temple. 13
In the speech which Peter is represented as making at Pente-
cost he employs in an altogether peculiar way (ii. 25-27) Psalm
xvi., quoting it in order to prove that the Resurrection of Jesus
the Messiah was a necessary occurrence, which had been foretold
by David. This is principally based upon the tenth verse of the
Psalm : " Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, neither
wilt thou give thy Holy One (rbv oo-tov o-ou) to see corruption
(&ia(f>6op(iv)." s * Peter argues that David both died and was buried,
and that his sepulchre is with them to that day, but that, being a
prophet, he foresaw and spake here of the Resurrection of Christ,
"that neither was he left in Hades nor did his flesh see corrup-
tion (Sia^Oopdv)." 1 * Is it not an extremely singular circum-
stance that Peter, addressing an audience of Jews in Jerusalem,
where he might naturally be expected to make use of the vernacular
language, actually quotes the Septuagint version of the Old
Testament, and bases his argument upon a mistranslation of the
Psalm, which, we may add, was in all probability not composed
by David at all ? The word translated " Holy One " should be
in the plural " holy ones," that is to say ; " thy saints," and the
word rendered 8ia(f>@opd corruption, really signifies " grave "
or " pit." The poet, in fact, merely expresses his confidence that
he will be preserved alive. The best critics recognise that
Psalm xvi. is not a Messianic psalm at all, and many of those
who, from the use which is made of it in Acts, are led to
assert that it is so, recognise in the main that it can only be
applied to the Messiah indirectly, by arguing that the prophecy
1 vii. 2. 2 xv. 13. 3 ji. 37.
4 xiii. 15. s i. n. 6 ii. 22 ; iii. 12.
^ xiii. 16. 8 v. 35. xxi. 28.
10 ii. 14. " xvii. 22. Ia xix. 35.
13 vii. 2 ; xxii. I.
14 &ri O{IK vKa.ra.\el\j/tis TTJV ^vx'fi" M" e ^ aSt)v ovdt Soxms rbv 8ffi6v ffov ISelv
8ia.<f>6opdv. Acts ii. 27.
15 Acts ii. 31. *,
SPEECHES OF PETER AND PAUL COMPARED 623
was not fulfilled in the case of the poet who speaks of himself,
but was fulfilled in the Resurrection of Jesus. This reasoning,
however, totally ignores the sense of the original, and is opposed
to all legitimate historical interpretation of the Psalm. Not
dwelling upon this point at present, we must go on to point out
that, a little further on (xiii. 35-37), the Apostle Paul is repre-
sented as making use of the very same argument which Peter here
employs, and quoting the same passage from Psalm xvi. to support
it. This repetition of very peculiar reasoning, coupled with other
similarities which we shall presently point out, leads to the infer-
ence that it is merely the author himself who puts this argument
into their mouths ; and this conclusion is strengthened by the
circumstance that, throughout both Gospel and Acts, he always
quotes from the Septuagint, even when that version departs
from the sense of the original. It may be well to give both
passages in juxtaposition, in order that the closeness of the analogy
may be more easily realised. For this purpose we somewhat alter
the order of the verses :
PKTKR IN ACTS n.
PAUL IN ACTS xin.
25. For David saith concerning 35. Wherefore he (David) saith also
him 27. Because thou wilt not [ in another (Psalm): Thou wilt not
leave my soul in Hades, neither wilt j give thine holy one to see corruption.
thou give thine holy one to see corrup- !
tion.
30. Being therefore a prophet, and 22 he raised up unto them
knowing that God swore with an oath David for king
to him that of the fruit of his i 23. Of this man's seed God, accord-
loins 1 he would set one upon his ing to promise, brought unto Israel a
throne, ' Saviour Jesus.
34. But that he raised him up from
the dead no more to return to corrup-
tion (dia<j>6opd) he has said on this
31. He foresaw and spoke of the
resurrection of the Christ, that he was
neither left in Hades nor did his flesh
see corruption (dia<j>0opa).
29. Men (and) brethren I may speak ' 36. For David, after he served in
with freedom unto you of the patriarch his own generation the counsel of God,
David, that he both died and was fell asleep, and was added to his fathers
wise
buried, and his sepulchre is amongst
us unto this day.
32. This Jesus God raised up.
and saw corruption (5ia<t>6opd) ;
37. But he whom God raised saw
not corruption (diaQOopdv).
Not only is this argument the same in both discourses, but the
whole of Paul's speech, xiii. 16 f., is a mere reproduction of the
two speeches of Peter, ii. 14 f. and iii. 12 f., with such alterations
as the writer could introduce to vary the fundamental sameness of
ideas and expressions. It is worth while to show this in a similar
way.
1 The authorised version, with Cod. D, and some other MSS., inserts here
"according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit," etc.
624
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
PAUL IN ACTS xin.
16. And Paul having risen
(dvaffras 5e II.) said Men (and)
Israelites (avSpes Ttr/ja^Xdrat) and ye
that fear God . . .
22 and 23. See above.
24. When John first preached 1 he-
fore his coming the baptism of repen-
tance to all the people of Israel.
26. Men (and) Brethren (acS/jes
dde\<f>oi), sons (viol) of the race of
Abraham and those amongst you who
fear God, to you was the word of this
salvation sent (direffrdX-ij). 2
27. For they that dwell in Jeru-
salem and their rulers (ol dpxovTft
avrCiv), not knowing (dyvo^ffavre^)
this (man) nor yet the voices of the
prophets (rets <j>wvas -rCiv trpo<pt]T&i>),
which are read every (iray) sabbath
day, fulfilled (iir\-t}p<j)aa.v) them by
their judgment of him ;
28. And though having found
no cause of death, they desired
(jfnJtroJTo) Pilate that he should be
slain (A 6
PETER IN ACTS n. AND in.
14. And Peter stood up
de II.) ...... and spoke plainly to
them ...... Men (and) Jews (dvdpts
'lovSaloi) and all ye that dwell at
Jerusalem ...... (verse 22 and iii.
12) Men (and) Israelites (dvSpes
'IffparjXeiTat).
30. See above.
iii. 19. Repent, therefore, and turn
...... 20 ...... that he may send Christ
Jesus who before was appointed 1
for you.
ii. 29. Men (andi Brethren (dvSpes
dSeXtftot) .
iii. 25.3 Ye are the sons (viol) of
the prophets and of the covenant
which God made unto your fathers,
saying unto Abraham ...... 26 .......
unto you first God, having raised up
his servant (rbv iraida avrou), 4 sent
(dirtffTftXfv) him to bless you.
iii. I7. 5 And now brethren (<i5e\-
<pot) I know that ye did (it) in igno-
rance (ayvoiav), as did also your
rulers (ol dpxovres V/AWV) ; iS. but
the things which God before an-
nounced by the mouth of all the
prophets (5ta <TT<5yaaros irdvTuv T>V
irpo<f>T)T(>)v) he thus fulfilled (
iii. 13 ....... whom ye delivered
up, and denied him in the presence
of Pilate when he decided to release
him ;
(ii. 23. This (man) delivered by
the determinate counsel and fore-
knowledge of God, by the hand of
lawless (men) crucifying (him) ye slew
(dveiXare), 6
1 The authorised version of iii. 20 reads " preached," adopting the same verb
TrpoKTjpi'irreui as in xiii. 24, which is nowhere else used in the N. T. It is fair
to say, however, that the evidence is greatly in favour of the reading " trpo-
Kexeipifffttvov " in iii. 20.
2 efairfffrdXri is the reading of A, B, C, D, fr$, etc. ; the reading given is that
of E, G, H, etc.
3 Cf. ii. 39 : For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to
all that aie afar off, whomsoever the Lord God shall have called unto
him.
4 Rendered " son" in the authorised version.
5 Cf. Acts xvii. 30.
6 This verb dvatptiv is used twice in Luke, only thrice in the rest of the
N. T., but nineteen times in Acts, and it is freely put into the mouths of
Peter, Paul, Stephen, and Gamaliel, as well as used in the narrative
portions. t
SPEECHES OF PETER AND PAUL COMPARED
625
PAUL IN ACTS xm.
29. But when they finished all the
things written regarding him, they
took him down from the tree and laid
him in a sepulchre.
30. But God raised him from the
dead ; (6 5 0e6s ijyeipev avrbv eic
31
who are now his witnesses
32. And we declare unto you the
promise made unto the fathers (717)65
roi)s trarepas),
33. That God has perfectly fulfilled
the same unto t our children, having
raised up (drao-r^tras) Jesus, as it is
written ......
34. 35, 3.6, 37- See above.
38. Be it known unto you, there-
fore, men (and) brethren (avdpes
ddf\<f>ol), that through this man is pro-
claimed unto you remission of sins
(a<j>e<ns afjiapTiuv).
39. And from all things from which
ye could not be justified in the law of
Moses, every one who believes in this
man is justified ;
40. Beware, therefore, lest that
come upon you which is spoken of in
the prophets ;
41 . Behold ye despisers, and wonder
and perish.
PETER IN ACTS n. AND in.
iii. 14. But ye denied the holy and
just one, and desired (?;T^<racr0e) a
murderer to be granted to you,
15. And killed the Prince of life
whom God raised from the dead (8v 6
ijyeipev eK veKp&v), whose witnesses
s) we are.
iii. 25. Ye are the sons of the
prophets and of the covenant made
unto your fathers (irpbs roi>s irarepas
V/JL&V) saying ......
26. Unto you first God, having
raised up (dvao-rijo-as) his servant
(7ra?5a) Jesus, sent him to bless you,
etc.
ii. 31, 27, 29, 32. See above.
ii. 37. Men (and) Brethren (avdpes
dde\<poi). ,
38 ....... Repent and be baptised
every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ, for remission of your sins
(a.<peffiv T&V a.fJ.a.pTi(av V/AWV), etc.
iii. 22. Moses indeed said 1 : A pro-
phet shall the Lord your God raise up
unto you from among your brethren,
like unto me ; him shall ye hear in
all things whatsoever he shall say unto
you.
23. And it shall be that every
soul which will not hear that prophet
shall be destroyed from among the
people.
24. And all the prophets also from
Samuel and from those that follow
after, as many as spake, also foretold
these days.
Paul's address likewise bears close analogy with the speech of
Stephen, vii. 2 f., commencing with a historical survey of the
earlier traditions of the people of Israel, and leading up to the
same accusation that, as their fathers disregarded the prophets, so
they had persecuted and slain the Christ. The whole treatment
of the subject betrays the work of the same mind in both dis-
courses. Bleek, who admits the similarity between these and
other speeches in Acts, argues that " it does not absolutely follow
from this that these speeches are composed by one and the same
This reference is also put into the mouth of Stephen, Acts vii. 37.
2S
626 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
person, and are altogether unhistorical "; for it is natural, he
thinks, that in the Apostolical circle, and in the first Christian
Church, there should have existed a certain uniform type in the
application of messianic passages of the Old Testament, and in
quotations generally, to which different teachers might conform
without being dependent on each other. 1 He thinks that, along
with the close analogy, there is also much which is charac-
teristic in the different speeches. Not only is this typical system
of quotation, however, a mere conjecture to explain an actual
difficulty, but it is totally inadequate to account for the pheno-
mena. If we suppose, for instance, that Paul had adopted the
unhistorical application of the sixteenth Psalm to the Messiah, is it
not a very extraordinary thing that in all the arguments in his
Epistles he does not once refer to it ? Even if this be waived,
and it be assumed that he had adopted this interpretation of the
Psalm, it will scarcely be asserted that Paul, whose independence
and originality of mind are so undeniable, and whose intercourse
with the Apostolical circle at any time, and most certainly up to
the period when this speech was delivered, was very limited, 2
could so completely have caught the style and copied the manner
of Peter that, on an important occasion like this, his address
should be a mere reproduction of Peter's two speeches delivered
so long before, and when Paul certainly was not present. The
similarity of these discourses does not consist in the mere applica-
tion of the same Psalm, but the whole argument, on each
occasion, is repeated with merely sufficient transposition of its
various parts to give a superficial appearance of variety. Words
and expressions, rare or unknown elsewhere, are found in both,
and the characteristic differences which Bleek finds exist only in
his own apologetic imagination. Let it be remembered that the
form of the speeches and the language are generally ascribed to
the author of the Acts. Can any unprejudiced critic deny that
the ideas in the speeches we are considering are also substantially
the same? Is there any appreciable trace of the originality of
Paul in his discourses ? There is no ground whatever, apart from
the antecedent belief that the various speeches were actually
delivered by the men to whom they 'are ascribed, for asserting
that we have here the independent utterances of Peter and Paul.
It is internal evidence alone, and no avowal on the part of the
author, which leads to the conclusion that the form of the speeches
is the author's ; and there is no internal evidence which requires
us to stop at the mere form, and not equally ascribe the substance
to the same source. The speeches in the Acts, generally, have
altogether the character of being the composition of one mind
' Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 346 ; Trip, Paulus, p. 195. 2 Cf. Gal. i. 1 1 f., ii. 6.
SPEECHES OF PETER AND PAUL COMPARED
627
endeavouring to impart variety of thought and expression to
various speakers, but failing signally either from poverty of inven-
tion or from the purpose of instituting a close parallel in views,
as well as actions, between the two representative Apostles.
Further to illustrate this, let us take another speech of Peter
which he delivers on the occasion of the conversion of Cornelius,
and it will be apparent that it also contains all the elements, so
far as it goes, of Paul's discourse :
PAUL IN ACTS xin.
26. Sons (viol) of the race of Abra-
ham, and those among you who fear
God (oi <f>o^o6fj.evoi), to you was the
word (6 \6yos) of this salvation sent
PETER IN ACTS x.
35. But in every nation he that fears
him (6 (fjofioi'i/uievos) is acceptable to
him
36. The word (rov \6yov) which he
(God) sent (dirtffTeiXfv) unto the sons
(viols) of Israel, preaching peace by
Jesus Christ ;* he is Lord of all.
37. Ye know the word spoken
throughout all Judea, beginning from
Galilee, after the baptism (j3dTrTio-fj.a)
which John preached,
38. Concerning Jesus of Nazareth,
how God anointed him with the Holy
Spirit and power ; who went about
doing good, and healing all that were
oppressed by the devil, for God was
with him.
39. And we are witnesses (/j-dprvpes)
of all things which he did both in the
land of the Jews and in Jerusalem ;
whom also they slew (dvei\av), hanging
him upon a tree (%v\ov).
40. Him God raised (6 0eds tfyei-
pcv) the third day, and gave him to
become manifest ;
41. Not to all the people, but to
witnesses (fj.dpTv<Tiv) chosen before by
God, even to us who did eat and
drink with him after he rose from the
dead (tic vfKpwv).
42. And he commanded (irapriy-
yei\ev) us to preach unto the people
and to testify that it is he who has
been appointed (6 upi<r[j.fros) 3 by God
judge (KpiTTjs) of quick and dead.
1 Cf. xiii. 23. 2 P. 624, note 2.
3 Except by the author of Luke (xxii. 22) and Acts, the verb bpieiv is only
twice used in the O. T. In Acts it is twice put into the mouth of Peter (ii.
23, x. 42) and twice into that of Paul (xvii. 26, 31), as well as used in narra-
tive (xi. 29).
24. When John first proclaimed
before his coming the baptism
(pdiTTiff/jia) of repentance to all the
people of Israel.
25. And as John was fulfilling his
course, he said : Whom think ye that
I am ? I am not he ; but behold there
comes one after me the shoes of whose
feet I am not worthy to loose.
27. For they that dwell in Jerusalem
and their rulers 28. Though
having found no cause of death,
desired Pilate that he should be slain
(dvaipeO'fjva.i) ; 29. But when they had
finished all the things written regard-
ing him they took him down from the
tree (i-v\ov).
30. But God raised (6 0e6s -^yeipfv)
him from the dead (<FK veKp&v) ;
31. And he appeared for many days
to those who came up with him from
Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his
witnesses (pdprvpes) unto the people.
xvii. 30 but now commands
(TrapayytXXfi) all men everywhere to
repent: 31. Because he fixed a day
in the which he is about to judge
(Kplveiv) the world in righteousness by
the man whom he appointed
628
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
43. To him bear all the prophets
witness that through his name all
who believe in him shall receive
remission of sins (afaff
PETER IN ACTS x. PAUL IN ACTS xm.
having given assurance to all by having
raised him up from the dead.
xiii. 27 not knowing the voices
! of the prophets which are read every
I Sabbath day 38. Be it known to
j you, therefore, that through this
I man is proclaimed unto you remission
' of sins (a^ecns a/mapTi&v).
Again, to take an example from another speaker, we find James
represented as using an expression which had just before been
put into the mouth of Paul, and it is not one in the least degree
likely to occur independently to each. The two passages are as
follows :
JAMES IN ACTS xv. 21.
Moses ...... being read in the syna-
gogues every Sabbath day.
Kara irav <raa.Tov
PAUL IN ACTS xm. 27.
the prophets being read every
Sabbath day.
(/cora TraV ffa.fi 'fia,rov dva.yivu>crKO/uLfi>os.
The fundamental similarity between these different speeches
cannot possibly be denied ; and it cannot be reasonably explained
in any other way than by the fact that they were composed by the
author himself, who had the earlier speeches ascribed to Peter still
in his memory when he wrote those of Paul, and who, in short,
had not sufficient dramatic power to create altogether distinct
characters, but simply made his different personages use his own
vocabulary to express his own somewhat limited range of ideas.
Setting his special design aside, his inventive faculty only
permitted him to represent Peter speaking like Paul, and Paul
like Peter.
It is argued by some, however, that in the speeches of Peter,
for instance, there are peculiarities of language and expression
which show analogy with the first Epistle bearing his name
in the New Testament Canon, and, on the other hand, traces
of translation in some of them which indicate that these speeches
were delivered originally in Aramaic, and that we have only
a version of them by the author of the Acts, or by some
one from whom he derived them. As regards the first of
these suppositions, a few phrases only have been pointed out,
but they are of no force under any circumstances, and the
whole theory is quite groundless. We do not consider it
worth while to enter upon the discussion. 1 There are two
potent reasons which render such an argument of no force, even if
the supposed analogies were in themselves both numerous and
1 Those who desire to do so may refer to, the complete edition, 1879,
vol. Hi., p. 22, notes 2, 3, and 4.
SPEECHES OF PETER AND PAUL COMPARED 629
striking, which actually they are not. The authenticity of the
Epistles bearing the name of Peter is not only not established, but
is by very many eminent critics absolutely denied ; and there
is no certainty that any of the speeches of Peter were delivered
in Greek, while the probability is that most, if not all, of that
Apostle's genuine discourses must have been spoken in Aramaic.
It is, in fact, asserted by apologists that part or all of the speeches
ascribed to him in the Acts must have been originally Aramaic,
although opinion may differ as to the language in which some of
them were spoken. Whether they were delivered in Aramaic, or
whether there be uncertainty on the point, any conclusion from
linguistic analogies with the Epistles is obviously excluded. One
thing is quite undeniable : the supposed analogies are few, and the
peculiarities distinguishing the author of Acts in these speeches
are extremely numerous and general. Even so thorough an
apologist as Tholuck candidly acknowledges that the attempt to
prove the authenticity of the speeches from linguistic analogies is
hopeless. He says : " Nevertheless, a comparison of the language
of the Apostles in their Epistles and in these speeches must in
many respects be less admissible than that of the character and
historical circumstances, for indeed, if the language and their pecu-
liarities be compared, it must first be established that all the
reported speeches were delivered in the Greek, language, which
is improbable, and of one of which (xxii. i, 2) the contrary is
expressly stated. Willingly admitting that upon this point differ-
ence of opinion is allowable, we express as the view which we have
hitherto held that, from ch. xx. onwards, the speeches delivered
by Paul are reported more in the language of Luke than in that of
Paul." 1 This applies with double force to Peter, whose speeches,
there is still greater reason to believe, were delivered in Aramaic,
and there is difference of opinion amongst the critics we have
referred to even as to whether these speeches were translated by
the author of the Acts, or were already before him in a translated
form, and were subsequently re-edited by him. We have already
shown cause for believing that the whole discussion is groundless,
from the fact that the speeches in Acts were simply composed by
the author himself, and are not in any sense historical ; and this we
shall hereafter further illustrate.
It may be worth while to consider briefly the arguments
advanced for the theory that some of the speeches show marks of
translation. It is asserted that the speech of Peter at Pente-
cost, ii. 14 f., was delivered in Aramaic. Of course it will be under-
stood that we might be quite prepared to agree to this statement
as applied to a speech actually delivered by Peter ; but the asser-
1 Stud. u. Krit., 1839, p. 306.
630 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
tion, so far as the speeches in Acts are concerned, is based upon
what we believe to be the erroneous supposition that they are
genuine reports of discourses. On the contrary, we maintain that
these speeches are mere compositions by the author of the work.
The contention is, however, that the speech attributed to Peter is
the translation of a speech originally delivered in Aramaic. In
ii. 24 Peter is represented as saying : " Whom God raised up
having loosed the pains of death (Xuo-as ras wStvas TOV 6a.v6.rov],
because it is not possible that he should be held (Kparflo-dai)
by it." It is argued by Bleek and others 1 that, as the context
proves, the image intended here was evidently the " snares " or
"cords" of death, a meaning which is not rendered by the Greek
word wStves. The confusion is explained, they contend, when
it is supposed that, in his Aramaic speech, Peter made use of a
Hebrew expression, equally found in Aramaic, which means as
well " snares " or " cords " as " pains " of death. The Greek
translator, probably misled by the Septuagint, 2 adopted the latter
signification of the Hebrew word in question, and rendered it
oiSti/es, " pains," which is absolutely inappropriate, for, they
argue, it is very unnatural to say of one who had already suffered
death, like Christ, that he had been held prisoner by the "pains "
of death, and loosed from them by the resurrection. There is,
however, very little unanimity amongst Apologists about this
passage. Ebrard 3 " asserts that wSii/es, " pains," is the correct transla-
tion of the Hebrew expression, as in Psalm xviii. 5, and that the
Hebrew word used always expresses pains of birth, the plural of
the similar word for "cord" or "snare" being different. Ebrard,
therefore, contends that the Psalm (xviii. 5) does not mean bonds
or snares of death, but literally " birth-pains of death," by which
the soul is freed from the natural earthly existence as by a second
birth to a glorified spiritual life. We need not enter further into
the discussion of the passage, but it is obvious that it is mere
assumption to assert, on the one hand, that Peter made use of any
specific expression, and, on the other, that there was any error of
translation on the part of the author of Acts. But agreeing that
the Hebrew is erroneously rendered, the only pertinent question
is : By whom was the error in question committed ? and the reply
beyond any doubt is : By the LXX. who translate the Hebrew
expression in this very way. It is therefore inadmissible to assert
from this phrase the existence of an Aramaic original of the
speech, for the phrase itself is nothing but a quotation from the
Septuagint.
1 Bleek, Einl., p. 348; Stud. u. Krit., 1836, p. 1038 f. Cf. Meyer,
Apg-i P- 7 2 f- ? Neander, Pftanzung, u. s. w. , p. 22, anm. i ; Humphrey,
Acts, p. 20.
3 Ps. xvii. 5 (A. V., xviii. 5). 3 Ebraijd, zu Olshausen, Apg., p. 63.
SUPPOSED TRACES OF TRANSLATION 631
The expression wSii/es Oavdrov occurs no less than three
times in that version : Ps. xvii. 5 (A. V., xviii.), cxiv. 3 (A. V.,
cxvi.) 5 and 2 Sam. xxii. 6 ; and in Job xxxii. 2 we have \vciv
used with (iSti/es : (iStvas 5e avrwv e'A-wras. When it is remem-
bered that the author of Acts always quotes the Septuagint version,
even when it departs from the sense of the Hebrew original, and
in all probability was only acquainted with the Old Testament
through it, nothing is more natural than the use of this expression
taken from that version ; but, with the error already existing there,
to ascribe it afresh and independently to the author of Acts, upon
no other grounds than the assumption that Peter may have spoken
in Aramaic and used an expression which the author misunder-
stood or wrongly rendered, is not permissible. Indeed, we have
already pointed out that, in this very speech, there are quotations
of the Old Testament according to the LXX". put into the mouth
of Peter, in which that version does not accurately render the
original. 1
The next trace of translation advanced by Bleek 2 is found in
ii- 33> 3 where Peter speaks of Christ as exalted : " rfj Se^tp TOP
Otov." There can be no doubt, Bleek argues, that there is here
a reference to Psalm ex. i, and that the apostle intends to speak
of Christ's elevation " to the right (hand) of God "; whereas the
Greek expression rather conveys the interpretation, "by the right
(hand) of God." This expression certainly comes, he asserts, from
a not altogether suitable translation of the Hebrew. To this, on
the other hand, much may be objected. Winer, 4 followed by
others, defends the construction, and affirms that the passage may,
without hesitation, be translated, " to the right (hand) of God." 5
In which case there is no error at all, and the argument falls to
the ground. If it be taken, however, either that the rendering
should be, or was intended to be, "by the right (hand) of God" 6
i.e., by the power of God that would not involve the necessity of
admitting an Aramaic original, 7 because there is no error at all,
1 Acts ii. 1 6 f., 26, 27.
2 Einl. N. T., p. 348 ; Stud. u. Krit., 1836, p. 1038 ; De Wette, Apg.,
p. 42 ; Weiss, Petr. Lehrb., p. 205.
3 Cf. Acts v. 31.
4 Grammat. N. T. Sprachid., 1867, 31, 5, p. 201.
5 Winer, /. c.; Fritzsche, Conject., i., p. 42 ; Hackett, Acts, p. 51 ; Kahler,
Stud. u. Kr., 1873, p. 511 f. ; Lekebusch, Apostdgesch., p. 405 ; Olshausen,
Apg., p. 66 ; Wordsworth, Greek Test., Acts, p. 49.
6 Alford, Greek Test., ii., p. 26; Bengel, Gnom. N. T., p. 511 ; Lechler,
Das ap. u. nachap. Zeit., p. 21, anm. I ; Zeller, Apg.,^. 502, anm. 2 ; Meyer,
Apg., p. 77 f. ; Overbeck, zu de W. Apg., p. 42. "By" is adopted by the
Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and English (authorised) versions.
' Alford, Greek Test., ii., p. 26; Lekebusch, Apg., p. 405; Meyer, Apg.,
p. 77 f. ; Overbeck, zu.de W. Apg., p. 42 ; Zeller, Apg., p. 502 f., anm. 2 ;
cf. Kahler, Stud. u. Krit., 1873, p. 511 f.
632 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
and the argument simply is that, being exalted by the right hand
of God, Jesus had poured forth the Holy Spirit ; and in the next
verse the passage in Psalm ex. i (Sept.cix.) is accurately quoted from
the Septuagint version: "Sit thou on my right (hand)" (ex Setwv
pw). In fact, after giving an account of the crucifixion, death,
and resurrection of Jesus, the speaker ascribes his subsequent
exaltation to the power of God. 1
We have seen that at least the form of the speeches in Acts is
undoubtedly due to the author of the book, and that he has not
been able to make the speeches of the different personages in his
drama differ materially from each other. We shall hereafter have
occasion to examine further the contents of some of these speeches,
and the circumstances under which it is alleged that they were
spoken, and to inquire whether these do not confirm the conclusion
hitherto arrived at, that they are not historical, but merely the free
composition of the author of Acts, and never delivered at all.
Before passing on, however, it may be well to glance for a moment
at one of these speeches, to which we may not have another
opportunity of referring, in order that we may see whether it
presents any traces of inauthenticity and of merely ideal com-
position, r ;*.>'
In the first chapter an account is given of a meeting of the
brethren in order to elect a successor to the traitor Judas. Peter
addresses the assembly, i. 16 f., and it may be well to quote the
opening portion of his speech : 16. " Men (and) brethren, this
scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit by
the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, who became
guide to them that took Jesus, 17. because he was numbered with
us and obtained the lot of this ministry. 18. Now (pey ovv)
this man purchased a field with the wages of the iniquity (e/c
fj.urdov TTJS aSi/cias), and falling headlong he burst asunder
in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out; 19. and (*al) it
became known 2 unto all trie dwellers at Jerusalem, so that that
field was called in their own tongue (ry iSiy. SiaAe/cro))
Acheldamach, that is : field of blood. 20. For (yap) it is
written in the book of Psalms : ' Let his habitation be desolate,
and let no man dwell therein,' and ' his office let another take,' "
etc. Now, let it be remembered that Peter is supposed to be
addressing an audience of Jews in Jerusalem, in the Hebrew or
1 The expression ry Se^iy is used in this sense in the Septuagint version of Isaiah
Ixiii. 12 ; cf. Acts v. 31. The "right hand of God, "as symbolising his power,
is constantly employed in the Old Testament.
2 The peculiar and favourite expression, yvutrrdv tytvero (or &rrw) vfuv,
which only occurs in Acts, is placed in the mouth of Peter, Paul, and others,
and itself betrays the hand of the author. Cf. ii. 14, iv. 10, ix. 42, xiii. 38,
xix. 17, xxviii. 22, 28.
INCONGRUITIES IN THE SPEECH OF PETER 633
Aramaic language, a few weeks after the crucifixion. Is it possible,
therefore, that he should give such an account as that in verses 1 8,
19, of the end of Judas, which he himself, indeed, says was known
to all the dwellers at Jerusalem ? Is it possible that, speaking in
Aramaic to Jews, probably in most part living at and near
Jerusalem, he could have spoken of the field being so called by
the people of Jerusalem " in their own tongue " ? Is it possible
that he should, to such an audience, have translated the word
Acheldamach ? The answer of most unprejudiced critics is that
Peter could not have done so. As de Wette remarks : " In the
composition of this speech the author has not considered historical
decorum." 1 This is felt by most Apologists, and many ingenious
theories are advanced to explain away the difficulty. Some affirm
that verses 18 and 19 are inserted as a parenthesis by the author
of the Acts, whilst a larger number contend that only v. 19 is
parenthetic. A very cursory examination of the passage, however,
is sufficient to show that the verses cannot be separated. Verse 18
is connected with the preceding by the ptv ouv, 19 with 18 by
/cat, and verse 20 refers to 16, as indeed it also does to 17 and
1 8, without which the passage from the Psalm, as applied to Judas,
would be unintelligible. Most critics, therefore, are agreed that
none of the verses can be considered parenthetic. Some
Apologists, who feel that neither of the obnoxious verses can
be thus explained, endeavour to overcome the difficulty by
asserting that the words, " in their own tongue " (rfj ISiy StaXe/crw)
and " that is, the field of blood " (TOUT' TTIV yupiov ai'pxTos),
in verse 19, are merely explanatory and inserted by the author of
Acts. It is unnecessary to say that this explanation is purely
arbitrary, and that there is no ground, except the difficulty
itself, upon which their exclusion from the speech can be
based.
In the cases to which we have hitherto referred, the impossibility
of supposing that Peter could have spoken in this way has led
writers to lay the responsibility of unacknowledged interpolations
in the speech upon the author of Acts, thus at once relieving
the Apostle. There are some Apologists who do not adopt
this expedient, but attempt to meet the difficulty in other ways,
while accepting the whole as a speech of Peter. According to one
theory, those who object that Peter could not have thus related
the death of Judas to people who must already have been well
acquainted with the circumstances have totally overlooked the fact
that a peculiar view of what has occurred is taken in the narrative,
and that this peculiar view is the principal point of it. According
to the statement made, Judas met his miserable end in the very
1 Apostelg., p. 12.
634 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
field which he had bought with the price of blood. It is this
circumstance, it appears, which Peter brings prominently forward,
and represents as a manifest and tangible dispensation of Divine
justice. Unfortunately this is clearly an imaginary moral attached
to the narrative by the Apologist, and is not the object of
the supposed speaker, who rather desires to justify the forced
application to Judas of the quotations in verse 20, which are
directly connected with the preceding by yap. Moreover, no
explanation is here offered of the extraordinary expressions in
verse 19 addressed to citizens of Jerusalem by a Jew in their own
tongue.
Another Explanation, which includes these points, is still more
striking. With regard to the improbability of Peter's relating,
in such a way,- the death of Judas, it is argued that, according
to the Evangelists, the disciples went from Jerusalem back to
Galilee some eight days after the resurrection, and only
returned before Pentecost to await the fulfilment of the
promise of Jesus. Peter and his companions, it is supposed, only
after their return became acquainted with the fate of Judas, which
had taken place during their absence, and the matter was, there-
fore, quite new to them ; besides, it is added, a speaker is often
obliged on account of some connection with his subject to relate
facts already known. It is true that some of the Evangelists
represent this return to Galilee 1 as having taken place, but the
author of the third Gospel and the Acts not only does not do so,
but excludes it. 2 In the third Gospel (xxiv. 49) Jesus commands
the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they are endued with
power from on high, and then, after blessing them, he is parted
from them, and they return from Bethany to Jerusalem. 3 In Acts
the author again takes up the theme, and, whilst evidently giving
later traditions regarding the appearances after the resurrection, he
adheres to his version of the story regarding the command to stay
in Jerusalem. In i. 4 he says: "And being assembled together
1 Matt, xxviii. 10, 16; Mark xvi. 7 ; John xxi. I. Dr. Farrar, somewhat perti-
nently, asks : " Why did they (the disciples) not go to Galilee immediately on
receiving our Lord's message ? The circumstance is unexplained Perhaps
the entire message of Jesus to them is not recorded ; perhaps they awaited the
end of the feast " (Life of Christ, ii., p. 441, note i).
2 In Luke xxiv. 49 the Cod. Alex, reads Iv rfj ir6\et 'lepowraX^Mj with Cod.
C *' *, F, H, K, M, and a number of others of less note. The other older
Codices omit 'ltpov<ra\^fj., but there is no difference of opinion that the "city"
is Jerusalem.
3 We shall hereafter have to go more fully into this, and shall not discuss it
here. The third Gospel really represents the Ascension as taking place on the
day of the Resurrection ; and Acts, whilst giving later tradition, and making
the Ascension occur forty days after, does not amend, but confirms, the
Previously enunciated view that the disciples had been ordered to stay in
erusalem. ,
INCONGRUITIES IN THE SPEECH OF PETER 635
with them he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but
to wait for the promise of the Father," etc. ; and here again, verse
12, the disciples are represented, just before Peter's speech is
supposed to have been delivered, as returning from the Mount of
Olives to Jerusalem. The author of Acts and the third Synoptic,
therefore, gives no countenance to this theory.
Setting all this aside, the apologetic hypothesis we are discussing is
quite excluded upon other grounds. If we suppose that the disciples
did go into Galilee for a time, we find them again in Jerusalem at
the election of the successor to Judas, and there is no reason to
believe that they had only just returned. The Acts not only allow
of no interval at all for the journey to Galilee between i. 12-14 an d
15 f., but by the simple statement with which our episode
commences, verse 15, "And in these days" (KOI iv rats ?//Me/oais
rcnrrais), Peter conveys anything but the impression of a very
recent return to Jerusalem. If the Apostles had been even a few
days there, the incongruity of the speech would remain undiminished;
for the 120 brethren who are said to have been present must
chiefly have been residents in Jerusalem, and cannot be supposed
also to have been absent ; and, in any case, events which are
represented as so well known to all the dwellers in Jerusalem
must certainly have been familiar to the small Christian com-
munity whose interest in the matter was so specially great.
Moreover, according to the first Synoptic, as soon as Judas sees
that Jesus is condemned, he brings the money back to the chief
priests, casts it down, and goes and hangs himself, xxvii. 3 f. This
is related even before the final condemnation of Jesus and before
his crucifixion, and the reader is led to believe that Judas at once
put an end to himself, so that the disciples, who are represented
as being still in Jerusalem for at least eight days after the resurrec-
tion, must have been there at the time.
With regard to the singular expressions in verse 19, this theory goes
on to suppose that, out of consideration for Greek fellow believers,
Peter had probably already begun to speak in the Greek tongue; and
when he designates the language of the dwellers in Jerusalem as
"their own dialect," he does not thereby mean Hebrew in itself, but
their own expression, the peculiar confession of the opposite party,
which admitted the cruel treachery towards Jesus, in that they named
the piece of ground Hakel Damah. Here, again, what assumptions !
It is generally recognised that Peter must have spoken in Aramaic,
and, even if he did not, rfj i&ly. oWA-eK-no 1 cannot mean anything
but the language of " all the dwellers at Jerusalem." In a speech
1 SidXf/cros is used six times in Acts, and nowhere else in the New Testament ;
Tjj ISla SiaXtKTtfj occurs thrice, i. 19, ii. 6, 8 ; and rrj 'TZfipatdi diaXtkry thrice,
xxi. 40, xxii. 2, xxvi. 14.
636 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
delivered at Jerusalem, in any language, to an audience consisting
at least in considerable part of inhabitants of the place, and
certainly almost entirely of persons whose native tongue was
Aramaic, to tell them that the inhabitants called a certain field
"in their own tongue" Acheldamach, giving them at the same time
a translation of the word, is inconceivable to most critics, even
including Apologists.
There is another point which indicates not only that this theory
is inadequate to solve the difficulty, but that the speech could not
have been delivered by Peter a few weeks after the occurrences
related. It is stated that the circumstances narrated were so well
known to the inhabitants of Jerusalem that the field was called
in their own tongue Acheldamach. The origin of this name is
not ascribed to the priests or rulers, but to the people, and it is
not to be supposed that a popular name could have become
attached to this field, and so generally adopted as the text
represents, within the very short time which could have elapsed
between the death of Judas and the delivery of this speech. Be
it remembered that from the time of the crucifixion to Pentecost
the interval was in all only about seven weeks, and that this
speech was made some time before Pentecost how long we cannot
tell, but in-any case the interval was much too brief to permit of
the popular adoption of the name. The whole passage has much
more the character of a narrative of events which had occurred
a long time past than of circumstances which had taken place a
few days before.
The obvious conclusion is that this speech was never spoken
by Peter, but is a much later composition put into his mouth, and
written for Greek readers, who required to be told about Judas,
and for whose benefit the Hebrew name of the field, inserted for
local colouring, had to be translated. This is confirmed by
several circumstances, to -which we may refer. We shall not
dwell much upon the fact that Peter is represented as applying
to Judas two passages quoted from the Septuagint version of
Psalm Ixix. 25 (Sept. Ixviii.) and Psalm cix. (Sept. cviii.) which,
historically, cannot for a moment be sustained as referring to him.
The first of these Psalms is quoted freely, and, moreover, the
denunciations in the original being against a plurality of enemies,
it can only be made applicable to Judas by altering the plural
"their" (ai<rwv) to "his habitation" (eTravAts avrov), a con-
siderable liberty to take with prophecy. The Holy Spirit is said
to have spoken this prophecy "concerning Judas" "by the
mouth of Ilavid," but modern research has led critics to the
conclusion that neither Psalm Ixix. nor Psalm cix. was composed
by David at all. As we know nothing of Peter's usual system
of exegesis, very little weight as ewdence can be attached
CONTRADICTORY ACCOUNTS OF DEATH OF JUDAS 637
to this. On the other hand, it is clear that a considerable time
must have elapsed before these two passages from the Psalms
could have become applied to the death of Judas.
The account which is given of the fate of Judas is contradictory
to that given in the first Synoptic, and cannot be reconciled with
it, but follows a different tradition. According to the first
Synoptic (xxvii. 3 f.), Judas brings back the thirty pieces of
silver, casts them down iri the Temple, and then goes and hangs
himself. The chief priests take the money and buy with it the
Potter's field, which is not said to have had any other connection
with Judas, as a place for the burial of strangers. In the Acts,
Judas himself buys a field as a private possession, and, instead of
committing suicide by hanging, he is represented as dying from
a fall in this field, which is evidently regarded as a special judg-
ment upon him for his crime. Beyond calling attention to this
amongst other phenomena presented in this speech, however, we
have not further to do with the point at present. We have already
devoted too much space to Peter's first address, and we now pass
on to more important topics.
CHAPTER IV.
THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE WORK, CONTINUED
PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY
WE now enter upon a portion of our examination of the Acts
which is so full of interest in itself that peculiar care will be
requisite to restrain ourselves within necessary limits. Hitherto
our attention has been mainly confined to the internal phenomena
presented by the document before us, with comparatively little aid
from external testimony, and, although the results of such criticism
have been, of no equivocal character, the historical veracity of the
Acts has not yet been tested by direct comparison with other
sources of information. We now propose to examine, as briefly
as may be, some of the historical statements in themselves
by the light of information derived from contemporary witnesses
of unimpeachable authority, and to confront them with well-
established facts in the annals of the first two centuries. This
leads us to the borders not only of one of the greatest con-
troversies which has occupied theological criticism, but also of
still more important questions regarding the original character
and systematic development of Christianity itself. The latter
we must here resolutely pass almost unnoticed, and into the
former we shall only enter so far as is absolutely necessary to
the special object of our inquiry.
The document before us professes to give a narrative of the pro-
gress of the primitive Church from its first formation in the midst of
Mosaism, with strong Judaistic rules and prejudices, up to that liberal
universalism which freely admitted the Christian Gentile, upon equal
terms, into communion with the Christian Jew. The question
with which we are concerned is strictly this : Is the account in the
Acts of the Apostles of the successive steps by which Christianity
emerged from Judaism, and, shaking off the restrictions and
obligations of the Mosaic law, admitted the Gentiles to a full par-
ticipation of its privileges, historically true ? Is the representation
which is made of the conduct and teaching of the older Apostles
on the one hand, and of Paul on the other, and of their mutual
relations, an accurate one ? Can the Acts of the Apostles, in short,
be considered a sober and veracious history of so important and
interesting an epoch of the Christian Church ? This has been
vehemently disputed or denied, and the**discussion, extending on
638
REPRESENTATION OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE IN ACTS 639
every side into important collateral issues, forms in itself a litera-
ture of voluminous extent and profound interest. Our path now
lies through this debatable land ; but, although the controversy as
to the connection of Paul with the development of Christianity
and his relation to the Apostles of the Circumcision cannot be
altogether avoided, it only partially concerns us. We are freed
from the necessity of advancing any particular theory, and have
here no further interest in it than to inquire whether the narrative
of the Acts is historical or not. If, therefore, avoiding many im-
portant but unnecessary questions, and restricting ourselves to a
straight course across the great controversy, we seem to deal
insufficiently with the general subject, it must be remembered that
the argument is merely incidental to our inquiry, and that we not
only do not pretend to exhaust it, but distinctly endeavour to
reduce our share in it to the smallest limits compatible with our
immediate object.
According to the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles, the
Apostolic age presents a most edifying example of concord and
moderation. The emancipation of the Church from Mosaic
restrictions was effected without strife or heart-burning, and the
freedom of the Gospel, if not attained without hesitation, was
finally proclaimed with singular largeness of mind and philosophic
liberality. The teaching of Paul differed in nothing from that
of the elder Apostles. The Christian universalism, which so
many suppose to have specially characterised the great Apostle of
the Gentiles, was not only shared, but even anticipated, by the
elder Apostles. So far from opposing the free admission of the
Gentiles to the Christian community, Peter declares himself to
have been chosen of God that by his voice they should hear the
Gospel, 1 proclaims that there is no distinction between Jew and
Gentile, 2 and advocates the abrogation, in their case at least, of
the Mosaic law. 3 James, whatever his private predilections may
be, exhibits almost equal forbearance and desire of conciliation.
In fact, whatever anomalies and contradictions may be discover-
able, upon close examination, beneath this smooth and brilliant
surface, the picture superficially presented is one of singular
harmony and peace. On the other hand, instead of that sensitive
independence and self-reliance of character which has been
ascribed to the Apostle Paul, we find him represented in the Acts
as submissive to the authority of the " Pillars " of the Church,
ready to conform to their counsels and bow to their decrees, and
as seizing every opportunity of visiting Jerusalem and coming in
contact with that stronghold of Judaism. Instead of the Apostle
of the Gentiles, preaching the abrogation of the law, and more
1 Acts xv. 7. 2 Ib. , xv. 9. 3 Ib., xv. 10.
640 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
than suspected of leading the Jews to apostatise from Moses, 1 we
find a man even scrupulous in his observance of Mosaic customs,
taking vows upon him, circumcising Timothy with his own hand,
and declaring at the close of his career, when a prisoner at Rome,
that he " did nothing against the people or the customs of the
fathers." 2 There is no trace of angry controversy, of jealous
susceptibility, of dogmatic difference, in the circle of the Apostles.
The intercourse of Paul with the leaders of the Judaistic party is
of the most unbroken pleasantness and amity. Of opposition to
his ministry, or doubt of his Apostleship, whether on the part of
the Three or of those who identified themselves with their
teaching, we have no hint. We must endeavour to ascertain
whether this is a true representation of the early development of
the Church, and of the momentous history of the Apostolic age.
In the Epistles of Paul we have, at least to some extent, the
means of testing the accuracy of the statements of the Acts with
regard to him and the early history of the Church. The Epistles
to the Galatians, to the Corinthians (2), and to the Romans are
generally admitted to be genuine, 3 and can be freely used for this
purpose. To these we shall limit our attention, excluding other
epistles, whose authenticity is either questioned or denied ; but in
doing so no material capable of really affecting the result is set
aside. For the same reason, we must reject any evidence to be
derived from the so-called Epistles of Peter and James, a least so
far as they are supposed to represent the opinions of Peter and
James ; but here again it will be found that they do not materially
affect the points immediately before us. The veracity of the Acts
of the Apostles being the very point which is in question, it is un-
necessary to say that we have to subject the narrative to examina-
tion, and by no means to assume the correctness of any statements
we find in it. At the same time it must be our endeavour to
collect from this document such indications and they will
frequently be valuable of the true history of the occurrences
related, as may be presented between the lines of the text.
In the absence of fuller information, it must not be forgotten
that human nature in the first century of our era was very much
what it is in the nineteenth, and, certain facts being clearly estab-
lished, it will not be difficult to infer many details which cannot
now be positively demonstrated. The Epistle to the Galatians,
however, will be our most invaluable guide. Dealing, as it does,
with some of the principal episodes of the Acts, we are enabled
by the words of the Apostle Paul himself, which have all the
accent of truth and vehement earnestness, to control the narrative
of the unknown writer of that work ; and, where this source fails,
1 Acts xxi. 21. x 76., xxviii. 17. 3 In great part, at least.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY 641
we have the unsuspected testimony of his other Epistles, and of
later ecclesiastical history, to assist our inquiry.
The problem, then, which we have to consider is the manner in
which the primitive Church emerged from its earliest form, as a Jewish
institution with Mosaic restrictions and Israelitish exclusiveness,
and finally opened wide its doors to the uncircumcised Gentile,
and assumed the character of a universal religion. In order to
understand the nature of the case, and be able to estimate aright
the solution which is presented by the narrative in the Acts of the
Apostles, it is necessary that we should obtain a clear view of the
actual characteristics of Christianity at the period when that history
begins. We must endeavour to understand precisely what view
the Apostles had formed of their position in regard to Judaism,
and of the duty which devolved upon them of propagating the
Gospel. It is obvious that we cannot rightly appreciate the
amount of persuasion requisite to transform the primitive Church
from Jewish exclusiveness to Christian universality, without ascer-
taining the probable amount of long-rooted conviction and religious
prejudice or principle which had to be overcome before that great
change could be effected.
We shall not here enter upon any argument as to the precise
views which the Founder of Christianity may have held as to his
own person and work, nor shall we attempt to sift the traditions of
his life and teaching which have been handed down to us, and to
separate the genuine spiritual nucleus from the grosser matter by
which it has been enveloped and obscured. We have much more
to do with the view which others took of the matter, and, looking
at the Gospels as representations of that which was accepted as
the orthodox view regarding the teaching of Jesus, they are almost
as useful for our present purpose as if they had been more spiritual
and less popular expositions of his views. What the Master was
understood to teach is more important for the history of the first
century than what he actually taught without being understood.
Nothing is more certain than the fact that Christianity, originally,
was developed out of Judaism, and that its advent was historically
prepared by the course of the Mosaic system, to which it was so
closely related. In its first stages, during the apostolic-age, it had
no higher ambition than to be, and to be considered, the con-
tinuation and the fulfilment of Judaism, its final and triumphant
phase. The substantial identity of primitive Christianity with
true Judaism was, at first, never called in question ; it was con-
sidered a mere internal movement of Judaism, its development
and completion, but by no means its mutilation. The idea of
Christianity as a new religion never entered the minds of the
Twelve or of the first believers, nor, as we shall presently see,
was it so regarded by the Jews themselves. It was, in fact,
2T
642 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
originally nothing more than a sect of Judaism holding a particu-
lar view of one point in the creed, and, for a very long period, it
was considered so by others, and was in no way distinguished from
the rest of Mosaism. Even in the Acts there are traces of this,
Paul being called "a ringleader of the sect (oupecris) of the
Nazarenes," 1 and the Jews of Rome being represented as referring
to Christianity by this term. 2 Paul, before the Council, not only
does not scruple to call himself "a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee,"
but the Pharisees take part with him against the more unorthodox
and hated sect of the Sadducees. 3
For eighteen centuries disputes have fiercely raged over
the creed of Christendom, and the ingenuity of countless
divines has been exhausted in deducing mystic dogmas from
the primitive teaching; but if there be one thing, more
remarkable than another in that teaching, according to the
Synoptics, it is its perfect simplicity. Jesus did not appear
with a ready-made theology, and imposed no elaborate system of
doctrine upon his disciples. Throughout the prophetic period of
Mosaism one hope had sustained the people of Israel in all their
sufferings and reverses that the fortunes of the nation should
finally be retrieved by a scion of the race of David, under whose
rule it should be restored to a future of unexampled splendour
and prosperity. The expectation of the Messiah, under frequently
modified aspects, had formed a living part in the national faith of
Israel. Primitive Christianity, sharing, but recasting, this ancient
hope, was only distinguished from Judaism, with whose worship it
continued in all points united, by a single doctrine, which was in
itself merely a modification of the national idea the belief that
Jesus of Nazareth was actually the Christ, the promised Messiah.
This was substantially the whole of its creed.
The Synoptic Gospels, and more especially the first,* are clearly
a history of Jesus as the Messiah of the house of David, so long
announced and expected, and whose life and even his death and
resurrection are shown to be the fulfilment of a series of Old
Testament prophecies. When his birth is announced to Mary, he
is described as the great one, who is to sit on the throne of David
his father, and reign over the house of Jacob for ever,s and the
good tidings of great joy to all the people (iravrl TW Xaw), that
the Messiah is born that day in the city of David, are proclaimed
by the angel to the shepherds of the plain. 6 Symeon takes the
child in his arms and blesses God that the words of the Holy
1 Acts xxiv. 5. 2 16., xxviii. 22. 3 Ib., xxiii. 6 f.
4 The Gospel commences with the announcement, i. i, 17, 18 ; cf. Mark
i. i f.
5 Luke i. 32, 33. * ' Ib., ii. IO f.
THE SUFFERING MESSIAH 643
Spirit are accomplished, that he should not die before he had seen
the Lord's anointed, the Messiah, the consolation of Israel. 1 The
Magi come to his cradle in Bethlehem, the birthplace of the
Messiah indicated by the prophet, 2 to do homage to him who is
born King of the Jews, 3 and there Herod seeks to destroy him, 4
fulfilling another prophecy. 5 His flight into Egypt and return to
Nazareth are equally the fulfilment of prophecies. 6 John the
Baptist, whose own birth as the forerunner of the Messiah had
been foretold, ? goes before him preparing the way of the Lord,
and announcing that the Messianic kingdom is at hand. According
to the fourth Gospel, some of the twelve had been disciples of the
Baptist, and follow Jesus on their master's assurance that he is the
Messiah. One of these, Andrew, induces his brother Simon Peter
also to go after him by the announcement : " We have found the
Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ" (i. 35 f. 41).
And Philip tells Nathaniel : " We have found him of whom Moses
in the Law and the Prophets did write : Jesus, the Son of Joseph,
who is from Nazareth " (i. 45). When he has commenced his own
public ministry, Jesus is represented as asking his disciples, "Who
do men say that I am ?" and, setting aside the popular conjectures
that he is John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the
prophets, by the still more direct question, "And who do ye
say that I am ? Simon Peter answered and said : Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God." And in consequence of this
recognition of his Messiahship, Jesus rejoins : " And I say unto
thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
Church." 8
It is quite apart from our present object to point out the
singular feats of exegesis and perversions of historical sense by
which passages of the Old Testament are forced to show that
every event in the history, and even the startling novelty of a
suffering and crucified Messiah, which to Jews was a stumbling-
block and to Gentiles folly,9 had been foretold by the prophets.
From first to last the Gospels strive to prove that Jesus was the
Messiah, and connect him indissolubly with the Old Testament.
The Messianic keynote, which is struck at the outset, regulates
the strain to the close. The disciples on the way to Emmaus,
appalled by the ignominious death of their Master, sadly confide
lo the stranger their vanished hope that Jesus of Nazareth, whom
they now merely call " a prophet mighty in word and deed before
1 Luke ii. 25-28 ; so also Elizabeth-, ii. 38. 2 Matt. ii. 5, 6 ; cf. Micah v. 2.
3 Matt. ii. 2. 4 Ib., ii. 16 f.
3 Ib. , ii. 17 f. 6 Ib. t ii.23-
7 Luke i. 17 (cf. Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 12 f. ; Mark ix. ii f. ), ii. 67 f. ; Matt,
iii. 3 ; Mark i. I f.
8 Matt. xvi. 13-18 ; cf. Mark viii. 29 ; Luke ix. 20. 9 I Cor. i. 23.
644 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
God and all the people," was the Christ " who was about to
redeem Israel," and Jesus himself replies : " O foolish and slow
of heart to believe all that the prophets spake ! Was it not
needful that the Christ (Messiah) should suffer these things and
enter into his glory ? And, beginning at Moses and all the
prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things
concerning himself." 1 Then, again, when he appears to the
eleven immediately after, at Jerusalem, he says : '"These are the
words that I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all
things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses and
the prophets and the Psalms concerning me.' Then opened he
their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures,
and said unto them : ' Thus it is written, that the Christ should
suffer and rise from the dead the third day.' " 2
The crucifixion and death of Jesus introduced the first elements
of rupture with Judaism, to which they formed the great stumbling-
block. The conception of a suffering and despised Messiah could
naturally never have occurred to a Jewish mind. 3 The first effort
of Christianity, therefore, was to repair the apparent breach by
proving that the suffering Messiah had actually been foretold by
the prophets; and to re-establish the Messianic character of Jesus,
by the evidence of his resurrection. But, above all, the momen-
tary deviation from orthodox Jewish ideas regarding the Messiah
was retraced by the representation of a speedy second advent, in
glory, of the once rejected Messiah to restore the kingdom of
Israel, by which the ancient hopes of the people became reconciled
with the new expectation of Christians. Even before the ascen-
sion the disciples are represented in the Acts as asking the risen
Jesus : " Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to
Israel ?" 4 There can be no doubt of the reality and universality of
the belief, in the Apostolic Church, in the immediate return of the
glorified Messiah, and speedy " end of all things."
The substance of the preaching of the Apostles in Acts simply
is that Jesus is the Christ, s the expected Messiah. Their chief
1 Luke xxiv. 15-17. 2 Ib., xxiv. 44-46.
3 In the Gospels the disciples are represented as not understanding such
a representation, and Peter, immediately after the famous declaration, "Thou
art the Christ," rebukes Jesus for such an idea (Matt. xvi. 21 f. ; cf. Mark
ix. 32 ; Luke ix. 45, xviii. 34, etc. ).
4 Acts i. 6. Hase pertinently observes: "The Apostolic Church, both
before and after the destruction of Jerusalem, devoutly expected from day to
day the return of Christ. If an interval of thousands of years (Jahrtausenden)
occur between both events, then there is either an error in the prophecy or in
the tradition" (Das Lebenjesu, jte Aitft., p. 226).
5 Cf. Acts ix. 22, ii. 36, v. 42, viii. 4 f., 35, x. 36 f., xiii. 23 f., xvii. 3, xviii.
5, 28, xxvi. 22 f. Hegesippus says of James that he was a witness both to Jews
and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ (use6., H. *., ii. 25).
aim is to prove that his sufferings and death had been foretold by
the prophets, 1 and that his resurrection establishes his claim to
the title. 2 The simplicity of the creed is illustrated by the rapidity
with which converts are made. After a few words, on one
occasion three thousand, 3 and on another five thousand,-* are at
once converted. No lengthened instruction or preparation was
requisite for admission into the Church. As soon as a Jew
acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah he thereby became a
Christian. As soon as the three thousand converts at Pentecost
made this confession of faith they were baptised. 5 The Ethiopian
is converted whilst passing in his chariot, and is immediately
baptised, 6 as are likewise Cornelius and his household after a short
address from Peter.? The new faith involved no abandonment of
the old. On the contrary, the advent of the Messiah was so
essential a part of Judaic belief, and the Messianic claim of Jesus
was so completely based by the Apostles on the fulfilment of
prophecy " showing by the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ "
that recognition of the fact rather constituted firmer adhesion to
Mosaism, and deeper faith in the inviolable truth of the Covenant
with Israel. If there had been no Mosaism, so to say, there could
have been no Messiah. So far from being opposed either to the
form or spirit of the religion of Israel, the proclamation of the
Messiah was its necessary complement, and could only be intelli-
gible by confirmation of its truth and maintenance of its validity.
Christianity belief in the Messiah in its early phases, drew its
whole nourishment from roots that sank deeply into Mosaism. It
was indeed nothing more than Mosaism in a developed form.
The only difference between the Jew and the Christian was that
the latter believed the Messiah to have already appeared in Jesus,
whilst the former still expected him in the future ; though even
this difference was singularly diminished, in appearance at least,
by the Christian expectation of the second advent.
It is exceedingly important to ascertain, under these circum-
stances, what was the impression of the Apostles as to the relation
of believers to Judaism and to Mosaic observances, although it
must be clear to anyone who impartially considers the origin and
historical antecedents of the Christian faith that very little doubt
can have existed in their minds on the subject. The teaching of
Jesus, as recorded in the synoptic Gospels, is by no means of a
doubtful character, more especially when the sanctity of the
Mosaic system in the eyes of a Jew is borne in. mind. It must be
apparent that, in order to remove the obligation of a Law and form
Acts ii. 23 f. , iii. 13 f., xxvi. 22 f.
Acts 11. 23 I., 111. ITT., XXVI. 22 I.
2 Acts ii. 31, iii. 26, iv. 33, v. 30 f., x. 40 f. 3 //,. ( ii. 41.
4 Ib., iv. 4. There may be doubt as to the number on this occasion.
5 Ib., ii. 41. 6 Ib., viii. 35 f. ^ Ib., x. 47 f.
646 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
of worship believed to have been, in the most direct sense,
instituted by God himself, the most clear, strong, and reiterated
order would have been requisite. No one can reasonably maintain
that a few spiritual expressions directed against the bare letter and
abuse of the law, which were scarcely understood by the hearers,
could have been intended to abolish a system so firmly planted,
or to overthrow Jewish institutions of such antiquity and national
importance, much less that they could be taken in this sense by
the disciples. A few passages in the Gospels, therefore, which
may bear the interpretation of having foreseen the eventful super-
session of Mosaism by his own more spiritual principles, must not
be strained to support the idea that Jesus taught disregard of the
Law. His very distinct and positive lessons, conveyed both by
precept and practice, show, on the contrary, that not only he did
not intend to attack pure Mosaism, but that he was understood
both directly and by inference to recognise and confirm it.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus states to the disciples in the
most positive manner : "Think not that I came to destroy the law or
the prophets ; I came not to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say
unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not
pass from the law, till all be accomplished." 1 Whether the last
phrase be interpreted " till all the law be accomplished," or " till all
things appointed to occur be accomplished," the effect is the same.
One clear explicit declaration like this, under the circumstances,
would outweigh a host of doubtful expressions. Not only does
Jesus in this passage directly repudiate any idea of attacking the
law and the prophets, but, in representing his mission as their
fulfilment, he affirms them, and associates his own work in the
closest way with theirs. If there were any uncertainty, however,
as to the meaning of his words, it would be removed by the con-
tinuation : " Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these com-
mandments, even the least; and shall teach men so, he shall be
called least in the kingdom of heaven ; but whosoever shall do and
teach them he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." 2
It would be difficult for teaching to be more decisive in favour of
the maintenance of the law, and this instruction, according to
the first Synoptic, was specially directed to the disciples. 3 When
Jesus goes on to show that their righteousness must exceed that of
the Scribes and Pharisees, and to add to the letter of the law, as
interpreted by those of old, his own profound interpretation of its
spirit, he only intepsifies, without limiting, the operation of the
1 Matt. v. 17, 18 ; cf. xxiii. 2 f. ; cf. Luke xvi. 17.
2 Ib., v. 19. Hilgenfeld (Einl. N. T., p. 469 f. ) and some others consider
this, as well as other parts of the Sermon on the Mount, to lie inserted as a
direct attack upon Pauline teaching.
3 Matt. v. I, 2. *,
6 4 7
law; he merely spiritualises it. He does no more than this
in his lessons regarding the observance of the Sabbath. He did
not, in point of fact, attack the genuine Mosaic institution of the
day of rest at all, but merely the intolerable literalism by which
its observance had been made a burden instead of " a delight."
He justified his variation from the traditional teaching and
practice of his time by appeals to Scriptural precedent. 1
As Dr. Farrar has said: " the observance of the Sabbath,
which had been intended to secure for weary men a rest full of
love and peace and mercy, had become a mere national fetish a
barren custom fenced in with the most frivolous and senseless
restrictions." 2 Jesus restored its original significance.
In restricting some of the permissive clauses of the law, on the
other hand, he acted precisely in the same spirit. He dealt with the
law not with the temper of a revolutionist, but of a reformer, and his
reforms, so far from affecting its permanence, are a virtual confirma-
tion of the rest of the code. 3 Ritschl, whose views on this point
will have some weight with Apologists, combats the idea that
Jesus merely confirmed the Mosaic moral law and abolished the
ceremonial law. Referring to one particular point of importance,
he says : " He certainly contests the duty of the Sabbath rest,
the value of purifications and sacrifices, and the validity of divorce;
. on the other hand, he leaves unattacked the value of circumcision,
whose regulation is generally reckoned as part of the ceremonial
law ; and nothing justifies the conclusion that Jesus estimated it
in the same way as Justin Martyr, and the other Gentile Christian
Church teachers, who place it on the same line as the ceremonies.
The only passage in which Jesus touches upon circumcision
(John vii. 2 2) rather proves that, as an institution of the patriarchs,
he attributes to it peculiar sanctity. Moreover, when Jesus, with
unmistakable intention, confines his own personal ministry to the
Israelitish people (Mark vii. 27, Matt. x. 5, 6), he thereby
recognises their prior right of participation in the kingdom of
God, and also, indirectly, circumcision as the sign of the prefer-
ence of this people. The distinction of circumcision from
ceremonies, besides, is perfectly intelligible from the Old Testa-
ment. Through circumcision, to wit, is the Israelite, sprung from
the people of the Covenant, indicated as sanctified by God ;
through purification, sacrifice, Sabbath rest, must he continually
sanctify himself for God. So long, therefore, as the conception
of the people of the Covenant is maintained, circumcision cannot
1 Matt. xii. 3 f. ; Mark ii. 25 f. ; Luke vi. 3 f.
2 Farrar, Life of Christ, i., p. 375, cf. p. 431 f., ii. 115 f.
3 Ritschl limits the application of much of the modification of the law
ascribed to Jesus to the disciples, as members of the "kingdom of God"
(Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 29 f.).
648 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
be abandoned, whilst even the prophets have pointed to the
merely relative importance of the Mosaic worship." 1
Jesus everywhere in the Gospels recognises the divine origin of
the law, 2 and he quotes the predictions of the prophets as absolute
evidence of his own pretensions. To those who ask him the way
to eternal life he indicates its commandments, 3 and he even
enjoins the observance of its ceremonial rites. 4 Jesus did not
abrogate the Mosaic law; but, on the contrary, by his example as
well as his precepts he practically confirmed it. According
to the statements of the Gospels, Jesus himself observed
the prescriptions of the Mosaic law. From his birth he had
been brought up in its worship. 5 He was circumcised on the
eighth day. 6 " And when the days of their purification were
accomplished, according to the law of Moses, they brought him
up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, even as it is written
in the law of the Lord : Every male, etc., and to give a sacrifice
according to that which is said in the law of the Lord," etc.?
Every year his parents went to Jerusalem at the feast of the Pass-
over, 8 and this practice he continued till the close of his life.
" As his custom was, he went into the synagogue (at Nazareth)
and stood up to read. "9 According to the fourth Gospel, Jesus
goes up to Jerusalem for the various festivals of the Jews, 10 and the
feast of the Passover, according to the Synoptics, was the last
memorable supper eaten with his disciples, 11 the third Synoptic
representing him as saying : " With desire I desired to eat this
Passover with you before I suffer ; for I say unto you that I shall
not any more eat it until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." 12
However exceptional the character of Jesus, and however elevated
his views, it is undeniable that he lived and died a Jew, conforming
to the ordinances of the Mosaic law in all essential points, and
not holding himself aloof from the worship of the Temple which
he purified. The influence which his adherence to the forms of
Judaism must have exerted over his followers can scarcely be
exaggerated, and the fact must ever be carefully borne in mind in
estimating the conduct of the Apostles and of the primitive
Christian community after his death.
As befitted the character of the Jewish Messiah, the sphere of
1 Ritschl, Entst, altk. Kirche, p. 34, cf. 46 f.
2 Matt. xv. 4, etc. Paley says : " Undoubtedly our Saviour assumes the
divine origin of the Mosaic institution " (A View of the Evidences, etc.,
ed. Potts, 1850, p. 262).
3 Matt. xix. 17 ; Mark x. 17 ; Luke xviii. 18 ; x. 25 f., xv. 29, 31, 32.
4 Matt. viii. 4 ; Luke v. 14 ; John vii. 8. s Cf. Gal. iv. 4.
6 Luke ii. 21. 7 Ib., ii. 22 f. 8 Ib., ii. 41. Ib., iv. 16.
10 John v. I, vii. 8, 10, x. 22 f., xi. 55, 56, xii. 1,12; xiii. I f.
" Matt. xxvi. 17 f. ; Mark xiv. 12 f. ; Luke xxii. 7 f.
12 Luke xxii. 15 f.
649
the ministry of Jesus and the arrangements for the proclamation of
the Gospel were strictly, and even intensely, Judaic. Jesus
attached to his person twelve disciples, a number clearly typical
of the twelve tribes of the people of Israel ; and this reference is
distinctly adopted when Jesus is represented, in the Synoptics, as
promising that, in the Messianic kingdom, " when the Son of
Man shall sit on the throne of his glory," the Twelve also " shall
sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel "j 1 a
promise which, according to the third Synoptist, is actually made
during the last supper. 2 In the Apocalypse, which, " of all the
writings of the New Testament, is most thoroughly Jewish in its
language and imagery,"3 the names of the twelve Apostles of the
Lamb are written upon the twelve foundations of the wall of the
heavenly Jerusalem, upon the twelve gates of which, through
which alone access to the city can be obtained, are the names of
the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. 4 Jesus himself limited
his teaching to the Jews, and was strictly " a minister of the cir-
cumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made
unto the fathers." To the prayer of the Canaanitish woman,
" Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David," unlike his gracious
demeanour to her of the bloody issue, 5 Jesus at first, it is said,
"answered her not a word"; and even when besought by the
disciples not to heal her daughter, but to "send her away," he
makes the emphatic declaration : "I was not sent but unto the
lost sheep of the house of Israel." 6 To her continued appeals he
lays down the principle : " It is not lawful to take the children's
bread and cast it to the dogs." If after these exclusive sentences
the boon is finally granted, it is as of the crumbs 7 which fall from
the master's table. The modified expression in the second Gospel,
" Let the children first be filled : for it is not meet to take the
children's bread and cast it to the dogs," does not affect the case,
for it equally represents exclusion from the privileges of Israel,
and the Messianic idea fully contemplated a certain grace to the
heathen when the children were filled. The expression regarding
casting the children's bread " to the dogs " is clearly in reference
to the Gentiles, who were so called by the Jews. A similar,
though still stronger, use of such expressions might be pointed
out in the Sermon on the Mount in the first Gospel (vii. 6) :
" Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your
1 Matt. xix. 28. 2 Luke xxii. 30.
3 Lightfoot, St. Pants Ep. to the Galatians, 4th ed., p. 343.
4 Rev. xxi. 12, 14. s Matt. ix. 22.
6 This expression does not occur in the parallel in Mark.
7 These ^Mx ia > it i s supposed, may mean the morsels of bread on which the
hands were wiped after they had, in Eastern fashion, been thrust into the dishes
before them.
650 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
pearls before swine." It is certain that the Jews were in the habit
of speaking of the heathen both as dogs and swine unclean
animals and Hilgenfeld 1 and some other critics see in this verse
a reference to the Gentiles. We do not, however, press this
application, which is, and may be, disputed, but merely mention it
and pass on. There can be no doubt, however, of the exclusive
references to the Gentiles in the same sermon and other passages,
where the disciples are enjoined to practise a higher righteousness
than the Gentiles. " Do not even the publicans do not even
the Gentiles or sinners the same things." 2 " Take no thought,
etc., for after all these things do the Gentiles seek ; but seek ye,
etc."3 The contrast is precisely that put with some irony by
Paul, making use of the common Jewish expression " sinner " as
almost equivalent for " Gentile." 4 In another place the first
Synoptic represents Jesus as teaching his disciples how to deal
with a brother who sins against them, and as the final resource,
when every effort at reconciliation and justice has failed, he says :
" Let him be unto thee as the Gentile (e^t/cbs) and the
publican" (Matt, xviii. 17). He could not express in a stronger
way to. a Jewish mind the idea of social and religious excom-
munication.
The instructions which Jesus gives in sending out the Twelve
express the exclusiveness of the Messianic mission to the
Jews, in the first instance, at least, in a very marked manner.
Jesus commands his disciples : " Go not into a way of the
Gentiles (e#vwv), and into a city of the Samaritans enter ye not ;
but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye
go, preach, saying : The kingdom of heaven is at hand." 5 As if
more emphatically to mark the limitation of the mission, the
assurance is seriously added : " For verily I say unto you, ye shall
not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man come." 6
It will be observed that Jesus here charges the Twelve to go rather
" to the lost sheep of the house of Israel " in the same words
that he employs to the Canaanitish woman to describe the
exclusive destination of his own ministry.? In coupling the
Samaritans with the Gentiles there is merely an expression of the
intense antipathy of the Jews against them as a mixed and, we
1 Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 64; Einl., p. 470 ; Reuss, ThM. Chr., ii.,
p. 348 ; cf. Schoeltgen, Horce Hebr., p. 87 : Keim.ykrw v.'Nazara, ii., p. 406,
anm. 3 ; Kostlin, Urspr. synopt. Ew., p. 178.
2 Matt. v. 46 f. , vi. 7 f. ; cf. Luke vi. 32 f. , where "sinners" is substituted
for " Gentiles."
3 Matt. vi. 31 f. ; cf. xx. 25 f. ; Luke xii. 30.
4 Gal. ii. 15 ; cf. Lightfoot, St. PauPs Ep. to Gal., 4th ed., p. 114.
5 Matt. x. 5-7 ; cf. Mark iii. 13 f., vi. 7 f. ; Luke ix. I f.
6 Matt. x. 23. 7 7(6. , xv. ; cf. Acfc* iii. 25, 26, xiii. 46.
THE APPOINTMENT OF SEVENTY DISCIPLES 651
may say, renegade race excluded from the Jewish worship, although
circumcised, intercourse with whom is to this day almost regarded
as pollution. 1
The third Gospel, which omits the restrictive instructions
of Jesus to the Twelve given by the first Synoptist, intro-
duces another episode of the same description the appoint-
ment and mission of seventy disciples, 2 to which we must very
briefly refer. No mention whatever is made of the incident in the
other Gospels, and these disciples are not referred to in any other
part of the New Testament. 3 Even Eusebius remarks that no
catalogue of them is anywhere given, 4 and, after naming a few
persons, who were said by tradition to have been of their number,
he points out that more than seventy disciples appear, for instance,
according to the testimony of Paul. 5 It will be observed that the
instructions supposed to be given to the Seventy in the third
Synoptic are, in the first, at least in considerable part, the very
instructions given to the Twelve. There has been much discussion
regarding the whole episode, which need not here be minutely
referred to. For various reasons the majority of critics impugn
its historical character. A large number of these, as well as other
writers, consider that the narrative of this appointment of
seventy disciples, the number of the nations of the earth accord-
ing to Jewish ideas, was introduced in Pauline universalistic
interest, or, at least, that the number is typical of Gentile conver-
sion, in contrast with that of the Twelve who represent the more
strictly Judaic limitation of the Messianic mission ; and they
seem to hold that the preaching of the Seventy is represented as
not confined to Judaea, but as extending to Samaria, and that
it thus denoted the extension of the Gospel also to the Gentiles.
On the other hand, other critics, many, though by no means all,
of whom do not question the authenticity of the passage, are
disposed to deny the Pauline tendency and any special connection
with a mission to the Gentiles, and rather to see in the number
seventy a reference to well-known Judaistic institutions. It is true
that the number of the nations was set down at seventy by Jewish
tradition, 6 but, on the other hand, it was the number of the elders
1 Farrar, Life of Christ, i. , 208 f.
2 Luke x. I f. We need not discuss the precise number, whether 70 or 7 2 -
The very same uncertainty exists regarding the number of the elders and of
the nations.
3 Even Thiersch is struck by this singular fact. " It is remarkable," he says,
" that no further mention of the seventy disciples of Christ (Luke x. i) occurs
in the N. T., and that no credible tradition regarding them is preserved '' (Die
Kirche im ap. Zeit., p. 79, anm. 2).
4 Euseb., H. ., i. 12. $ //;., cf. i Cor. xv. 5 f.
6 See p. 63; Clem, Recog., ii. 42; Epiphanius, Hier., i. 5; Eisenmenger,
Entd. Judentku/n, ii., p. 3 f. , p. 736 f.
652 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
chosen by Moses from amongst the children of Israel by God's
command to help him, and to whom God gave of his spirit ; l and
also of the national Sanhedrin, which, according to the Mischna, 2
still represented the Mosaic council. This view receives confirma-
tion from the Clementine Recognitions in the following passage :
" He, therefore, chose us twelve who first believed in him, whom
he named Apostles ; afterwards seventy-two other disciples of most
approved goodness, that, even in this way, recognising the simili-
tude of Moses, the multitude might believe that this is the prophet
to come, whom Moses foretold." 3 The passage here referred to is
twice quoted in the Acts : " Moses indeed said : A prophet will
the Lord our God raise up unto you from among your brethren,
like unto me," etc. 4 On examination, we do not find that there is
any ground for the assertion that the seventy disciples were sent
to the Samaritans or Gentiles, or were in any way connected with
universalistic ideas. Jesus had " stedfastly set his face to go to
Jerusalem," and sent messengers before him who " went and
entered into a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him,"
but they repulsed him, " because his face was as though he would
go to Jerusalem. "s There is a decided break before the
appointment of the Seventy. " After these things (//.era ravra)
the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two and
two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was
about to come." 6 There is not a single word in the instructions
given to them which justifies the conclusion that they were sent
to Samaria, and only the inference from the number seventy, taken
as typical of the nations, suggests it. That inference is not
sufficiently attested, and the slightness of the use made of the
seventy disciples in the third Gospel this occasion being the only
one on which they are mentioned, and no specific intimation of
any mission to all people being here given does not favour the
theory of Pauline tendency. So far as we are concerned
the point is unimportant. Those who assert the universal-
istic character of the episode generally deny its authenticity ; most
of those who accept it as historical deny its universalism.
' Numbers xi. 1 6 f., 25 f. ; also the number of the sons of Jacob who went
into Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 27).
2 Sanhedr., i. 6.
3 Nos ergo primos elegit duodecim sibi credentes, quos Apostolos nominavit,
postmodum alias septitaginta dttos probatissinios discipii/os, ut vel hoc modo
recognita imagine Moysis crederet multitude, quia hie est, qitetn praedixit
Moysis venturum prophetam (Recog., i. 40; cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justitis,
p. 356 f.). Hilgenfeld suggests the possibility of an earlier tradition out of
which both the third Synoptisl and the Clementines may have drawn their
materials.
4 Acts iii. 22, vii. 37 ; cf. Deuteron. xviii. 18.
* Lukeix. 51 f. 6 Ib., x. i.
PROSELYTES 653
The order to go and teach all nations by no means
carries us beyond strictly Messianic limits. Whilst the Jews
expected the Messiah to restore the people of Israel to their own
Holy Land and crown them with unexampled prosperity and
peace, revenging their past sorrows upon their enemies, and grant-
ing them supremacy over all the earth, they likewise held that one
of the Messianic glories was to be the conversion of the Gentiles
to the worship of Jahveh. This is the burden of the prophets, and
it requires no proof. The Jews, as the people with whom God had
entered into Covenant, were first to be received into the kingdom.
" Let the children first be filled," 1 and then the heathen might
partake of the bread. Regarding the ultimate conversion of the
Gentiles, therefore, there was no doubt ; the only questions were
as to the time and the conditions of admission into the national
fellowship. As to the time, there never had been any expectation
that the heathen could be turned to Jahveh in numbers before the
appearance of the Messiah, but converts to Judaism had been
made in all ages, and after the dispersion, especially, the influence
of the Jews upon the professors of the effete and expiring religions
of Rome, of Greece, and of Egypt was very great, and numerous
proselytes adopted the faith of Israel, and were eagerly sought for, 2
in spite of the abusive terms in which the Talmudists spoke of
them. 3
The conditions, on the other hand, were perfectly definite.
The case of converts had been early foreseen and provided for in
the Mosaic code. Without referring to minor points, we may at
once say that circumcision was indispensable to admission into the
number of the children of Israel. 4 Participation in the privileges
of the Covenant could only be secured by accepting the mark of
that Covenant. Very many, however, had adopted Judaism to a
great extent who were not willing to undergo the rite requisite to
full admission into the nation, and a certain modification had
gradually been introduced by which, without it, strangers might be
admitted into partial communion with Israel. There were, there-
fore, two classes of proselytes : the first called Proselytes of the
Covenant or of Righteousness, who were circumcised, obeyed the
whole Mosaic law, and were fully incorporated with Israel ; and the
other called Proselytes of the Gate, or worshippers of Jahveh,
who in the New Testament are commonly called ol o-e/3o/u,ei'oi TW
Bew, or ol i>o-e/3ei<s. These had not undergone the rite of circum-
cision, and therefore were not participators in the Covenant, but
1 Mark viii. 27. - Matt, xxiii. 15.
3 They were said to be "as a scab to Israel." Bab. Aliddah. fol. xiii. 2;
Lightfoot, fforiz. ffebr., Works, xi., p. 282.
4 Exod. xii. 48 ; Numb. ix. 14 ; cf. Ex. xii. 19, etc.
654 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
merely worshipped the God of Israel, and were only compelled to
observe the seven Noachian prescriptions. These Proselytes of
the Gate, however, were little more than on sufferance. They
were excluded from the Temple, and even the Acts of the Apostles
represent it to be pollution for a Jew to have intercourse with
them : it requires direct divine intervention to induce Peter to go
to Cornelius, and to excuse his doing so in the eyes of the primitive
Church. 1 Nothing short of circumcision and full observance of the
Mosaic law could secure the privileges of the Covenant with Israel
to a stranger, and in illustration of this we may again point to the
Acts, where certain who came from Judaea, members of the
primitive Church, teach the Christians of Antioch : " Except ye
have been circumcised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be
saved." 2 This will be more fully shown as we proceed.
The conversion of the Gentiles was not, therefore, in the least
degree an idea foreign to Judaism, but, on the contrary, formed an
intimate part of the Messianic expectation of the later prophets.
The conditions of admission to the privileges and promises of the
Covenant, however, were full acceptance of the Mosaic law and
submission to the initiatory rite. That small and comparatively
insignificant people, with an arrogance that would have been
ridiculous if, in the influence which they have actually exerted over
the world, it had not been almost sublime, not only supposed
themselves the sole and privileged recipients of the oracles of God,
as his chosen and peculiar people, but they contemplated nothing
short of universal submission to the Mosaic code, and the supremacy
of Israel over all the earth.
We are now better able to estimate the position of the Twelve
when the death of their Master threw them on their own resources,
and left them to propagate his Gospel as they themselves under-
stood it. Born a Jew of the race of David, accepting during his
life the character of the promised Messiah, and dying with the
mocking title " King of the Jews " written upon his cross, Jesus
had left his disciples in close communion with the Mosaism which
he had spiritualised and ennobled, but had not abolished. He
himself had taught them that " it becomes us to fulfil all right-
eousness," and from his youth upwards had set them the example
of enlightened observance of the Mosaic law. His precept had
not belied his example, and, whilst in strong terms we find him
inculcating the permanence of the Law, it is certain that he left no
order to disregard it. He confined his own preaching to the Jews ;
1 Acts x. 2 f., xi. 2 f. Dr. Lightfoot says : "The Apostles of the circumcision,
even St. Peter himself, had failed hitherto to comprehend the wide purpose of
God. With their fellow-countrymen they still ' held it unlawful for a Jew to
keep company with an alien' (Acts x. 28)" (Galatiam, p. 290).
3 Acts xv. i. *
THERE WAS NO BREACH WITH JUDAISM 655
the first ministers of the Messiah represented the twelve tribes of
the people of Israel ; and the first Christians were of that nation,
with no distinctive worship, but practising as before the whole
Mosaic ritual. What Neander says of " many " may, we think, be
referred to all : " That Jesus faithfully observed the form of the
Jewish law served to them as evidence that this form should ever
preserve its value." 1 As a fact, the Apostles and the early
Christians continued as before assiduously to practise all the obser-
vances of the Mosaic law, to frequent the Temple, 2 and adhere to
the usual strict forms of Judaism. In addition to the influence of
the example of Jesus and the powerful effect of national habit,
there were many strong reasons which obviously must to Jews have
rendered abandonment of the law as difficult as submission to its
full requirements must have been to Gentiles. Holding as they
did the Divine origin of the Old Testament, in which the obser-
vance of the Law was inculcated on almost every page, it would
have been impossible, without counter-teaching of the most
peremptory and convincing character, to have shaken its supre-
macy ; but, beyond this, in that theocratic community Mosaism
was not only the condition of the Covenant arid the key of the
Temple, but it was also the diploma of citizenship, and the bond
of social and political life. To abandon the observance of the
Law was not only to resign the privilege and the distinctive
characteristic of Israel, to relinquish the faith of the Patriarchs who
were the glory of the nation, and to forsake a divinely appointed
form of worship, without any recognised or even indicated
substitute, but it severed the only link between the individual and
the people of Israel, and left him in despised isolation, an out-
cast from the community. They had no idea that any such
sacrifice was required of them. They were simply Jews believing
in the Jewish Messiah, and they held that all things else were to
proceed as before, until the glorious second coming of the
Christ.
The Apostles and the primitive Christians continued to hold the
national belief that the way to Christianity lay through Judaism,
and that the observance of the law was obligatory and circum-
cision necessary to complete communion. Paul describes with
unappeased irritation the efforts made by the community of
Jerusalem, whose " pillars " were Peter, James, and John, to force
Titus, a Gentile Christian, to be circumcised, 3 and even the Acts
represent James and all the elders of the Church of Jerusalem as
1 Pftanzung, u. s. w., p. 47.
2 Acts ii. 46, iii. I, v. 20, 42, xxi. 20-27, xxii. 17, etc.
3 Gal. ii. 3 f. As we shall more fully discuss this episode hereafter, it is not
necessary to do so here.
656 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
requesting Paul, long after, to take part with four Jewish Christians,
who had a vow and were about to purify themselves and shave
their heads and, after the accomplishment of the days of purifica-
tion, make the usual offering in the Temple, in order to convince
the " many thousands there of those who have believed, and are
all zealous for the law," that it is untrue that he teaches : " all the
Jews who are among the Gentiles apostacy (curoo-rao-iav) from
Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children,
neither to walk after the customs," and to show, on the contrary,
that he himself walks orderly and keeps the Law. 1 As true
Israelites, with opinions fundamentally unchanged by belief that
Jesus was the Messiah, they held that the Gospel was specially
intended for the people of the Covenant, and they confined their
teaching to the Jews. 2 A Gentile, whilst still uncircumcised, even
although converted, could not, they thought, be received on an
equality with the Jew, but defiled him by contact. 3 The attitude
of the Christian Jew to the merely Christian Gentile, who had not
entered the community by the portal of Judaism, was, as before,
simply that of the Jew to the proselyte of the Gate. The Apostles
could not upon any other terms have then even contemplated the
conversion of the Gentiles. Jesus had limited his own teaching to
the Jews, and, according to the first Gospel, had positively
prohibited, at one time at least, their going to the Gentiles, or even
to the Samaritans, and if there had been an order to preach to all
nations it certainly was not accompanied by any removal of the
conditions specified in the Law. 4
1 Acts xxi. 18-26 ; cf. xv. i. Paul is also represented as saying to the
Jews of Rome that he has done nothing "against the customs of their
Fathers."
- Dr. Lightfoot says : " Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years passed away before
the barrier of Judaism was assailed. The Apostles still observed the Mosaic
ritual ; they still confined their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews by adoption,
the proselytes of the Covenant," etc. (Paul's Ep. to Gal., p. 287). Paley
says: "It was not yet known to the Apostles that they were at liberty to
propose the religion to mankind at large. That ' mystery,' as St. Paul calls it
(Eph. iii. 3-6), and asil then was, was revealed to Peter by an especial miracle"
(A View of the Evidence, etc., ed. Potts, 1850, p. 228).
3 Acts x. if., 14, 28 ; xi. I f.
4 Dr. Lightfoot says : " The Master himself had left no express instructions.
He had charged them, it is true, to preach the Gospel to all nations, but how
this injunction was to be carried out, by what changes a national Church must
expand into an universal Church, they had not been told. He had, indeed,
asserted the sovereignty of the spirit over the letter ; he had enunciated the
great principle as wide in its application as the law itself that ' man was not
made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.' He had pointed to the
fulfilment of the law in the Gospel. So far he had discredited the law, but he
had not deposed it or abolished it. It was left to the Apostles themselves,
under the guidance of the Spirit, moulded by circumstances and mould-
ing them in turn, to work out the great change" (St. Paufs Ep. to Gal.,
p. 286).
CONTINUED OBLIGATION TO OBSERVE THE LAW 657
It has been remarked that neither party, in the great dis-
cussion in the Church regarding the terms upon which Gentiles
might be admitted to the privileges of Christianity, ever
appealed in support of their views to specific instructions of
Jesus on the subject. The reason is intelligible enough. The
Petrine party, supported as they were by the whole weight
of the Law and of Holy Scripture, as well as by the example
and tacit approval of the Master, could not have felt even that
degree of doubt which precedes an appeal to authority. The
party of Paul, on the other hand, had nothing in their favour to
which a specific appeal could have been made; but in his constant
protest that he had not received his doctrine from man, but had
been taught it by direct revelation, the Apostle of the Gentiles, who
was the first to proclaim a substantial difference between Chris-
tianity and Judaism, in reality endeavoured to set aside the
authority of the Judaistic party by an appeal from the earthly to
the spiritualised Messiah. Even after the visit of Paul to Jeru-
salem about the year 50, the elder Apostles still retained the views
which we have shown to have been inevitable under the circum-
stances, and, as we learn from Paul himself, they still continued
mere " Apostles of the Circumcision," limiting their mission to the
Jews. 1
The Apostles and the primitive Christians, therefore, after
the death of their Master, whom they believed to be the
Messiah of the Jews, having received his last instructions and
formed their final impressions of his views, remained Jews,
believing in the continued obligation to observe the Law, and,
consequently, holding the initiatory rite essential to participation
in the privileges of the Covenant. They held this not only
as Jews believing in the Divine origin of the Old Testament
and of the law, but as Christians confirmed by the example
and the teaching of their Christ, whose very coming was a
substantial ratification of the ancient faith of Israel. In this
position they stood when the Gospel, without their intervention,
and mainly by the exertions of the Apostle Paul, began to spread
amongst the Gentiles, and the terms of their admission came into
question. It is impossible to deny that the total removal of con-
ditions, advocated by the Apostle Paul with all the vehemence and
warmth of his energetic character, and involving nothing short of
the abrogation of the law and surrender of all the privileges of
Israel, must have been shocking not only to the prejudices but
also to the deepest religious convictions of men who, although
Christians, had not ceased to be Jews, and, unlike the Apostle of
the Gentiles, had been directly and daily in contact with Jesus,
1 Gal. ii. 9.
2U
658 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
without having been taught such revolutionary principles. From
this point we have to proceed with our examination of the account
in the Acts of the relation of the elder Apostles to Paul, and the
solution of the difficult problem before them.
CHAPTER V.
THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE WORK (CONTINUED) :
STEPHEN THE MARTYR
BEFORE the Apostle of the Gentiles himself comes on the scene,
and is directly brought in contact with the Twelve, we have to
study the earlier incidents narrated in the Acts, wherein it is said
the emancipation of the Church from Jewish exclusiveness had
already either commenced or been clearly anticipated. The first
of these which demands our attention is the narrative of the
martyrdom of Stephen. This episode, although highly interesting
and important in itself, might, we consider, have been left un-
noticed in connection with the special point now engaging our
attention ; but such significance has been imparted to it by the
views which critics have discovered in the speech of Stephen that
we cannot pass it without attention.
We read 1 that, in consequence of murmurs amongst the
Hellenists against the Hebrews that their widows were neglected
in the daily distribution of alms, seven deacons were appointed
specially to attend to such ministrations. Amongst these, it is
said, was Stephen, "a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit."
Stephen, it appears, by no means limited his attention to the
material interests of the members of the Church, but, being " full
of grace and power, did great wonders and signs (repara. KO.I a-jj^la
/j-eydXa) amongst the people." " But there arose certain of those
of the synagogue which is called (the synagogue) of the Liber-
tines 2 and of the Cyrenians and of the Alexandrians and of them
of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen ; and they were not
able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. Then
they suborned men who said : We have heard him speak blas-
phemous words against Moses and God. And they stirred up the
people and the elders and the scribes, and came upon him and
seized him, and brought him to the Council, and set up false
witnesses, who said : This man ceaseth not to speak words against
the holy place and the law ; for we have heard him say that Jesus,
this Nazarene, shall destroy this place, and shall change the
1 Acts vi. i f.
* The Libertines were probably Jewish freedmen, or the descendants of
freedmen, who had returned to Jerusalem from Rome.
659
660 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
customs which Moses delivered to us." The high priest asks him :
Are these things so ? And Stephen delivers an address, which
has since been the subject of much discussion amongst critics and
divines. The contents of the speech, taken by themselves, do not
present any difficulty so far as the sense is concerned; but, regarded
as a reply to the accusations brought against him by the false
witnesses, the defence of Stephen has perhaps been interpreted in
a greater variety of ways than any other part of the New Testa-
ment. Its shadowy outlines have been used as a setting for the
pious thoughts of subsequent generations, and every imaginable
intention has been ascribed to the proto-martyr, every possible or
impossible reference detected in the phrases of his oration. This
has mainly arisen from the imperfect nature of the account in the
Acts, and the absence of many important details, which has left
criticism to adopt that " divinatorisch-combinatorische " procedure
which is so apt to evolve any favourite theory from the inner con-
sciousness.
The prevailing view amongst the great majority of critics
of all schools is, that Stephen is represented in the Acts as
the forerunner of the Apostle Paul, anticipating his universalistic
principles, and proclaiming with more or less of directness
the abrogation of Mosaic ordinances and the freedom of the
Christian Church. 1 This view was certainly advanced by
Augustine, and lies at the base of his famous saying, " Si sanctus
Stephanas sic non orasset, ecclesia Paulum non haberet"; 2 but it was
first clearly enunciated by Baur, who subjected the speech of
Stephen to detailed analysis, 3 and his interpretation has to a large
extent been adopted even by Apologists. It must be clearly
understood that adherence to this reading of the aim and meaning
of the speech, as it is given in the Acts, by no means involves an
admission of its authenticity, which, on the contrary, is impugned
by Baur himself, and by a large number of independent critics.
We have the misfortune of differing most materially from the
prevalent view regarding the contents of the speech, and we rrtain-
tain that, as it stands in the Acts, there is not a word in it which
can be legitimately construed into an attack upon the Mosaic law,
or which anticipates the Christian universalism of Paul. Space,
however, forbids our entering here upon a discussion of this
subject ; but the course which we must adopt with regard to it
renders it unnecessary to deal with the interpretation of the
speech. We consider that there is no reason for believing that the
1 Holsten, we think rightly, denies that Stephen can be considered in any
way the forerunner of Paul (Zum Ev. Paulus u. Petr., p. 52 anm. * *, p, 253
anm. *).
2 Sermo i. in fest. St. Stephani. ^
3 De orationis habita a Stephana consilio, 1829 ; Paulus . s. to., i. 49 f.
NO OTHER EVIDENCE REGARDING STEPHEN 661
discourse put into the mouth of Stephen was ever actually delivered,
but, on the contrary, that there is every ground for holding that
it is nothing more than a composition by the author of the Acts.
We shall endeavour clearly to state the reasons for this con-
clusion.
With the exception of the narrative in the Acts, there is no
evidence whatever that such a person as Stephen ever existed.
The statements of the Apostle Paul leave no doubt that persecu-
tion against the Christians of Jerusalem must have broken out
previous to his conversion, but no details are given, and it can
scarcely be considered otherwise than extraordinary that Paul
should not in any of his own writings have referred to the proto-
martyr of the Christian Church, if the account which is given of
him be historical. It may be argued that his own share in the
martyrdom of Stephen made the episode an unpleasant memory,
which the Apostle would not readily recall. Considering the
generosity of Paul's character, on the one hand, however, and the
important position assigned to Stephen, on the other, this cannot
be admitted as an explanation, and it is perfectly unaccountable
that, if Stephen really be a historical personage, no mention of
him occurs elsewhere in the New Testament.
Moreover, if Stephen was, as asserted, the direct forerunner of
Paul, and in his hearing enunciated sentiments like those ascribed
to him, already expressing much more than the germ indeed,
the full spirit of Pauline universality, it would be passing strange
that Paul not only tacitly ignores all that he owes to the proto-
martyr, but vehemently protests : " But I make known unto you,
brethren, that the Gospel which was preached by me is not after
man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was taught it,
but by revelation of Jesus Christ." 1 There is no evidence
that such a person exercised any such influence on Paul. 2
One thing only is certain, that the speech and martyrdom of Stephen
made so little impression on Paul that, according to Acts, he
continued a bitter persecutor of Christianity, " making havoc of
the Church."
The statement, vi. 8, that " Stephen, full of grace and power,
did great wonders and signs among the people," is not calculated
to increase confidence in the narrative as sober history ; and as
little is the assertion, vi. 15, that "all who sat in the Council,
looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of
an angel." This, we think, is evidently an instance of Christian
1 Gal. i. ii, 12.
2 It is further very remarkable, if it be assumed that the vision, Acts vii. 55,
actually was seen, that, in giving a list of those who have seen the risen Jesus
(i Cor. xv. 5-8), which he evidently intends to be complete, he does not
include Stephen.
662 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
subjective opinion made objective. How, we might ask, could it
be known to the writer that all who sat at the Council saw this ?
Neander replies that probably it is the evidence of members of
the Sanhedrin of the impression made on them by the aspect of
Stephen. 1 The intention of the writer, however, obviously is to
describe a supernatural phenomenon, and this is in his usual
manner in this book, where miraculous agency is more freely
employed than in any other in the Canon. The session of the
Council commences in a regular manner, 2 but the previous arrest
of Stephen, 3 and the subsequent interruption of his defence, are
described as a tumultuous proceeding, his death being unsanctioned
by any sentence of the Council. 4 The Sanhedrin, indeed, could
not execute any sentence of death without the ratification of the
Roman authorities, 5 and nothing is said in the narrative which
implies that any regular verdict was pronounced ; but, on the
contrary, the tumult described in v. 57 f. excludes such a
supposition. Olshausen 6 considers that, in order to avoid any
collision with the Roman power, the Sanhedrin did not pronounce
any formal judgment, but connived at the execution which some
fanatics carried out. This explanation is inadmissible, because
it is clear that the members of the Council themselves, if
also the audience, attacked and stoned Stephen. The actual
stoning? is carried out with all regard to legal forms, the victim
1 Pflanzting, u. s. w., p. 68. 2 vi. 13 f., vii. i. 3 vi. 11, 12.
4 Humphrey (On the Acts, p. 668 f. ), with a few others, thinks there was a
regular sentence. De Wette (K. Erkl. Apostelgesch., p. 114) thinks it more
probable that there was a kind of sentence pronounced, and that the reporter,
not having been an eye-witness, does not quite correctly state the case.
5 John xviii. 31. Cf. Origen, Ad African., \ 14; Alford, Gk. Test., ii.,
p. 82 f. ; Baur, Paulus, i., p. 62 ; von Dollinger, Christ, ti Kirche, p. 456 f. ;
Holtzmann, in Bunseris Biblew., viii., p. 338 ; Neander, Pflanzung, p. 72 f. ;
Olshausen, Apg., p. 125; Weizsacker, in SchenkeVs Bib. Lex., v.,p. 387;
/Seller, Apg., p. 150. it is argued, however, that the trial of Stephen pro-
bably took place just after the recall of Pontius Pilate, either in an interval
when the Roman Procurator was absent, or when one favourable to the Jews
had replaced Pilate. A most arbitrary explanation, for which no ground, but
the narrative which requires defence, can be given.
6 Die Apostelgesch., 125.
7 It is said both in v. 58 and v. 59 that " they stoned" him. The double use
of the term t\iOofi6\ovv has called forth many curious explanations. Heinrichs
(ad vii. 57, p. 205), and after him Kuinoel (iv. , p. 288), explain the first as
meaning only that they prepared to stone him, or that they wantonly threw
stones at him on the way to the place of execution. Olshausen (on vii. 5/-6o,
p. 125) considers the first to be a mere anticipation of the second more
definitely described stoning. So also Meyer (on vii. 57, p. 193). Bleek
(Einl. N. 7'., p. 341 f. ) conjectures that the author only found it stated
generally in the written source which he uses, as in v. 58, that they cast
Stephen out of the city and stoned him, and that, from mere oral tradition, he
inserted the second 4\tOop6\ovv, v. 59, for the sake of what is there related
about Saul.
66 3
being taken out of the city, 1 and the witnesses casting the first
stone, 2 and for this purpose taking off their outer garments.
The whole account, with its singular mixture of lawlessness and
formality, is extremely improbable, and more especially when the
speech itself is considered. The proceedings commence in an
orderly manner, and the high priest calls upon Stephen for his
defence. The Council and audience listen patiently and quietly
to his speech, and no interruption takes place until he has said all
that he had to say; for it must be apparent that, when the speaker
abandons narrative and argument and breaks into direct iuvective,
there could not have been any intention to prolong the address,
as no expectation of calm attention after such denunciations could
have been natural. The tumult cuts short the oration precisely
where the author had exhausted his subject, and by temporary
lawlessness overcomes the legal difficulty of a sentence which the
Sanhedrin, without the ratification of the Roman authority, could
not have carried out. As soon as the tumult has effected these
objects, all becomes orderly and legal again; and, consequently,
the witnesses can lay their garments "at a young man's feet whose
name was Saul." The principal actor in the work is thus
dramatically introduced. As the trial commences with a super-
natural illumination of the face of Stephen, it ends with a super-
natural vision, in which Stephen sees heaven opened, and the Son
of Man standing at the right hand of God. Such a trial and
such an execution present features which are undoubtedly not
historical.
This impression is certainly not lessened when we find how
many details of the trial and death of Stephen are based on the
accounts in the Gospels of the trial and death of Jesus. The
irritated adversaries of Stephen stir up the people and the elders
and scribes, and come upon him and lead him to the Council. 3
They seek false witness against him ; 4 and these false witnesses
accuse him of speaking against the temple and the law. 5 The.
false witnesses who are set up against Jesus with similar testimony,
according to the first two Synoptics, are strangely omitted by the
third. The reproduction of this trait here has much that is
suggestive. The high priest asks: "Are these thirlgs so?" 6 Stephen,
at the close of his speech, exclaims : " I see the heavens opened,
1 Levit. xxiv. 14. 2 Deut. xvii. 7.
3 Acts vi. 12 ; cf. Luke xxii. 66, Matt. xxvi. 57.
4 Acts vi. n; cf. Matt. xxvi. 59, Mark xiv. 55.
5 Acts vi. 13 f. ; cf. Matt. xxvi. 60 f., Mark xiv. 57 f.
6 The'words in Acts vii. I are : elwev 5 6 dpx<-fpefc' EZ (dpa) ravra OI/TWS
^X t > in Matt. xxvi. 63, dwoKpiOeis 6 dpxiepfvs elirev avrf- 'E^opKl^a ere
tva. TI/MV eiTrys ei crv el 6 xP iffT ^ > i n Luke xxii. 66 \4yovrer E2 <n> el 6
X/ncTT6s, eiir&v ij/juv. Cf. Zeller, Die Apostelg., p. I53> anrn. 2.
664 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." Jesus
says : " Henceforth shall the Son of Man be seated on the right
hand of the power of God." 1 Whilst he is being stoned, Stephen
prays, saying : " Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit "; and, similarly,
Jesus on the cross cries, with a loud voice : " Father, into thy
hands I commend my spirit ; and, having said this, he expired." 2
Stephen, as he is about to die, cries, with a loud voice : " Lord,
lay not this sin to their charge; and when he said this he fell
asleep"; and Jesus says: "Father, forgive them, for they know not
what they do." 3 These two sayings of Jesus are not given any-
where but in the third Synoptic, 4 and their imitation by Stephen,
in another work of the same Evangelist, is a peculiarity which
deserves attention. It is argued by Apologists that nothing is
more natural than that the first martyrs should have the example
of the suffering Jesus in their minds, and die with his expressions
of love and resignation on their lips. On the other hand, taken
along with other most suspicious circumstances which we have
already pointed out, and with the fact, which we shall presently
demonstrate, that the speech of Stephen is nothing more than a
composition by the author of Acts, the singular analogies presented
by this narrative with the trial and last words of Jesus in the
Gospels seem to us an additional indication of its inauthenticity.
As Baurs and Zeller 6 have well argued, the use of two expressions
of Jesus only found in the third Synoptic is a phenomenon which
is much more naturally explained by attributing them to the
author, who of course knew that Gospel well, than to Stephen, who
did not know it at all.? The prominence which is given to this
episode of the first Christian martyrdom is intelligible in itself,
and it acquires fresh significance when it is considered as the
introduction of the Apostle Paul, whose perfect silence regarding
the proto-martyr, however, confirms the belief which we otherwise
acquire, that the whole narrative and speech, whatever unknown
1 Acts vii. 56, Luke xxii. 69.
2 \tyovra- Ktpif'lijffou, d^ai TO wvevfAii JJLOV. Acts vii. 59. KCU (f>uvi/i(ras
(fnavri fieydXr] 6 'Irjffovs flirev lldrep, et's x"M s ffov Ta/xiT/0e/iat TO trvfv/jLd /j.ov.
TOVTO 8t elirwv ttwvtv<Tfv. Luke xxiii. 46.
3 %Kpa.tv <f>wvrj /j.eyd\ff Kvpie, /*TJ oT^crj/j atVotj TO.VTT\V rrjv a/uLapriai'.
Kal TOVTO flirwv fKOtjuijity. Acts vii. 60.
4 6 5^ 'IijcroOs tXeyev Ildre/), d0es aiVots- oi' ycip otdaffiv rl iroiovffiv. Lutfe
xxiii. 34.
5 Paitlus, i., p. 64, anm. I. 6 Apostelgesch., 152.
7 Neander admits that the narrative in Acts is wanting in clearness and
intuitive evidence of details, although he does not think that this at all
militates against the trustworthiness of the whole (Pflanzung, u. s. TV., p. 68,
anm.). Bleek points out that viii. 1-3, which is so closely connected with this
episode, shows a certain confusion and want of clearness, and supposes the
passage interpolated by the author into the original narrative of which he made
use (Einl. N. T., p. 342). ,
HOW WAS THE SPEECH PRESERVED 665
tradition may have suggested them, are to be ascribed to the
author of the Acts.
On closer examination, one of the first questions which arises is,
How could such a speech have been reported ? Although Neander 1
contends that we are not justified in asserting that all that is
narrated regarding Stephen in the Acts occurred in a single day,
we think it cannot be doubted that the intention is to describe the
arrest, trial, and execution as rapidly following each other on the
same day. " They came upon him, and seized him, and brought
him to the Council, and set up false witnesses, who said," etc. 2
There is no ground here for interpolating any imprisonment, and,
if not, then it follows clearly that Stephen, being immediately
called upon to answer for himself, is, at the end of his discourse,
violently carried away without the city to be stoned. No prepara-
tions could have been made even to take notes of his speech, if
upon any ground it were reasonable to assume the possibility of
an intention to do so ; and indeed it could not, under the circum-
stances, have been foreseen that he should either have been placed
in such a position or have been able to make a speech at all.
The rapid progress of all the events described, and the excitement
consequent on such tumultuous proceedings, render an ordinary
explanation of the manner in which such a speech could have been
preserved improbable, and it is difficult to suppose that it could
have been accurately remembered, with all its curious details, by
one who was present. Improbable as it is, however, this is the
only suggestion which can possibly be advanced. The majority of
Apologists suppose that the speech was heard and reported by the
Apostle Paul himself, or at least that it was communicated or
written down either by a member of the Sanhedrin or by some one
who was present. As there is no information on the point, there
is ample scope for imagination ; but, when we come to consider its
linguistic and other peculiarities, it must be borne in mind that
the extreme difficulty of explaining the preservation of such a
speech must be an element in judging whether it is not rather a
composition by the author of Acts. The language in which it
was delivered, again, is the subject of much difference of opinion,
many maintaining that it must have originally been spoken in
Aramaic, whilst others hold that it was delivered in Greek. Still, a
large number of critics and divines of course assert that the
speech attributed to Stephen is at least substantially authentic.
As might naturally be expected in a case where negative criticism
is arrayed against a canonical work upheld by the time-honoured
authority of the Church, those who dispute its authenticity are in
the minority. It is maintained by the latter that the language is
g, u. s. w., p. 68, anm. 2 Acts vi. 12 f.
666 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
more or less that of the writer of the rest of the work, and that
the speech, in fact, as it lies before us is a later composition by the
author of the Acts of the Apostles.
Before examining the linguistic peculiarities of the speech,
we may very briefly point out that, in the course of the historical
survey, many glaring contradictions of the statements of the Old
Testament occur. 1 Stephen says (vs. 2, 3) that the order to
Abraham to leave his country was given to him in Mesopotamia
before he dwelt in Haran ; but according to Genesis (xii. i f.)
the call is given whilst he was living in Haran. The speech (v. 4)
represents Abraham leaving Haran after the death of his father,
but this is in contradiction to Genesis, according to which 2
Abraham was 75 when he left Haran. Now, as he was born
when his father Terah was yo, 3 and Terah lived 205 years, 4 his
father was only 145 at the time indicated, and afterwards lived
60 years. In v. 5 it is stated that Abraham had no possession in
the promised land, not even so much as to set his foot on ; but,
according to Genesis, 5 he brought the field of Ephron in
Machpelah. It is said (v. 14) that Jacob went down into Egypt with
75 souls, whereas in the Old Testament it is repeatedly said that
the number was 7<x 6 In v. 16 it is stated that Jacob was buried
in Schechem in a sepulchre bought by Abraham of the sons of
Emmor in Schechem, whereas in Genesis 7 Jacob is said to have
been buried in Machpelah ; the sepulchre in Schechem, in which
the bones of Joseph were buried, was not bought by Abraham,
but by Jacob. 8 Moses is described (v. 22) as mighty in words ;
but in Exodus? he is said to be the very reverse, and Aaron,
in fact, is sent with him to speak words for him. These are some
of the principal variations. It used to be argued that such
1 Dr. Wordsworth says of those who venture to observe them: "The
allegations in question, when reduced to their plain meaning, involve the
assumption that the Holy Ghost, speaking by St. Stephen (who was ' full of
the Holy Spirit '), forgot what He Himself had written in the Book of Genesis ;
and that His Memory is to be refreshed by Biblical commentators of the
nineteenth century \ This kind of criticism is animated by a spirit very alien
from that Christian temper of reverential modesty, gentleness, and humility,
which are primary requisites for the discovery and reception of truth. Mysteries
are revealed to the meek ( Eccles. iii. 19). Them that are meek shall He guide
in judgment ; and such as are gentle, them shall He learn His way (Psalm xxv. 8).
But such a spirit of criticism seems willing to accept any supposition, however
fanciful, except that of its own fallibility ! It is ready to allege that St. Luke
is in error in saying that St. Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost. It is ready
to affirm that St. Stephen was forgetful of the elements of Jewish history
No wonder that it is given over by God to a reprobate mind" (Greek Test.,
Acts of the Apostles, p. 66 f. ).
2 Gen. xii. 4. 3 x i. 26. 4 xi. 32. 5 xxiii. 4 f., 17 f.
6 Gen. xlvi. 27, Exod. i. 5, Deut. x. 22. It must be added that in the last
two passages the version of the Ixx. also gives 5 including the sons of Joseph.
7 xlix. 29, 1. 13. 8 Joshua xxiv-32. 9 iv. 10 f.
ANALOGY OF THE SPEECH TO OTHERS IN ACTS 667
mistakes were mere errors of memory, natural in a speech
delivered under such circumstances and without preparation, 1 and
that they are additional evidence of its authenticity, inasmuch
as it is very improbable that a writer deliberately composing such
a speech could have committed them. It is very clear, however,
that the majority of these are not errors of memory at all, but
either the exegesis prevailing at the time amongst learned Jews, or
traditions deliberately adopted, of which many traces are elsewhere
found.
The form of the speech is closely similar to other speeches
found in the same work. We have already, in passing,' pointed out
the analogy of parts of it to the address of Peter in Solomon's
porch, but the speech of Paul at Antioch bears a still closer resem-
blance to it, and has been called " a mere echo of the speeches of
Peter and Stephen." 2 We must refer the reader to our general
comparison of the two speeches of Peter and Paul in question,^
which sufficiently showed, we think, that they were not delivered
by independent speakers, but, on the contrary, that they are nothing
more than compositions by the author of the Acts. These
addresses, which are such close copies of each other, are so
markedly cast in the same mould as the speech of Stephen that
they not only confirm our conclusions as to their own origin, but
intensify suspicions of its authenticity. It is impossible, without
reference to the speeches themselves, to show how closely that of
Paul at Antioch is traced on the lines of the speech of Stephen,
and this resemblance is much greater than can be shown by mere
linguistic examination. The thoughts correspond where the words
differ. There is a constant recurrence of words, however, even
where the sense of the passages is not the same, and the ideas in
both bear the stamp of a single mind. We shall not attempt fully
to contrast these discourses here, for it would occupy too much
space, and we therefore content ourselves with giving a few
illustrations, begging the reader to examine the speeches them-
selves :
STEPHEN. PAUL AND PETER.
vii. 2. Men, brethren, fathers, ' xiii. 15. Men, brethren
hear. 16. Men, Israelites, and ye that fear
God, hear.
"AcSpes d8f\<f>ol aKouffare.
xxii. I. Men, brethren, and fathers,
hear
1 Even de Wette says : "The numerous historical errors are remarkable;
they may most probably be ascribed to an unprepared speech" (A". Erk/.
Apostelgesch., p. 93).
2 Schneckenburger, /,-weck der Apostelgesch. , p. 130.
3 See back, p. 623 f.
668
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
PAUL AND PETER.
"AvSpes dde\<pol Kai irarepes, a.Kovaare.
xiii. 17. The God of this people
(6 debs rov Xaot" rovrov) Israel chose
our fathers (TOI>S rraripas TJ/JWJ') and
exalted the people in their sojourn in
the land of Egypt (ev rrj irapoiKlq cv
yrj Alyvirry)
STEPHEN..
Avopes d$e\<j>ol Kai warepes,
(rare
The God of glory (6 debs rrjt
appeared to our father (ry irarpl r)fj.wv)
Abraham when he was in (6vri ev rrj
M. ) Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in
(KaroiKTJffai avrbv ev) Haran, etc.
6 that his seed should be a
sojourner in a strange land (irapoiKov
iv yrj d\\orpta)
5 and to his seed (KOI rip
avrov).'
8. And he gave him (Abraham)
a covenant ( /cat HSwKev avrt^
dia6rfKr)v ) of circumcision. 3
22. (Moses) was mighty in his
words and deeds (r)v Si Svvarbs iv
\6yois Kai tpyois ainov).
32. I am the God of thy fathers,
the God of Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob. ('70; 6 6ebs r&v rrarepbiv ffov,
6 0ebs 'Afipaafji Kai 'Icract/c /cat 'Ia/cw/3. )
36. This (Moses) brought them j xiii. 17 and exalted the people
(the people rbv \abv) out (e&yayev \ (rbv Xabv) in their sojourn in the land
avrovs) having worked wonders and ' of Egypt (ev yrj Alyvirrtf), and with a
iii. 25. Ye are the children ...... of
the covenant (TTJS 5ta0??K77s) which God
made with your fathers, saying unto
Abraham : And in thy seed (iced ev r<$
ffirtp/jLart <rov), etc.
(Luke xxiv. 19. Jesus ...... mighty in
deed and word (dwarfo tV Zpyt? *cat
MW ...... ))
iii. 13. The God of Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob, the God of our
fathers. (6 6ebs 'AjBpaafj. KCLI 'JcroAK
/cat 'Ia/cai^, 6 Ofbs rdv -jrarepuv
signs 4 in the land of Egypt (tv yj?
and in the Red Sea, and
high arm brought them out of it (e^riya-
yev avrovs), 1 8. and for about the
in the wilderness forty years (iv rij I time of forty years 5 (reffffepaKovraerr))
iprifjiip 7-17 reffffepa,Kovra). v. 42 j nourished them in the wilderness
forty years in the wilderness (ev rrj
(errf reffffepaKOvra iv rrj ipr]fjnf).
37. This is the Moses who said j iii. 22.
Moses indeed said : 6 A
unto the children of Israel : A prophet
shall God raise up unto you from
among your brethren, like unto
me ......
42 ....... God delivered them up to
serve the host of heaven (6 0ebs
avrovs \arpevfiv, K. r. X. ).
prophet shall the Lord our God raise
up unto you from among your
brethren, like unto me, etc.
(Rom i. 24 God delivered them
up to uncleanness (irapeduKev
avrovs 6 6ebs eis aKaOapfftav, /c.r.X.
cf. 26 rrapeSuKev avrovs 6 Oebs eis
rrddri dri/j,las 28 rrapeSuKev
avrovs 6 Oebs els dd6Ki/j.ov vovv ) ).
1 Cf. I Cor. ii. 8, Kvpios rrjs d6frjs ; cf. Ixx. Ps. xxviii. 3.
2 Compare with this verse Rom. iv. 13 ; Gal. iii. 16, 29.
3 Cf. Rom. iv. II, Kai ffr/fie'tov ZXafiev wepirofirfs.
4 7roii7<ras repa.ro. /cat (ri/yueta ii. 22 repaviv Kai ffrjfielois ois
frrolrjffev
5 vii. 23 reads recrffepaKovraerrjs XP OVO * ar) d xiii. 18 reffffepa-
Kovraerij xpovov and again vii. 23, dveftr) eirl rr)v Kapoiav avrov I Cor.
ii. 9, em Kapdlav dvOpumov OVK dvepr)
6 The authorised version, on the authority of several important MSS., adds
"unto the fathers" " rrpbs rovs irarepas"; but the balance of evidence is
decidedly against the words.
EXPRESSIONS OF STEPHEN, PAUL, AND PETER 669
STEPHEN.
45. Which also our fathers
brought in with Joshua when they
took possession of the Gentiles (row
eBvuiv], whom God drave out before the
face of our fathers, unto the days of
David.
46. Who found (fSpe) favour with
God...
48. Howbeit, the Most High
dwelleth not in what is made with
hands (oi/x 6 Ct/'tcrros tv xeipOTrot^rots
KaroLKel- ), even as the prophet saith :
49. The heaven (6 ovpav6s) is my
throne, and the earth (i) 7?)) is my
footstool. 50. Did not my hand
make all these things ? (Ovxl TJ x e fy>
/j.ov eirolrjfffv travra ravra ;)
51. Ye uncircumcised in hearts
52. Which of the prophets did not
your fathers persecute ? and they
killed (dirfKTfivat>) them which
announced before of the coming of
the righteous One (rov SiKaiov), of
whom ye have become betrayers
and murderers (<f>oi>e1s).
PAUL AND PETER.
xiii. 19. And he destroyed seven
nations (Idvrj) in the land of Canaan, 1
and divided their land to them by lot.
22 ...... he raised up unto them
David as king, to whom also he bare
witness and said : I found (etipov)
David, a man after mine own heart,
etc.
xvii. 24 f. The God that made the
world and all things therein (6 0ebs 6
TTOu^ras rov ic6<rfj.ov /ecu wdvra rd ev
curry), he being lord of heaven and
earth (ovpavov Kal JTJS) dwelleth not
in temples made with hands (OVK ev
Xfipoiroi-rjTois vaols KaroiKel), neither is
served by men's hands (xet/wj'), etc.
(Rom. ii. 29. Circumcision is of the
heart, in spirit (irepi TO/XT/ Kapdias ev
TTVeV/JMTL K. T.\ ...... ) )
xxii. 14 ...... the righteous One (rbv
diicaiov) ......
iii. 14. But ye denied the holy and
righteous One (rbv SiKaiov), and
desired a murderer (dvSpa <f>ovea) to
be granted unto you, 15. and killed
(aireKreivare) the Prince of Life, etc.
53- Ye received the law at the (Gal. iii. 19. What then is the law ?
arrangements of angels (eXd/3ere It was added ; being arranged by
rov v6fj.ov et's diarayds dyyeXtav ) ! means of angels (rl oSv 6
TrpoffereOt) diarayei? Si
54. And hearing these things they
were cut to their hearts (dKotiovres de
ravra. dieirplovro), and gnashed their
teeth upon him.
v. 33. When they heard they were
cut (to their hearts) (ol 5e dKofaavres
SieTrpiovTo) and took counsel to slay
them.
It is argued that the speech of Stephen bears upon it the stamp
of an address which was actually delivered. We are not able to
discover any special indication of this. Such an argument, at the
best, is merely the assertion of personal opinion, and cannot have
any weight. It is quite conceivable that an oration actually
spoken might lose its spontaneous character in a report, and, on
the other hand, that a written composition might acquire oratorical
reality from the skill of the writer. It would indeed exhibit great
want of literary ability if a writer, composing a speech which he
desires to represent as having actually, been spoken, altogether
vii. ii. Then came a famine upon all Egypt and Canaan.
670 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
failed to convey some impression of this. To have any applica-
tion to the present case, however, it must not only be affirmed that
the speech of Stephen has the stamp of an address really spoken,
but that it has the character of one delivered under such extra-
ordinary circumstances, without premeditation, and in the midst of
tumultuous proceedings. It cannot, we think, be reasonably
asserted that a speech like this is peculiarly characteristic of a man
suddenly arrested by angry and excited opponents, and hurried
before a council which, at its close, rushes upon him and joins in
stoning him. Unless the defence attributed to Stephen be par-
ticularly characteristic of this, the argument in question falls to the
ground. On the contrary, if the speech has one feature more
strongly marked than another, it is the deliberate care with which
the points referred to in the historical survey are selected and bear
upon each other, and the art with which the climax is attained.
In showing, as we have already done, that the speech betrays the
handiwork of the author of the Acts, we have to a large extent
disposed of any claim to peculiar individuality in the defence, and
the linguistic analysis conclusively settles the source of the com-
position. We must point out here in continuation that, as in the
rest of the work, all the quotations in the speech are from the
Septuagint, and that the author follows that version even when it
does not fairly represent the original.
A minute analysis of the language of the whole episode from
vi. 9 to the end of the seventh chapter, in order to discover what
linguistic analogy it bears to the rest of the Acts and to the third
Synoptic, leads to the certain conviction that the speech of Stephen
was composed by the author of the rest of the Acts of the
Apostles. 1 It may not be out of place to quote some remarks of
Lekebusch at the close of an examination of the language of the
Acts in general, undertaken for the purpose of ascertaining the
literary characteristics of -the book, which, although originally
having no direct reference to this episode in particular, may well
serve to illustrate our own results : "An unprejudiced critic must
have acquired the conviction from the foregoing linguistic exami-
nation that throughout the whole of the Acts of the Apostles,
and partly also the Gospel, the same style of language and expres-
sion generally prevails, and, therefore, that our book is an original
work, independent of written sources on the whole, and proceeding
from a single pen. For when the same expressions are everywhere
found ; when a long row of words, which only recur in the Gospel
and Acts, or comparatively only very seldom in other works of the
New Testament, appear equally in all parts ; when certain forms of
1 This analysis will be found in the complete edition 1879, vol. iii., p. 164-
175- \
RESULTS OF LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS 671
words, peculiarities of word-order, construction of phraseology,
indeed even whole sentences, recur in different sections, a com-
pilation out of documents by different earlier writers can no longer
be thought of, and it is ' beyond doubt that we have to consider
our writing as the work of a single author, who has impressed
upon it the stamp of a distinct literary style' (Zeller, Theol. Jahrb.,
1851, p. 107). The use of written sources is certainly not directly
excluded by this, and probably the linguistic peculiarities, of which
some of course exist in isolated sections of our work, may be
referred to this. But as these peculiarities consist chiefly of
a7ra Aeyo/xeva, which may rather be ascribed to the richness of
the author's vocabulary than to his talent for compilation, and in
comparison with the great majority of points of agreement almost
disappear, we must from the first be prepossessed against the
theory that our author made use of written sources, and only
allow ourselves to be moved to such a conclusion by further
distinct phenomena in the various parts of our book, especially as
the prologue of the Gospel, so often quoted for the purpose, does
not at all support it. But in any case, as has already been
remarked, the opinion that in the Acts of the Apostles the several
parts are strung together almost without alteration, is quite
irreconcilable with the result of our linguistic examination. Zeller
rightly says : ' Were the author so dependent a compiler, the
traces of such a proceeding must necessarily become apparent in
thorough dissimilarity of language and expression. And this
dissimilarity would be all the greater if his sources, as in that case
we could scarcely help admitting, belonged to widely separated
spheres as regards language and mode of thought. On the other
hand, it would be altogether inexplicable that, in all parts of the
work, the same favourite expressions, the same turns, the same
peculiarities of vocabulary and syntax, should meet us. This
phenomenon only becomes conceivable when we suppose that
the contents of our work were brought into their present form by
one and the same person, and that the work as it lies before us
was not merely compiled by some one, but was also composed by
him.'" 1
Should an attempt be made to argue that, even if it be conceded
that the language is that of the author of Acts, the sentiments may
be those actually expressed by Stephen, it would at once be
obvious that such an explanation is not only purely arbitrary and
incapable of proof, but opposed to the facts of the case. It is
not the language only which can be traced to the author of the
rest of the Acts, but, as we have shown, the whole plan of the
speech is the same as that of others in different parts of the work.
1 Lekebusch, Die Comp. und Entsteh. der Apostelgesch., p. 79 f.
672 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Stephen speaks exactly as Peter does before him and Paul at a
later period. There is just that amount of variety which a writer
of not unlimited resources can introduce to express the views of
different men under different circumstances ; but there is so much
which is nevertheless common to them all that community of
authorship cannot be denied. On the other hand, the improba-
bilities of the narrative, the singular fact that Stephen is not
mentioned by the Apostle Paul, and the peculiarities which may
be detected in the speech itself, receive their very simple explana-
tion when linguistic analysis so clearly demonstrates that the
speech actually ascribed to the martyr Stephen is nothing more
than a later composition put into his mouth by the author of
the Acts.
CHAPTER VI.
THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE WORK (CONTINUED) :
PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH. PETER AND CORNELIUS.
WE have been forced to enter at such length into the discussion of
the speech and martyrdom of Stephen that we cannot afford space
to do more than merely glance at the proceedings of his colleague
Philip, as we pass on to more important points in the work before
us. The author states that a great persecution broke out at the
time of Stephen's death, and that all (jrdvres) the community of
Jerusalem were scattered abroad " except the Apostles " (TrX^v TWV
aTroo-ToXojv). That the heads of the Church, who were well known,
should remain unmolested in Jerusalem, whilst the whole of the
le'ss known members of the community were persecuted and driven
to flight, is certainly an extraordinary and suspicious statement.
Even Apologists are obliged to admit that the account of the dis-
persion of the whole Church is hyperbolic ; but exaggeration and
myth enter so largely and persistently into the composition of the
Acts of the Apostles that it is difficult, after any attentive scrutiny,
seriously to treat the work as in any strict sense historical.
It has been conjectured by some critics, as well in explanation of
this statement as in connection with theories regarding the views
of Stephen, that the persecution in question was limited to the
Hellenistic community to which Stephen belonged, whilst the
Apostles and others, who were known as faithful observers of the
law and of the temple worship, 1 were not regarded as heretics by
the orthodox Jews. The narrative in the Acts does not seem to
support the view that the persecution was limited to the Hellenists;
but beyond the fact vouched for by Paul, that about this time there
was a persecution, we have no data whatever regarding that event.
Philip, it is said, went down to the city of Samaria, and " was
preaching the Christ " 2 to them. As the statement that " the
multitudes with one accord gave heed to the things spoken" to
them by Philip is ascribed to the miracles which he per-
formed there, we are unable to regard the narrative as historical,
and still less so when we consider the supernatural agency
by which his further proceedings are directed and aided. We
need only remark that the Samaritans, although only partly
iii. I, II, iv. I, v. 25. 2 viii. 5 ...... fic^pv^ffef airrots rbv
673
674 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
of Jewish origin, and rejecting the Jewish Scriptures with
the exception of the Pentateuch, worshipped the same God
as the Jews, were circumcised, and were equally prepared
as a nation to accept the Messiah. The statement that the
Apostles Peter and John went to Samaria, in order, by the im-
position of hands, to bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit to the
converts baptised by Philip, does not add to the general credibility
of the histoiy. As Bleek 1 has well remarked, nothing is known or
said as to whether the conversion of the Samaritans effected any
change in their relations towards the Jewish people and the temple
in Jerusalem. The mission of Philip to the Samaritans, as
related in the Acts, cannot in any case be considered as having
an important bearing on the question before us. We shall not
discuss the episode of Simon at all, although, in the opinion of
eminent critics, it contains much that is suggestive of the true
character of the Acts of the Apostles. An " Angel of the Lord "
(ayyeXos Kvpiov) speaks to Philip, and desires him to go to
the desert way from Jerusalem to Gaza, 2 where the Spirit tells him3
to draw near and join himself to the chariot of a man of Ethiopia
who had come to worship at Jerusalem, and was then returning
home. Philip runs thither, and, hearing him read Isaiah, expounds
the passage to him, and at his own request the Eunuch is at once
baptised. " And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit
of the Lord caught away (Trvevfja Kvpiov rfpn-ajcre) Philip, and the
Eunuch saw him no more ; for he went on his way rejoicing ; but
Philip was found at Azotus."*
Attempts have, of course, been made to explain naturally
the supernatural features of this narrative. Ewald, who is
master of the art of rationalistic explanation, says with regard
to the order given by the angel : "he felt impelled as
by the power and the clear voice of an angel " to go in that
direction; and the final miracle is disposed of by a contrast of the
disinterestedness of Philip with the conduct of Gehazi, the servant
of Elisha : it was the desire to avoid reward " which led him all
the more hurriedly to leave his new convert "; " and it was as
though the Spirit of the Lord himself snatched him from him
another way," etc. " From Gaza Philip repaired rapidly northward
to Ashdod, etc."s The great mass of critics reject such evasions,
and recognise that the author relates miraculous occurrences. The
introduction of supernatural agency in this way, however, removes
the story from the region of history. Such statements are antece-
dently and, indeed, coming from an unknown writer and without
1 Hebraerbr., i., p. 57, anm. 72. 2 viii. 26. 3 v 29.
4 v. 39 f. Azotus was upwards of thirty miles off.
5 Gesch. V. Isr., vi. 219, 220. *
PETER AT LYDDA AND JOPPA 675
corroboration, absolutely incredible, and no means exist of ascer-
taining what original tradition may have assumed this mythical
character. Zeller supposes that only the personality and nationality
of the Eunuch are really historical. 1 All that need here be added
is, that the great majority of critics agree that the Ethiopian was
probably at least a Proselyte of the Gate, as his going to Jerusalem
to worship seems clearly to indicate. 2 In any case, the mythical
elements of this story, as well as the insufficiency of the details,
deprive the narrative of historical value. 3
The episodes of Stephen's speech and martyrdom and the
mission of Philip are, in one respect especially, unimportant for the
inquiry on which we are now more immediately engaged. They
are almost completely isolated from the rest of the Acts;
that is to say, no reference is subsequently made to them as
forming any precedent for the guidance of the Church in the
burning question which soon arose within it. Peter, as we shall
see, when called upon to visit and baptise Cornelius, exhibits no
recollection of his own mission to the Samaritans, and no
knowledge of the conversion of the Ethiopian. Moreover, as
Stephen plays so small a part in the history, and Philip does not
reappear upon the scene after this short episode, no opportunity is
afforded of comparing one part of their history with the rest. In
passing on to the account of the baptism of Cornelius, we have at
least the advantage of contrasting the action attributed to Peter
with his conduct on earlier and later occasions, and a test is thus
supplied which is of no small value for ascertaining the truth of
the whole representation. To this narrative we must now address
ourselves.
As an introduction to the important events at Csesarea, the
author of the Acts relates the particulars of a visit which Peter
pays to Lydda and Joppa, in the course of which he performs
two very remarkable miracles. At the former town he finds a
certain man, named ./Eneas, paralysed, who had lain on a bed for
eight years. Peter said to him : "^Eneas, Jesus the Christ healeth
thee : arise and make thy bed." And he rose immediately. 4 As
the consequence of this miracle, the writer states that " All who
dwelt at Lydda and the Sharon saw him, who turned to the
Lord. "5 The exaggeration of such a statement is too palpable to
1 Die Apostelgesch. , p. 176. Cf. Holtzmann, Bunserfs Biblework, viii. 339.
2 Some critics doubt whether the term evvovxos does not indicate merely
an official position. Zeller, Apg., p. 176, anm. i ; Milman, Hist, of Chr.,
i., p. 367, note. Humphrey maintains that it does so here, Acts, p. 76.
3 viii. 37 of the authorised version, which is omitted by Codices A, B, C, H,
$, and many others, and of course omitted as spurious by most editors, is an
example of the way in which dogmas become antedated.
4 ix. 33. 34- s ix. 35.
676 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
require argument. The effect produced by the supposed
miracle is almost as incredible as the miracle itself, and the
account altogether has little claim to the character of sober
history.
This mighty work is altogether eclipsed by a miracle which
Peter performs about the same time at Joppa. A certain
woman, a disciple, named Tabitha, who was " full of good works,"
fell sick in those days and died, and when they washed her they
laid her in an upper chamber, and sent to Peter at Lydda,
beseeching him to come to them without delay. When Peter
arrived they took him into the upper chamber, where all the
widows stood weeping, and showed coats and garments which
Dorcas used to make while she was with them. " But Peter put
put them all out, and kneeled down and prayed ; and, turning to
the body, said : Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes, and
when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand, and
raised her up, and when he called the saints and the widows he
presented her alive." Apparently, the raising of the dead did not
produce as much effect as the cure of the paralytic, for the writer
only adds here : "And it was known throughout all Joppa; and
many believed in the Lord." 1 We shall hereafter have to speak of
the perfect calmness and absence of surprise with which these
early writers relate the most astonishing miracles. - It is evident
from the manner in which this story is narrated that the miracle
was anticipated. The vptpyov in which the body is laid cannot
have been the room generally used for that purpose, but is prob-
ably the single upper chamber of such a house which the author
represents as specially adopted in anticipation of Peter's arrival.
The widows who stand by weeping and showing the garments
made by the deceased complete the preparation. As Peter is sent
for after Dorcas had died, it would seem as though the writer
intimated that her friends expected him to raise her from the dead.
The explanation of this singular phenomenon, however, becomes
clear when it is remarked that the account of this great miracle is
closely traced from that of the raising of Jairus' daughter in the
Synoptics, 2 and more especially in the second Gospel. In that
instance Jesus is sent for ; and, on coming to the house, he finds
people " weeping and wailing greatly." He puts them all forth,
like Peter ; and, taking the child by the hand, says to her :
" ' Talitha koum,' which is, being interpreted, Maiden, I say unto
thee, arise. And immediately the maiden arose and walked."^
1 ix. 36-42.
2 Matt. ix. 18, 19, 23-25; Mark v. 22, 23, 35-42; Luke viii. 41, 42,
49-56.
3 Mark v. 38-42. *.
PETER AND CORNELIUS 677
Baur and others 1 conjecture that even the name " Tabitha, which
by interpretation is called Dorcas," was suggested by the words
TaAi$a Kovfj,, above quoted. The Hebrew original of Ta/^fla
signifies " Gazelle," and they contend that it was used, like
TaA.i0a, in the sense generally of: Maiden. 2 These two astonish-
ing miracles, reported by an unknown writer, and without any
corroboration, are absolutely incredible, and cannot prepossess
any reasonable mind with confidence in the narrative to which
they form an introduction ; and the natural distrust which they
awaken is fully confirmed when we find supernatural agency
employed at every stage of the following history.
We are told 3 that a certain devout centurion, named Cornelius,
" saw in a vision plainly " (etSev ev upd/jLan ^avepw?) an angel of
God, who said to him : " Thy prayers and thine alms are come up
for a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa, and
call for one Simon, who is surnamed Peter, whose house is by the
seaside." After giving these minute directions, the angel departed,
and Cornelius sent three messengers to Joppa. Just as they
approached the end of their journey on the morrow, Peter went
up to the housetop to pray about the sixth hour, the usual time of
prayer among the Jews. He became very hungry, and while his
meal was being prepared he fell into a trance and saw heaven
opened, and a certain vessel descending as it had been a great
sheet let down by four corners, in which were all four-footed
beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the air.
" And there came a voice to him : Rise, Peter ; kill and eat. But
1 In Mark. v. 41, fd\iOd KOV/J., 6 earriv fj.eOepfj.r)Vv6/j,evov TO Kopdffiov In
Acts ix. 36, Ta/3i#d, T) difp l ui)i>fvo/uiei>r) \eyerai Aoptcds.
2 The leading peculiarities of the two accounts may be contrasted thus :
Acts ix. 36 ...... rts TJV /j.adijTpLa,
6v6fj.a.Ti Ta/iiOd, r) diepfj.7ivevofJ.fV7)
\e~yfTai Ao/3/cd.s. 38 ...... dKovffavres
OTL II. ecrrlv ev avTri (Avdd. ), dwe(TTei\av
Svo dvdpas irpbs avrov irapaKa-
Xouvres' M-J; oKvrjari^ Sie\6eiv eus
-/1/j.uv. 39 ......... iraffai ai X%> a(
K\atovffai Kal ......... 40. KJ3a\ij>v
Se lw Trdpras 6 II ...... KO.L eiri-
<TTpf\f/a.s 7r/)6s r6 crw/aa elirev Ta-
/3t#<i dvdffTriB i. r\ Si ......... dve-
Kdffifffv. 41. dovs Se avrrj x ^P a
aveffrrfffev avrijv.
Luke viii. 41. /cat ISoft dv^p...
TrapeKdXei avrbv elffe\de1v els rbv
OIKOV O.VTOV. 5 2 - %K\a,iov Sf Trdvres
KO.1 ...... 54. aJros 5^ eKJ3d\u>i> rrdvTas
icai AcparTJcras rijs '
efpdivijffev \eyuv 'H Trats, eyeipov. 55-
KO.I eireffTp\l/ev rb Trvfv/j.a
Mark v. 40 ......... auV6s 5^ e/c/3a-
wi' iravras ...... elffrropeverai ...... 41.
Kal KpaTTJcras rrjs xeipbs rov vaiSiov
\eyei O.VTTJ, TaXi^ii KOV/J,,
/j,e6epfj.7ivev6/j,evov T6 Kopdffiov,
ffoi \eyu, Zyeipe. 42. KO.I evOeuis
dveffTT) TO KOp. K. T. X.
* Although this is the reading of the Cod. A (and C, except the ?{w) and
others, it is omitted by other ancient MSS.
3 x. i f.
678 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Peter said : Not so, Lord ; for I never ate anything common or
unclean. And the voice came unto him again a second time :
What God cleansed call not thou common. This was done thrice;
and straightway the vessel was taken up into heaven." While
Peter "was doubting in himself" what the vision which he had
seen meant, the men sent by Cornelius arrived, and " the Spirit
said unto him : Behold men are seeking thee ; but arise and get
thee down and go with them doubting nothing, for I have sent
them." Peter went with them on the morrow, accompanied by
some of the brethren, and Cornelius was waiting for them with his
kinsmen and near friends whom he had called together for the
purpose. " And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and
fell at his feet and worshipped. But Peter took him up, saying :
Arise ; I myself also am a man." 1 Going in, he finds many
persons assembled, to whom he said : " Ye know how it is an
unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company with or
come unto one of another nation ; and yet God showed me that
I should not call any man common or unclean. Therefore, also
I came without gainsaying when sent for. I ask, therefore, for
what reason ye sent for me ?" Cornelius narrates the particulars
of his vision, and continues : " Now, therefore, we are all present
before God to hear all the things that have been commanded thee
of the Lord. Then Peter opened his mouth and said : Of a truth
I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation
he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to
him," and so on. While Peter is speaking, " the Holy Spirit fell
on all those who heard the word. And they of the circumcision
who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter,
because that on the Gentiles also has been poured out the gift of
the Holy Spirit ; for they heard them speak with tongues and
magnify God. Then answered Peter : Can anyone forbid the
water that these should not be baptised, which have received the
Holy Spirit as well as we ? And he commanded them to be bap-
tised in the name of the Lord."
We shall not waste time discussing the endeavours of Kuinoel,
Neander, Lange, Ewald, and others, to explain away as much as
possible the supernatural elements of this narrative, for their
attempts are repudiated by most Apologists, and the miraculous
phenomena are too clearly described and too closely connected
with the course of the story to be either ignored or eliminated.
Can such a narrative, heralded by such miracles as the instan-
taneous cure of the paralytic ^Eneas, and the raising from the dead
of the maiden Dorcas, be regarded as sober history ? Of course,
many maintain that it can, and comparatively few have declared
1 x. 26 ; cf. xiv. 14,** 5.
PARALLEL FEATURES IN CONVERSION OF PAUL 679
themselves against this. We have, however, merely the narrative
of an unknown author to set against unvarying experience, and that
cannot much avail. We must now endeavour to discover how far
this episode is consistent with the rest of the facts narrated in this
book itself, and with such trustworthy evidence as we can else-
where bring to bear upon it. We have already in an earlier part
of our inquiry pointed out that, in the process of exhibiting a
general parallelism between the Apostles Peter and Paul, a very
close pendant to this narrative has been introduced by the author
into the history of Paul. In the story of the conversion of Paul,
the Apostle has his vision on the way to Damascus, 1 and about the
same time the Lord in a vision desires Ananias ("a devout man,
according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews that
dwell " in Damascus), 2 " arise, and go to the street which is called
Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one named Saul
of Tarsus ; for behold he prayeth, and saw in a vision a man
named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him that he
might receive sight." On this occasion also the gift of the Holy
Spirit is conferred, and Saul is baptised. 3 Whilst such miraculous
agency is so rare elsewhere, it is so common in the Acts of the
Apostles that the employment of visions and of angels, under
every circumstance, is one of the characteristics of the author, and
may therefore be set down to his own imagination.
No one who examines this episode of Cornelius attentively, we
think, can doubt that the narrative before us is composed in apolo-
getic interest, and is designed to have a special bearing upon the
problem as to the relation of the Pauline Gospel to the preaching
of the Twelve. Baur* has acutely pointed out the significance of
the very place assigned to it in the general history, and its inser-
tion immediately after the conversion of Paul, and before the
commencement of his ministry, as a legitimation of his Apostle-
ship of the Gentiles. One point stands clearly out of the strange
medley of Jewish prejudice, Christian liberalism, and supernatural
interference which constitute the elements of the story : the actual
conviction of Peter regarding the relation of the Jew to the
Gentile, that the Gospel is addressed to the former and that the
Gentile is excluded, which has to be removed by a direct super-
natural revelation from heaven. The author recognises that this
was the general view of the primitive Church, and this is the
only particular in which we can perceive historical truth in the
narrative. The complicated machinery of visions and angelic
messengers is used to justify the abandonment of Jewish restric-
1 ix. 3 f. 2 xxii. 12; cf. x. I f., 22. 3 ix. 10-18.
4 Baur, Paulus, i., p. 90; Schneckenburger, Zweck d. Apostelgesch.,
p. 170 f.
680 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
tions, which was preached by Paul amidst so much virulent
opposition. Peter anticipates and justifies Paul in his ministry of
the uncircumcision, and the overthrow of Mosaic barriers has the
sanction and seal of a divine command. We have to see whether
the history itself does not betray its mythical character, not only in
' its supernatural elements, but in its inconsistency with other
known or narrated incidents in the Apostolical narrative.
There has been much difference of opinion as to whether the
centurion Cornelius had joined himself in any recognised degree
to the Jewish religion before this incident, and a majority of critics
maintain that he is represented as a Proselyte of the Gate. The
terms in which he is described, x. 2, as ewe/J^* KCU <o/3otyxevo
TOV 6e6v, certainly seem to indicate this, and probably the point
would not have been questioned but for the fact that the writer
evidently intends to deal with the subject of Gentile conversion,
with which the representation that Cornelius was already a
proselyte would somewhat clash. Whether a proselyte or not,
the Roman centurion is said to be " devout and fearing God with
all his house, giving much alms to the people, and praying to
God always ";' and probably the ambiguity as to whether he had
actually become affiliated in any way to Mosaism is intentional.
When Peter, however, with his scruples removed by the super-
natural communication with which he had just been favoured,
indicates their previous strength by the statement : " Ye know how
it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company
with or come unto one of another nation," 2 the author evidently
oversteps . the mark, and betrays the unhistorical nature of the
narrative ; for such an affirmation not only could not have been
made by Peter, but could only have been advanced by a writer
who was himself a Gentile, and writing at a distance from the
events described. There is no injunction of the Mosaic law
declaring such intercourse unlawful, 3 nor indeed is such a rule
elsewhere heard of, and even Apologists who refer to the point
have no show of authority by which to support such a statement.
Not only was there no legal prohibition, but it is impossible to
conceive that there was any such exclusiveness practised by
traditional injunction.* As de Wette appropriately remarks,
moreover, even if such a prohibition existed as regards idolaters,
it would still be inconceivable how it could apply to Cornelius,
1 x. 2, cf. 22. * x. 28.
3 Davidson, Int. N. T., ii., p. 242 ; Overbeck, zu de Wette, Apg., p. 159 ;
de Wette, Apg., p. 158; Zeller, Apg., p. 187.
4 De Wette quotes against it Schemoth Rabba, 19 f., 118. 3. ad Exod.
xii. 2: "Hoc idem est, quod scriptum dicit Jes. Ivi. j: Et non dicet filius
advenes, qui adhtzsit Domino, dicendo: separar^do separavit me Dominus a
populo suo" (Apostelgesch., p. 158).
PETER'S RESIDENCE WITH SIMON THE TANNER 681
" a righteous man and fearing God, and of good report among
all the nation of the Jews." 1 It is also inconsistent with the zeal
for proselytism displayed by the Pharisees, 2 the strictest sect of
the Jews ; and the account given by Josephus of the conversion
of Izates of Adiabene is totally against it. 3
There is a slight trait which, added to others, tends to
complete the demonstration of the unhistorical character of
this representation. Peter is said to have lived many days
in Joppa with one Simon, a tanner, and it is in his house
that the messengers of Cornelius find him.* Now, the tanner's
trade was considered impure amongst the Jews, 5 and it was
almost pollution to live in Simon's house. It is argued by
some commentators that the fact that Peter lodged there is
mentioned to show that he had already emancipated himself from
Jewish prejudices. However this may be, it is strangely incon-
sistent that a Jew who has no objection to live with a tanner
should, at the same time, consider it unlawful to hold intercourse
of any kind with a pious Gentile, who, if not actually a Proselyte
of the Gate, had every qualification for becoming one. This
indifference to the unclean and polluting trade of the tanner,
moreover, is inconsistent with the reply which Peter gives to the
voice which bids him slay and eat : " Not so, Lord, for I never
ate anything common or unclean." No doubt the intercourse to
which Peter refers indicates, or at least includes, eating and
drinking with one of another country, and this alone could present
any intelligible difficulty, for the mere transaction of business or
conversation with strangers must have been daily necessary to the
Jews. It must be remarked, however, that, when Peter makes
the statement which we are discussing, nothing whatever is said
of eating with the Centurion or sitting with him at table. This
leads to a striking train of reflection upon the whole episode.
It is a curious thing that the supernatural vision, which is designed
to inform Peter and the Apostles that the Gentiles might be
received into the Church, should take the form of a mere intima-
tion that the distinction of clean and unclean animals was no
longer binding, and that he might indifferently kill and eat. One
might have thought that, on the supposition that Heaven desired
to give Peter and the Church a command to admit the Gentiles
unconditionally to the benefits of the Gospel, this would be simply
and clearly stated. This was not done at all, and the intimation
by which Peter supposes himself justified in considering it lawful
1 x. 22 ; de Wette, Apg., p. 158. 2 Matt, xxiii. 15.
3 Antiq., xx. 2, 3. 4 ix. 43, x. 6.
5 Schoettgen, Hone Hebr., p. 447 ; Alford, Greek Test., ii., p. 109;
Hackett, Acts, p. 144; Meyer, Apg., p. 235; Renan, Les Apotres, p. 199;
de Wette, Apg. , p. 1 50 ; Wordsworth, Greek Test. , Acts, p. 88.
682 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
to go to Cornelius is, in the first place, merely on the subject of
animals defined as clean and unclean. Doubtless the prohibition
as to certain meats might tend to continue the separation between
Jew and Gentile, and the disregard of such distinctions of course
promoted general intercourse with strangers ; but this by no
means explains why the abrogation of this distinction is made the
intimation to receive Gentiles into the Church. When Peter
returns to Jerusalem we are told that "they of the circumcision"
that is to say, the whole Church there, since at that period all
were " of the circumcision," and this phrase further indicates that
the writer has no historical standpoint contended with him.
The subject of the contention, we might suppose, was the baptism
of Gentiles ; but not so : the charge brought against him was :
" Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with
them." 1 The subject of Paul's dispute with Peter at Antioch
simply was that, " before that certain came from James, he did
eat with the Gentiles ; but when they came he withdrew, fearing
them of the circumcision." 2 That the whole of these passages
should turn merely on the fact of eating with men who were
uncircumcised is very suggestive, and as the Church at Jerusalem
make no allusion to the baptism of uncircumcised Gentiles, it
would lead to the inference that nothing was known of such an
event, and that the circumstance was simply added to some other
narrative ; and this is rendered all the more probable by the fact
that, in the affair at Antioch as well as throughout the Epistle to
the Galatians, Peter is very far from acting as one who had been
the first to receive uncircumcised Gentiles freely into the Church.
It is usually asserted that the vision of Peter abrogated the
distinction of clean and unclean animals so long existing in the
Mosaic Law, but there is no evidence that any subsequent gradual
abandonment of the rule was ascribed to such a command ; and it
is remarkable that Peter himself not only does not, as we shall
presently see, refer to this vision as authority for disregarding the
distinction of clean and unclean meats, and for otherwise consider-
ing nothing common or unclean, but acts as if such a vision had
never taken place. The famous decree of the Council of Jerusalem,
moreover, makes no allusion to any modification of the Mosaic
law in the case of Jewish Christians, whatever relaxation it may
seem to grant to Gentile converts, and there is no external evidence
of any kind that so important an abolition of ancient legal
prescriptions was thus introduced into Christendom.
We have, however, fortunately one test of the historical value of
this whole episode, to which we have already briefly referred, but
which we must now more closely apply. Paul himself, in his
1 xi. 3. * Gal. ii. 12.
THE NARRATIVE NOT HISTORICAL 683
Epistle to the Galatians, narrates the particulars of a scene between
himself and Peter at Antioch, of which no mention is made in the
Acts of the Apostles, and we think that no one can fairly consider
that episode without being convinced that it is utterly irreconcil-
able with the supposition that the vision which we are now examin-
ing can ever have appeared to Peter, or that he can have played
the part attributed to him in the conversion and baptism of un-
circumcised Gentiles. Paul writes : " But when Cephas came to
Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was condemned.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles, and when they came he withdrew and separated himself,
fearing them of the circumcision ; and the other Jews also joined
in his hypocrisy." 1 It will be remembered that, in the case of
Cornelius, " they of the circumcision " in Jerusalem, at the head
of whom was James, from whom came those "of the circumcision"
of whom Peter was afraid at Antioch, contended with Peter for
going in " to men uncircumcised and eating with them," 2 the very
thing which was in question at Antioch. In the Acts, Peter is
represented as defending his conduct by relating the divine vision
under the guidance of which he acted, and the author states as the
result that " When they heard these things they held their peace
and glorified God, saying : Then to the Gentiles also God gave
repentance unto life." 3 This is the representation of the author
of the vision and of the conversion of Cornelius, but very different
is Peter's conduct as described by the Apostle Paul, very dis-
similar the phenomena presented by a narrative upon which we
can rely. The " certain who came from James " can never have
heard of the direct communication from Heaven which justified
Peter's conduct, and can never have glorified God in the manner
described, or Peter could not have had any reason to fear them ;
for a mere reference to his vision, and to the sanction of the
Church of Jerusalem, must have been sufficient to reconcile them
to his freedom. Then, is it conceivable that after such a vision,
and after being taught by God himself not to call any man or
thing common or unclean, Peter could have acted as he did for
fear of them of the circumcision ? His conduct is convincing
evidence that he knew as little of any such vision as those who
came from James. On the other hand, if we require further proof
it is furnished by the Apostle Paul himself. Is it conceivable that,
if such an episode had ever really occurred, the Apostle Paul
would not have referred to it upon this occasion ? What more
appropriate argument could he have used, what more legitimate
rebuke could he have administered, than merely to have reminded
Peter of his own vision ? He both rebukes him and argues, but
1 Gal. ii. 11-13. 2 Acts xi. 2, 3. 3 Ib., xi. 18.
684 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
his rebuke and his argument have quite a different complexion ;
and we confidently affirm that no one can read that portion of the
Epistle to the Galatians without feeling certain that, had the writer
been aware of such a divine communication and we think it must
be conceded without question that, if it had taken place, he must
have been aware of it 1 he would have referred to so direct and
important an authority. Neither here nor in the numerous places
where such an argument would have been so useful to the Apostle
does Paul betray the slightest knowledge of the episode of
Cornelius. The historic occurrence at Antioch, so completely
ignored by the author of the Acts, totally excludes the mythical
story of Cornelius.
There are merely one or two other points in connection with the
episode to which we must call attention. In his address to
Cornelius, Peter says : " Of a truth I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons " (OVK &TTIV 7r/3oo-<u7roA.?yju7m/s o 6*d?),
Now this is not only a thoroughly Pauline sentiment, but Paul has
more than once made use of precisely the same expression.
Rom. ii. 1 1 : " For there is no respect of persons with God "
(01' yap ffTTtv TrpcxrwTroX^fJi^ia Trapa TM $to>) ', and, again,
Gal. ii. 6 : " God respecteth no man's person " (trpwrorirov
o 6fo$ uvOpiinrov ov Xap.fta.v(.i). z The author of the Acts was
certainly acquainted with the Epistles of Paul, and the very
manner in which he represents Peter as employing this expression
betrays the application of a sentiment previously in his mind, " Of
a truth I perceive," etc. The circumstance confirms what Paul
had already said. 3 Then, in the defence of his conduct at
Jerusalem, Peter is represented as saying : " And I remembered
the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptised with
water, but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit."* Now
these words are by all the Gospels put into the mouth of John the
Baptist, and not of Jesus ; 5 but the author of the Acts seems to put
them into the mouth of Jesus at the beginning of the work, 6 and
their repetition here is only an additional proof of the fact that the
episode of Cornelius, as it stands before us, is not historical, but
is merely his own composition.
The whole of this narrative, with its complicated series of
miracles, is evidently composed to legitimate the free reception
into the Christian Church of Gentile converts ; and, to emphasize
1 Indeed the reference to this case, supposed to be made by Peter himself, in
Paul's presence, excludes the idea of ignorance, if the Acts be treated as
historical.
2 Cf. Ephes. vi. 9, Col. iii. 25.
3 Compare further x. 35 f. with Rom. ii. iii., etc. The sentiments and even
the words are Pauline. * xi. 16.
5 Matt. iii. II, Mark i. 8, Luke iii. 16, John i.'26, 33. 6 i. 5.
THE NARRATIVE NOT HISTORICAL 685
the importance of the divine ratification of their admission, Peter
is made to repeat to the Church of Jerusalem the main incidents
which had just been fully narrated. On the one hand, the previous
Jewish exclusiveness both of Peter and of the Church is displayed
first, in the resistance of the Apostle, which can only be overcome
by the vision and the direct order of the Holy Spirit, and by the
manifest outpouring of the Spirit upon the Centurion and his
household; and, second, in the contention of the party of the circum-
cision, which is only overcome by an account of the repeated signs
of divine purpose and approval. The universality of the Gospel
could not be more broadly proclaimed than in the address of Peter
to Cornelius. Not the Jews alone, " but in every nation, he that
feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him."
Pauline principles are thus anticipated, and, as we have pointed
out, are expressed almost in the words of the Apostle of the
Gentiles. The Jews who go with Peter were astonished because
that on the Gentiles also had been poured out the gift of the Holy
Spirit ; : and the Church of Jerusalem, on hearing of these things,
glorified God that repentance unto life had been given to the
Gentiles. It is impossible that the admission of the Gentiles to
the privileges of the Church could be more prominently signified
than by this episode, introduced by prodigious miracles and
effected by supernatural machinery. Where, however, are the
consequences of this marvellous recognition of the Gentiles ? It
does not in the slightest degree preclude the necessity for the
Council, which we shall presently consider ; it does not apparently
exercise any influence on James and the Church of Jerusalem ;
Peter, indeed, refers vaguely to it, but as a matter out of date and
almost forgotten ; Paul, in all his disputes with the emissaries of
the Church of Jerusalem, in all his pleas for the freedom of his
Gentile converts, never makes the slightest allusion to it ; it
remains elsewhere unknown, and, so far as any evidence goes,
utterly without influence upon the primitive Church. This will
presently become more apparent ; but already it is clear enough to
those who will exercise calm reason that it is impossible to consider
this narrative, with its tissue of fruitless miracles, as a historical
account of the development of the Church.
x. 45 f.
CHAPTER VII.
THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE WORK (CONTINUED) :
PAUL THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES
WE have now arrived at the point in our examination of the Acts
in which we have the inestimable advantage of being able to
compare the narrative of the unknown author with the distinct
statements of the Apostle Paul. In doing so, we must remember
that the author must have been acquainted with the Epistles
which are now before us, and, supposing it to be his purpose to
present a peculiar view of the transactions in question, whether for
apologetic or for conciliatory reasons, it is obvious that it would not
be reasonable to expect divergencies of so palpable a nature that any
reader of the letters must at once perceive them. When the Acts were
written, it is true, the author could not have known that the Epistles
of Paul were to attain the high canonical position which they now
occupy, and might, therefore, use his materials more freely ; still,
it would be natural to expect a certain superficial consistency.
Unfortunately, our means of testing the statements of the author
are not so minute as is desirable, although they are often of much
value ; and, seeing the great facility with which, by apparently
slight alterations and omissions, a different complexion can be
given to circumstances regarding which no very full details exist
elsewhere, we must be prepared to seize every indication which
may enable us to form a just estimate of the nature of the writing
which we are examining.
In the first two chapters of his Epistle to the Galatians, the
Apostle Paul relates particulars regarding some important epochs
of his life, which likewise enter into the narrative of the Acts of
the Apostles. The Apostle gives an account of his own proceed-
ings immediately after his conversion, and of the visit which about
that time he paid to Jerusalem ; and, further, of a second visit to
Jerusalem fourteen years later ; and to these we must now direct
our attention. We defer consideration of the narrative of the
actual conversion of Paul for the present, and merely intend here
to discuss the movements and conduct of the Apostle immediately
subsequent to that event. The Acts of the Apostles represent Paul
as making five journeys to Jerusalem subsequent to his joining the
Christian body. The first, ix. 26 f., takes place immediately after
his conversion ; the second, xi. 30, xii. 25, is upon an occasion
when the Church at Antioch are represented as sending relief to
686
PAUL'S VISITS TO JERUSALEM
687
the brethren of Judaea by the hands of Barnabas and Saul, during
a time of famine; the third visit to Jerusalem, xv. i f., Paul
likewise pays in company with Barnabas, both being sent by the
Church of Antioch to confer with the Apostles and Elders as to
the necessity of circumcision, and the obligation of Gentile
converts to observe the Mosaic law ; the fourth, xviii. 2 1 f.,
when he goes to Ephesus with Priscilla and Aquilla, "having
shaved his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow "; and the fifth
and last, xxi. 15 f., when the disturbance took place in the temple
which led to his arrest and journey to Rome. The circumstances
and general character of these visits to Jerusalem, and more
especially of that on which the momentous conference is described
as having taken place, are stated with so much precision, and they
present features of such marked difference, that it might have been
supposed there could not have been any difficulty in identifying
with certainty, at least, the visits to which the Apostle refers in his
letter, more especially as upon both occasions he mentions impor-
tant particulars which characterised them. It is a remarkable
fact, however, that the divergencies between the statements of
the unknown author and the Apostle are so marked that upon
no point has there been more decided difference of opinion
amongst critics and divines from the very earliest times. Upon
general grounds, we have already seen, there has been good reason
to doubt the historical character of the Acts. Is it not a singularly
suggestive circumstance that, when it is possible to compare the
authentic representations of Paul with the narrative of the Acts, even
Apologists perceive so much opening for doubt and controversy ?
The visit described in the ninth chapter of the Acts is generally
identified with that which is mentioned in the first chapter of
the Epistle. This unanimity arises mainly from the circum-
stance that both writers clearly represent that visit as the first
which Paul paid to Jerusalem after his conversion, for the details
of the two narratives are anything but in agreement with
each other. Although critics are forced to agree as to the
bare identity of the visit, this harmony is immediately disturbed
on examining the two accounts, and, whilst the one party find the
statements in the Acts reconcilable with those of Paul, a large
body more or less distinctly declare them to be contradictory and
unhistorical. In order that the question at issue may be fairly laid
before the reader, we shall give the two accounts in parallel
columns :
ACTS ix. 19 f.
19. And he was certain days
(r]fj.tpas TIVO.S) with the disciples in
Damascus.
20. And immediately (ei)Wws) was
EP. TO GAL. i. 15 f.
15. But when it pleased God
1 6. To reveal his son in me, that
I might preach him among the Gen-
tiles ;
688
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
ACTS ix. 19 f.
preaching Jesus in the synagogues,
etc.
21. And all that heard him were
amazed, saying, etc.
22. But Saul was increasing in
strength more and more, and con-
founding the Jews which dwelt at
Damascus, proving that this is the
Christ.
23. And after many days (Tj^pai
iKaval) were fulfilled, the Jews took
counsel to kill him ; 24. But their plot
was known to Saul. And they were
even watching the gates day and night
to kill him.
25. But the disciples took him by
night, and let him down through the
wall in a basket.
26. And when he came to Jeru-
salem he was assaying to join himself
to the disciples ; but all were afraid
of him, not believing that he is a dis-
ciple.
27. But Barnabas took him, and
brought him to the Apostles, and
declared unto them how he saw the
Lord in the way, and that he spake
to him ; and how he preached boldly
at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
28. And he was with them coming
in and going out at Jerusalem, preach-
ing boldly in the name of the Lord.
29. And he was speaking and dis-
puting against the Grecian Jews ; but
they took counsel to slay him ;
30. But when the brethren knew,
they brought him down to Caesarea,
and sent him forth to Tarsus.
Ei>. TO GAL. i. 15 f.
immediately (eiWws) I conferred not
with flesh and blood ;
17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem
to those who were Apostles before me ;
but I went away into Arabia, and
returned again into Damascus.
1 8. Then after three years I went up
to Jerusalem to visit 1 Cephas, and
abode with him fifteen days.
19. But other of the Apostles saw
I not save James the Lord's brother.
20. Now the things which I write
unto you, behold, before God, I lie
not.
21. Thereafter I came into the
regions of Syria and Cilicia ;
22. But I was unknown by face
unto the churches of Jud;ca which
were in Christ ; but they were only
hearing that he who formerly persecuted
us is now preaching the faith which
once he was destroying : and they
glorified God in me.
It is obvious that the representation in the Acts of what
Paul did after his conversion differs very widely from the account
which the Apostle himself gives of the matter. In the first place,
not a word is said in the former of the journey into Arabia ; but,
on the contrary, it is excluded, and the statement which replaces
it directly contradicts that of Paul. The Apostle says that after
his conversion " Immediately 2 (ei'^ews) I conferred not with flesh
and blood," but " went away into Arabia." The author of the
Acts says that he spent " some days " (ry/xe/ms rti/as) with the
1 To become acquainted with.
2 Dr. Ellicott remarks : " Straightway ; the word standing prominently
forward, and implying that he not only avoided conference with men, but did
so from the very first" (St. Paul's Ep. to the 6q/., 4th ed. , p. 16).
PAUL'S FIRST ACTIONS AFTER CONVERSION 689
disciples in Damascus, and " immediately " (ei'flews) began to
preach in the synagogues. Paul's feelings are so completely
misrepresented that, instead of that desire for retirement and
solitude which his words express, he is described as straightway
plunging into the vortex of public life in Damascus. The general
apologetic explanation is, that the author of the Acts either was
not aware of the journey into Arabia, or that, his absence there
having been short, he did not consider it necessary to mention
it. There are no data for estimating the length of time which
Paul spent in Arabia, but the fact that the Apostle mentions it
with so much emphasis proves not only that he attached con-
siderable weight to the episode, but that the duration of his visit
could not have been unimportant. In any case, the author of
the Acts, whether ignorantly or not, boldly describes the Apostle
as doing precisely what he did not. To any ordinary reader,
moreover, his whole account of Paul's preaching at Damascus
certainly excludes altogether the idea of such a journey, and the
argument that it can be inserted anywhere is purely arbitrary.
There are many theories amongst Apologists as to the part
of the narrative in Acts in which the Arabian journey can
be placed. By some it is assigned to a period before he
commenced his active labours, and therefore before ix. 20, from
which the words of the author repulse it with singular clearness ;
others intercalate it with even less reason between ix. 20 and 21 ;
a few discover some indication of it in the /mAAov tve8wap.ovTo
of verse 22 an expression, however, which refuses to be forced
into such service ; a greater number . place it in the ^//.e/aai iKavai
of verse 23, making that elastic phrase embrace this as well as
other difficulties till it snaps under the strain. It seems evident
to an unprejudiced reader that the r/fj-epai i/cavai are represented
as passed in Damascus. And, lastly, some critics place it after ix.
25, regardless of Paul's statement that from Arabia he returned
again to Damascus, which, under the circumstances mentioned
in Acts, he was not likely to do, and indeed it is obvious that he
is there supposed to have at once gone from Damascus to
Jerusalem. These attempts at reconciliation are useless. It is
of no avail to find time into which a journey to Arabia and the
stay there might be forcibly thrust. There still remains the fact
that, so far from the Arabian visit being indicated in the Acts,
the ei'#<os of ix. 20, compared with the eu#eo>s of Gal. i. 16,
positively excludes it, and proves that the narrative of the former
is not historical.
There is another point in the account in Acts which further
demands attention. The impression conveyed by the narrative is
that Paul went up to Jerusalem not very long after his conversion.
The omission of the visit to Arabia shortens the interval before he
2Y
690 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
did so, by removing causes of delay ; and, whilst no expressions are
used which imply a protracted stay in Damascus, incidents are
introduced which indicate that the purpose of the writer was to
represent the Apostle as losing no time after his conversion before
associating himself with the elder Apostles and obtaining their
recognition of his ministry ; and this view, we shall see, is con-
firmed by the peculiar account which is given of what took place
at Jerusalem. The Apostle distinctly states, i. 18, that three
years after his conversion he went up to visit Peter. 1 In the Acts
he is represented as spending " some days " (^/xepas nvas) with
the disciples, and the only other chronological indication given is
that, after " many days " (r/fj-epai ixavai), the plot occurred which
forced him to leave Damascus. It is argued that i^tpcu ixavai is
an indefinite period, which may, according to the usage of the
author, 2 indicate a considerable space of time, and certainly rather
express a long than a short period. 3 The fact is, however, that the
instances cited are evidence, in themselves, against the supposition
that the author can have had any intention of expressing a period
of three years by the words TJ/AC/XU tKavai. We suppose that no
one has ever suggested that Peter stayed three years in the house of
Simon the tanner at Joppa (ix. 43) ; or that when it is said that
Paul remained " many days " at Corinth after the insurrection of
the Jews, the author intends to speak of some years, when in fact
the -/}//,e/>ui IKCIVCU contrasted with the expression (xviii. n), "he
continued there a year and six months," used regarding his stay
previous to that disturbance, evidently reduces the " yet many
days " subsequently spent there to a very small compass. Again,
has any one ever suggested that in the account of Paul's voyage
to Rome, where it is said (xxvii. 7) that, after leaving Myrra "and
sailing slowly many days " (yj^epai ticavai), they had scarcely got
so for as Cnidus, an interval of months, not to say years, is indi-
cated ? It is impossible to suppose that by such an expression
the writer intended to indicate a period of three years.
That the narrative of the Acts actually represents Paul as going
up to Jerusalem soon after his conversion, and certainly not merely at
the end of three years, is obvious from the statement in verse 26,
that when Paul arrived at Jerusalem, and was assaying to join him-
self to the disciples, all were afraid of him, and would not believe
in his conversion. The author could certainly not have stated
1 "The ' straightway' of verse 16 leads to this conclusion : ' At first I con-
ferred not with flesh and blood, it was only after the lapse of three years that I
went to Jerusalem' " (Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 83).
* Acts ix. 43, xviii 18, xvii. 7 ; Lightfoot, il>., p. 89, note 3.
3 "The difference between the vague 'many days' of the Acts and the defi-
nite ' three years' of the Epistle is such as might be expected from the circum-
stances of the two writers" (Lightfoot, ib., p. 89, note 3).
STATEMENTS IN ACTS CONTRADICT EPISTLE 691
this, if he had desired to imply that Paul had already been a
Christian, and publicly preached with so much success at
Damascus, for three years. Indeed, the statements in ix. 26 are
irreconcilable with the declaration of the Apostle, whatever view
be taken of the previous narrative of the Acts. If it be assumed
that the author wishes to describe the visit to Jerusalem as taking
place three years after his conversion, then the ignorance of that
event amongst the brethren there and their distrust of Paul are
utterly inconsistent and incredible ; whilst if, on the other hand,
he represents the Apostle as going to Jerusalem with but little
delay in Damascus, as we contend he does, then there is no escape
from the conclusion that the Acts, whilst thus giving a narrative
consistent with itself, distinctly contradicts the deliberate assertions
of the Apostle. It is absolutely incredible that the. con version of
a well-known persecutor of the Church (viii. 3 f.), effected in a way
which is represented as so sudden and supernatural, and accom-
panied by a supposed vision of the Lord, could for three years
have remained unknown to the community of Jerusalem. So
striking a triumph for Christianity must have been rapidly circu-
lated throughout the Church, and the fact that he who formerly
persecuted was now zealously preaching the faith which once he
destroyed must long have been generally known in Jerusalem,
which was in such constant communication with Damascus.
The author of the Acts continues in the same strain, stating that
Barnabas, under the circumstances just described, took Paul and
brought him to the Apostles (-n-pfc roi>s aTroo-roAops), and de-
clared to them the particulars of his vision and conversion, and
how he had preached boldly at Damascus. 1 No doubt is left that
this is the first intimation the Apostles had received of such extra-
ordinary events. After this, we are told that Paul was with them
coming in and going out at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the
name of the Lord. Here again the declaration of Paul is explicit,
and distinctly contradicts this story both in the letter and the
spirit. He makes no mention of Barnabas. He states that he
went to Jerusalem specially with the view of making the acquaint-
ance of Peter, with whom he remained fifteen days ; but he
emphatically says : " But other of the Apostles saw I not, save
(el p)) James, the Lord's brother"; and then he adds the solemn
declaration regarding his account of this visit : " Now the things
which I write unto you behold, before God, I lie not." An
asseveration made in this tone excludes the supposition of in-
accuracy or careless vagueness, and the specific statements have all
the force of sworn evidence. Instead of being presented " to the
Apostles," therefore, and going in and out with them at Jerusalem,
692 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
we have here the emphatic assurance that, in addition to Peter,
Paul saw no one except " James, the Lord's brother."
There has been much discussion as to the identity of this
James, and whether he was an Apostle or not ; but into this
it is unnecessary for us to enter. Most writers agree at
least that he is the same James, the head of the Church
at Jerusalem, whom we again frequently meet with in the
Pauline Epistles and in the Acts, and notably in the account
of the Apostolic council. The exact interpretation to be
put upon the expression d p) 'Ia.Kw(3ov has also been the
subject of great controversy, the question being whether James is
here really called an Apostle or not ; whether el p) is to be
understood as applying solely to the verb, in which case the state-
ment would mean that he saw no other of the Apostles, but only
James, or to the whole phrase, which would express that he had
seen no other of the Apostles save James. It is admitted, by many
of those who think that in this case the latter signification must be
adopted, that grammatically either interpretation is permissible.
Even supposing that, rightly or wrongly, James is here referred to
as an Apostle, the statement of the Acts is, in spirit, quite opposed
to that of the Epistle ; for when we are told that Paul is brought
" to the Apostles " (TT/JOS TOVS a-Trocn-oAovs), the linguistic
usage of the writer implies that he means much more than merely
Peter and James. . It seems impossible to reconcile the statement,
ix. 27, with the solemn assurance of Paul; and if we accept what
the Apostle says as truth, and we cannot doubt it, it must be
admitted that the account in the Acts is unhistorical.
We arrive at the very same conclusion on examining the rest of
the narrative. In the Acts, Paul is represented as being with the
Apostles going in and out, preaching openly in Jerusalem, and
disputing with the Grecian Jews. 1 No limit is here put to his
visit, and it is difficult to conceive that what is narrated is intended
to describe a visit of merely fifteen days. A subsequent statement
in the Acts, however, explains and settles the point. Paul is
represented as declaring to King Agrippa, xxvi. 19 f. : " Where-
fore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision,
but first unto those in Damascus, and throughout all the region of
Judaea, and to the Gentiles, I was declaring that they should repent
and turn to God," etc. However this may be, the statement of
Paul does not admit the interpretation of such public ministry.
His express purpose in going to Jerusalem was, not to preach, but
to make the acquaintance of Peter ; and it was a marked charac-
teristic of Paul to avoid preaching in ground already occupied by
the other Apostles before him. 2 Not only is the account in Acts
1 ix. 28 f. 2 2 Cor. 3. 14 f. ; cf. Rom. xv. 20.
STATEMENTS IN ACTS CONTRADICT EPISTLE 693
apparently excluded by silch considerations and by the general
tenour of the Epistle, but it is equally so by the direct words
of the Apostle (i. 22) : " I was unknown by face unto the
churches of Judaea." It is argued that the term, "churches of
Judaea," excludes Jerusalem. It might possibly be asserted with
reason that such an expression as " the churches of Jerusalem "
might exclude the churches of Judaea, but to say that the Apostle,
writing elsewhere to the Galatians of a visit to Jerusalem, and of
his conduct at that time, intends, when speaking of the " churches
of Judaea," to exclude the principal city seems to us arbitrary and
unwarrantable. The whole object of the Apostle is to show the
privacy of his visit and his independence of the elder Apostles.
He does not use the expression as a contrast to Jerusalem.
Nothing in his account leads one to think of any energetic preach-
ing during the visit, and the necessity of finding some way of
excluding Jerusalem from the Apostle's expression is simply thrust
upon Apologists by the account in Acts. Two passages are
referred to as supporting the exclusion of Jerusalem from " the
churches of Judaea." In John iii. 22 we read : " After these
things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea." In
the preceding chapter he is described as being at Jerusalem. We
have already said enough about the geographical notices of the
author of the fourth Gospel. 1 Even those who do not admit that
he was not a native of Palestine are agreed that he wrote in another
country and for foreigners. " The land of Judaea " was therefore
a natural expression superseding the necessity of giving a more
minute local indication which would have been of little use. The
second instance appealed to, though more doubtfully, 2 is Heb. xiii.
24 : " They from Italy salute you." We are at a loss to understand
how this is supposed to support the interpretation adopted. It is
impossible that if Paul went in and out with the Apostles, preached
boldly in Jerusalem, and disputed with the Hellenistic Jews, not
to speak of what is added, Acts xxvi. 19 f., he could say that he
was unknown by face to the churches of Judaea. There is nothing,
we may remark, which limits his preaching to the Grecian Jews.
Whilst Apologists maintain that the two accounts are reconcilable,
many of them frankly admit that the account in Acts requires
correction from that in the Epistle ; 3 but, on the other hand, a still
greater number of critics pronounce the narrative in the Acts
contradictory to the statements of Paul.
There remains another point upon which a few remarks must be
made. In Acts ix. 29 f. the cause of Paul's hurriedly leaving
1 See p. 528 f. 2 Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 85.
3 Bleek, Einl., p. 364 f. ; Ewald, Gesch. V. Ssr., vi., p. 403, anm. I ;
Sendschr. d. Ap. Paulus, 1857, p. 68 f. ; Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 92; Neander,
Pjlanzung, p. 127 f.
694 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Jerusalem is a plot of the Grecian Jews to kill him. Paul does
not, in the Epistle, refer to any such matter ; but, in another part
of the Acts, Paul is represented as relating, xxii. 17 f. : "And it
came to pass that, when I returned to Jerusalem and was praying
in the temple, I was in a trance, and saw him saying unto me :
Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will
not receive thy witness concerning me," etc. This account
differs, therefore, even from the previous narrative in the same
book ; yet critics are agreed that the visit during which the Apostle
is said to have seen this vision was that which we are discussing.
The writer is so little a historian working from substantial facts
that he forgets the details of his own previous statements ; and in
the account of the conversion of Paul, for instance, he thrice
repeats the story with emphatic and irreconcilable contradictions.
We have already observed his partiality for visions, and such
supernatural agency is so ordinary a matter with him that, in the
first account of this visit, he altogether omits the vision, although
he must have known of it then quite as much as on the second
occasion. The Apostle, in his authentic and solemn account of
this visit, gives no hint of any vision, and leaves no suggestion
even of that public preaching which is described in the earlier, and
referred to in the later, narrative in the Acts. 1 If we had no other
grounds for rejecting the account as unhistorical, this miraculous
vision, added as an afterthought, would have warranted our
doing so.
Passing on now to the second chapter of the Epistle to the
Galatians, we find that Paul writes : " Then, after fourteen years,
again I went up to Jerusalem " (reiTa 8ia SeKarecro-a/stov erwv
TTO.XLV dv(/3r)v et$ 'le/HxroXv/ta ). He states the particulars of
what took place upon the occasion of this second visit with a
degree of minuteness which ought, one might have supposed, to
have left no doubt of its identity when compared with the same
visit historically described elsewhere ; but such are the discrep-
ancies between the two accounts that, as we have already mentioned,
the controversy upon the point has been long and active. 2 The
1 Paley (Hone Paul, v., No. viii.) actually endeavours to show the genuine-
ness of the Epistle to the Galatians by the " undesigned coincidence " of the
shortness of Paul's visit as stated by himself and the miraculous order reported
Acts xxii. 17 f., "Get thee quickly out of Jerusalem." The fallacy, not to say
unfairness, of this partial argument needs no demonstration, and, indeed,
it has been well pointed out by Dr. Jowett ( The Epistles of St. Paul, i.,
p. 35 f-)-
2 There was anything but unanimity on the point among the Fathers. Irena?us
identified the second Galatian visit with the third of Acts (xv. ). It is not
certain whether Tertullian agreed in this (Adv. M., v. 2, 3) or placed it later
(Adv. M., i. 20); Eusebius thought it the same as the second of Acts ;
Epiphanius identified it with the fifth of Acts Ifsxi. 15) ; Chrysostom places it
PAUL'S SECOND VISIT TO JERUSALEM 695
Acts, it will be remembered, relate a second visit of Paul to
Jerusalem, after that which we have discussed, upon which occa-
sion it is stated (xi. 30) that he was sent with Barnabas to convey
to the community, during a time of famine, the contributions of
the Church of Antioch. The third visit of the Acts is that (xv.)
when Paul and Barnabas are said to have been deputed to confer
with the Apostles regarding the conditions upon which Gentile
converts should be admitted into the Christian brotherhood. The
circumstances of this visit, more nearly than any other, correspond
with those described by the Apostle himself in the Epistle (ii. i f.) ;
but there are grave difficulties in the way of identifying them. If
this visit be identical with that described Acts xv., and if Paul, as
he states, paid no intermediate visit to Jerusalem, what becomes
of the visit interpolated in Acts xi. 30 ?
The first point which we must endeavour to ascertain is what the
Apostle actually intends to say regarding the second visit which he
mentions. The purpose of Paul is to declare his complete indepen-
dence from those who were Apostles before him, and to maintain
that his Gospel was not of man, but directly revealed to him
by Jesus Christ. In order to prove his independence he cate-
gorically states exactly what had been the extent of his intercourse
with the elder Apostles. He protests that, after his conversion,
he had neither conferred with flesh and blood nor sought those
who had been Apostles before him, but, on the contrary, that he
had immediately gone away to Arabia. It was not until three
years had elapsed that he had gone up to Jerusalem, and then
merely to make the acquaintance of Peter, with whom he had
remained only fifteen days, during which he had not seen other
of the Apostles save James, the Lord's brother. Only after the
lapse of fourteen years did he again go up to Jerusalem. It is
argued that when Paul says, "he went up again" (7raA.ii/ ave/?^v),
the word TrdX.iv has not the force of Sevrepov, and that, so far
from excluding any intermediate journey, it merely signifies a
repetition of what had been done before, and might have been
used of any subsequent journey. Even if this were so, it is
impossible to deny that, read with its context, 7raA.ii/ dytpqv is
used in immediate connection with the former visit which we
have just discussed. The sequence is distinctly marked by the
eTrerra " then "; and the adoption of the preposition Sia which
may properly be read " after the lapse of "' instead of /xera,
seems clearly to indicate that no other journey to Jerusalem had
been made in the interval. This can be maintained linguistically;
after the third of Acts ; and the Chronicon Paschale interpolates it between
Acts xiii. and xv. It is not now necessary to enter minutely into this.
1 Winer, Grammatik des N, T. Sprachidioms, fth Atifl., 47, i., p. 356.
696 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
but the point is still more decidedly settled when the Apostle's
intention is considered. It is obvious that his purpose would
have been totally defeated had he passed over in silence an
intermediate visit. Even if, as is argued, the visit referred to in
Acts xi. 30 had been of very brief duration, or if he had not upon
that occasion had any intercourse with the Apostles, it is impossible
that he could have ignored it under the circumstances, for by so
doing he would have left the retort in the power of his enemies
that he had, on other occasions than those which he had
enumerated, been in Jerusalem and in contact with the Apostles.
The mere fact that a visit had been unmentioned would have
exposed him to the charge of having suppressed it, and suspicion
is always ready to assign unworthy motives. If Paul had
paid such a hasty visit as is suggested, he would naturally have
mentioned the fact and stated the circumstances, whatever they
were. These and other reasons convince the majority of critics
that the Apostle here enumerates all the visits which he had paid
to Jerusalem since his conversion. The visit referred to in
Gal. ii. i f. must be considered the second occasion on which
the Apostle Paul went to Jerusalem.
This being the case, can the visit be identified as the second
visit described in Acts xi. 30? The object of that journey to
Jerusalem, it is expressly stated, was to carry to the brethren in
Jerusalem the contributions of the Church of Antioch during a
time of famine ; whereas Paul explicitly says that he went up to
Jerusalem, on the occasion we are discussing, in consequence of a
revelation, to communicate the Gospel which he was preaching
among the Gentiles. There is not a word about contributions.
On the other hand, chronologically it is impossible that the second
visit of the Epistle can be the second of the Acts. There is some
difference of opinion as to whether the fourteen years are to be
calculated from the date of his conversion or from the previous
journey. The latter seems to be the more reasonable supposition,
but in either case it is obvious that the identity is excluded. From
various data the famine under Claudius, and the time of Herod
Agrippa's death the date of the journey referred to in Acts
xi. 30 is assigned to about A.D. 45. If, therefore, we count back
fourteen or seventeen years, we have as the date of the conver-
sion, on the first hypothesis, A.D. 31, and on the second A.D. 28,
neither of which is tenable. In order to overcome this difficulty,
critics at one time proposed, against the unanimous evidence of
MSS., to read, instead of Sia SeKareo-o-. CTWI/ in Gal. ii. i,
8ta Terrcrapwv erwv, "after four years "; but this violent remedy
is not only generally rejected, but, even if admitted for the sake of
argument, it could not establish the identity, inasmuch as the
statements in Gal. ii. i f. imply a much Idnger period of missionary
PAUL'S SECOND VISIT THE THIRD OF ACTS 697
activity amongst the Gentiles than Paul could possibly have had
at that time, about which epoch, indeed, Barnabas is said to have
sought him in Tarsus, apparently for the purpose of first com-
mencing such a career. 1 Certainly the account of his active ministry
begins in the Acts only in chap. xiii. Then, it is not possible to
suppose that, if such a dispute regarding circumcision and the
Gospel of the uncircumcision as is sketched in Gal. ii. had taken
place on a previous occasion, it could so soon be repeated, Acts
xv., and without any reference to the former transaction. Com-
paratively few critics, therefore, have ventured to maintain that the
second visit recorded in the Epistle is the same as the second
mentioned in the Acts (xi. 30), and in modern times the theory is
almost entirely abandoned. If, therefore, it be admitted that Paul
mentions all the journeys which he had made to Jerusalem up to
the time at which he wrote, and that his second visit was not the
second visit of the Acts, but must be placed later, it follows clearly,
upon the Apostle's own assurance, that the visit mentioned in Acts
xi. 30, xii. 25, cannot have taken place and is unhistorical ; and
this is the conclusion of the majority of critics, including many
Apologists, who, whilst suggesting that, for some reason, Barnabas
may alone have gone to Jerusalem without Paul, or otherwise
deprecating any imputation of conscious inaccuracy to the author,
still substantially confirm the result that Paul did not on that
occasion go to Jerusalem, and consequently that the statement is
not historical. On the other hand, it is suggested that the addi-
tional visit to Jerusalem is inserted by the author with a view to
conciliation, by representing that Paul was in constant communica-
tion with the Apostles and the community of Jerusalem, and that he
acted with their approval and sympathy. It is scarcely possible to
observe the peculiar variations between the narratives of the Acts
and of Paul without feeling that the author of the former
deliberately sacrifices the independence and individuality of the
great Apostle of the Gentiles.
The great mass of critics agree in declaring that the second visit
described in the Epistle is identical with the third recorded in the
Acts (xv.), although a wide difference of opinion exists amongst
them as to the historical value of the account contained in the
latter. This general agreement renders it unnecessary for us to
enter at any length into the arguments which establish the identity,
and we shall content ourselves with very concisely stating some of
the chief reasons for this conclusion. The date in both cases
corresponds, whilst there are insuperable chronological objections
to identifying the second journey of the Epistle with any earlier
or later visit mentioned in Acts. We have referred to other
1 Acts xi. 25 f.
698 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
reasons against its being placed earlier than the third visit of Acts,
and there are still stronger objections to its being dated after the
third. It is impossible, considering the object of the Apostle, that
he could have passed over in silence such a visit as that described
Acts xv., and that the only alternative would be to date it later
than the composition of the Epistle, to which the narrative of the
Acts as well as all other known facts would be irreconcilably
opposed. On the other hand, the date, the actors, the cause of
dispute, and probably the place (Antioch) in which that
dispute originated, so closely correspond that it is incredible
that such a coincidence of circumstances should again have
occurred.
Without anticipating our comparison of the two accounts of this
visit, we must here at least remark that the discrepancies are so
great that not only have apologetic critics, as we have indicated,
adopted the theory that the second visit of the Epistle is not the
same as the third of the Acts, but is identical with the second
(xi. 30), of which so few particulars are given, but some, and
notably Wieseler, 1 have maintained it to have been the same as
that described in Acts xviii. 21 f., whilst Paley and others 2 have
1 Chron. ap. Zeit., p. 179 f. , p. 201 f. ; Br. Panli an d. Galater, p. 93 f.
2 Paley, Evidences, and Hone Paul., ch. v. , Nos. 2, 10, p. 367 f-, 382 f. ;
Schrader, Der Ap. Paulus, i., p. 75 f., 122 f. It may be well to quote the
following passage from Paley, a witness whose testimony will scarcely be
suspected of unorthodox partiality: "It must not be dissembled that the
comparison of our Epistle with the history presents some difficulties, or, to say
the least, some questions of considerable magnitude. It may be doubted, in
the first place, to what journey the words which open the second chapter of the
Epistle ' then fourteen years afterwards I went unto Jerusalem ' relate.
That which best corresponds with the date, and that to which most interpreters
apply the passage, is the journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, when
they went thither from Antioch, upon the business of the Gentile converts, and
which journey produced the famous council and decree recorded in the fifteenth
chapter of Acts. To me this opinion appears to be encumbered with strong
objections. In the Epistle, Paul tells us that ' he went up by revelation' (ii. 2).
In the Acts we read that he was sent by the Church of Antioch. ' After no
small dissension and disputation, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and
certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and elders
about this question ' (xv. 2). This is not very reconcilable. In the Epistle
St. Paul writes that, when he came to Jerusalem, ' he communicated that
Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately to them which
were of reputation (ii. 2). If by 'that Gospel' he meant the immunity of the
Gentile Christians from the Jewish law (and I know not what else it can mean),
it is not easy to conceive how he should communicate that privately, which was
the subject of his public message. But a yet greater difficulty remains viz.,
that in the account which the Epistle gives of what passed upon this visit at
Jerusalem, no notice is taken of the deliberation and decree which are recorded
in the Acts, and which, according to that history, formed the business for the
sake of which the journey was undertaken. The mention of the council and
of its determination, whilst the Apostle was plating his proceedings at
DISCREPANCIES OF THE TWO ACCOUNTS 699
been led to the hypothesis that the visit in question does not
correspond with any of the visits actually recorded in the Acts, but
is one which is not referred to at all in that work. These theories
have found very little favour, however, and we mention them solely
to complete our statement of the general controversy. Consider-
ing the fulness of the report of the visit in Acts xv. and the peculiar
nature of the facts stated by the Apostle himself in his letter to the
Galatians, the difficulty of identifying the particular visit referred
to is a phenomenon which cannot be too much considered. Is it
possible, if the narrative in the Acts were really historically
accurate, that any reasonable doubt could ever have existed as to
its correspondence with the Apostle's statements ? We may here
at once say that, although many of the critics who finally decide
that the visit described in Acts xv. is the same as that referred to
in the second chapter of the Epistle argue that the obvious dis-
crepancies and contradictions between the two accounts may be
sufficiently explained and reconciled, this is for very strong reasons
disputed, and the narrative in the Acts, when tested by the authentic
statements of the Apostle, pronounced inaccurate and unhistorical.
It is only necessary to read the two accounts in order to under-
stand the grounds upon which even Apologists like Paley and
Wieseler feel themselves compelled to suppose that the Apostle is
describing transactions which occurred during some visit either
unmentioned or not fully related in the Acts, rather than identify
it with the visit reported in the fifteenth chapter, from which it so
essentially differs. A material difference is not denied by anyone,
and explanations with a view to reconciliation have never been
dispensed with. Thiersch, who has nothing better than the usual
apologetic explanations to offer, does not hesitate to avow the
apparent incongruities of the two narratives. " The journey," he
says, "is the same, but no human ingenuity can make out that
also the conference and the decree resulting from it are the same." 1
He supposes that the problem is to be solved by asserting that the
Apostle speaks of the private, the historian of the public, circum-
stances of the visit. All who maintain the historical character of
the Acts must, of course, more or less thoroughly adopt this argu-
ment ; but it is obvious that, in doing so, they admit, on the one
hand, the general discrepancy, and, on the other, if successful in
establishing their position, they could do no more than show that
the Epistle does not absolutely exclude the account in the Acts.
Both writers profess to describe events which occurred during the
Jerusalem, could hardly have been avoided if in truth the narrative belonged to
the same journey. To me it appears more probable that Paul and Barnabas
had taken some journey to Jerusalem, the mention of which is omitted in the
Acts " (Evidences, and Jforce Paulina, ch. v., No. 10, p. 382).
1 Thiersch, Die Kirche im ap. Zeitalter, p. 129.
700 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
same visit ; both record matters of the highest interest closely
bearing on the same subject ; yet the two accounts are so different
from each other that they can only be rescued from complete
antagonism by complete separation. Supposing the author of the
Acts to be really acquainted with the occurrences of this visit, and
to have intended to give a plain unvarnished account of them, the
unconscious ingenuity with which he has omitted the important
facts mentioned by Paul, and eliminated the whole of the Apostle's
individuality, would indeed be as remarkable as it is unfortunate.
But, supposing the Apostle Paul to have been aware of the formal
proceedings narrated in the Acts, characterised by such unanimity
and liberal Christian feeling, it would be still more astonishing and
unfortunate that he has not only silently passed them over, but has
conveyed so singularly different an impression of his visit. 1 As
the Apostle certainly could not have been acquainted with the
Acts, his silence regarding the Council and its momentous decree,
as well as his ignorance of the unbroken harmony which prevailed,
are perfectly intelligible. He, of course, only knew and described
what actually occurred. The author of the Acts, however, might
and must have known the Epistle to the Galatians, and the
ingenuity with which the tone and details of the authentic report
are avoided or transfigured cannot be ascribed to mere accident,
but must largely be attributed to design, although also partly, it
may be, to the ignorance and the pious imagination of a later age.
Is it possible, for instance, that the controversy regarding the
circumcision of Titus, and the dispute with Peter at Antioch,
which are so prominently related in the Epistle, but present a view
so different from the narrative of Acts, can have been undesignedly
omitted ? The violent apologetic reconciliation which is effected
between the two accounts is based upon the foregone conclusion
that the author of the canonical Acts, however he may . seem to
deviate from the Apostle, cannot possibly contradict him or be in
error ; but the preceding examination has rendered such a position
untenable, and here we have not to do with a canonised "St. Luke,"
but with an unknown writer, whose work must be judged by the
ordinary rules of criticism.
According to the Acts, a most serious question is raised at
Antioch. Certain men from Judaea came thither teaching,
" Except ye have been circumcised after the manner of Moses ye
cannot be saved." After much dissension and disputation, the
Church of Antioch appoint that Paul and Barnabas, " and certain
1 " Our difficulty in reading this page of history arises not so much from the
absence of light as from the perplexity of cross lights. The narratives of
St. Luke and St. Paul only then cease to conflict when we take into account
the different positions of the writers and the different objects they had in view "
(Lightfoot, Si. Paufs Epistle to the Galatians, p.
MATERIAL DIFFERENCE UNDENIABLE 701
others of them," shall go up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and
elders about this question. The motive of the journey is here
most distinctly and definitely described. Paul is solemnly deputed
by the Church to lay before the mother Church of Jerusalem a
difficult question, upon the answer to which turns the whole
future of Christianity. Paul's account gives a very different
complexion to the visit : " Then, after fourteen years, I went up
again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.
But I went up according to revelation (/caret aTroKdXv\f/ii>) and
communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the
Gentiles," etc. Paley might well say : " This is not very recon-
cilable." 1 It is argued 2 that the two statements may supplement
each other; that the revelation may have been made to the Church
of Antioch and have led to the mission ; or that, being made to
Paul, it may have decided him to undertake it. If, however, we
admit that the essence of truth consists not in the mere letter but
in the spirit of what is stated, it seems impossible to reconcile
these accounts. It might be granted that a historian, giving a
report of events which had occurred, might omit some secret
motive actuating the conduct even of one of the principal persons
with whom he has to do ; but that the Apostle, under the actual
circumstances, and while protesting, " Now the things which I
am writing unto you, behold, before God, I lie not !" should alto-
gether suppress the important official character of his journey to
Jerusalem, and give it the distinct colour of a visit voluntarily and
independently made Kara. diroKa,X.vif/i,v, is inconceivable. As we
proceed, it will become apparent that the divergence between the
two accounts is systematic and fundamental ; but we may here so
far anticipate as to point out that the Apostle explicitly excludes
an official visit not only by stating an " inward motive," and
omitting all mention of a public object, but by the expression,
" and communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among
the Gentiles, but privately to those who," etc. To quote Paley's
words : " If by ' that Gospel ' he meant the immunity of the
1 Horce Paul., ch. v. , No. x. See back, p. 698, note 2.
2 "Here, however, there is no contradiction. The historian naturally records
the external impulse which led to the mission ; the Apostle himself states his
inward motive. ' What I did,' he says, ' I did not owing to circumstances, not
as yielding to pressure, not in deference to others, but because the Spirit of God
told me it was right.' The very stress which he lays on this revelation seems to
show that other influences were at work" (!) (Lightfoot, St. P. Ep. to the Gal.,
p. 124). Dr. Lightfoot quotes as parallel cases, suggesting how the one motive
might supplement the other, Acts ix. 29, 30; cf. xxii, 17, xxiii. 2-4, and xv. 28.
It is unfortunate that all these " parallel cases " are taken from the work whose
accuracy is in question, and that the first is actually discredited by the Apostle's
own account, whilst the others are open to equally strong objections. See also
Alford, Greek Test., ii., Prolcg., p. 27, Hi., p. 12; Meyer, Br. an die Gal., p. 6l f.
702 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Gentile Christians from the Jewish law (and I know not what else
it can mean), it is not easy to conceive how he should communi-
cate that privately, which was the subject of his public message "; x
and we may add, how he should so absolutely alter the whole
character of his visit. In the Acts, he is an ambassador charged
with a most important mission ; in the Epistle, he is Paul the
Apostle, moved solely by his own reasons again to visit Jerusalem.
The author of the Acts, however, who is supposed to record only
the external circumstances, when tested is found to do so very im-
perfectly, for he omits all mention of Titus, who is conjectured to
be tacitly included in the " certain others of them," who were
appointed by the Church to accompany Paul, and he is altogether
silent regarding the strenuous effort to enforce the rite of circum-
cision in his case, upon which the Apostle lays so much stress.
The Apostle, who throughout maintains his simply independent
attitude, mentions his taking Titus with him as a purely voluntary
act, and certainly conveys no impression that he also was delegated
by the Church. We shall presently see how significant the sup-
pression of Titus is in connection with the author's transformation
of the circumstances of the visit. In affirming that he went up
" according to revelation," Paul proceeds in the very spirit in which
he began to write this Epistle. He continues simply to assert his
independence and equality with the elder Apostles. In speaking
of his first journey he has this object in view, and he states pre-
cisely the duration of his visit and whom he saw. If he had
suppressed the official character of this second visit and the fact
that he submitted for the decision of the Apostles and elders the
question of the immunity of the Gentile converts from circum-
cision, and thus curtly ascribed his going to a revelation, he would
have compromised himself in a very serious manner, and exposed
himself to a charge of disingenuousness of which his enemies
would not have failed to take advantage. But, whether we con-
sider the evidence of the Apostle himself in speaking of this visit,
the absence of all external allusion to the supposed proceedings
when reference to them would not only have been most appropriate
but was almost necessary, the practical contradiction of the whole
narrative implied in the subsequent conduct of Peter at Antioch,
or the inconsistency of the conduct attributed in it to Paul him-
self, we are forced back to the natural conclusion that the Apostle
does not suppress anything, and does not give so absurdly partial
an account of his visit as would be the case if the narrative in the
Acts be historical, but that, in a few rapid powerful lines, he com-
pletes a suggestive sketch of its chief characteristics. This becomes
more apparent at every step we take in our comparison of the two
narratives.
1 Hone Paul., ch. v. , No. x. See {J. 698, note 2.
PAUL IGNORES COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM 703
If we pass on to the next stage of the proceedings, we find an
equally striking divergence between the two writers, and it must
not escape attention that the variations are not merely incidental,
but are thorough and consecutive. According to the Acts, there
was a solemn congress held in Jerusalem, on which occasion, the
Apostles and elders and the Church being assembled, the question
whether it was necessary that the Gentiles should be circumcised
and bound to keep the law of Moses was fully discussed, and a
formal resolution finally adopted by the meeting. The proceed-
ings, in fact, constitute what has always been regarded as the first
Council of the Christian Church. The account in the Epistle
does not seem to betray any knowledge of such a congress. The
Apostle himself says merely : " But I went according to revelation
and communicated to them (aurots) the Gospel which I preach among
the Gentiles, but privately to them which seemed (to be something)
(/car' I8iu.v 8e TOIS BoKovtrtv)." 1 The opinion that the author of Acts
" alludes in a general way to conferences and discussions preced-
ing the congress " 2 is based upon the statement, xv. 4, 5 : " And
when they came to Jerusalem they were received by the Church
and by the Apostles and the elders, and declared all that God did
with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees,
who believed, saying : That it is necessary to circumcise them and
to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the Apostles
and the elders came together to see regarding this matter. And
when there had been much disputation Peter rose up and said,"
etc. If it were admitted that more than one meeting is here
indicated, it is clear that the words cannot be legitimately strained
into a reference to more than two conferences. The first of these
is a general meeting of the Apostles and elders and of the Church
to receive the delegates from Antioch, and the second is an equally
general and public conference (verse 6) : not only are the Apostles
and elders present, but also the general body of Christians, as
clearly appears from the statement (verse 12) that, after the speech
of Peter, "all the multitude (TTO.V TO 7rA.>}#os) kept silence."3
The " much disputation " evidently takes place on the occasion
when the Apostles and elders are gathered together to consider the
matter. If, therefore, two meetings can be maintained from the
narrative in Acts, both are emphatically public and general, and
neither, therefore, the private conference of the Epistle. The main
fact that the author of the Acts describes a general congress of the
Church as taking place is never called in question.
1 Gal. ii. 2. 2 Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 125.
3 It has been pertinently asked, How it is possible that such a meeting could
have taken place ? What room could have been found to contain the assembly ?
(cf. Reuss, N. Rev. de ThtoL, 1858, ii., p. 36).
704 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
On the other hand, few who appreciate the nature of the dis-
crepancy which we are discussing will feel that the difficulty is
solved by suggesting that there is space for the insertion of other
incidents in the Apostle's narrative. It is rather late now to inter-
polate a general Council of the Church into the pauses of the
Galatian letter. To suppose that the communications of Paul to
the " Pillar " Apostles, and the distressing debate regarding the
circumcision of Titus, may be inferred between the lines of the
account in the Acts, is a bold effort of imagination ; but it is far
from being as hopeless as an attempt to reconcile the discrepancy
by thrusting the important public congress into some corner of the
Apostle's statement. In so far as any argument is advanced in
support of the assertion that Paul's expression implies something
more than the private conference, it is based upon the reference
intended in the words uvetfepp avrois. When Paul says he went
up to Jerusalem and communicated " to them " his Gospel, but
privately TOI SoKova-ir, whom does he mean to indicate by the
UUTOIS ? Does he. refer to the Christian community of Jerusalem,
or to the Apostles themselves ? It is pretty generally admitted
that either application is permissible ; but whilst a majority of
apologetic, together with some independent, critics adopt the
former, not a few consider, as Chrysostom, CEcumenius, and
Calvin did before them, that Paul more probably referred to the
Apostles. In favour of the former there is the fact, it is argued,
that the avrots is used immediately after the statement that the
Apostle went up " to Jerusalem," and that it may be more natural
to conclude that he speaks of the Christians there, more especially
as he seems to distinguish between the communication made avTols
and KU.T' tSiav TOIS SOKOVO-LV ; l and, in support of this, " they "
in Gal. i. 23, 24, is, though we think without propriety, referred to.
It is, on the other hand, urged that it is very unlikely that the
Apostle would in such a way communicate his Gospel to the whole
community, and that in the expressions used he indicates no
special transaction, but that the avfOe/jujv auTois is merelyan indefinite
statement for which he immediately substitutes the more precise
KO.T' IBiav Be TOIS 8oKov(rt,v.* It is quite certain that there is no
1 Meyer argues, not without force, that if Paul had not by KO.T idiav 5 in-
tended to distinguish a different communication, he must have said : avfOt/jtyv
airrcus, K. T. X., aveOtnyv 5 rots doK. omitting the distinguishing (car' Idlav
(Br. an die Gal., p. 62, anm.).
2 An able and impartial critic, Reuss, attempts to reconcile the two accounts
by arguing that such a question could not possibly have been laid before and
decided by the whole community. He, therefore, supposes that private con-
ferences took place. This "reconciliation," however, is excluded by the
account in Acts, which so distinctly represents a large public congress, and it
by no means lessens the fundamental discrepancy of the narratives (cf. Reuss,
N. Rev. de Thttol., 1858, ii. 334 f., 1859, iii., p?^2 f.).
COUNCIL EXCLUDED BY PAUL'S ACCOUNT 705
mention of the Christian community of Jerusalem to which the
ttUTois can with any real grammatical necessity be referred ; but
when the whole purport of the first part of the Apostle's letter is
considered the reference to the Apostles in the aurois becomes
clearer. Paul is protesting the independence of his Gospel, and
that he did not receive it from man, but from Jesus Christ. He
wishes to show that he was not taught by the Apostles nor
dependent upon them. He states that after his conversion he did
not go to those who were Apostles before him, but, on the contrary,
went away to Arabia, and only three years after he went up to
Jerusalem, and then only for the purpose of making the acquaint-
ance of Peter, and on that occasion other of the Apostles saw he
none save James the Lord's brother. After fourteen years, he
continues to recount, he again went up to Jerusalem, but accord-
ing to revelation, and communicated to them i.e., to the Apostles
the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. The Apostles
have been in the writer's mind throughout, but in the impetuous
flow of his ideas, which, in the first two chapters of this Epistle,
outrun the pen, the sentences become involved. It must be
admitted, finally, that the reference intended is a matter of opinion,
and cannot be authoritatively settled. If we suppose it to refer to
the community of Jerusalem, taking thus the more favourable
construction, how would this affect the question ? Can it be
maintained that in this casual and indefinite " to them " we have
any confirmation of the general congress of the Acts, with its
debates, its solemn settlement of that momentous proposition
regarding the Gentile Christians, and its important decree? It is
impossible to credit that, in saying that he " communicated to them "
the Gospel which he preached amongst the Gentiles, the Apostle
referred to a Council like that described in the Acts, to which, as
a delegate from the Church of Antioch, he submitted the question
of the conditions upon which the Gentiles were to be admitted
into the Church, and tacitly accepted their decision. Even if it
be assumed that the Apostle makes this slight passing allusion to
some meeting different from his conference with the pillar Apostles,
it could not have been a general congress assembled for the pur-
pose stated in the Acts and characterised by such proceedings.
The discrepancy between the two narratives is not lessened by any
supposed indication either in the Epistle or in the Acts of other
incidents than those actually described. The suggestion that the
dispute about Titus involved some publicity does not avail, for the
greater the publicity and importance of the episode the greater
the difficulty of explaining the total silence regarding it of the
author of Acts. The more closely the two statements are com-
pared the more apparent does it become that the author describes
proceedings which are totally different in general character, in
2Z
706 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
details and in spirit, from those so vividly sketched by the Apostle
Paul.
We shall have more to say presently regarding the irreconcilable
contradiction in spirit between the whole account which is given in
the Acts of this Council and the writings of Paul ; but it may be
more convenient, if less effective, if we, for the present, take the
chief points in the narrative as they arise and consider how far
they are supported or discredited by other data. We shall refer
later to the manner in which the question which leads to the
Council is represented as arising, and at once proceed to the
speech of Peter. After there had been much disputation as to
whether the Gentile Christians must necessarily be circumcised
and required to observe the Mosaic law, it is stated that Peter
rose up and said : xv. 7., " Men (and) brethren, ye know that a
good while ago God made choice among you that the Gentiles by
my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. 8.
And God which knoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving
them the Holy Spirit even as unto us ; 9. and put no distinction
between us and them, having purified their hearts by the faith.
10. Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the
neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able
to bear ? 1 1 . But by the grace of our Lord Jesus we believe we
are saved even as also they." 1 The liberality of the sentiments
thus put into the mouth of Peter requires no demonstration, and
there is here an explicit expression of convictions, which we must,
from his own words, consider to be the permanent and mature
views of the Apostle, dating, as they do, " from ancient days "
(d<J>' 7//Ae/3wv upxouW) and originating in so striking and supernatural
a manner. We may, therefore, expect that, whenever we meet
with an authentic record of Peter's opinions and conduct else-
where, they should exhibit the impress of such advanced and
divinely-imparted views. 'The statement which Peter makes, that
God had a good while before selected him that the Gentiles by his
voice should hear the Gospel, is, of course, a reference to the case
of Cornelius, and this unites the fortunes of the speech and pro-
ceedings of the Council with that episode. We have seen how
little ground there is for considering that narrative, with its
elaborate tissue of miracles, historical. The speech which adopts
it is thus discredited, and all other circumstances confirm the
conclusion that the speech is not authentic. If the name of Peter
were erased and that of Paul substituted, the sentiments expressed
would be singularly appropriate. We should have the divinely-
appointed Apostle of the Gentiles advocating complete immunity
from the Mosaic law, and enunciating Pauline principles in
1 Acts. xv. 7-1*1.
PETER'S SPEECH AT THE COUNCIL 707
peculiarly Pauline terms. When Peter declares that " God put no
distinction between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their
hearts by faith, 1 but by the grace (x"/ 31 *) of our Lord Jesus
Christ we believe we are saved even as also they," do we not hear
Paul's sentiments, so elaborately expressed in the Epistle to the
Romans and elsewhere ? " For there is no difference between Jew
and Greek ; for the same Lord of all is rich unto all that call upon
him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall
be saved " 2 "justified freely by his grace (x<Vis) through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus. "3 And when Peter exclaims,
" Why tempt ye God to put a yoke (vyos) upon the neck of the
disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" have
we not rather a paraphrase of the words in the Epistle to the
Galatians ? " With liberty Christ made us free ; stand fast, there-
fore, and be not entangled again in a yoke (t^yos) of bondage.
Behold, I Paul say unto you that, if ye be circumcised, Christ will
profit you nothing. But I testify again to every man who is
circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law* For as
many as are of works of law are under a curse," etc. 5 These are
only a few sentences of which the speech in Acts is an echo, but
no attentive reader can fail to perceive that it contains in germ the
whole of Pauline universalism.
From the Pauline author of the Acts this might fairly be ex-
pected, and, if we linguistically examine the speech, we have
additional evidence that it is simply, like others which we have
considered, a composition from his own pen. 6 It cannot be
doubted that the language is that of the author of the Acts, and
no serious attempt has ever been made to show that it is the
language of Peter. If it be asserted that, in the form before us, it
is a translation, there is not the slightest evidence to support the
assertion ; and it has to contend with the unfortunate circumstance
that, in the supposed process, the words of Peter have not only
become the words of the author, but his thoughts the thoughts of
Paul.
We may now inquire whether we find in authentic records of
the Apostle Peter's conduct and views any confirmation of the
liberality which is attributed to him in the Acts. He is here
represented as proposing the emancipation of Gentile converts
from the Mosaic law : does this accord with the statements of the
1 Cf. Rom. iv. 13.
2 Rom. x. 12, 13 ; cf. Gal. iii. 26 f. : " For ye are all sons of God through
faith in Christ Jesus ; There is neither Jew nor Greek ; for ye are all one
man in Christ Jesus."
3 Rom. iii. 24. 4 Gal. v. 1-3. 5 Ib., iii. 10.
6 The linguistic analysis will be found in the complete edition, vol. iii.,
pp. 239-241.
708 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Apostle Paul and with such information as we can elsewhere
gather regarding Peter ? Very much the contrary.
Peter in this speech claims that, long before, God had selected
him to make known the Gospel to the Gentiles, but Paul emphati-
cally distinguishes him as the Apostle of the Circumcision ; and
although, accepting facts which had actually taken place and could
not be prevented, Peter with James and John gave Paul right
hands of fellowship, he remained, as he had been before, Apostle
of the Circumcision, 1 and, as we shall see, did not practise the
liberality which he is said to have preached. Very shortly after
the Council described in the Acts, there occurred the celebrated
dispute between him and Paul which the latter proceeds to
describe immediately after the visit to Jerusalem : " But when
Cephas came to Antioch," he writes, " I withstood him to the face,
for he was condemned. For before certain came from James, he
did eat with the Gentiles ; but when they came, he- withdrew and
separated himself, fearing those of the Circumcision. And the
other Jews also joined in his hypocrisy, insomuch that even
Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw
that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel,
I said unto Cephas before all : If thou being a Jew livest (#)
after the manner of Gentiles and not after the manner of Jews,
how compellest (avayKa^cts) thou the Gentiles to adopt the
customs of the Jews ? (tovScu^tiv) " 2
It is necessary to say a few words as to the significance of Peter's
conduct and of Paul's rebuke, regarding which there is some
difference of opinion. 3 Are we to understand from this that Peter,
as a general rule, at Antioch and elsewhere, with enlightened
emancipation from Jewish prejudices, lived as a Gentile and in full
communion with Gentile Christians ? 4 Meyer 5 and others argue
that, by the use of the present f#s, the Apostle indicates a con-
tinuous practice based upon principle, and that the ^v is not
the mere moral life, but includes the external social observances of
Christian community ; the object, in fact, being to show that upon
principle Peter held the advanced liberal views of Paul, and that
the fault which he committed in withdrawing from free intercourse
with the Gentile Christians was momentary, and merely the result
of " occasional timidity and weakness." This theory cannot bear
1 Gal. ii. 7 f. * Ib., ii. 11-14.
3 Cf. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Ep. to the Gal., 338.
4 Hilgenfelcl argues that in speaking of " eating with them " Paul refers to
the Agape, the meals of the Christians which had a religious significance.
Although this is well worthy of consideration, it is not necessary for us here to
go into the question (cf. Galaterbrief, p. 59 f. ; Zeitschr. wiss. Th., 1858,
p. 87 f.).
s Br. an die Gal., 98 f.
PETER'S CONDUCT AT ANTIOCH 709
the test of examination. The account of Paul is clearly this :
when Cephas came to Antioch, the stronghold of Gentile Chris-
tianity, before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles,
but as soon as these emissaries arrived he withdrew, "fearing those
of the circumcision." Had his normal custom been to live like
the Gentiles, how is it possible that he could, on this occasion'
only, have feared those of the circumcision ? His practice must
have been notorious ; and had he, moreover, actually expressed
such opinions in the congress of Jerusalem, his confession of faith
having been so publicly made, and so unanimously approved by
the Church, there could not have been any conceivable cause for
such timidity. The fact evidently is, on the contrary, that Peter,
under the influence of Paul, was induced for the time to hold free
communion with the Gentile Christians ; but as soon as the
emissaries of James appeared on the scene he became alarmed at
this departure from his principles, and fell back again into his
normal practice. If the present 175 be taken to indicate con-
tinuous habit of life, the present dvayKa^ets very much more than
neutralises it. Paul with his usual uncompromising frankness
rebukes the vacillation of Peter ; by adopting even for a time
fellowship with the Gentiles, Peter has practically recognised its
validity, has been guilty of hypocrisy in withdrawing from his con-
cession on the arrival of the followers of James, and is condemned ;
but after such a concession he cannot legitimately demand that
Gentile converts should "judaise." It is obvious that whilst Peter
lived as a Gentile he could not have been compelling the Gentiles
to adopt Judaism. Paul, therefore, in saying, " Why compellest
thou (ovayKaets) the Gentiles to adopt the customs of the
Jews ? (iou8ou(eiv)," very distinctly intimates that the normal
practice of Peter was to compel Gentile Christians to adopt
Judaism. There is no escaping this conclusion, for, after all
specious reasoning to the contrary is exhausted, there remains the
simple fact that Peter, when placed in a dilemma on the arrival of
the emissaries of James, and forced to decide whether he will
continue to live as a Gentile or as a Jew, adopts the latter alterna-
tive, and, as Paul tells us, " compels " (in the present) the Gentiles
to judaise. A stronger indication of his views could scarcely have
been given. Not a word is said which implies that Peter yielded
to the vehement protests of Paul, but, on the contrary, we must un-
doubtedly conclude that he did not; for it is impossible to suppose
that Paul would not have stated a fact so pertinent to his argu-
ment, had the elder Apostle been induced by his remonstrance to
walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel which Paul
preached, and both to teach and practise Christian universalism.
We shall have abundant reason, apart from this, to conclude that
Peter did not yield, and it is no false indication of this that, a
710 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
century after, we find the Clementine Homilies expressing the
bitterness of the-Petrine party against the Apostle of the Gentiles
for this very rebuke, and representing Peter as following his
course from city to city for the purpose of refuting Paul's unortho-
dox teaching.
It is contended that Peter's conduct at Antioch is in harmony
with his denial of his master related in the Gospels, and, therefore,
that such momentary and characteristic weakness might well have
been displayed even after his adoption of liberal principles.
Those who argue in this way forget that the denial of Jesus, as
described in the Gospels, proceeded from the fear of death, and
that such a reply to a merely compromising question, which did
not directly involve principles, is a very different thing from
conduct like that at Antioch, where, under one influence, a line
of action was temporarily adopted which ratified views upon which
the opinion of the Church was divided, and then abandoned
merely from fear of the disapproval of those of the circumcision.
The author of the Acts passes over this altercation in complete
silence. No one has ever called in question the authenticity of
the account which Paul gives of it. If Peter had the courage to
make such a speech at the Council in the very capital of Judaic
Christianity, and in the presence of James and the whole Church,
how could he possibly, from fear of a few men from Jerusalem,
have shown such pusillanimity in Antioch, where Paul and the
mass of Christians supported him ? If the unanimous decision of
the Council had really been a fact, how easily he might have
silenced any objections by an appeal to that which had " seemed
good to the Holy Spirit " and to the Church ! But there is not
the slightest knowledge of the Council and its decree betrayed
either by those who came from James, or by Peter, or Paul.
The episode at Antioch is inconsistent with the conduct and
words ascribed to Peter in the Acts, and contradicts the narrative
in the fifteenth chapter which we are examining.
The author of the Acts states that, after Peter had spoken, " all
the multitude kept silence and were hearing Barnabas and Paul
declaring what signs and wonders God had wrought among the
Gentiles by them." 1 We shall not at present pause to consider
this statement, nor the role which Paul is made to play in the
whole transaction, beyond pointing out that, on an occasion when
such a subject as the circumcision of the Gentiles and their
subjection to the Mosaic law was being discussed, nothing could
be more opposed to nature than to suppose that a man like the
author of the Epistle to the Galatians could have assumed so
passive and subordinate an attitude. After Barnabas and Paul
THE SPEECH OF JAMES 711
had spoken, James is represented as saying: "Men (and) brethren,
hear me. Simeon declared how God at first did visit the Gentiles,
to take out of them a people for his name. And with this agree
the words of the prophets ; as it is written : ' After this I will
return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which has
fallen down ; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and will
set it up : that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and
all the Gentiles, upon whom my name has been called, saith the
Lord who doeth these things, known from the beginning.' Where-
fore, I judge that we trouble not those from among the Gentiles
who are turning to God ; but that we write unto them that they
abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and
from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses from genera-
tions of old hath in every city those who preach him, being read
in the synagogues every Sabbath." 1 There are many reasons for
which this speech also must be pronounced inauthentic. It may
be observed, in passing, that James completely disregards the
statement which Barnabas and Paul are supposed to make as to
what God had wrought by them among the Gentiles ; and,
ignoring their intervention, he directly refers to the preceding
speech of Peter claiming to have first been selected to convert
the Gentiles. We shall reserve discussion of the conditions which
James proposes to impose upon Gentile Christians till we come to
the apostolic decree which embodies them.
The precise signification of the sentence with which (verse 21)
he concludes has been much debated, but need not detain us
long. Whatever may be said of the liberal part of the speech, it
is obvious that the author has been more true to the spirit of the
time in conceiving this and other portions of it than in composing
the speech of Peter. The continued observance of the- Mosaic
ritual, and the identity of the synagogue with the Christian Church,
are correctly indicated ; and when James is again represented
(xxi. 20 f.) as advising Paul to join those who had a vow, in order
to prove that he himself walked orderly and was an observer of
the law, and did not teach the Jews to apostatise from Moses and
abandon the rite of circumcision, he is consistent in his portrait.
It is nevertheless clear that, however we may read the restrictions
which James proposes to impose upon Gentile Christians, the
author of Acts intends them to be considered as a most liberal
and almost complete concession of immunity. "I judge," he
makes James say, " that we trouble not those from among the
Gentiles who are turning to God"; and again, on the second
occasion of which we have just been speaking, in referring to the
decree, a contrast is drawn between the Christian Jews, from
1 Acts xv. 13-20.
712 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
whom observance of the law is demanded, and the Gentiles, who
are only expected to follow the prescriptions of the decree.
James is represented as supporting the statement of Peter how
God visited the Gentiles by " the words of the Prophets," quoting
a passage from Amos ix. n, 12. It is difficult to see how the
words, even as quoted, apply to the case at all ; but this is
immaterial. Loose reasoning can certainly not be taken as a mark
of inauthenticity. It is much more to the point that James,
addressing an assemby of Apostles and elders in Jerusalem, quotes
the prophet Amos freely from the Septuagint version, 1 which differs
widely in the latter and more important part from the Hebrew
text. The passage in the Hebrew reads: ix. n. "In that day
will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up
the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build
it as in the days of old, 12. that they may possess the remnant of
Edom, and of all the heathen upon whom my name is called,
saith the Lord that doeth this." The authors of the Septuagint
version altered the twelfth verse into : " That the residue of men
may seek after the Lord and all the Gentiles upon whom my name
is called, saith the Lord who doeth these things." It is perfectly
clear that the prophet does not, in the original, say what James is
here represented as stating, and that his own words refer to the
national triumph of Israel, and not to the conversion of the
Gentiles. Amos, in fact, prophesies that the Lord will restore the
former power and glory of Israel, and that the remnant of Edom
and the other nations of the theocracy shall be re-united, as they
were under David. No one questions the fact that the original
prophecy is altered. The question as to whether James or the
author of the Acts is responsible for the adoption of the Septuagint
version is felt to be a serious problem. Some critics affirm that in
all probability James must have spoken in Aramaic ; whilst others
maintain that he delivered this address in Greek. In the one case,
it is supposed that he quoted the original Hebrew, and that the
author of the Acts, or the document from which he derived his
report, may have used the Septuagint ; and in the other, it is
suggested that the LXX. may have had another and more correct
reading before them, for it is supposed impossible that James
himself could have quoted a version which was actually different
from the original Hebrew. These and many other similar explana-
tions, into which we need not go, do little to remove the difficulty
presented by the fact itself. To suppose that our Hebrew texts
are erroneous in order to justify the speech is a proceeding which
1 "St. James and St. Luke adopt that version as not contrary to the mind of
(he Spirit, and indeed as expressing that mind," etc. (Wordsworth, Gk. Test.,
The Acts, p. 113).
SPEECH OF JAMES COMPOSED BY AUTHOR OF ACTS 713
does not require remark. It will be remembered that in the Acts
the Septuagint is always employed in quotations from the Old
Testament, and that this is by no means the only place in which
that version is used when it departs from the original. It is
difficult to conceive that any intelligent Jew could have quoted the
Hebrew of this passage to support a proposal to free Gentile
Christians from the necessity of circumcision and the observance
of the Mosaic Law. It is equally difficult to suppose that James,
a bigoted leader of the Judaistic party and the head of the Church
at Jerusalem, could have quoted the Septuagint version of the
Holy Scriptures, differing from the Hebrew, to such an assembly.
It is useless to examine here the attempts to make the passage
quoted a correct interpretation of the prophet's meaning, or
seriously to consider the proposition that this alteration of a
prophetic utterance is adopted as better expressing " the mind of
the Spirit." If the original prophecy did not express that mind, it
is rather late to amend the utterances of the prophets in the Acts of
the Apostles.
Linguistic analysis 1 confirms the conclusion that the speech of
James at the Council proceeds likewise from the pen of the
general author, and the incomprehensible liberality of the senti-
ments expressed, as well as the peculiarity of the quotation
from Amos according to the Septuagint, thus receive at once
their simple explanation.
If we now compare the account of James's share in granting
liberal conditions to Gentile Christians with the statements of
Paul, we arrive at the same result. It is in consequence of
the arrival of " certain men from James " (rivas OLTTO Ta,Ko>/3oi>) that
Peter, through fear of them, withdrew from communion with the
Gentiles. It will be remembered that the whole discussion is
said to have arisen in Antioch originally from the Judaistic
teaching of certain men who came " from Judaea," who are
disowned in the apostolic letter. 2 It is unfortunate, to say
the least of it, that so many of those who systematically opposed
the work of the Apostle Paul claimed to represent the views of
James and the mother Church.3 The contradiction of the author
of the Acts, with his object of conciliation, has but small weight
1 The linguistic analysis will he found in the complete edition, vol. Hi.,
pp. 252-254.
2 Acts xv. 24.
3 " Of the Judaisers who are denounced in St. Paul's Epistles this much
is certain, that they exalted the authority of the Apostles of the Circumcision ;
and that, in some instances at least, as members of the mother Church, they
had direct relations with James, the Lord's brother. But when we attempt to
define those relations we are lost in a maze of conjecture " (Lightfoot, Ep. to
the Gal., p. 353).
714 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
before the statements of Paul and the whole voice of tradition.
At any rate, almost immediately after the so-called Apostolic
Council, with its decree adopted mainly at the instigation of
James, his emissaries caused the defection of Peter in Antioch
and the rupture with Paul. It is generally admitted, in the face
of the clear affirmation of Paul, that the men in question must in
all probability have been actually sent by James. It is obvious
that, to justify the fear of so leading an apostle as Peter, not
only must they have been thus deputed, but must have been
influential men, representing authoritative and prevalent Judaistic
opinions. We shall not attempt to divine the object of their
mission, but we may say that it is impossible to separate them
from the Judaistic teachers who urged circumcision upon the
Galatian Christians and opposed the authority of the Apostle
Paul. Not pursuing this further at present, however, it is obvious
that the effect produced by these emissaries is quite incompatible
with the narrative that, so short a time before, James and the
Church of Jerusalem had unanimously promulgated conditions,
under which the Gentile Christians were freely admitted into
communion, and which fully justified Peter in eating with them.
The incident at Antioch, as connected with James as well as with
Peter, excludes the supposition that the account of the Council
contained in the Acts can be considered historical.
The Apostolic letter embodying the decree of the Council now
demands our attention. It seemed good to the Apostles and the
elders with the whole Church to choose two leading men among
the brethren, and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas,
and they wrote by them (xv. 23) : " The Apostles and brethren
which are elders unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in
Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. 24. Forasmuch as we
heard that certain which went out from us troubled you with words,
subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment, 25. it
seemed good unto us, having become of one mind, to choose
out and send men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and
Paul, 26. men that have given up their lives for the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ. 27. We have, therefore, sent Judas and
Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by word of mouth.
28. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay
upon you no greater burden than these necessary things : 29.
that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and
from things strangled, and from fornication : from which if ye
keep yourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well." It is argued that
the simplicity of this composition, its brevity and the absence of
hierarchical tendency, prove the authenticity and the originality of
the epistle. Nothing, however, could be more arbitrary than to
assert that the author of the Acts, composing a letter supposed to
THE APOSTOLIC DECREE 715
be written under the circumstances, would have written one
different from this. We shall, on the contrary, see good reason
for affirming that he actually did compose it, and that it bears
the obvious impress of his style. Besides, Zeller 1 has pointed out
that, in a document affirmed to be so removed from all calculation
or object, verse 26 could hardly have found a place. The refer-
ence to "our beloved " Barnabas and Paul, as "men that have
given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," is
scarcely consistent with the primitive brevity and simplicity which
are made the basis of such an argument.
In the absence of better evidence, Apologists grasp at extremely
slight indications of authenticity, and of this nature seems to us
the mark of genuineness which Bleek and others 2 consider that
they find in the fact that the name of Barnabas is placed before
that of Paul in this document. It is maintained that, from the
1 3th chapter, the author begins to give the precedence to
Paul, but that, in reverting to the former order, the synodal letter
gives evidence both of its antiquity and genuineness. If any
weight could be attached to such an indication, it is unfortunate
for this argument that the facts are not as stated, for the order
" Barnabas and Paul " occurs at xiv. 12 and 14, and even in the
very account of the Council at xv. 12. The two names are men-
tioned together in the Acts sixteen times, Barnabas being named
first eight times (xi. 30, xii. 25, xiii. i, 2, 7, xiv. 12, 14, xv. 12),
and Paul as frequently (xiii. 43, 46, 50, xv. 2 twice, 22, 25, 35).
Apologists like Lekebusch 3 and Oertel 4 reject Bleek's argument.
The greeting x a( V lv with which the letter opens, and which,
amongst the Epistles of the New Testament, is only found in that
bearing the name of James (i. i), is said to be an indication that
the letter of the Council was written by James himself. Before
such an argument could avail, it would be necessary, though
difficult, to prove the authenticity of the Epistle of James, but we
need not enter upon such a question. x a ^P iV is the ordinary
Greek form of greeting in all epistles, 5 and the author of Acts, who
writes purer Greek than any other writer in our Canon, naturally
adopts it. Not only does he do so here, but he makes use
of the same x at/ P tv m the letter of the chief captain Lysias
(xxiii. 26), 6 which also evidently proceeds from his hand. More-
1 Aposfelgesch., 246 f.
2 Bleek, Einl., p. 349 ; Baumgarten, Apg., p. 470 f. ; Ewald, Gesch. V.
7sr., vi. , p. 440, anm. ; Gloag, Acts, ii., p. 89 f. ; Lange, Das ap. Z., ii., p. 189 ;
Meyer, Apg., p. 345 f.
3 Die Aposte/gesch., p. 316. 4 Paitlns in D. Apostelgesch., 1868, p. 227.
5 Wctstein quotes Artemidorus (Oneir., iii. 44): iStov Trdcrijj e'Trto-roX^j TO
Xafyjeii' KCU tppuffo Xtyeiv (Ad Act. Apost., xv. 2).
6 This letter terminates, v. 30, with the usual /5pwcro, according to the
Cod. Sinaiticus, , G, and others : A and B omit it.
7i6 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
over, the word is used as a greeting in Luke i. 28, and not un-
frequently elsewhere in the New Testament, as Matt. xxvi. 49,
xxvii. 29, xxviii. 9, Mark xv. 18, John xix. 3, 2 John 10, n.
Lekebusch, 1 Meyer, 2 and Oertel 3 reject the argument, and we may
add that, if yaLpuv prove anything, it proves that the author of
Acts, who uses the word in the letter of Lysias, also wrote the
synodal letter.
. In what language must we suppose that the Epistle was origi-
nally written? Oertel maintains an Aramaic original,* but the
greater number of writers consider that the original language was
Greek. It cannot be denied that the composition, as it stands,
contains many of the peculiarities of style of the author of
Acts ; and these are, indeed, so marked that even Apologists like
Lekebusch and Oertel, whilst maintaining the substantial authen-
ticity of the Epistle, admit that at least its actual form must be
ascribed to the general author. The originality of the form being
abandoned, it is difficult to perceive any ground for asserting the
originality and genuineness of the substance. That assertion rests
solely upon a vague traditional confidence in the author of Acts,
which is shown to be without any solid foundation. The form of
this Epistle clearly professes to be as genuine as the substance,
and if the original language was Greek, there is absolutely no
reason why the original letter should have been altered. The
similarity of the construction to that of the prologue to the third
Gospel, in which the personal style of the writer may be supposed
to have been most unreservedly shown, has long been admitted:
LUKE. i. ACTS xv.
I. eirei5?j7rep TroXXot eVexe/pi?<raj' j 24. eireidr) rjKOVcrafJ.V on
3. doe K<x/u,ot, Tra.pT)KO\ov(>T)K6Ti j 25. %5ot;ev TJ/MV yeco/iecots o/j.o0v-
iro.ffi.v aKpifiws, ' /j,ad6v,
KaOe^jjs ffoi ypd.\l/a.i. j dvdpas ire fj.\f/ai.
A more detailed linguistic examination of the Epistle, however,
confirms the conclusion already stated. 5
Turning now from the letter to the spirit of this decree, we
must endeavour to form some idea of its purport and bearing.
The first point which should be made clear is, that the question
raised before the Council solely affected the Gentile converts, and
that the conditions contained in the decree were imposed upon
that branch of the Church alone. No change whatever in the
1 Apostelg., p. 316. "- Apostelg., p. 345.
3 Paul, in d. Apg., p. 227; comp. Reichc, Coinin. in Ep. fac., 1833, p. i.
4 Ib., p. 227 f. ; cf. Grotius, Annot. in N. T. ad Act. Ap., xv. 23, who
takes x a ^P fiV t t> e the rendering of the Hebrew salutation of Peace.
5 The linguistic analysis will be found in the complete edition, vol. iii., p. 260 f.
THE APOSTLE DECREE NOT HISTORICAL 717
position of Jewish Christians was contemplated ; they were left
as before, subject to the Mosaic law. This is very apparent in the
reference which is made long after to the decree, ch. xxi. 20 f., 25,
when the desire is expressed to Paul by James, who proposed the
decree, and the elders of Jerusalem, that he should prove to the
many thousands of believing Jews, all zealous of the law, that he
did not teach the Jews who were among the Gentiles apostasy
from Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their
children, neither to walk after the customs. Paul, who is likewise
represented .in the Acts as circumcising with his own hand, after
the decision of the Council had been adopted, Timothy the son
of a Greek, whose mother was a Jewess, consents to give the Jews
of Jerusalem the required proof. We have already shown, at the
commencement of this section, that nothing was further from the
minds of the Jewish Christians than the supposition that the
obligation to observe the Mosaic law was weakened by the
adoption of Christianity; and the representation in the Acts is
certainly so far correct that it does not pretend that Jewish
Christians either desired or sanctioned any relaxation of Mosaic
observances on the part of believing Jews. This cannot be too
distinctly remembered in considering the history of primitive
Christianity. The initiatory rite was essential to full participation
in the Covenant. It was left for Paul to preach the abrogation of
the law and the abandonment of circumcision. If the speech of
Peter seems to suggest the abrogation of the law even for Jews,
it is only in a way which shows that the author had no clear
historical fact to relate, and merely desired to ascribe, vaguely
and indefinitely, Pauline sentiments to the Apostle of the
circumcision. No remark is made upon these strangely liberal
expressions of Peter, and neither the proposition of James nor
the speech in which he states it takes the slightest notice of them.
The conduct of Peter at Antioch and the influence exercised by
James through his emissaries restore us to historical ground.
Whether the author intended to represent that the object of the
conditions of the decree was to admit the Gentile Christians to
full communion with the Jewish, or merely to the subordinate
position of Proselytes of the Gate, is uncertain, but it is not
necessary to discuss the point.
There is not the slightest external evidence that such a decree
ever existed, and the more closely the details are examined the
more evident does it become that it has no historical consistency.
How, and upon what principle, were these singular conditions
selected ? Their heterogeneous character is at once apparent,
but not so the reason for a combination which is neither limited
to Jewish customs nor sufficiently representative of moral duties.
It has been argued, on the one hand, that the prohibitions of the
;i8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
apostolic decree are simply those, reduced to a necessary minimum,
which were enforced in the case of heathen converts to Judaism,
who did not join themselves fully to the people of the Covenant
by submitting to circumcision, but were admitted to imperfect
communion as Proselytes of the Gate. The conditions named,
however, do not fully represent the rules framed for such cases,
and many critics consider that the conditions imposed, although
they may have been influenced by the Noachian prescriptions,
were rather moral duties which it was, from special circumstances,
thought expedient to specify. We shall presently refer to some
of these conditions ; but bearing in mind the views which were
dominant amongst primitive Christians, and more especially, as is
obvious, amongst the Christians of Jerusalem, where this decree is
supposed to have been unanimously adopted bearing in mind the
teaching which is said to have led to the Council, th e episode at
Antioch, and the systematic Judaistic opposition which retarded
the work of Paul and subsequently affected his reputation, it may
be instructive to point out not only the vagueness which exists as
to the position which it was intended that the Gentiles should
acquire, as the effect of this decree, but also its singular and total
inefficiency. An apologetic writer, having of course in his mind
the fact that there is no trace of the operation of the decree,
speaks of its conditions as follows : " The miscellaneous character
of these prohibitions showed that, taken as a whole, they had no
binding force independently of the circumstances which dictated
them. They were a temporary expedient framed to meet a
temporary emergency. Their object was the avoidance of offence
in mixed communities of Jew and Gentile converts. Beyond this
recognised aim and general understanding implied therein, the
limits of their application were not defined." 1 In fact, the
immunity granted to the Gentiles was thus practically almost
unconditional.
It is obvious that every consideration which represents the
decree as more completely emancipating Gentile Christians
from Mosaic obligations, and admitting them into free communion
with believers amongst the Jews, places it in more emphatic con-
tradiction to historical facts and the statements of the Apostle
Paul. The unanimous adoption of such a measure in Jerusalem,
on the one hand, and, on the other, the episode at Antioch, the
fear of Peter, the silence of Paul, and the attitude of James, become
perfectly inconceivable. If, on the contrary, the conditions were
seriously imposed and really meant anything, a number of diffi-
culties spring up of which we shall presently speak. That the
prohibitions, in the opinion of the author of the Acts, constituted
1 Lightfoot, Ep. to the Ga!* % p. 296.
PAUL'S ACCOUNT EXCLUDES THE DECREE 719
a positive and binding obligation can scarcely be doubted by any-
one who considers the terms in which they are laid down. If they
are represented as a concession, they are nevertheless recognised
as a "burden," and they are distinctly stated to be the obligations
which " it seemed good to the Holy Spirit " as well as to the
Council to impose. The qualification, that the restrictive clauses
had no binding force " independently of the circumstances which
dictated them," in so far as it has any meaning beyond the un-
necessary declaration that the decree was only applicable to the
class for whom it was framed, seems to be inadmissible. The
circumstance which dictated the decree was the counter-teaching
of Jewish Christians, that it was necessary that the Gentile con-
verts should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. The
restrictive clauses are simply represented as those which it was
deemed right to impose ; and, as they are stated without qualifica-
tion, it is holding the decision of the " Holy Spirit " and of the
Church somewhat cheap to treat them as mere local and temporary
expedients. This is evidently not the view of the author of the
Acts. Would it have been the view of anyone else if it were not
that, so far as any external trace of the decree is concerned, it is
an absolute myth ? The prevalence of practices to which the four
prohibitions point is quite sufficiently attested to show that, little
as there is any ground for considering that such a decree was
framed in such a manner, the restrictive clauses are put forth as
necessary and permanently binding. The very doubt which exists
as to whether the prohibitions were not intended to represent the
conditions imposed on Proselytes of the Gate shows their close
analogy to them, and it cannot be reasonably asserted that the
early Christians regarded those conditions either as obsolete or
indifferent. The decree is clearly intended to set forth the terms
upon which Gentile Christians were to be admitted into com-
munion, and undoubtedly is to be taken as applicable not merely
to a few districts, but to the Gentiles in general.
The account which Paul gives of his visit not only ignores any
such decree, but excludes it. In the first place, taking into
account the Apostle's character and the spirit of his Epistle, it is
impossible to suppose that Paul had any intention of submitting, as
to higher authority, the Gospel which he preached, for the judg-
ment of the elder Apostles and of the Church of Jerusalem.
Nothing short of this is involved in the account in the Acts, and
in the form of the decree which promulgates, in an authoritative
manner, restrictive clauses which " seemed good to the Holy
Spirit " and to the Council. The temper of the man is well shown
in* Paul's indignant letter to the Galatians. He receives his
Gospel, not from men, but by direct revelation from Jesus Christ;
and so far is he from submission of the kind implied that he
720 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
says : " But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach
unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached to you,
let him be accursed. As we have said before, so say I now again:
If any man preach any Gospel to you other than that ye received,
let him be accursed." 1 That the Apostle here refers to his own
peculiar teaching, and does so in contradistinction to the Gospel
preached by the Judaisers, is evident from the preceding words :
" I marvel that ye are so soon removing from him that called you
in the grace of Christ unto a different Gospel ; which is not
another, only there are some that trouble you, and desire to
pervert the Gospel of Christ." 2 Passing from this, however, to the
restrictive clauses in general, how is it possible that Paul could
state, as the result of his visit, that the " pillar " Apostles " com-
municated nothing " after hearing his Gospel, if the four conditions
of this decree had thus been authoritatively "communicated"?
On the contrary, Paul distinctly adds that, in acknowledging his
mission, but one condition had been attached : " Only that we
should remember the poor ; which very thing I also was forward
to do." As one condition is here mentioned, why not the others,
had any been actually imposed ? It is argued that the remem-
brance of the poor of Jerusalem which is thus inculcated was a
recommendation personally made to Paul and Barnabas ; but it is
clear that the Apostle's words refer to the result of his communi-
cation of his Gospel, and to the understanding under which his
mission to the Gentiles was tolerated.
We have already pointed out how extraordinary it is that such a
decision of the Council should not have been referred to in
describing his visit, and the more we go into details the more
striking and inexplicable, except in one way, is such silence. In
relating the struggle regarding the circumcision of Titus, for
instance, and stating that he did not yield, no, not for an hour, to
the demands made on the subject, is it conceivable that, if the
exemption of all Gentile Christians from the initiatory rite had
been unanimously conceded, Paul would not have added to his
statement about Titus, that not only he himself had not been com-
pelled to give way in this instance, but that his representations had
even convinced those who had been Apostles before him, and
secured the unanimous adoption of his own views on the point ?
The whole of this Epistle is a vehement and intensely earnest
denunciation of those Judaisers who were pressing the necessity of
the initiatory rite upon the Galatian converts.3 Is it possible that
1 Gal. i. 8, 9. 2 Ib., i. 6, 7.
3 " Turning from Antioch to Galatia, we meet with Judaic teachers who urged
circumcision on the Gentile converts, and, as the best means of weakening the
authority of St. Paul, asserted for the Apostle^ of the Circumcision the exclu-
sive right of dictating to the Church" (LightfootJ Ep. to the Gal., p. 353).
PAUL'S ACCOUNT EXCLUDES THE DECREE 721
the Apostle could have left totally unmentioned the fact that the
Apostles and the very Church of Jerusalem had actually declared
circumcision to be unnecessary? It would not have accorded
with Paul's character, it is said, to have appealed to the authority
of the elder Apostles or of the Church in a matter in which his
own apostolic authority and teaching were in question. In that
case, how can it be supposed that he ever went at all up to
Jerusalem to the Apostles and elders about this question ? If he
was not too proud to lay aside his apostolic dignity and, represent-
ing the Christians of Antioch, to submit the case to the Council at
Jerusalem, and subsequently to deliver its decree to various com-
munities, is it consistent with reason or common sense to assert
that he was too proud to recall the decision of that Council to the
Christians of Galatia ? It must, we think, be obvious that, if such
an explanation of Paul's total silence as to the decree be at all
valid, it is absolutely fatal to the account of Paul's visit in the
Acts. This reasoning is not confined to the Epistle to the
Galatians, but, as Paley points out, applies to the other Epistles of
Paul, in all of which the same silence is preserved.
Moreover, the apologetic explanation altogether fails upon other
grounds. Without appealing to the decree as an authority, we
must feel sure that the Apostle would at least have made use of it
as a logical refutation of his adversaries. The man who did not
hesitate to attack Peter openly for inconsistency, and charge him
with hypocrisy, would not have hesitated to cite the decree as
evidence, and still less to fling it in the faces of those Judaisers
who, so short a time after that decree is supposed to have been
promulgated, preached the necessity of circumcision and Mosaic
observances in direct opposition to its terms, whilst claiming to
represent the views of the very Apostles and Church which had
framed it. Paul, who never denies the validity of their claim,
would most certainly have taunted them with gross inconsistency
and retorted that the Church of Jerusalem, the Apostles, and the
Judaisers who now troubled him and preached circumcision and
the Mosaic law had, four or five years previously, declared, as the
deliberate decision of the Holy Spirit and the Council, that they
were no longer binding on the Gentile converts. By such a refer-
ence " the discussion would have been foreclosed." None of the
reasons which are suggested to explain the undeniable fact that
there is no mention of the decree can really bear examination, and
that fact remains supported by a great many powerful con-
siderations, leading to the very simple explanation which
reconciles all difficulties, that the narrative of the Acts is not
authentic.
We arrive at the very same results when we examine the Apostle's
references to the practices which the conditions of the decree were
3A
722 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
intended to control. Instead of recognising the authority of the
decree or enforcing its prescriptions, he does not even allow us to
infer its existence, and he teaches disregard at least of some of its
restrictions. The decree enjoins the Gentile Christians to abstain
from meats offered to idols. Paul tells the Corinthians to eat
whatever meat is sold in the shambles without asking questions
for conscience sake, for an idol is nothing in the world, " neither
if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse." 1
It is not conceivable that the Apostle could so completely have
ignored the prohibition of the decree if he had actually submitted
the question to the Apostles, and himself so distinctly acquiesced
in their decision as to distribute the document amongst the various
communities whom he subsequently visited. To argue that the
decree was only intended to have force in Antioch, and Syria, and
Cilicia, to which, as the locality in which the difficulty had arisen
which had originally led to the Council, the decree was, in the
first instance, addressed, is highly arbitrary; but when, proceeding
further, Apologists 2 draw a distinction between those churches
" which had already been founded, and which had felt the pressure
of Jewish prejudice (Acts xvi. 4)," and " brotherhoods afterwards
formed and lying beyond the reach of such influences, "as a reason
why no notice of the decree is taken in the case of the Corinthians
and Romans, the special pleading ignores very palpable facts.
" Jewish prejudices " are represented in the Acts of the Apostles
themselves as being more than usually strong in Corinth. There
was a Jewish synagogue there, augmented probably by the Jews
expelled from Rome under Claudius, 3 and their violence against
Paul finally obliged him to leave the place. 4 Living in the midst
of an idolatrous city, and much exposed to the temptations of
sacrificial feasts, we might naturally expect excessive rigour against
participation, on the one hand, and perhaps too great indifference,
on the other; and this we actually find to have been the case. It
is in consequence of questions respecting meats offered to idols
that Paul writes to the Corinthians, and, whilst treating the matter
in itself as one of perfect indifference, merely inculcates considera-
tion for weak consciences. 5 It is clear that there was a decided
feeling against the practice ; it is clear that strong Jewish preju-
dices existed in the Jewish colony at Corinth, and wherever there
were Jews the eating of meats offered to idols was an abomination.
The sin of Israel at Baalpeor 6 lived in the memory of the people,
and abstinence from such pollution? was considered a duty. If
the existence of such " Jewish prejudices " was a reason for
25 f. a Lightfoot, St. Paufs Ep. to the Gal., p. 126 f.
3 Acts xviii. 2. 4 Ib. , xviii. 6, 12 f. s i Cor. viii. 1-13, x. 23 f.
'
I Cor. viii. 4 f., x
6 Numb. xxv. 2 f. ; Psalm cvi. 28. ' Dan. i. 8 f.
723
publishing the decree, we have, in fact, more definite evidence of them
in Corinth than we have in Antioch, for, apart from this specific
mention of the subject of eating sacrificial meats, the two Apostolic
letters abundantly show the existence and activity of Judaistic
parties there, which opposed the work of Paul, and desired to force
Mosaic observances upon his converts. It is impossible to admit
that, supposing such a decree to have been promulgated as the
mind of the Holy Spirit, there could be any reason why it should
have been unknown at Corinth so short a time after it was adopted.
When, therefore, we find the Apostle not only ignoring it, but
actually declaring that to be a matter of indifference, abstinence
from which it had just seemed good to the Holy Spirit to enjoin,
the only reasonable conclusion is that Paul himself was totally
ignorant of the existence of any decree containing such a prohibi-
tion. There is much difference of opinion as to the nature of the
TTopveia referred to in the decree, and we need not discuss it ;
but in all the Apostle's homilies upon the subject there is the same
total absence of all allusion to the decision of the Council.
Nowhere can any practical result from the operation of the
decree be pointed out, nor any trace even of its existence. The
assertions and conjectures, by which those who maintain the
authenticity of the narrative in the Acts seek to explain the
extraordinary absence of all external evidence of the decree,
labour under the disadvantage of all attempts to account for the
total failure of effects from a supposed cause, the existence of
which is in reality only assumed. It is customary to reply to the
objection that there is no mention of the decree in the Epistles
of Paul, or in .any other contemporary writing, that this is a mere
argument a sikntio. Is it not, however, difficult to imagine any
other argument, from contemporary sources, regarding what is
affirmed to have had no existence, than that from silence? Do
Apologists absolutely demand that, with prophetic anticipation of
future controversies, the Apostle Paul should obligingly have
left on record that there actually was no Council such as a writer
woujd subsequently describe, and that the decree which he would
put forward as the result of that Council must not be accepted
as genuine ? It is natural to expect that, when writing of the very
visit in question, and dealing with subjects and discussions in
which, whether in the shape of historical allusion, appeal to
authority, taunt for inconsistency, or assertion .of his own
influence, some allusion to the decree would have been highly
appropriate, if not necessary, the Apostle Paul should at least
have given some hint of its existence. His not doing so
constitutes strong presumptive evidence against the authenticity
of the decree, and all the more so as no more positive evidence
than silence could possibly be forthcoming of the non-existence of
724 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
that which never existed. The supposed decree of the Council of
Jerusalem cannot on any ground be accepted as a historical fact.
We may now return to such further consideration of .the state-
ments of the Epistle as may seem necessary for the object of our
inquiry. No mention is made by the Apostle of any official
mission on the subject of circumcision, and the discussion of that
question arises in a merely incidental manner from the presence
of Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile Christian. There has been
much discussion as to whether Titus actually was circumcised or
not, and there can be little doubt that the omission of the
negative CHS oi>8 from Gal. ii. 5 has been in some cases in-
fluenced by the desire to bring the Apostle's conduct upon this
occasion into harmony with the account, in Acts xvi. 3, of his
circumcising Timothy. We shall not require to enter into any
controversy on the point, for the great majority of critics are
agreed that the Apostle intended to say that Titus was not
circumcised, although the contrary is affirmed by a few writers.
It is obvious from the whole of the Apostle's narrative that great
pressure was exerted to induce Titus to submit, and that Paul, if
he did not yield even for an hour the required subjection, had a
long and severe struggle to maintain his position. Even when
relating the circumstances in his letter to the Galatians, the
recollection of his contest profoundly stirs the Apostle's indigna-
tion ; his utterance becomes vehement, but cannot keep pace
with his impetuous thoughts ; and the result is a narrative in
broken and abrupt sentences, whose very incompleteness is
eloquent, and betrays the irritation which has not even yet entirely
subsided. How does this accord with the whole, tone of the
account in the Acts? It is customary with Apologists to insert
so much between the lines of that narrative, partly from imagina-
tion and partly from the statements of the Epistle, that th t ey
almost convince themselves and others that such additions are
actually suggested by the author of the Acts himself. If we
take the account of the Acts without such transmutations, it
is certain that not only is there not the slightest indication of any
struggle regarding the circumcision of Titus, " in which St. Paul
maintained at one time almost single-handed the cause of Gentile
freedom," 1 but no suggestion that there had ever been any
hesitation on the part of the leading Apostles and the mass of
the Church regarding the point at issue. The impression given
by the author of the Acts is undeniably one of unbroken and
undisturbed harmony : of a Council in which the elder Apostles
were of one mind with Paul, and warmly agreed with him that the
Gentiles should be delivered from the yoke of the Mosaic law and
1 Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 106.
ALLEGED CIRCUMCISION OF TITUS
from the necessity of undergoing the initiatory rite. What is there
in such an account to justify in any degree the irritation displayed
by Paul at the mere recollection of this visit, or to merit the
ironical terms with which he speaks of the " pillar " Apostles ?
We may now consider the part which the Apostles must
have taken in the dispute regarding the circumcision of Titus.
Is it possible to suppose that, if the circumcision of Paul's follower
had only been demanded by certain of the sect of the Pharisees
who believed, unsupported by the rest, there could ever have been
any considerable struggle on the point ? Is it possible, further, to
suppose that, if Paul had received the cordial support of James
and the leading Apostles in his refusal to concede the circumcision
of Titus, such a contest could have been more than momentary
and trifling? Is it possible that the Apostle Paul could have
spoken of " certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed " in
such terms as : " to whom we yielded by the submission (ei
ry iVorayy), no, not for an hour "; J or that he could have used
this expression if those who pressed the demand upon him had
not been in a position of authority, which naturally suggested a
subjection which Paul upon this occasion persistently refused ? It
is not possible. Of course many writers who seek to reconcile the
two narratives, and some of whom substitute, for the plain state-
ments of the Acts and of the Apostle, an account which is not
consistent with either, suppose that the demand for the circum-
cision of Titus proceeded solely from the " false brethren," although
some of them suppose that at least these false brethren may have
thought they had reason to hope for the support of the elder
Apostles. 2 It is almost too clear for dispute that the desire
that Titus should be circumcised was shared or pressed by
the elder Apostles. According to the showing of the Acts, nothing
could be more natural than the fact that James and the elders of
Jerusalem who, so long after (xxi. 20 f.), advised Paul to prove his
continued observance of the law, and that he did not teach the
Jews to abandon circumcision, should on this occasion have
pressed him to circumcise Titus. The conduct of Peter at
Antioch, and the constant opposition which Paul met with from
emissaries of James and of the Apostles of the Circumcision upon
the very point of Gentile circumcision, all support the inevitable
conclusion, that the pressure upon Paul in the matter of Titus was
not only not resisted by the Apostles, but proceeded in no small
degree from them.
1 Gal. ii. 5.
2 Wieseler (Chron. ap, Zeit., p. 194) conjectures the meaning of Paul to be
that, but for the false brethren, he would actually have circumcised Titus, and
thus have been consistent with the principles which he maintained by the
circumcision of Timothy, xvi. 3.
726 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
This is further shown by the remainder of Paul's account of his
visit and by the tone of his remarks regarding the principal Apostles,
as well as by the historical data which we possess of his subsequent
career. We need not repeat that the representation in the Acts
both of the Council and of the whole intercourse between Paul
and the Apostles is one of " unbroken unity." 1 The struggle
about Titus and the quarrel with Peter at Antioch are altogether
omitted, and the Apostolic letter speaks merely of " our beloved
Barnabas and Paul, men that have given up their lives for the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 The language of Paul is not so
pacific and complimentary. Immediately after his statement that
he had " yielded by the submission, no, not for an hour," Paul
continues : " But from those who seem to be something (d/ro 8e
T&V SoKovvriav emu' TL) whatsoever they were it maketh no
matter to me : God accepteth not man's person for to me those
who seem (ol <$OKO{>/TS) (to be something) communicated
nothing, but, on the contrary, etc., and when they knew the grace
that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seem to
be pillars (ol So/coiWes o-ruAoi e?vat), gave to me and Barnabas
right hands of fellowship that we (should go) unto the Gentiles,"
etc. 3 The tone and language of this passage are certainly depre-
ciatory of the elder Apostles, and, indeed, it is difficult to under-
stand how any one could fail to perceive and admit the fact. It
is argued by some, who recognise the irony of the term 01
SoxoiWes applied to the Apostles, that the disparagement which
is so transparent in the form 01 SOKOVVTCS emu' TI, " those who
seem to be something," is softened again in the new turn which is
given to it in verse 9, 01 So/covvrts o-r?Aot cTvai, " these who
seem to be pillars," in which, it is said, " the Apostle expresses the
real greatness and high authority of the twelve in their separate
field of labour." 4 It seems .to us that this interpretation cannot be
sustained. Paul is ringing the changes on 01 SOKOV VTCS, and con-
trasting with the position they assumed, and the estimation in
which they were held, his own experience of them and their
inability to add anything to him. " Those who seem to be some-
thing," he commences, but immediately interrupts himself, after
having thus indicated the persons whom he meant, with the more
direct protest of irritated independence : " whatsoever they were
it maketh no matter to me : God accepteth not man's person."
These SOKOVVTCS communicated nothing to him, but, on the
contrary, when they knew the grace given to him, " those who
seem to be pillars " gave him hands of fellowship, but nothing
more, and they went their different ways, he to the Gentiles and
1 Jowett, The Eps. of St. Paul, i., p. 330. 2 Acts xv. 25 f.
3 Gal. ii. 6, 9. Jowett, The*Eps. of St. Paul, i., p. 331.
THE IRONY OF PAUL 727
they to the circumcision. If the expression ol SOK. o-rvAoi
be true, as well as ironically used, it cannot be construed into a
declaration of respect, but forms part of a passage whose tone
throughout is proudly depreciatory. This is followed by such
words as " hypocrisy " (VTTOK/HO-IS) and "condemned" (Kareyvfexr-
/ACVOS) applied to the conduct of Peter at Antioch, as well
as the mention of the emissaries of James as the cause of
that dispute, which add meaning to the irony. This is not the
only occasion on which Paul betrays a certain bitterness against
the elder Apostles. In his second letter to the Corinthians, xi. 5,
he says, " For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the over much
Apostles" (TWV iVepA,6av aTroo-ToAwv), and again, xii. n, "For
in nothing was I behind the over much Apostles " (TWJ/ vjrepXiav
aTroo-ToAwv) ; and the whole of the vehement passage in which
these references are set shows the intensity of the feeling which
called them forth. To say that the expressions in the Galatian
Epistle and here are " depreciatory, not indeed of the twelve
themselves, but of the extravagant and exclusive claims set up for
them by the Judaisers," 1 is an extremely arbitrary distinction.
They are directly applied to the Apostles, and ol So/co{Wes eTvai ri
cannot be taken as irony against those who over-estimated them,
but against the SOKOWTCS themselves. Paul's blows generally
go straight to their mark.
Meyer argues that the designation of the Apostles as ol
SOKOWTCS is purely historical, and cannot be taken as ironical,
inasmuch as it would be inconsistent to suppose that Paul could
adopt a depreciatory tone when he is relating his recognition as a
colleague by the elder Apostles ; 2 and others consider that verses 8,
9, 10 contain evidence of mutual respect and recognition between
Paul and the Twelve. Even if this were so it could not do away
with the actual irony of the expressions ; but do the facts support
such a statement ? We have seen that, in spite of the picture of
unbroken unity drawn by the author of the Acts and the liberal
sentiments regarding the Gentiles which "he puts into the mouth
of Peter and of James, Paul had a severe and protracted struggle
to undergo in order to avoid circumcising Titus. We have already
stated the grounds upon which it seems certain that the pressure
upon that occasion came as well from the elder Apostles as the
" false brethren," and critics who do not go so far as to make this
positive affirmation, at least recognise the passive, and, therefore,
to a large extent, compliant, attitude which the Apostles must
have held. It is after narrating some of the particulars of this
struggle that Paul uses the terms of depreciation which we have
1 Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 107.
2 Kr. Ex. ffdtich iib. d. Br. an die Gal., 63 f.
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
been discussing; and, having added, "for to me those who seem
(to be something) communicated nothing," he says, " but, on the
contrary, when they saw that I have been entrusted with the
Gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with that of the
circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship
of the circumcision wrought also for me unto the Gentiles) ; and
when they knew the grace that was given unto me, James and
Cephas and John, who seem to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas
right hands of fellowship, that we (should go) unto the Gentiles,
and they unto the circumcision only that we should remember
the poor ; which very thing I also was forward to do." It will be
observed that, after saying they " communicated nothing " to him,
the Apostle adds, in opposition, " but, on the contrary " (dAAa
TOWUI/TIOV). In what did this opposition consist ? Apparently
in this that, instead of strengthening the hands of Paul, they left
him to labour alone. They said: "Take your own course; preach
the Gospel of the uncircumcision to Gentiles, and we will preach the
Gospel of the circumcision to Jews." 1 In fact, when Paul returned
to Jerusalem for the second time after fourteen years, he found the
elder Apostles not one whit advanced towards his own universalism ;
they retained their former Jewish prejudices, and remained, as
before, Apostles of the circumcision. Notwithstanding the strong
Pauline sentiments put into Peter's mouth by the author of the
Acts, and his claim to have been so long before selected by God
that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel
and believe, Paul singles out Peter as specially entrusted with the
Gospel of the circumcision ; and, in the end, after Paul has
exerted all his influence, Peter and the rest remain unmoved, and
allow Paul to go to the Gentiles, while they confine their ministry,
as before, to the Jews. The success of Paul's work amongst the
heathen was too palpable a fact to be ignored ; but there is no
reason to believe that the 'conversion of the Gentiles, upon his
terms, was more than tolerated at that time, or the Gentile
Christians admitted to more than such imperfect communion with
the Jewish Christians as that of Proselytes of the Gate in relation
to Judaism. This is shown by the conduct of Peter at Antioch
after the supposed Council, and of the Jews with him, and even of
Barnabas, through fear of the emissaries of James, whose arrival
certainly could not have produced a separation between Jewish
and Gentile Christians had the latter been recognised as in full
communion.
The " hands of fellowship " clearly was a mere passive permis-
sion of Paul's mission to the Gentiles, but no positive and hearty
approval of it testified by active support. It must, we think, be
1 Jowett, The Eps. of St. Patfi^ i. 240 f.
THE FINAL ATTITUDE MERE TOLERATION 729
evident to any one who attentively considers the passage we are
examining, that there is no question in it of a recognition
of the Apostolate of Paul. The elder Apostles consent to his
mission to the Gentiles, whilst they themselves go to the circum-
cision ; but there is not a syllable which indicates that Paul's
claim to the title of Apostle was ever either acknowledged or dis-
cussed. It is not probable that Paul would have submitted such
a point to their consideration. It is difficult to see how the elder
Apostles could well have done less than they did, and the extent
of their fellowship seems to have simply amounted to toleration of
what they could not prevent. The pressure for the circumcision
of the Gentile converts was an attempt to coerce, and to suppress
the peculiar principle of the Gospel of uncircumcision; and, though
that effort failed through the determined resistance of Paul, it is
clear, from the final resolve to limit their preaching to the circum-
cision, that the elder Apostles in no way abandoned their view of
the necessity of the initiatory rite. The episode at Antioch is a
practical illustration of this statement. Hilgenfeld ably remarks :
" When we consider that Peter was afraid of the circumcised
Christians, there can be no doubt that James, at the head of the
primitive community, made the attempt to force heathen Christians
to adopt the substance of Jewish legitimacy, by breaking off ecclesi-
astical community ivith them"* The Gentile Christians were
virtually excommunicated on the arrival of the emissaries of James,
or at least treated as mere Proselytes of the Gate ; and the pressure
upon the Galatian converts of the necessity of circumcision by
similar Judaising emissaries, which called forth the vehement and
invaluable Epistle before us, is quite in accordance with the
circumstances of this visit. The separation agreed upon between
Paul and the elder Apostles was not in any sense geographical,
but purely ethnological. It was no mere division of labour, 2 no
suitable apportionment of work. The elder Apostles determined,
like their Master before them, to confine their ministry to Jews,
whilst Paul, if he pleased, might go to the Gentiles ; and the
fact that Peter subsequently goes to Antioch, as well as many other
circumstances, shows that no mere separation of localities, but a
selection of race, was intended. If -there had not been this
absolute difference of purpose, any separation would have been
unnecessary, and all the Apostles would have preached one
Gospel indifferently to all who had ears to hear it ; such strange
inequality in the partition of the work could never have existed :
that Paul should go unaided to the gigantic task of converting the
1 Zeitschr. wiss. Th., 1858, p. 90.
2 " They would sanction but not share his mission to the Gentiles" (Jowett,
The Eps. of St. Paul, i. 236).
730 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
heathen, while the Twelve reserved themselves for the small but
privileged people. All that we have said at the beginning of this
section of the nature of primitive Christianity, and of the views
prevalent amongst the disciples at the death of their Master, is
verified by this attitude of the Three during the famous visit of the
Apostle of the Gentiles to Jerusalem, and Paul's account is pre-
cisely in accordance with all that historical probability and reason,
unwarped by the ideal representations of the Acts, prepare us to
expect. The more deeply we go into the statements of Paul the
more is this apparent, and the more palpable does the inauthen-
ticity of the narrative of the Council appear.
The words of Paul in describing the final understanding are
very remarkable, and require further consideration. The decision
that they should go to the circumcision and Paul to the Gentiles is
based upon the recognition of a different Gospel entrusted to him,
the Gospel of the uncircumcision, as the Gospel of the circumcision
is entrusted to Peter. It will be remembered that Paul states that,
on going up to Jerusalem upon this occasion, he communicated to
them the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, and it is
probable that he made the journey more especially for this
purpose. It appears from the account that this Gospel was not
only new to them, but was distinctly different from that of the
elder Apostles. If Paul preached the same Gospel as the rest,
what necessity could there have been for communicating it at all ?
What doubt that by any means he might be running, or had run,
in vain ? He knew perfectly well that he preached a different
Gospel from the Apostles of the Circumcision, and his anxiety
probably was to secure an amicable recognition of the Gentile
converts, whom he had taught to consider circumcision unnecessary
and the obligation of the law removed. Of course there was much
that was fundamentally the same in the two Gospels, starting as
they both did with the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah ; but
their points of divergence were very marked and striking, and more
especially in directions where the prejudices of the Apostles of the
circumcision were the strongest. Avoiding all debatable ground,
it is clear that the Gospel of the uncircumcision, which proclaimed
the abrogation of the law and the inutility of the initiatory rite,
must have been profoundly repugnant to Jews, who still preached
the obligation of circumcision and the observance of the law.
" Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law," 1 said the Gospel
of the uncircumcision. "Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye
be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing For in Christ
Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision,
but faith working through love." 2 " For neither circumcision is
anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."3 The teaching
' Gal. iii. 13. 2 Ib., v. 2, 6. * 3 /#., vi. 15.
PAUL'S MISSION ACCORDING TO ACTS 731
which was specially designated the Gospel of the circumcision, in
contradistinction to this Gospel of the uncircumcision, held very
different language. There is no gainsaying the main fact and
that fact, certified by Paul himself and substantiated by a host of
collateral circumstances, is more conclusive than all conciliatory
apologetic reasoning that, at the date of this visit to Jerusalem
(c. A.D. 50-52), the Three, after hearing all that Paul had to say,
allowed him to go alone to the Gentiles, but themselves would
have no part in the mission, and turned as before to the circum-
cision.
There is another point to which we must very briefly refer. The
statements of Paul show that, antecedent to this visit to Jerusalem,
Paul had been the active Apostle of the Gentiles, preaching his
Gospel of the uncircumcision, and that subsequently he returned
to the same field of labour. If we examine the narrative of the
Acts, we do not find him represented in any special manner as
the Apostle of the Gentiles; but, on the contrary, whilst Peter
claims the honour of having been selected that by his voice the
Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe, Paul is
everywhere described as going to the Jews, and only when his
teaching is rejected by them does he turn to the Gentiles. It is
true that Ananias is represented as being told by the Lord that
Paul is a chosen vessel " to bear my name both before Gentiles
and kings, and the sons of Israel"; 1 and Paul subsequently
recounts how the Lord had said to himself, " Go, for I will send
thee far hence unto Gentiles." 2 The author of the Acts, however,
everywhere conveys the impression that Paul very reluctantly
fulfils this mission, and that if he had but been successful amongst
the Jews he never would have gone to the Gentiles at all. Imme-
diately after his conversion, he preaches in the synagogues at
Damascus and confounds the Jews, 3 as he again does during his
visit to Jerusalem. 4 When the Holy Spirit desires the Church at
Antioch to separate Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto
he has called them, they continue to announce the word of God
" in the synagogues of the Jews," 5 and in narrating the conversion
of the Roman proconsul at Paphos it is said that it is Sergius
Paulus himself who calls for Barnabas and Saul, and seeks to
hear the word of God. 6 When they came to Antioch in Pisidia
they go into the synagogue of the Jews 7 as usual, and it is only
after the Jews reject them that Paul and Barnabas are described
as saying : "It was necessary that the word of God should first
be spoken to you : seeing that ye thrust it from you, and judge
yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." 8
1 ix. 15 f. 2 xxii. 21 ; cf. xxvi. 17 f. 3 ix. 20, 22.
4 ix. 28 f. s xiii. 5. G xiii. 7. 7 xiii. 14 f., 42 f. 8 xiii. 46.
732 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
In Iconium, to which they next proceed, however, they go into the
synagogue of the Jews, 1 and later it is stated that Paul, on
arriving at Thessalonica, " as his custom was," went into the
synagogue of the Jews, and for three Sabbaths discoursed to
them. 2 At Corinth it was only when the Jews opposed him and
blasphemed that Paul is represented as saying : " Your blood be
upon your own head ; I will henceforth, with a pure conscience,
go unto the Gentiles." It is impossible to distinguish from this
narrative any difference between the ministry of Paul and that of
the other Apostles. They all address themselves mainly and
primarily to the Jews, although, if Gentiles desire to eat of " the
crumbs which fall from the children's bread," they are not rejected.
Even the Pharisees stirred heaven and earth to make proselytes.
In no sense can the Paul of the Acts be considered specially an
Apostle of the Gentiles, and the statement of the Epistle to the
Galatians 3 has no significance, if interpreted by the historical
work.
Apologists usually reply to this objection that the practice of
Paul in the Acts is in accordance with his own words in the Epistle
to the Romans, i. 16, in which it is asserted he recognises the right
of the Jews to precedence. In the authorised version this passage
is rendered as follows : " For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of
Christ : for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that
believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."* (Swu^is
yo.p Oeov ftrrlv eis o-WTTj/atav TTO.VTI TW TrurrfvovTi, 'lovSaiw
Tt. TTpOtrov KOI "EAA^i/i.) As a matter of fact, we may
here at once state that the word Trpwroi/, " first," is not found in
Codices B and G, and that it is omitted from the Latin rendering
of the verse quoted by Tertullian. 5 That the word upon which
the controversy tunis should not be found in so important a MS.
as the Vatican Codex, or in so ancient a version as Tertullian's, is
very significant ; but, proceeding at once to the sense of the
sentence, we must briefly state the reasons which seem to us con-
clusively to show that the usual reading is erroneous. The
passage is an emphatic statement of the principles of Paul. He
declares that he is not ashamed of the Gospel, and he imme-
diately states the reason : " for it is a power of God unto salvation
to everyone that believeth." 6 He is not ashamed of the Gospel,
because he recognises its universality ; for, in opposition to the
exclusiveness of Judaism, he maintains that all are " sons of God
through faith in Christ Jesus There is neither Jew nor Greek
' xiv. if. = xvii. I f. Cf. 10 f., 17 f.; xviii. 4 f., 19, 28 ; xix. 8.
3 Gal. ii. 9.
4 Cf. Rom. ii. 9, IO. The oldest MSS. and versions omit the rov
of the Authorised Version, which most editors, therefore, reject.
5 Adv. Marc., v. 13. 6 Rom. i. 16.
"TO THE JEW FIRST" ERRONEOUS 733
for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's
then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." 1 " For
in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncir-
cumcision, but faith working through love." 2 The reason which
he gives is that which lies at the basis of the whole of his special
teaching; but we are asked to believe that, after so clear and
comprehensive a declaration, he at once adds the extraordinary
qualification : 'louScuw re irp^rov KCU "EAA^vt, rendered " to the
Jew first and also to the Greek." What is the meaning of such a
limitation? If the Gospel be a power of God unto salvation "to
everyone that believeth " (TTOLVTI TOJ TrurrevovTi), in what manner
can it possibly be so " to the Jew first " ? Can it be maintained
that there are comparative degrees in salvation ? " Salvation " is
obviously an absolute term. If saved at all, the Jew cannot be
more saved than the Greek. If, on the other hand, the expression
be interpreted as an assertion that the Jew has a right of prece-
dence, either in the offer or the attainment of salvation, before
the Greek, the manner of its realisation is almost equally incon-
ceivable, and a host of difficulties, especially in view of the specific
Pauline teaching, immediately present themselves. There can be
no doubt that the Judaistic view distinctly was that Israel must first
be saved before the heathen could obtain any part in the Messianic
kingdom, and we have shown that this idea dominated primitive
Christianity ; and inseparable from this was the belief that the only
way to a participation in its benefits lay through Judaism. The
heathen could only obtain admission into the family of Israel, and
become partakers in the covenant, by submitting to the initiatory
rite. It was palpably under the influence of this view, and with a
conviction that the Messianic kingdom was primarily destined for
the children of Israel, that the elder Apostles, even after the date
of Paul's second visit to Jerusalem, continued to confine their
ministry "to the circumcision." Paul's view was very different.
He recognised and maintained the universality of the Gospel, and,
in resolving to go to the heathen, he practically repudiated the
very theory of Jewish preference which he is here supposed to
advance. If the Gospel, instead of being a power of God to
salvation to every man who believed, was for the Jew first, the
Apostolate of the Gentiles was a mere delusion and a snare.
What could be the advantage of so urgently offering salvation to
the Greek, if the gift, instead of being "for every one that
believeth," was a mere prospective benefit, inoperative until the
Jew had first been saved? "Salvation to the Jew first and also
to the Greek," if it have any significance whatever of the kind
argued involving either a prior claim to the offer of salvation or
1 Gal. iii. 26 f. * 76., v. 6.
734 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
precedence in its distribution so completely destroys all the
present interest in it of the Gentile, that the Gospel must to him
have lost all power. To suppose that such an expression simply
means that the Gospel must first be preached to the Jews in any
town to which the Apostle might come, before it could legitimately
be proclaimed to the Gentiles of that town, is childish. We have
no reason to suppose that Paul held the deputy Sergius Paulus,
who desired to hear the word of God and believed, in suspense
until the Jews of Paphos had rejected it. The cases of the
Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius throw no light upon any claim of
the Jew to priority in salvation. Indeed, not to waste time in
showing the utter incongruity of the ordinary interpretation, we
venture to affirm that there is not a single explanation, which
maintains a priority assigned to the Jew in any way justifying the
reference to this text, which is capable of supporting the slightest
investigation. If we linguistically examine the expression 'lavSahp
/cat "EXXijvi, we arrive at the same conclusion, that
is an interpolation, for we must maintain that irpwrov
with re and KOI must be applied equally both to " Jew " and
" Greek," and cannot rightly be appropriated to the Jew only, as
implying a preference over the Greek. The sense, therefore, can
only be properly and intelligibly given by disregarding TT/OWTOI/
and simply translating the words, " both to Jew and Greek." 1
This was the rendering of the ancient Latin version quoted by
Tertullian in his work against Marcion : " Itaque et hie, cum dirit :
Non enim me pudet evangelii, virtus enim dei est in salutem omni
credenti, Judao et Grceco, quia justitia dei in eo revelatur ex fide
in fidem." 2 We are not left without further examples of the
very same expression, and an examination of the context will
amply demonstrate that Paul used it in no other sense. In the
very next chapter the Apostle twice uses the same words. After
condemning the hasty and unrighteous judgment of man, he
says : " For we know that the judgment of God is according
to truth who will render to every one according to his works;
to them who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour
and incorruption, eternal life : but unto them that act out of
factious spirit and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness,
anger, and wrath : affliction and distress upon every soul of
man that worketh evil, both of Jew and of Greek ('lovSatov re
1 Beelen rightly interprets this passage in his Commentary on the Romans :
" Sensus ergo est : Evangelii dottrinam -on erubesco ; est hate enim (ykp) Dei
salvifaa qiuedam vis cuicumque qui credit (iravrl rip iriffrfvovTi. Dativus
commodi), sive Judteus sit, sive Gentilis" {Comment, in Epist. S. Pauli ad
Romanes, 1854, p. 23). So also Lipsius, Protestanlen Bibel, 1874, p. 494.
Lachmann puts the word wp&rov between brackets.*,
2 Adv. Marc. v. 13.
JEWISH PRECEDENCE OPPOSED TO PAUL'S GOSPEL 735
al "EAA/qvos, A. V. "of the Jew first, and also of the
Gentile ") ; but glory and honour and peace to every one that
worketh good, both to Jew and to Greek (Tov&uo) T*. (irpMrov) KOI
"EAAr/vi, A. V. ' to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile ").
For there is no respect of persons with God." 1 How is it possible
that, if the Apostle had intended to assert a priority of any kind
accorded to the Jew before the Gentile, he could at the same
time have added, "For there is no respect of persons with
God " ? If salvation be " to the Jew first," there is very distinctly
respect of persons with God. The very opposite, however, is
repeatedly and emphatically asserted by Paul in this very epistle.
" For there is no difference between Jew and Greek " (ov yap eo-nv
8ia.a-ToA.ri 'lovSaiov T Kal "KAAr/i/os), he says, "for the same Lord
of all is rich unto all them that call upon him. For whosoever
shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." 2 Here
we have the phrase without irpwrov. Nothing could be more
clear and explicit. The precedence of the Jew is directly
excluded. At the end of the second chapter, moreover, he
explains his idea of a Jew : " For he is not a Jew who is one
outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which is outwardly in
flesh, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is
of the heart, in spirit not letter." 3 If anything further were
required to prove that the Apostle does not by the expression,
TouScuw re (irpwrov) Kal "EAA^vi, intend to indicate any priority
accorded to the Jew, it is supplied by the commencement of
the third chapter. " What, then, is the advantage of the Jew ? or
what the profit of circumcision ?" It is obvious that, if the Apostle
had just said that the Gospel was the power of God unto salvation,
" to Jew first and also to Greek," he had stated a very marked
advantage to the Jew, and that such an inquiry as the above
would have been wholly unnecessary. The answer which he
gives to his own question, however, completes our certainty.
" Much every way," he replies ; but in explaining what the
" much " advantage was, we hear no more of " to Jew first ":
" Much every way : for first indeed they were entrusted with the
oracles of God." 4 And, after a few words, he proceeds : " What
then ? are we better ? Not at all ; for we before brought the
charge that both Jews and Greeks ('lou&uous T Kal "EA/VT/ras)
are all under sin." 5 Here, again, there is no TT/OWTOV. There can
be no doubt in the mind of anyone who understands what Paul's
teaching was, and what he means by claiming the special title of
"Apostle to the Gentiles," that in going "to the heathen " after
his visit to Jerusalem, as before it, there was no purpose in his
1 Rom. Ti. 2, 6-1 1. * 76., x. 12, 13. 3 /<*., ii. 28.
4 /., Hi. I. s /., iii. 9.
736 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
mind to preach to the Jews first, and only on being rejected by
them to turn to the Gentiles, as the Acts would have us
suppose ; but that the principle which regulated his proclamation
of the Gospel was that which we have already quoted : " For
there is no difference between Jew and Greek ; for the same
Lord of all is rich unto all them that call upon him. For
whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved." 1
Still more incongruous is the statement of the Acts that Paul
took Timothy and circumcised him because of the Jews. Accord-
ing to this narrative, shortly after the supposed Council of
Jerusalem, at which it was decided that circumcision of Gentile
converts was unnecessary ; immediately after Paul had, in spite of
great pressure, refused to allow Titus to be circumcised ; and after
it had been agreed between the Apostle of the Gentiles and James
and Cephas and John that, while they should go to the circumcision,
he, on the contrary, should go to the heathen, Paul actually took
and circumcised Timothy. Apologists, whilst generally admitting
the apparent contradiction, do not consider that this act involves
any real inconsistency, and find reasons which, they affirm, suffi-
ciently justify it. Some of these we shall presently examine, but
we may at once say that no apologetic arguments seem to us
capable of resisting the conclusion arrived at by many independent
critics, that the statement of the Acts with regard to Timothy is
opposed to all that we know of Paul's views, and that for unassail-
able reasons it must be pronounced unhistorical. The author of
the Acts says : " And he (Paul) came to Derbe and Lystra. And
behold a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, son of a
believing Jewish woman, but of a Greek father ; who was well
reported of by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium. Him would
Paul have to go forth with him ; and took and circumcised him
because of the Jews which were in those places (KCU
TrepiTefJ,ev avrov oia rovs 'loi.'&uovs roi's ovra<s ei'Tots
for they all knew that his father was a Greek (yScta-av yap
on "EXXTyv o Trarrjp avrov vTrrJpx*")'" 2 The principal arguments
of those who maintain the truth and consistency of this narrative
briefly are : Paul resisted the circumcision of Titus because he
was a Greek, and because the subject then actually under con-
sideration was the immunity from the Jewish rite of Gentile
Christians, which would have been prejudiced had he yielded the
point. On the other hand, Timothy was the son of a Jewish
mother, and, whilst there was no principle here in question, Paul
circumcised the companion whom he had chosen to accompany
him in his missionary journey, both as a recognition of his Jewish
\ *
1 Rom. x. 12, 13. 2 Acts xvi. 1-3.
THE CIRCUMCISION OF TIMOTHY 737
origin and to avoid offence to the Jews whom they should
encounter in the course of their ministry, as well as to secure for
him access to the synagogues which they must visit : Paul in this
instance, according to all Apologists, putting in practice his own
declaration (i Cor. ix. 19-20): "For being free from all men,
I made myself servant unto all that I might gain the more ;
and unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain
Jews."
It must be borne in mind that the author who chronicles the
supposed circumcision of Timothy makes no allusion to the refusal
of Paul to permit Titus to be circumcised ; an omission which is
not only singular in itself, but significant when we find him,
immediately after, narrating so singular a concession of which the
Apostle makes no mention. Of course it is clear that Paul could
not have consented to the circumcision of Titus, and we have only
to consider in what manner the case of Timothy differed so as to
support the views of those who hold that Paul, who would not
yield to the pressure brought to bear upon him in the case of
Titus, might, quite consistently, so short a time after, circumcise
Timothy with his own hand. It is true that the necessity of
circumcision for Gentile Christians came prominently into question,
during Paul's visit to Jerusalem, from the presence of his un-
circumcised follower Titus, and no doubt the abrogation of the
rite must have formed a striking part of the exposition of his
Gospel, which Paul tells us he made upon this occasion; but it is
equally certain that the necessity of circumcision long continued to
be pressed by the Judaistic party in the Church. It cannot fairly
be argued that, at any time, Paul could afford to relax his deter-
mined and consistent attitude as the advocate for the universality
of Christianity and the abrogation of a rite, insistence upon which,
he had been the first to recognise, would have been fatal to the
spread of Christianity. To maintain that he could safely make
such a concession of his principles and himself circumcise
Timothy, simply because at that precise moment there was no
active debate upon the point, is inadmissible ; for his Epistles
abundantly prove that the topic, if it ever momentarily subsided
into stubborn silence, was continually being revived with renewed
bitterness. Pauline views could never have prevailed if he had
been willing to sacrifice them for the sake of conciliation whenever
they were not actively attacked.
The difference of the occasion cannot be admitted as a valid
reason ; let us, therefore, see whether any difference in the persons
and circumstances removes the contradiction. It is argued that
such a difference exists in the fact that, whilst Titus was altogether
a Gentile, Timothy, on the side of his mother at least, was a Jew ;
and Thiersch, following a passage quoted by Wetstein, states that,
738 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
according to Talmudic prescriptions, the validity of mixed
marriages between a Jewess and a Gentile was only recognised
upon the condition that the children should be brought up in the
religion of the mother. In this case, he argues, Paul merely
carried out the requirement of the Jewish law by circumcising
Timothy, which others had omitted to do, and thus secured his
admission to the Jewish synagogues to which much of his ministry
was directed, but from which he would have been excluded had
the rite not been performed. 1 Even Meyer, however, in reference
to this point, replies that Paul could scarcely be influenced by the
Talmudic canon, because Timothy was already a Christian and
beyond Judaism. 2 Besides, in point of fact, by such a marriage
the Jewess had forfeited Jewish privileges. Timothy, in the eyes
of the Mosaic law, was not a Jew, and held, in reality, no better
position than the Greek Titus. He had evidently been brought
up as a Gentile, and the only question which could arise in regard
to him was whether he must first become a Jew before he could
be fully recognised as a Christian. The supposition that the
circumcision of Timothy, the son of a Greek, after he had actually
become a Christian without having passed through Judaism, could
secure for him free access to the synagogues of the Jews, may show
how exceedingly slight at that time was the difference between the
Jew and the Christian, but it also suggests the serious doubt
whether the object of the concession, in the mind of the author of
the Acts, was not rather to conciliate the Judaic Christians than
to represent the act as one of policy towards the unbelieving Jews..
The statement of the Acts is that Paul circumcised Timothy
" because of the Jews which were in those places ; for they all
knew that his father was a Greek." If the reason which we are dis-
cussing were correct, the expression would more probably have
been, " for they knew that his mother was a Jewess." The Greek
father might, and probably did, object to the circumcision of his
son, but that was no special reason why Paul should circumcise
him. On the other hand, the fact that the Jews knew that his
father was a Greek made the action attributed to Paul a concession
which the author of the Acts thus represented in its most concilia-
tory light. The circumcision of Timothy was clearly declared un-
necessary by the apostolic decree, for the attempt to show that he
was legitimately regarded as a Jew utterly fails. It is obvious that,
according to Pauline doctrine, there could be no obligation for
anyone who adopted Christianity to undergo this initiatory rite.
1 Die Kirche im ap. Z., 138. Ewald similarly argues that Paul circumcised
Timothy to remove the stigma attaching to him as the child of such a mixed
marriage (Gesch. V. Isr., vi. 445 ; Jahrb. Bibt.* Wiss., 1857-58, ix., p. 64).
" Apostelg,, p. 354.
CONTRARY TO PAUL'S PRINCIPLES 739
It is impossible reasonably to maintain that any case has been
made out to explain why Timothy, who had grown into manhood
without being circumcised, and had become a Christian whilst un-
circumcised, should at that late period be circumcised. Beyond
the reference to a Talmudic prescription, in fact, which, even if he
knew it, could not possibly have been recognised by Paul as
authoritative, there has not been a serious attempt made to show
that the case of Timothy presents exceptional features reconciling
the contradiction otherwise admitted as apparent.
The whole apologetic argument, in fact, sinks into one of mere
expediency : Timothy, the son of a Jewess and of a Greek, and
thus having a certain affinity both to Jews and Gentiles, would
become a much more efficient assistant to Paul if he were circum-
cised and thus had access to the Jewish synagogues ; therefore
Paul, who himself became as a Jew that he might win the Jews,
demanded the same sacrifice from his follower. But can this
argument bear any scrutiny by the light of Paul's own writings ?
It cannot. Paul openly claims to be the Apostle of the Gentiles,
and just before the period at which he is supposed to circumcise
Timothy he parts from the elder Apostles with the understanding
that he is to go to the Gentiles who are freed from circumcision.
It is a singular commencement of his mission, to circumcise the
son of a Greek father after he had become a Christian. Such
supposed considerations about access to synagogues and concilia-
tion of the Jews would seem more suitable to a missionary to the
circumcision than to the Apostle of the Gentiles. It must be
apparent to all that in going more specially to the Gentiles, as he
avowedly was, the 'alleged expediency of circumcising Timothy
falls to the ground, and, on the contrary, that such an act would
have compromised his whole Gospel. Paul's characteristic teach-
ing was the inutility of circumcision, and upon this point he sus-
tained the incessant attacks of the emissaries of James and the
Judaistic party without yielding or compromise. What could have
been more ill-advised under such circumstances than the circum-
cision with his own hands of a convert who, if the son of a Jewess,
was likewise tfhe son of a Greek, and had remained uncircumcised
until he had actually embraced that faith which, Paul taught,
superseded circumcision ? The Apostle who declared : " Behold,
I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ will profit
you nothing," 1 could not have circumcised the Christian Timothy;
and if any utterance of Paul more distinctly and explicitly applic-
able to the present case be required, it is aptly supplied by the
following : " Was any man called being circumcised ? let him
not become uncircumcised. Hath any man been called in
1 Gal. v. 2.
740 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
uncircumcision ? let him not be circumcised Let each abide
in the same calling wherein he was called." 1
Apologists quote very glibly the saying of Paul, " Unto the
Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews," as sufficiently
justifying the act which we are considering ; but it is neither
applicable to the case, nor is the passage susceptible of such inter-
pretation. The special object of Paul at that time, according to
his own showing, 2 was not to gain Jews, but to gain Gentiles ; and
the circumcision of Timothy would certainly not have tended to
gain Gentiles. If we quote the whole passage from which the
above is extracted, the sense at once becomes clear and different
from that assigned to it : " For being free from all men, I made
myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more ; and unto the
Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews ; to them under
law, as under law, not being myself under law, that I might gain
them under law ; to them without law, as without law not being
v/ithout law to God, but under law to Christ that I might gain
them without law ; to the weak I became weak, that I might gain
the weak ; I am become all things to all men, that I may by all
means save some. And all things I do for the Gospel's sake, that
I may become a partaker thereof with them. "3 It is clear that a
man who could become " all things to all men," in the sense of
yielding any point of principle, must be considered without
principle at all, and no one could maintain that Paul was apt to
concede principles. Judged by his own statements, indeed, his
character was the very reverse of this. There is no shade of con-
ciliation when he declares : " But though we, or an angel from
heaven, should preach any Gospel unto you ' other than that we
preached unto you, let him be accursed For am I now making
men my friends, or God ? or am I seeking to please men ? If I
were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ." 4
The Gospel of which he speaks, and which he protests " is not
after men," but received " through a revelation of Jesus Christ," 5
is that Gospel which Paul preached among the Gentiles, and which
proclaimed the abrogation of the law and of circumcision. Paul
might in one sense say that " circumcision is nothing, and uncir-
cumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God "; 6
but such a statement, simply intended to express that there was
neither merit in the one nor in the other, clearly does not apply to
the case before us, and no way lessens the force of the words we
have quoted above : " If ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you
nothing." In Paul such a concession would have been in the
highest degree a sacrifice of principle, and one which he not only
1 i Cor. vii. 18, 20. - Gal. ii. 9. 3 j Cor. ix. 19-23.
4 Gal. i. 8, 10. s Ib. t i. 11, 12. 6 i Cor. vii. 19.
PAUL'S CONDUCT IN ACTS UNHISTORICAL 741
refused to make in the case of Titus, "that the truth of the
Gospel might abide," but equally maintained in the face of the
pillar Apostles, when he left them and returned to the Gentiles
whilst they went back to the circumcision. Paul's idea of being
"all things to all men " is illustrated by his rebuke to Peter once
more to refer to the scene at Antioch. Peter apparently practised
a little of that conciliation which Apologists, defending the unknown
author of the Acts at the expense of Paul, consider to be the
sense of the Apostle's words. Paul repudiated such an inference,
by withstanding Peter to the face as condemned, and guilty of
hypocrisy. Paul became all things to all men by considering
their feelings, and exhibiting charity and forbearance, in matters
indifferent. He was careful not to make his liberty a stumbling
block to the weak. " If food maketh my brother to offend, I will
eat no flesh for ever lest I make my brother to offend." 1 Self-
abnegation in the use of enlightened liberty, however, is a very
different thing from the concession of a rite, which it was the
purpose of his whole Gospel to discredit, and the labour of his
life to resist. Once more we repeat that the narrative of the Acts
regarding the circumcision of Timothy is contradictory to the
character and teaching of Paul as ascertained from his Epistles,
and, like so many other portions of that work which we have
already examined, must be rejected as unhistorical.
We have already tested the narrative of the author of the Acts
by the statements of Paul in the first two chapters of the Galatians
at such length that, although the subject is far from exhausted, we
must not proceed further. We think that there can be no doubt
that the role assigned to the Apostle Paul in Acts xv. is unhis-
torical, and it is unnecessary for us to point out the reasons which
led the writer to present him in such subdued colours. We must,
however, before finally leaving the subject, very briefly point out
a few circumstances which throw a singular light upon the relations
which actually existed between Paul and the elder Apostles, and
tend to show their real, if covert, antagonism to the Gospel of the
uncircumcision. We may at the outset remark, in reference to an
objection frequently made that Paul does not distinctly refer to
the Apostles as opposing his teaching, and does not personally
attack them that such a course would have been suicidal in the
Apostle of the Gentiles, whilst on the other hand it could not but
have hindered the acceptance of his Gospel, for which he was ever
ready to endure so much. The man who wrote, "If it be possible,
as much as dependeth on you be at peace with all men," 2 could
well be silent in such a cause. Paul, in venturing to preach the
Gospel of the uncircumcision, laboured under the singular
1 I Cor. viii. 13. 2 Rom. xiii. 18.
742 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
disadvantage of not having, like the Twelve, been an immediate
disciple of the Master. He had been " as the one born out of
due time," 1 and although he claimed that his Gospel had not been
taught to him by man, but had been received by direct revelation
from Jesus, there can be no doubt that his apostolic position was
constantly assailed. The countenance of the elder Apostles, even
if merely tacit, was of great importance to the success of his work ;
and he felt this so much that, as he himself states, he went up to
Jerusalem to communicate to them the Gospel which he preached
among the Gentiles, " lest by any means I might be running or
did run in vain." 2 Any open breach between them would have
frustrated his labours. Had Paul been in recognised enmity with
the Twelve who had been selected as his special disciples by the
Master, and been repudiated and denounced by them, it is
obvious that his position would have been a precarious one. He
had no desire for schism. His Gospel, besides, was merely a
development of that of the elder Apostles ; and, however much
they might resent his doctrine of the abrogation of the law and
of the inutility of circumcision, they could still regard his Gentile
converts as at least in some sort Proselytes of the Gate. With
every inducement to preserve peace if by any means possible, and
to suppress every expression of disagreement with the Twelve, it
is not surprising that we find so little direct reference to the elder
Apostles in his epistles. During his visit to Jerusalem he did not
succeed in converting them to his views. They still limited their
ministry to the circumcision, and he had to be content with a tacit
consent to his work amongst the heathen. But although we have
no open utterance of his irritation, the suppressed impatience of
his spirit, even at the recollection of the incidents of his visit,
betrays itself in abrupt sentences, unfinished expressions, and
grammar which breaks down' in the struggle of repressed emotion.
We have already said enough regarding his ironical references to
those " who seem to be something," to the "overmuch Apostles,"
and we need not again point to the altercation between Paul and
Cephas at Antioch, and the strong language used by the former.
Nothing is more certain than the fact that, during his whole
career, the Apostle Paul had to contend with systematic opposition
from the Judaic Christian party; and the only point regarding
which there is any difference of opinion is the share in this taken
by the Twelve. As we cannot reasonably expect to find any plain
statement of this in the writings of the Apostle, we are forced to
take advantage of such indications as can be discovered. Upon
one point we are not left in doubt. The withdrawal of Peter and
the others at Antioch from communion with the Gentile Christians,
and, consequently, from the side of Paul, Vas owing to the arrival
1 Gal. ii. 2. 2 I Cor. xv. 8.
THE CORINTHIAN PARTIES 743
of certain men from James, for the Apostle expressly states so.
No surprise is expressed, however, at the effect produced by these
rives d-iro 'laKM^ov, and the clear inference is that they repre-
sented the views of a naturally antagonistic party an inference
which is in accordance with all that we elsewhere read of James.
It is difficult to separate the rives airb 'laKufiov from the rives
of the preceding chapter (i. 7) who " trouble " the Galatians, and
" desire to pervert the Gospel of Christ," asserting the necessity of
circumcision, against whom the Epistle is directed. Again we
meet with the same vague and cautious designation of Judaistic
opponents in his second Epistle to the Corinthians (iii. i), where
" some" (rives) bearers of "letters of commendation " (crvo-ran/oSv
eTTwrroAwv), from persons unnamed, were attacking the Apostle
and endeavouring to discredit his teaching. By whom were these
letters written ? We cannot, of course, give an authoritative reply,
but, we may ask, by whom could letters of commendation posses-
sing an authority which could have weight against that of Paul be
written, except by the elder Apostles ? We have certain evidence
in the first Epistle to the Corinthians that parties had arisen in the
Church of Corinth in opposition to Paul. These parties were
distinguished, as the Apostle himself states, by the cries, " I am of
Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ " l (eyo>
juev ei/Ai IlavXov, eya> 8e 'A.iro\\(i), eyw Se K.r]<f>a, eyd> 8e X/Dwrrcw).
Whatever differences of opinion there may be as to the precise
nature of these parties, there can be no doubt that both the party
"of Cephas" and the party "of Christ" held strong Judaistic
views, and assailed the teaching of Paul and his Apostolic
authority. It is very evident that the persons to whom the Apostle
refers in connection with " letters of commendation" were of these
parties.
Apologists argue that " in claiming Cephas as the head of their
party they had probably neither more nor less ground than their
rivals, who sheltered themselves under the names of Apollos and
of Paul." 2 It is obvious, however, that, in a Church founded by
Paul, there could have been no party created with the necessity to
take his name as their watchword, except as a reply to another
party which, having intruded itself, attacked him, and forced
those who maintained the views of their own Apostle to raise
such a counter cry. The parties " of Cephas " and " of Christ "
were manifestly aggressive, intruding themselves, as the Apostle
complains, into "other men's labours"^ and this, in some manner,
seems to point to that convention between the Apostle and the
1 Cor. i. 12.
Lightfoot, Sf. Paul's Ep. to the Galatians, 1874, p. 355.
2 Cor. x. 13 f.
744 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Three that he should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circum-
cision which, barely more than passive neutrality at the beginning,
soon became covertly antagonistic. The fact that the party " of
Paul " was not an organised body, so to say, directed by the
Apostle as a party leader, in no way renders it probable that the
party of Cephas, which carried on active and offensive measures,
had not much more ground in claiming Cephas as their head.
One point is indisputable, that no party ever claims any man as
its leader who is not clearly associated with the views it maintains.
The party " of Cephas," representing Judaistic views, opposing the
teaching of Paul and joining in denying his Apostolic claims, cer-
tainly would not have taken Peter's name as their watch-cry if he had
been known to hold and express such Pauline sentiments as are
put into his mouth in the Acts, or had not, on the contrary, been
intimately identified with Judaistic principles. Religious parties
may very probably mistake the delicate details of a leader's teach-
ing, but they can scarcely be wrong in regard to his general
principles. If Peter had been so unfortunate as to be flagrantly
misunderstood by his followers, and, whilst this party preached in
his name Judaistic doctrines and anti-Pauline opinions, the Apostle
himself advocated the abrogation of the law as a burden which the
Jews themselves were not able to bear, and actively shared Pauline
convictions, is it possible to suppose that Paul would not have
pointed out the absurdity of such a party claiming such a
leader ?
The fact is, however, that Paul never denies the claim of those
who shelter themselves under the names of Peter and James,
never questions their veracity, and never adopts the simple and
natural course of stating that, in advancing these names, they are
impostors or mistaken. On the contrary, upon all occasions he
evidently admits, by his silence, the validity of the claim. We are
not left to mere inference that the adopted head actually
shared the views of the party. Paul himself distinguishes Peter
as the leader of the party of the circumcision in a passage in
his letter to the Galatians already frequently referred to, 1 and the
episode at Antioch confirms the description, and leaves no doubt
that Peter's permanent practice was to force the Gentiles to
Judaise. For reasons which we have already stated, Paul could
not but have desired to preserve peace, or even the semblance of
it, with the elder Apostles, for the Gospel's sake ; and he, there-
fore, wisely leaves them as much as possible out of the question
and- deals with their disciples. It is obvious that policy must have
dictated such a course. By ignoring the leaders and attacking
their followers, he suppressed the chief strength of his opponents
\
1 Gal. ii. 7 f.
PAUL AND THE TWELVE 745
and kept out of sight the most formidable argument against him-
self the concurrence with them of the elder Apostles. On the
one hand, the Epistles of Paul bear no evidence of any active
sympathy and co-operation with his views and work on the part of
the elder Apostles. On the other, Paul is everywhere assailed by
Judaistic adversaries who oppose his Gospel and deny his Apostle-
ship, and who claim as their leaders the elder Apostles.
If, even without pressing expressions to their extreme and
probable point, we take the contrast drawn between his own
Gospel and that of the circumcision, the reality of the antagonism
must be apparent. " For we are not as the many (ot TroAAoi 1 )
which adulterate the word of God ; but as of sincerity, but as of
God, before God, speak we in Christ." 2 Later on in the letter,
after referring to the intrusion of the opposite party into the circle
of his labours, Paul declares that his impatience and anxiety pro-
ceed from godly jealousy at the possible effect of the Judaistic
intruders upon the Corinthians. " But I fear, lest by any means,
as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, your thoughts
should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is in
Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus whom we
did not preach, or if ye receive another spirit which ye received
not, or another Gospel which ye did not accept, ye bear well with
him. For I think I am not a whit behind the overmuch Apostles
(TWV vTrepXiav a7rocrToAa>v)."3 This reference to the elder
Apostles gives point to much of the Epistle that is ambiguous,
and more especially when the Judaistic nature of the opposition is
so clearly indicated a few verses further on : " Are they Hebrews ?
so am I. Are they Israelites ? so am I. Are they Abraham's seed?
so am I. Are they ministers of Christ ? (I speak as a fool), I am
more; in labours more abundantly, in prisons exceedingly, in
deaths often," etc.*
It is argued that the Twelve had not sufficient authority over
their followers to prevent such interference with Paul, and that the
relation of the Apostle to the Twelve was : " Separation, not
opposition, antagonism of the followers rather than of the leaders,
personal antipathy of the Judaisers to St Paul, rather than of St.
Paul to the Twelve."* It is not difficult to believe that the anti-
pathy of Paul to the Judaisers was less than that felt by them
1 Although this reading is supported by the oldest MSS. such as A, B, C, K, fc},
and others, the reading ot Xonroi, "the rest," stands in D, E, F, G, I, and a large
number of other codices, and is defended by many critics as the original, which
they argue was altered to ol Tro\\ol, to soften the apparent hardness of such an
expression, which would seem to imply that Paul declared himself the sole true
exponent of the Gospel.
2 2 Cor. ii. 17. 3 if,., xi. 2-5 ; cf. Gal. i. 6 f. 4 2 Cor. xi. 22 f.
5 Jowett, The Efs. of St. Paul, 1855, i., pp. 326, 339.
746 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
towards him. The superiority of the man must have rendered him
somewhat callous to such dislike. 1 But the mitigated form of
difference between Paul and the Twelve here assumed, although
still very different from the representations of the Acts, cannot be
established, but, on the contrary, must be much widened before it
can justly be taken as that existing between Paul and the elder
Apostles. We do not go so far as to say that there was open
enmity between them, or active antagonism of any distinct
character on the part of the Twelve to the Apostle of the Gentiles ;
but there is every reason to believe that they not only disliked his
teaching, but endeavoured to counteract it by their own ministry
of the circumcision. They not only did not restrain the opposition
of their followers, but they abetted them in their counter-assertion
of Judaistic views. Had the Twelve felt any cordial friendship for
Paul, and exhibited any active desire for the success of his ministry
of the uncircumcision, it is quite impossible that his work could
have been so continuously and vexatiously impeded by the
persecution of the Jewish Christian party. The Apostles may not
have possessed sufficient influence or authority entirely to control
the action of adherents, but it would be folly to suppose that, if
unanimity of views had prevailed between them and Paul, and a
firm and consistent support had been extended to him, such
systematic resistance as he everywhere encountered from the party
professing to be led by the " pillar " Apostles could have been
seriously maintained, or that he could have been left alone and
unaided to struggle against it. If the relations between Paul and
the Twelve had been such as are intimated in the Acts of the
Apostles, his Epistles must have presented undoubted evidence of
the fact. Both negatively and positively they testify the absence
of all support, and the existence of antagonistic influence on the
part of the elder Apostles; and external evidence fully confirms the
impression which the Epistles produce. 2
1 We do not think it worth while to refer to the argument that the collections
made by Paul for the poor of Jerusalem, etc. , in times of distress prove the
unanimity which prevailed between them. Charity is not a matter of doctrine,
and the Good Samaritan does not put the suffering man through his catechism
before he relieves his wants.
2 " Everywhere in the Epistles of St. Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles
we find traces of an opposition between the Jew and the Gentile, the circum-
cision and the uncircumcision. It is found not only in the Epistle to the
Galatians, but in a scarcely less aggravated form in the two Epistles to the
Corinthians, softened, indeed, in the Epistle to the Romans, and yet distinctly
traceable in the Epistle to the Philippians ; the party of the circumcision
appearing to triumph in Asia, at the very close of the Apostle's life, in the
second Epistle to Timothy. In all these Epistles we have proofs of a reaction
to Judaism ; but, though they are addressed to ChuVches chiefly of Gentile origin,
never of a reaction to heathenism. Could this have been the case unless
within the Church itself there had been a Jewish party urging upon the members
DENUNCIATION OF PAUL IN APOCALYPSE 747
From any point of view which may be taken, the Apocalypse is
an important document in connection with this point. If it be
accepted as a work of the Apostle John the preponderance of
evidence and critical opinion assigns it to him this book, of
course, possesses the greatest value as an indication of his views.
If it be merely regarded as a contemporary writing, it still is most
interesting as an illustration of the religious feeling of the period.
The question is : Does the Apocalypse contain any reference to
the Apostle Paul, or throw light upon the relations between him
and the elder Apostles ? If it do so, and be the work of one of
the orGAot, nothing obviously could be more instructive. In the
messages to the seven churches there are references and denuncia-
tions which, in the opinion of many able critics, are directed
against the Apostle of the Gentiles and his characteristic teaching.
Who but Paul and his followers can be referred to in the Epistle
to the Church of Ephesus : " I know thy works, and thy labour,
and thy patience, and that thou canst not bear wicked persons :
and didst try them which say they are Apostles and are not, and
didst find them liars"? 1 Paul himself informs us not only of his
sojourn in Ephesus, where he believed that "a great and effectual
door" was opened to him, but adds, "there are many adversaries "
(avTiKf.ip.evoL TroAXot). 2 The foremost charge brought against
the churches is that they have those that hold the teaching of
Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the
sons of Israel, " to eat things offered unto idols."3 The teaching of
of the Church the performance of a rite repulsive in itself, if not as necessary to
salvation, at any rate as a counsel of perfection, seeking to make them in Jewish
language, not merely proselytes of the gate, but proselytes of righteousness ?
What, if not this, is the reverse side of the Epistles of St. Paul ? that is to say,
the motives, object, or basis of teaching of his opponents, who came with
' epistles of commendation ' to the Church of Corinth (2 Cor. iii. i) ; who pro-
fess themselves ' to be Christ's' in a special sense (2 Cor. x. 7) ; who say they
are of Apollos, or Cephas, or Christ (i Cor. i. 12) ; or James (Gal. id. 12) ; who
preach Christ of contention (Phil. i. 15, 17) ; who deny St. Paul's authority
(i Cor. ix. i, Gal. iv. 16) ; who slander his life (i Cor. ix. 3,7). We meet
these persons at every turn. Are they the same, or different ? Are they mere
chance opponents, or do they represent to us one spirit, one mission, one
determination to root out the Apostle and his docfrine from the Christian Church?
Nothing but the fragmentary character of St. Paul's writings could conceal from
us the fact that here was a concerted and continuous opposition " (Jowett, The
Eps. of St. Paul, i., p. 332 f.).
1 ii. 2. 2 i Cor. xvi. 9.
3 Apoc. ii. 14, 20. We do not enter upon the discussion as to the exact
interpretation of wopvev<rai, always associated with the (f>ayc'iv eldw\60vra,
regarding which opinions differ very materially. It is probable that the
Apocalyptist connected the eating of things offered to idols with actual
idolatrous worship. It is not improbable that the maxim of Paul, "all things
are lawful unto me" (iravra /JLOI ^fcrnv), I Cor. vi. 12, x. 23, may have been
abused by his followers; and, in any case, such a sentiment, coupled with Paul's
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Paul upon this point is well known, i Cor. viii. i f., x. 25 f., Rom.
xiv. 2 f., and the reference here cannot be mistaken ; and when in
the Epistle to the Church of Thyatira, after denouncing the teach-
ing " to eat things offered unto idols," the Apocalyptist goes on to
encourage those who have not this teaching, " who knew not the
depths of Satan (TO, /Sddrj rov a-arava), 1 as they say " the ex-
pression of Paul himself is taken to denounce his doctrine ; for the
Apostle, defending himself against the attacks of those parties " of
Cephas " and " of Christ " in Corinth, writes : " But God revealed
(them) to us through his Spirit ; for the Spirit searcheth all things,
even the depths of God " (rot /3d6ij TOV Beov) " the depths of
Satan" rather, retorts trie Judaistic author of the Apocalypse.
TU fidOi) does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament.
Again, in the address to the Churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia,
when the writer denounces those " who say that they are Jews, and
are not, but a -synagogue of Satan," 2 whom has he in view but
those Christians whom Paul had taught to consider circumcision
unnecessary and the law abrogated ? We find Paul, in the Epistle
to the Corinthians, so often quoted, obliged to defend himself
against these Judaising parties upon this very point: "Are they
Hebrews ? so am I. Are they Israelites ? so am I. Are they
Abraham's seed? so am I. "3 It is manifest that his adversaries
had vaunted their own Jewish origin as a title of superiority over
the Apostle of the Gentiles.
We have, however, further evidence of the same attack
upon Paul regarding this point. Epiphanius points out that
the Ebionites denied that Paul was a Jew, and asserted that
he was born of a Gentile father and mother, but that, having
gone up to Jerusalem, he became a proselyte and submitted
to circumcision in the hope of marrying a daughter of the high
priest. But afterwards, according to them, enraged at not secur-
ing the maiden for his wife, Paul wrote against circumcision and
the Sabbath and the law.* The Apostle Paul, whose constant
labour it was to destroy the particularism of the Jew and raise the
Gentile to full, free, and equal participation with him in the
benefits of the New Covenant, could not but incur the bitter dis-
pleasure of the Apocalyptist, for whom the Gentiles were, as such,
the type of all that was common and unclean. In the utterances
of the seer of Patmos we seem to hear the expression of all that
teaching and his abandonment of the Law, must have appeared absolute licence
to the Judaistic party. We must also pass over the discussion regarding the
signification of " Balaam." The Nicolaitans are not only classed as followers
of the teaching of Balaam, but as adherents of Paul.
1 Apoc., ii. 24. This is the reading of fr$, P, an/1 some other codices ; A, B,
C, read rb. fadta..
2 Apoc., ii. 9, iii. 9. 3 2 Cor. xi. 22 ; cf. Philip, iii. 4 f. 4 ITizr., xxx. 16.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIANITY 749
Judaistic hatred and opposition which pursued the Apostle who
laid the axe to the root of Mosaism, and, in his efforts to free
Christianity from trammels which, more than any other, retarded
its triumphant development, aroused against himself all the
virulence of Jewish illiberality and prejudice. The results
at which we have arrived might be singularly confirmed by
an examination of the writings of the first two centuries, and
by observing the attitude assumed towards the Apostle of the
Gentiles by such men as Justin Martyr, Papias, Hegesippus, and
the author of the Clementines ; but we have already devoted too
much space to this subject, and here we must reluctantly leave it.
' The steps by which Christianity was gradually freed from the
trammels of Judaism, and became a religion of unlimited range
and universal fitness, were clearly not those stated in the Acts
of the Apostles. Its emancipation from Mosaism was not
effected by any liberal action or enlightened guidance on the
part of the elder Apostles. At the death of their Master the
Twelve remained closely united to Judaism, and evidently were
left without any understanding that Christianity was a new
religion which must displace Mosaic institutions, and replace
the unbearable yoke of the law by the divine liberty of the
Gospel. To the last moment regarding which we have any
trustworthy information, the Twelve, as might have been expected,
retained all their early religious customs and all their Jewish
prejudices. They were simply Jews believing that Jesus was
the Messiah ; and if the influence of Paul enlarged their views
upon some minor points, we have no reason to believe that
they ever abandoned their belief in the continued obligation of
the law, and the necessity of circumcision for full participation
in the benefits of the Covenant. The author of the Acts would
have us believe that they required no persuasion, but anticipated
Paul in the gospel of uncircumcision.
It is not within the scope of this work to inquire how
Paul originally formed his views of Christian universalism.
Once formed, it is easy to understand how rapidly they
must have been developed and confirmed by experience
amongst the Gentiles. Whilst the Twelve still remained
in the narrow circle of Judaism and could not be moved
beyond the ministry of the circumcision, Paul, in the larger and
freer field of the world, must daily have felt more convinced
that the abrogation of the law and the abandonment of circumci-
sion were essential to the extension of Christianity amongst the
Gentiles. He had no easy task, however, to convince others of
this, and he never succeeded in bringing his elder colleagues over
to his views. To the end of his life Paul had to contend with
bigoted and narrow-minded opposition within the Christian body,
750 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
and if his views ultimately triumphed, and the seed which he
sowed eventually yielded a rich harvest, he himself did not
live to see the day, and the end was attained only by slow
and natural changes. The new religion gradually extended
beyond the limits of Judaism. Gentile Christians soon out-
numbered Jewish believers. The Twelve whose names were
the strength of the Judaistic opposition one by one passed
away ; but, above all, the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of
the Christian community secured the success of Pauline principles
and the universalism of Christianity. The Church of Jerusalem
could not bear transplanting. In the uncongenial soil of Fella
it gradually dwindled away, losing first its influence and, soon
after, its nationality. The divided members of the Jewish party,
scattered amongst the Gentiles, and deprived of their influential
leaders, could not long retard the progress of the liberalism
which they still continued to oppose and to misrepresent. In
a word, the emancipation of Christianity was not effected by the
Twelve, was no work of councils, and no result of dreams ; but,
receiving its first great impulse from the genius and the energy of
Paul, its ultimate achievement was the result of time and natural
development.
We have now patiently considered the " Acts of the Apostles,"
and although it has in no way been our design exhaustively to
examine its contents, we have more than sufficiently done so to
enable the reader to understand the true character of the document.
The author is unknown, and it is no longer possible to identify
him. If he were actually the Luke whom the Church indicates,
our results would not be materially affected ; but the mere fact
that the writer is unknown is obviously fatal to the Acts as a
guarantee of miracles. A cycle of supernatural occurrences could
scarcely, in the estimation of any rational mind, be established by
the statement of an anonymous author, and more especially one
who not only does not pretend to have been an eye-witness of most
of the miracles, but whose narrative is either uncorroborated by
other testimony or inconsistent with itself, and contradicted on
many points by contemporary documents.
The phenomena presented by the Acts of the Apostles
become perfectly intelligible when we recognise that it is the
work of a writer living long after the occurrences related, whose
pious imagination furnished the Apostolic age with an elaborate
system of supernatural agency, far beyond the conception of
any other New Testament writer, by which, according to his
view, the proceedings of the Apostles were furthered and directed,
and the infant Church miraculously fostered. On examining
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES NOT HISTORICAL 751
other portions of his narrative, we find that they present the
features which the miraculous elements rendered antecedently
probable. The speeches attributed to different speakers are
all cast in the same mould, and betray the composition of one
and the same writer. The sentiments expressed are inconsistent
with what we know of the various speakers, and when we
test the circumstances related by previous or subsequent inci-
dents and by trustworthy documents, it becomes apparent that
the narrative is not an impartial statement of facts, but a repro-
duction of legends or a development of tradition, shaped and
coloured according to the purpose or the pious views of the
writer.
Our comparison of passages of his two works with the writings
of the Jewish historian Josephus seems to us to prove that the
date at which the author of the third Synoptic and the Acts of the
Apostles composed those works must be set at least at the begin-
ning of the second century, and he is thus so far removed from
the events which he chronicles that there is ample room, if not
necessity, for the exercise of imagination in narrating the career
of the Apostles who are supposed to carry on the work of Jesus
after his death. In the third Gospel he had, certainly, the records
of earlier writers, to whom he refers in his opening lines, to guide
him ; and here his exaggeration is not so extreme as it became
after he proceeded to relate the course of Christianity, when Peter,
James, and John extended their missionary labours, and Paul
became the eloquent Apostle of the Gentiles. The Acts of the
Apostles, composed with more unfettered imagination, bears none
of the marks of sober veracity. The Epistles of Paul enable us
to correct his statements and to recognise his zealous, but
ineffectual, efforts to harmonise the teaching of the elder Apostles,
to whom Christianity was still merely a development of Judaism,
with the new and enlarged doctrines of the Apostle of the Uncir-
cumcision, which transformed the Mosaic precepts into a universal
religion.
Written by an author who was not an eye-witness of the miracles
related; who describes events not as they really occurred, but as
his pious imagination supposed they ought to have occurred ; who
seldom touches history without distorting it by legend, until the
original elements can scarcely be distinguished ; who puts his own
words and sentiments into the mouths of the Apostles and other
persons of his narrative ; and who represents almost every phase
of the Church in the Apostolic age as influenced, or directly pro-
duced, by supernatural agency such a work is of no value as
evidence for occurrences which are in contradiction to all
experience. The Acts of the Apostles, therefore, is not only an
anonymous work, but upon due examination its claims to be
752 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
considered sober and veracious history must be emphatically
rejected. It cannot strengthen the foundations of supernatural
religion, but, on the contrary, by its profuse and indiscriminate
use of the miraculous it discredits miracles, and affords a clearer
insight into their origin and fictitious character.
PART V.
THE DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
CHAPTER I.
THE EPISTLES AND THE APOCALYPSE
TURNING from the Acts of the Apostles to the other works of the
New Testament, we shall be able very briefly to dispose of the
Catholic Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse.
The so-called Epistles of James, Jude, and John do not contain
any evidence which, even supposing them to be authentic, really
bears upon our inquiry into the reality of miracles and Divine
Revelation ; and the testimony of the Apocalypse affects it quite
as little. We have already, in examining the fourth Gospel, had
occasion to say a good deal regarding both the so-called Epistles
of John and the Apocalypse. It is unnecessary to enter upon a
more minute discussion of them here. * " Seven books of the New
Testament," writes Dr. Westcott, " as is well known, have been
received into the Canon on evidence less complete than that by
which the others are supported." 1 These are " the Epistles of
James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, to the Hebrews, and the
Apocalypse." We have already furnished the means of judging of
the nature of the evidence upon which some of the other books
have been received into the Canon, and, the evidence for most of
these being avowedly " less complete," its nature may be con-
ceived. Works which for a long period were classed amongst the
Antilegomena, or disputed books, and which only slowly acquired
authority as, in the lapse of time, it became more difficult to
examine their claims, could not do much to establish the reality of
miracles. With regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, we may
remark that we are freed from any need to deal at length with it,
not only by the absence of any specific evidence in its contents,
but by the following consideration. If the Epistle be not by Paul
and it not only is not his, but does not even pretend to be so
1 On the Canon, 4th ed., p. 347.
753 3C
754 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the author is unknown, and therefore the document has no weight
as testimony. On the other hand, if assigned to Paul, we shall
have sufficient ground in his genuine Epistles for considering the
evidence of the Apostle, and it could not add anything even if the
Epistle to the Hebrews were included in the number.
The first Epistle of Peter might have required more detailed
treatment, but we think that little could be gained by demonstra-
ting that the document is not authentic, or showing that, in any
case, the evidence which it could furnish is not of any value. On
the other hand, we are averse to protract the argument by any
elaboration of mere details which can be avoided. If it could be
absolutely proved that the Apostle Peter wrote the Epistle circu-
lating under his name, the evidence for miracles would only be
strengthened by the fact that, incidentally, the doctrine of the
Resurrection of Jesus is maintained. No historical details are
given, and no explanation of the reasons for which the writer
believed in it. Nothing more would be proved than the point
that Peter himself believed in the Resurrection. It would certainly
be a matter of very deep interest if we possessed a narrative
written by the Apostle himself, giving minute and accurate details
of the phenomena in consequence of which he believed in so
miraculous an event ; but since this Epistle does nothing more
than allow us to infer the personal belief of the writer, unaccom-
panied by corroborative evidence, we should not gain anything by
accepting it as genuine. We are quite willing to assume, without
further examination, that the Apostle Peter in some way believed
in the Resurrection of his Master. For the argument regarding
the reality of that stupendous miracle, upon which we are
about to enter, this is tantamount to assuming the authenticity of
the Epistle.
Coming to the Epistles " of Paul, it will not be necessary to go
into the evidence for the various letters in our New Testament
which are ascribed to him, nor shall we require to state the
grounds upon which the authenticity of many of them is denied.
Accepting the Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans
in the main as genuine compositions of the Apostle, the question
as to the origin of the rest, so far as our inquiry is concerned has
little or no interest. From these four letters we obtain the w'hole
evidence of Paul regarding miracles, and this we nowpropose carefully
to examine. One point in particular demands our fullest attention.
It is undeniable that Paul preached the doctrine of the Resur-
rection and Ascension of Jesus and believed in those events.
Whilst, therefore, we shall not pass over his supposed testimony
for the possession of miraculous powers, we shall chiefly devote
our attention to his evidence for the "central dogmas of Super-
natural Religion, the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. We
THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES ,755
shall not limit our examination to the testimony of Paul,
but, as the climax of the historical argument for miracles
endeavour to ascertain the exact nature of the evidence upon
which belief is claimed for the actual occurrence of those
stupendous events. For this our inquiry into the authorship and
credibility of the historical books of the New Testament has at
length prepared us, and it will be admitted that, in subjecting
these asserted miracles to calm and fearless scrutiny untinged by
irreverence or disrespect, if personal earnestness and sincere sym-
pathy with those who believe are any safeguards the whole theory
of Christian miracles will be put to its final test.
CHAPTER II.
THE EVIDENCE OF PAUL
IT is better, before proceeding to examine the testimony of Paul
for the Resurrection, to clear the way by considering his evidence
for miracles in general, apart from that specific instance. In an
earlier portion of this work 1 the following remark was made :
" Throughout the New Testament, patristic literature, and the
records of ecclesiastical miracles, although we have narratives of
countless wonderful works performed by others than the writer,
and abundant assertion of the possession of miraculous power
by the Church, there is no instance that we can remember in
which a writer claims to have himself performed a miracle." 2 It
is asserted that this statement is erroneous, and that Paul does
advance this claim. It may be well to quote the moderate words
in which a recent able writer states the case, although not with
immediate reference to the particular passage which we have
quoted : " ...... In these undoubted writings St. Paul certainly
shows, by incidental allusions, the good faith of which cannot be
questioned, that he believed himself to be endowed with the
power of working miracles, and that miracles or what were
thought to be such were actually wrought both by him and by
his contemporaries. He reminds the Corinthians that ' the signs
of an Apostle were wrought among them ...... in signs and
wonders and mighty deeds ' (ev cr^/xeiots KCU Tfpacri KCU Bwdfj-eo-i
the usual words for the higher forms of miracle 2 Cor. xii. 12).
He tells the Romans that ' he will not dare to speak of any of
those things which Christ hath not wrought by 3 him to make the
Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty signs and
wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God ' (fv
1 Complete edition, vol. i., p. 200 f.
2 Dr. Kuenen has made a very similar remark regarding the Old Testament.
He says : " When Ezra and Nehemiah relate to us what they themselves did
or experienced, there does not appear in their narratives a single departure
from the common order of things. On the other hand, these departures
are very numerous in the accounts which are separated by a greater or
lesser interval from the time to which they refer" (De Godsdienst van Israel,
1869, i., p. 22).
3 These words are printed "in him," but we venture to correct what seems
evidently to be a mere misprint, substituting " by" (Sid), as in the authorised
version, to which Dr. Sanday adheres throughout "the whole of these passages,
even when it does not represent the actual sense of the original.
756
PAUL'S STATEMENTS REGARDING MIRACLES 757
Kal Ttpdrtav, ev 8vvd[j,ei TTVCV paras Geou, Rom. XV. 1 8, 19). He
asks the Galatians whether ' he that ministereth to them the Spirit
and worketh miracles (6 ei/epywv Swa/xets) among them doeth it by
the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?' (Gal. iii. 5).
In the first Epistle to the Corinthians he goes somewhat elaborately
into the exact place in the Christian economy that is to be assigned
to the working of miracles and gifts of healing (i Cor. xii. 10, 28,
29)-'"
We shall presently examine these passages, but we must first
briefly deal with the question whether, taken in any sense, they
furnish an instance " in which a writer claims to have himself per-
formed a miracle." It must be obvious to any impartial reader
that the remark made in the course of our earlier argument pre-
cisely distinguished the general " assertion of the possession of
miraculous power by the Church," from the explicit claim to have
personally performed " a miracle " in the singular. If, therefore,
it were even admitted " that St. Paul treats the fact of his working
miracles as a matter of course, to which a passing reference is
sufficient" such " incidental allusions " would not in the least
degree contradict the statement made, but, being the only instances
producible, would in fact completely justify it. General and vague
references of this kind have by no means the force of a definite
claim to have performed some particular miracle. They partake
too much of that indiscriminate impression of the possession and
common exercise of miraculous powers which characterised the
" age of miracles " to have any force. The desired instance, which
is not forthcoming, and to which alone reference was made, was a
case in which, instead of vague expressions, a writer, stating with
precision the particulars, related that he himself had, for instance,
actually raised some person from the dead. As we then added,
even if Apostles had chronicled their miracles, the argument for
their reality would not have been much advanced ; but it is a
curious phenomenon not undeserving of a moment's attention that
Apologists can only refer to such general passages, and cannot
quote an instance in which a specific miracle is related in detail by
the person who is supposed to have performed it. Passing refer-
ences on a large scale to the exercise of miraculous power, whilst
betraying a suspicious familiarity with phenomena of an exceptional
nature, offer too much latitude for inaccuracy and imagination to
have the weight of an affirmation in which the mind has been
sobered by concentration to details. "Signs and wonders, "indefi-
nitely alluded to, may seem much more imposing and astonishing
1 Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, 1876, p. II ; cf. Westcott,
On the Canon, 4th ed., 1874, p. 30; Lightfoot, Contemp. Rev., 1875,
p. 854.
758 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
than they really are, and it may probably be admitted by
everyone that, if we knew the particulars of the occurrences which
are thus vaguely indicated, and which may have been considered
miraculous in a superstitious age, they might to us possibly appear
no miracles at all. General expressions are liable to an exaggera-
tion from which specific allegations are more frequently free. If it
be conceded that the Apostle Paul fully believed in the possession
by himself and the Church of divine Charismata, the indefinite
expression of that belief, in any form, must not be made equiva-
lent to an explicit claim to have performed a certain miracle, the
particulars of which are categorically stated.
Passing from this to the more general question, the force
of some of these objections will be better understood when
we consider the passages in the Epistles which are quoted as ex-
pressing Paul's belief in miracles, and endeavour to ascertain his
real views : what it is he actually says regarding miracles ; and
what are the phenomena which are by him considered to be
miraculous. We shall not waste time in showing how, partly
through the influence of the Septuagint, the words crrj/jLtiov, repxs,
and Sweats came to be used in a peculiar manner by New
Testament writers to indicate miracles. It may, however, be worth
while to pause for a moment to ascertain the sense in which Paul,
who wrote before there was a " New Testament " at all, usually
employed these words. In the four Epistles of Paul the word
(rrjfj.eiov occurs six times. In Rom. iv. n Abraham is said to
have received the " sign (o-i^iov) of circumcision," in which there
is nothing miraculous. In i Cor. i. 22 it is said: "Since both
Jews require signs ((njficia) 1 and Greeks seek after wisdom "; and
again, i Cor. xiv. 22 : "Wherefore the tongues are for a sign
(<rr;/ie?ov) not to the believing, but to the unbelieving," etc. We
shall have more to say regarding these passages presently, but just
now we merely quote them to show the use of the word. The
only other places in which it occurs 2 are those pointed out, and
which are the subject of our discussion. In Rom. xv. 19 the word
is used in the plural and combined with re/oas : " in the power of
signs and wonders " (<rr]p.dwv KCU re/xrrwv) ; and in the second
passage (2 Cor. xii. 12) it is employed twice, "the signs (rot
a-rjfjLfia.) of the apostle " and the second time again in combination
with repas and Swa/us, " both in signs " (o-77/mois), etc. The
word i-epas is only twice met with in Paul's writings ; that is to say,
in Rom. xv. 19 and 2 Cor. xii. 12 ; and on both occasions, as we
1 The singular ai}p,elov of the authorised version must be abandoned before
the almost unanimous testimony of all the older ^MSS.
3 In the Epistles which bear the name of P*aul it is only to be found in
aThess. ii. 9, iii. 17.
THE LAST TWO CHAPTERS OF ROMANS 759
have just mentioned, it is combined with a-i^^lov. 1 On the other
hand, Paul uses Swaps no less than 34 times, 2 and, leaving for the
present out of the question the passages cited, upon every occasion,
except one, perhaps, the word has the simple signification of "power."
The one exception is Rom. viii. 38, where it occurs in the plural :
oWa/zeis, " powers," the Apostle expressing his persuasion that
nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God, " nor life,
nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to
come, nor powers (Swa/wis), nor height, nor depth," etc. In
i Cor. xiv. n, where the authorised version renders the original,
" Therefore, if I know not the meaning (Svi/a/Ati/) of the voice," it
has still the same sense.
Before discussing the passages before us we must point out that there
is so much doubt, at least, regarding the authenticity of the last two
chapters of the Epistle to the Romans that the passage (Rom. xv. 18,
19) can scarcely be presented as evidence on such a point as the
reality of miracles. We do not intend to debate the matter closely,
but shall merely state a few of the facts of the case and pass on, for
it would not materially affect our argument if the passage were
altogether beyond suspicion. The Epistle, in our authorised text,
ends with a long and so'mewhat involved doxology (xvi. 25-27);
and we may point out here that it had already seemed to be
brought to a close not only at the end of chap. xv. (33), but also at
xvi. 20. The doxology (xvi. 25-27), which more particularly
demands our attention, is stated by Origen 3 to be placed in some
MSS. at the end of chapter xiv.; and a similar statement is made
by Cyril, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, and others. We
find these verses actually so placed in L, and in upwards of 220
out of 250 cursive MSS. of Byzantine origin, in an account of
ancient MSS. in Cod. 66, in most of the Greek Lectionaries, in
the Slavonic and later Syriac versions as also in the Gothic,
Arabic (in the polyglot and triglot text), and some MSS. of the
Armenian. They are inserted both at the end of xiv. and at the
end of the Epistle by the Alexandrian Codex,-* one of the most
1 repas is only met with elsewhere in the New Testament five times : Matt.
xxiv. 24, Mark xiii. 22, John iv. 48, 2 Thess. ii. 9, Heb. ii. 4.
2 Rom. i. 4, 16, 20, viii. 38, ix. 17, xv. 13, xv. 19 (twice), I Cor. i. 18, 24,
ii. 4, 5, iv. 19, 20, v. 4, vi. 14, xii. 10, 28, 29, xiv. ii, xv. 24, 43, 56, 2 Cor.
i. 8, iv. 7, vi. 7, viii. 3 (twice), xii. 9,(twice), 12, xiii. 4 (twice), and Gal. iii. 5.
3 " ...... In aliis vero exemplaribus, id est, in his qua; non sunt a Alarcione
temerata, hoc ipsum caput (xvi. 25-27) diverse positum invenimus. In non-
nullis etenim codicibus post eum locum, quern supra diximus, hoc est ' otnne
g nod non est ex fide peccatum est' (xiv. 23) statim coharens habetur : 'ei autem,
qui potens est vos confirmare' 1 (xvi. 25-27). Alii vero codices in fine id, id
nunc est positum continent' 1 '' (Comment, ad Rom., xvi. 25). This passage is
only extant in the Latin version of Rufinus.
4 xvi. 24 is wholly omitted by the Alexandrian, Vatican, and Sinaitic
codices, and also by C and some other MSS,
760 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
ancient manuscripts extant, and by some other MSS. 1 Now, how
came this doxology to be placed at all at the end of chapter xiv.?
The natural inference is that it was so placed because that was the
end of the Epistle. Subsequently, chapters xv. and xvi. being
added, it is supposed that the closing doxology was removed from
the former position and placed at the end of the appended matter.
This inference is supported by the important fact that, as we learn
from Origen, 2 the last two chapters of the Epistle to the Romans,
including the doxology (xvi. 25-27), did not exist in Marcion's
text, the most ancient form of it of which we have any knowledge.
Tertullian, who makes no reference to these two chapters, speaks
of the passage (Rom. xiv. 10) as at the close (in clausula) of the
Epistle, 3 and he does not call any attention to their absence from
Marcion's Epistle. Is it not reasonable to suppose that they did
not form part of his copy? In like manner Irenaeus, who very
frequently quotes from the rest of the Epistle, nowhere shows
acquaintance with these chapters. The first writer who distinctly
makes use of any part of them is Clement of Alexandria. It has
been argued that Marcion omitted the two chapters because
they contain what was opposed to his views, and because they
had no dogmatic matter to induce him to retain them ; but, whilst
the two explanations destroy each other, neither of them is more
than a supposition to account for the absence of what, it may with
equal propriety be conjectured, never formed part of his text.
The external testimony does not stand alone, but is sup-
ported by very strong internal evidence. We shall only indicate
one or two points, leaving those who desire to go more deeply
into the discussion to refer to works more particularly concerned
with it, which we shall sufficiently indicate. It is a very singular
thing that Paul, who, when he wrote this Epistle, had never been
in Rome, should be intimately acquainted with so many persons
1 It is unnecessary for us to state that other codices, as B, C, D, E, fc<},
and some cursive MSS., have the verses only at the end of xvi.; nor that
they are omitted altogether by F, G, D***, and by MSS. referred to by
Jerome.
2 " Caput hoc (xvi. 25-27) Marcion, a quo Scripturce evangelicce atque
apostolicce interpolate sun/, de hac epistola penitus abstulit. Et non solnin
hoc, sedet ab eo loco, ubi script urn est : Omne ant em quod non ex fide, peccatum
ist (xiv. 23), usgue ad fine tn cuncta dissecuit" (Comment, ad Rom., xvi. 25).
We shall not discuss the difference between "abstulit" and "dissecuit"
nor the interpretation given by Nitzsch (Zeitschr. hist. Theol., 1860, p. 285 f.)
to the latter word. Most critics agree that Marcion altogether omitted (he
chapters.
3 Adv. Marc. t v. 14 ; Ronsch, Das N. T. Tertullian' s, 1871, p. 349. The
passages from Tertullian's writings in which reference is supposed to be made
to these chapters which are quoted by Ronsch {p. 350) do not show any
acquaintance with them.
THE LAST TWO CHAPTERS OF ROMANS 761
there. The fact that there was much intercourse between Rome
and other countries by no means accounts for the simultaneous
presence there of so many of the Apostle's personal friends.
Aquila and Priscilla, who are saluted (xvi. 3), were a short time
before (i Cor. xvi. 19) in Ephesus. 1 It may, moreover, be
remarked as a suggestive fact that when, according to the Acts
(xxviii. 14 f.), Paul very soon afterwards arrived in Rome, most of
these friends seem to have disappeared, and the chief men of the
Jews called together by Paul do not seem to be aware of the
existence of a Christian body at Rome. 2 Another point is con-
nected with the very passage which has led to this discussion. In
Rom. xv. 18, 19, we read: 18. "For I will not dare to speak of any
of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, in order to
(ei's) the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, 19. in
the power of signs and wonders (ei/ SrW/xet o-T/petW KCU
Tcparcov) in the power of the Spirit (ev Suva/xei Trv/ei'^aros) ; so
that from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully
preached the Gospel of Christ," etc. The statement that " from
Jerusalem" he had "fully preached" the Gospel is scarcely in
agreement with the statement in the Epistle to the Galatians,
i. 17-23, ii. i f. Moreover, there is no confirmation anywhere
that the Apostle preached as far as Illyricum, which was then
almost beyond the limits of civilisation. Baur suggests that in
making his ministry commence at Jerusalem there is too evident
a concession made to the Jewish Christians, according to whom
every preacher of the Gospel must naturally commence his career
at the holy city. It would detain us much too long to enter upon
an analysis of these two chapters, and to show the repetition in
them of what has already been said in the earlier part of the
Epistle ; the singular analogies with the Epistles to the Corin-
thians, not of the nature of uniformity of style, but of imita-
tion ; the peculiarity of the mention of a journey to Spain as the
justification of a passing visit to Rome, and perhaps a further
apology for even writing a letter to the Church there which another
had founded \ the suspicious character of the names which are
mentioned in the various clauses of salutation ; and to state many
other still more important objections which various critics have
advanced, but which would require more elaborate explanation
than can possibly be given here. It will suffice for us to mention
that the phenomena presented by the two chapters are so marked
and curious that, for a century, they have largely occupied the
attention of writers of all shades of opinion, and called forth very
elaborate theories to account for them ; the apparent necessity for
1 The writer of 2 Tim. iv. 19 represents them as in Ephesus.
2 Acts xxviii. 21, 22.
762 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
which in itself shows the insecure position of the passage. 1 Semler,
without denying the Pauline authorship of the two chapters, con-
sidered they did not properly belong to the Epistle to the Romans.
He supposed xvi. 3-16 to have been intended merely for the
messenger who carried the Epistle, as a list of the persons to whom
salutations were to be given, and to these chapter xv. was to be
specially delivered. Paulus 2 considered chapter xv. to be a separate
letter, addressed specially to the leaders of the Roman Church,
chapters i.-xiv. being the Epistle to the community in general.
The Epistle then being sealed up and ready for any opportunity of
transmission, but none presenting itself before his arrival in
Corinth, the apostle there, upon an additional sheet, wrote xvi. and
entrusted it with the letter to Phoabe. Eichhorn3 supposed that
the parchment upon which the Epistle was written was finished at
xiv. 23 ; and, as Paul and his scribe had only a small sheet at
hand, the doxology only, xvi. 25-27, was written upon the one
side of it, and on the other the greetings and the apostolic bene-
diction, xvi. 21-24, an d thus the letter was completed ; but, as it
could not immediately be forwarded, the apostle added a fly-leaf
with chapter xv. Bertholdt, 4 Guericke, 5 and others, adopted similar
views more or less modified, representing the close of the Epistle
to have been formed by successive postscripts. Renan 6 has
affirmed the Epistle to be a circular letter addressed to churches in
Rome, Ephesus, and other places, to each of which only certain
portions were transmitted with appropriate salutations and endings,
which have all been collected into the one Epistle in the form in
which we have it. David Schulz conjectured that xvi. 1-20 was
an Epistle written from Rome to the church at Ephesus ; and this
theory was substantially adopted by Ewald who held that xvi.
3-20 was part of a lost Epistle to Ephesus and by many other
critics.? Of course the virtual authenticity of the xv.-xvi. chapters,
nearly or exactly as they are, is affirmed by many writers. Baur,
however, after careful investigation, pronounced the two chapters
inauthentic, and in this he is followed by able critics. 8 Under all
these circumstances it is obvious that we need not occupy
1 Diss. de duplici apend. ep. P. ad Rom. 1767 ; Paraphr. epist. ad Rom.,
1769, p. 290 f. 3 Uebers. u. Erkl. des Rbmer. u. Galaterbr., 1831, Einl.
3 Einl., Hi. 232 f. 4 Einl., viii., p. 3303 f.
s Gesammtgesch. N. T., p. 327 f. 6 St. Paul, 1869, p. Ixiii f.
7 Schulz, Stud. u. Krit., 1829, p. 609 f. ; Ewald, Sendschr. d. Paulus,
p. 345, anm., p. 428 f. ; Laurent, N. T. Stud., 1866, p. 32 f. ; Mangold,
Romerbr., 1866, p. 38, 62; Ritschl, Jahrb. deittsche Th., 1866, p. 352; Reuss,
Gesch. N. T., p. 98; Schott, Isagoge, p. 249 f . ; Weisse, Philos. Dogmatik,
1855, i., p. 146.
* Baur, Tiib. Zeitschr., 1836, Hi., p. 97 f. ; Ptntlus, i., p. 393 f. ; Lucht, Ueb.
die beid. letzt. Cap. des Romerbr., 1871 ; Scholten, Theol. Tijdschr., 1876,
p. 3 f. ; Schwegler, Das nachap. Z.,\., p. 296 ; ii. 123 f.; Volkmar, Romerbr.,
TESTIMONY OF PAUL TO MIRACLES 763
ourselves much with the passage in Rom. xv. 18, 19, but our argu-
ment will equally apply to it. In order to complete this view of
the materials, we may simply mention, as we pass on, that the
authenticity of 2 Cor. xii. 1 2 has likewise been impugned by a few
critics, and the verse, or at least the words o-^/xeiois KOL repao-iv KOL
oVva/zeo-ti', as well as Rom. xv. 19, declared an interpolation. This
cannot, however, so far as existing evidence goes, be demonstrated ;
and, beyond the mere record of the fact, this conjecture does not
here require further notice.
It may be well, before proceeding to the Epistles to the Corin-
thians, which furnish the real matter for discussion, first to deal
with the passage cited from Gal. iii. 5, which is as follows : " He
then that supplieth to you the Spirit and worketh powers (Swa/zcis)
within you (fv v/uv], (doeth he it) from works of law or from hear-
ing of faith?" 1 The authorised version reads, "and worketh
miracles among you "; but this cannot be maintained, and fv V/JLIV
must be rendered " within you," the ev certainly retaining its natural
signification when used with evepyeti/, the primary meaning of
which is itself to in-work. The vast majority of critics of all
schools agree in this view. 2 There is an evident reference to iii. 2,
and to the reception of the Spirit, here further characterised as
producing such effects within the minds of those who receive it, 3
the worker who gives the Spirit being God. The opinion most
commonly held is that reference is here made to the "gifts"
), regarding which the Apostle elsewhere speaks, * and
1875, p. 15 f., 129 f. ; cf. Holtzmann, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1874, p. 511 f. ;
Lipsius, Protestanten-Bibel, 1872, p. 488, 612, 629 ; Rovers, Heeft Paulus zich
op wond. beroep., 1870, p. 15 f. ; Zeller, Apg., p. 488. Some consider ch. xvi.
alone inauthentic, as Davidson, Int. N. T,, ii., p. 137 ; Weiss, Das Marctts-
evang., 1872, p. 495, anm. I.
1 6 ofiv ^irixopriyuv v/uv TO wvtu/J,a Kal tvepy&v 8vvd/J.eis tv VJMV, e Hpyuv
vofiov T) e aKofjs irlctTeus : Gal. iii. 5.
2 So Alford, Bisping, Ellicott, Ewald, Grotius, Hoffmann, Holtzmann,
Lightfoot, Matthies, Meyer, Olshausen, Schott, Schrader, Usteri, De Wette,
Wieseler, Wordsworth, etc., in I.
3 Olshausen, for instance, says: "Das ei> vfuv ist nicht ztt fassen: unter
euch, sondern = iv Kapdiais vuuv, in dem die Geistesivirkung als eine innerliche
gedacht ist" (Bibl. Com in., iv., p. 58).
4 Dr. Lightfoot says on the words " evepy&v Swd/J-eis tv vfi.lv (Comp.
I Cor. xii. 10), dvepy/ifj.ara dwdpeuv (with vv. 28, 29), Matt. xiv. 2, ai
Swd/Afis tvepyovo-iv iv airry (comp. Mark vi. 14). These passages favour the
sense ' worketh miraculous powers in you,' rather than ' worketh miracles
among you'; and this meaning also accords better with the context: (comp.
I Cor. xii. 6), 6 dt atir6s #eds 6 tvfpywv rd irdvra. fv vaffiv. What
was the exact nature of these ' powers,' whether they were exerted over the
physical or the moral world, it is impossible to determine. The limitations
implied in I Cor. xii. 10, and the general use of dwdpeis, point rather to the
former. It is important to notice how here, as in the Epistle to the Corinthians,
St. Paul assumes the possession of these extraordinary powers by his converts
764 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
which we shall presently discuss ; but this is by no means certain,
and cannot be determined. It is equally probable that he may
refer to the spiritual effect produced upon the souls of the
Galatians by the Gospel which he so frequently represents as a
" power " of God. In any case, it is clear that there is no
external miracle referred to, and even if allusion to Charismata be
understood we have yet to ascertain precisely what these were.
We shall endeavour to discover whether there was anything in the
least degree miraculous in these " gifts," but there is no affirmation
in this passage which demands special attention, and whatever
general significance it may have will be met when considering the
others which are indicated.
The first passage in the Epistles to the Corinthians, which is
pointed out as containing the testimony of Paul both to the
reality of miracles in general and to the fact that he himself per-
formed them, is the following (2 Cor. xii. 12) : " Truly the signs
of the Apostle were wrought in you (Karetpyao-^ tv
in all patience, both in signs and wonders and powers (ev
re Kal Tepacrtv /cat SvvdfjLfCTiv)." 1 We have to justify two
departures in this rendering from that generally received. The
first of these is the adoption of " wrought in you," instead of
" wrought among you "; and the second, the simple use of
" powers " for Swa/xets, instead of " mighty works." We shall
take the second first. We have referred to every passage except
i Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29, in which Paul makes use of the word
8vvd[j.6i<s, and, fortunately, they are sufficiently numerous to afford
us a good insight into his practice. It need not be said that the
natural sense of Swa/zcis is in no case " mighty works " or
miracles, and that such an application of the Greek word is
peculiar to the New Testament and, subsequently, to Patristic
literature. There is, however, no ground for attributing this use
of the word to Paul. It is not so used in the Septuagint, and it
is quite evident that the Apostle does not employ it to express
external effects or works, but spiritual phenomena or potentiality.
In the passage (Gal. iii. 5) which we have just discussed, where the
word occurs in the plural, as here, it is understood to express
"powers." We may quote the rendering of that passage by the
Bishop of Gloucester : " He then, / say, that ministereth to you
the Spirit and worketh mighty powers within you, doeth he it by the
works of the law or by the report of faith ?" 2 Why " mighty "
as an acknowledged fact" (Ep. to the Gal., p. 135) ; cf. Wordsworth, GA: Test.,
St. /'au/'s Epistles, p. 57, and especially p. 128, where, on I Cor. xii. n, Dr.
Wordsworth notes: " ^f/ryei] in-worketh" and quotes Cyril, " and the
Holy Spirit works in every member of Christ's bqdy," etc.
1 2 Cor. xii. 12.
3 Ellicott, St. Paul's Ep. to the Galatians, 4th ed., 1867, p. 154 f.
TESTIMONY OF PAUL TO MIRACLES 765
should be inserted it is difficult to understand ; but the word is
rightly printed in italics to show that it is not actually expressed in
the Greek. "What was the exact nature of these 'powers'
it is impossible to determine," observes another scholar quoted
above, 1 on the same passage. 2 In i Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29, where
the plural Swdpeis again occurs, the intention to express
" powers " 3 and not external results miracles is perfectly clear,
the word being in the last two verses used alone to represent the
" gifts." In all of these passages the word is the representative of
the " powers " and not of the " effects."-* This interpretation is
rendered more clear by, and at the same time confirms, the pre-
ceding phrase, " were wrought in you " (/careipyao-^ kv fyuv).
" Powers " (Swdpeis), as in Gal. iii. 5, are worked " within you,"
and, the rendering of that passage being so settled, it becomes
authoritative for this. If direct confirmation of Paul's meaning
be required, we have it in Rom. vii. 8, where we find the
same verb used with eV in this sense: "But sin wrought in
me (/caTeipyao-aro ev ep.oi) all manner of coveting," etc. ; and
with this may also be compared 2 Cor. vii. u " what earnest-
ness it wrought in you " (KaretpydcraTO evS vpv). It was thus
Paul's habit to speak of spiritual effects wrought " within," and, as
he referred to the " powers " (8vva/Aeis) worked " within " the
souls of the Galatians, so he speaks of them here as "wrought in"
the Corinthians. It will become clear as we proceed that the
addition to <$uva/Aeis of " signs and wonders " does not in the
least affect this interpretation. In i Cor. xiv. 22 the Apostle
speaks of the gift of " tongues " as "a sign" (<r7//,4ov).
Upon the supposition that Paul was affirming the actual per-
formance of miracles by himself, how extraordinary becomes the
statement that they " were wrought in all patience," for
it is manifest that " in all patience " (fv Trda-y vTro/xony) does
not form part of the signs, as some have argued, but must
be joined to the verb (Ko/m/Dyao-^?;). 6 It may be instruc-
tive to quote a few words of Olshausen upon the point : " The
ev irdo-y virofj.ovrj is not altogether easy. It certainly cannot be
doubtful that it is to be joined to KaTfipydardij, and not to what
follows ; but for what reason does Paul here make it directly
1 Dr. Lightfoot, see note 2, p. 337.
2 It is rendered " vertues" in Wyclif's version.
3 " 3wd/ieis] powers. From persons he passes to things," etc. Wordsworth,
on i Cor. xii. 28, Gk. Test., St. Paul's Epistles, p. 129.
4 Grotius renders Swdpfffiv virtutibus ad 2 Cor. xii. 12 (Annot. in N. T.,
vi. 539).
5 fv is found in C, F, G, and other MSS. , although it is omitted in the
other great codices ; this, however, does not affect the argument.
6 So Alford, Billroth, Ewald, Maier, Meyer, Neander, Olshausen, Osiander,
de Wette, etc., 1. c.
766 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
prominent that he wrought his signs in all patience ? It seems to
me probable that in this there may be a reproof to the Corinthians,
who, in spite of such signs, still showed themselves wavering
regarding the authority of the Apostle. In such a position, Paul
would say, he had, patiently waiting, allowed his light to shine
amongst them, certain of ultimate triumph." 1 This will hardly be
accepted by anyone as a satisfactory solution of the difficulty,
which is a real one if it be assumed that Paul, claiming to have
performed miracles, wrought them " in all patience." Besides, the
matter is complicated, and the claim to have himself performed a
miracle still more completely vanishes, when we consider the fact
that the passive construction of the sentence does not actually
represent Paul as the active agent by whom the signs were
wrought. "Truly the signs of the apostle were wrought," but
how wrought ? Clearly he means by the Spirit, as he distinctly
states to the Galatians. To them " Jesus Christ (the Messiah)
was fully set forth crucified," and he asks them : Was it from
works of the law, or from hearing in faith the Gospel thus
preached to them, that they "received the Spirit"? and that he
who supplies the Spirit " and worketh powers " in them does so ?
From faith, of course. 2 The meaning of Paul, therefore, was this :
His Gospel was preached among them " in all patience," which
being received by the hearing of faith, the Spirit was given to
them, and the signs of the apostle were thus wrought among them.
The representation is made throughout the Acts that the apostles
lay their hands on those who believe, and they receive the Holy
Spirit and speak with tongues. If any special " sign of the apostle "
can be indicated at all, it is this ; and in illustration we may
point to one statement made in the Acts. Philip, the evangelist,
who was not an apostle, is represented as going into Samaria and
preaching the Messiah to the Samaritans, who give heed to the
things spoken by him, and multitudes are baptised (viii. 5, 6, 12),
but there was not the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which usually
accompanied the apostolic baptism. "And the Apostles in
Jerusalem, having heard that Samaria had received the word of
God, sent unto them Peter and John; who when they came down
prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit for as
yet he had fallen upon none of them, but they had only been
baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they (the
Apostles) their hands on them, and they received the Holy
Spirit. "3 We may further refer to the episode at Ephesus (Acts
xix. if.) where Paul finds certain disciples who, having only been
baptised into John's baptism, had not received the Holy Spirit,
1 Olshausen, Bibl. COHI.,\\\., p. 87^* f.
* Gal. iii. if. 3 Acts viii. 14-17.
TESTIMONY OF|PAUL TO MIRACLES 767
nor even heard whether there was a Holy Spirit, (xix. 6.) " And
Paul having laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on
them, and they were speaking with tongues and prophesying."
When we examine Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians, we find
ample assurance that the interpretation here given of this passage
is correct, and that he does not refer, as Apologists have
maintained, to miracles wrought by himself, but to the Charismata,
which were supposed to have been bestowed upon the Corinthians
who believed, and which thus were the signs of his apostleship.
The very next verse to that which is before us shows this : " Truly
the signs of the Apostle were wrought in you in all patience
13. For (yap) what is there wherein ye were inferior to the other
Churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to
you?" The mere performance of signs and wonders did not
constitute their equality ; but in the possession of the Charismata
regarding which so much is said in the first epistle, and which
were the result of his preaching they were not inferior to the other
Churches, and only inferior, Paul says with his fine irony, in not
having, like the other Churches with their apostles, been called
upon to acquire the merit of bearing his charges. What could be
more distinct than the Apostle's opening address in the first
Epistle : "I thank my God always, on your behalf, for the grace
of God which was given you in Christ Jesus ; that in everything ye
were enriched by him (at the time of their conversion 1 ), in all
utterance and in all knowledge even as the testimony of Christ
was confirmed in you so that ye come behind in no gift
(xapiV/xaTi)," etc. ? For this reason they were not inferior to
the other Churches, and those were the signs of the Apostle which
were wrought in them. Paul very distinctly declares the nature of
his ministry amongst the Corinthians and the absence of other
" signs r ': i Cor. i. 22 f. " Since both Jews demand signs (o-T//Aeia)
and Greeks seek after wisdom, but we (^//.eis Se) preach Christ
crucified, unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles foolish-
ness, but unto those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power (8vvap.iv) of God and the wisdom of God." The
contrast is here clearly drawn between the requirement of Jews
(signs) and of Greeks (wisdom) and Paul's actual ministry; no
signs, but a scandal (<rK<ivSaXov) to the Jew, and no wisdom,
but foolishness to the Greek, but this word of the cross (Aoyos
6 TOO a-ravpov) " to us who are being saved is the power
(SiW/Ais) of God" (i. i8). 2 The Apostle tells us what he
considers the "sign of the Apostle," when, more directly defending
himself against the opponents who evidently denied his Apostolic
claims, he says vehemently: i Cor. ix. i f. "Am I not free? Am
1 Stanley, Eps. to the Cor., p. 23. 2 And again Rom. i. 16, etc.
768 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
I not an Apostle ? have I not seen Jesus our Lord ? are not ye my
work in the Lord ? If I be not an Apostle unto others, yet doubt-
less I am to you : for the seal (tr </> p a j i s) of my Apostleship
are ye in the Lord." 1 It cannot, we think, be doubted, when the
passage (2 Cor. xii. 12) is attentively considered, that Paul does
not refer to external miracles performed by him, but to the Charis-
mata which he supposed to be conferred upon the Corinthian
Christians on their acceptance of the Gospel which the Apostle
preached. These Charismata, however, are advanced as miraculous,
and the passages (i Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29) are quoted in support of the
statement we are discussing, and these now demand our attention.
It may be well at once to give the verses which are referred to,
and in which it is said that Paul " goes somewhat elaborately into
the exact place in the Christian economy that is to be assigned to
the working of miracles and gifts of healing" (i Cor. xii. 10, 28,
29). It is necessary for the full comprehension of the case that
we should quote the context : xii. 4. " Now there are diversities of
gifts (xmpif/iaTwv), but the same Spirit ; 5. and there are
diversities of ministries (SiaKovtwv), and the same Lord ; 6. and
there are diversities of workings (tve/oy^/xaTwi'), but it is the
same God who worketh the all in all (6 eve/aywv TO, Travra v
Tracriv) : 7. But to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit
(<f>avp<ocri<s TOV Trvet'/xaros) for profit ; 8. For to one is given
by the Spirit a word of wisdom (Aoyos o-o^tas); to another a
word of knowledge (Aoyos yvwo-ews) according to the same
Spirit; 9. to another faith (irio-ris) in the same Spirit, to
another gifts of healings (xapifrpura. la/iarwv) in the one Spirit ;
10. to another (inward) workings of powers (eve/ayy/^ura Swdfj-etav) ;
to another prophecy (irpo<f)Tia) ; to another discerning of spirits
(8taKpr6s 7ri>v//,aTwv) ; to another kinds of tongues (yfv^j yAoxr
o-wv) ; to another interpretation of tongues (cpprjveia yXaomw) ;
11. but all these worketh (evepyei) the one and the same Spirit,
dividing to each severally as he wills." After illustrating this
by showing the mutual dependence of the different members
and senses of the body, the Apostle proceeds : v. 28. " And
God set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets,
thirdly teachers, after that powers (8vra/iets), after that gifts
of healings (xa.pia-pa.Ta lap-drcw), helpings (avTtAr/^ets), governings
(Kvf3epv^(rfi<s), kinds of tongues (yfv>] yXoxra-wi/). 29. Are all
apostles ? are all prophets ? are all teachers ? are all powers
(oWajueis) ? 30. have all gifts of healings (^apivftara iapAr^v) ?
do all speak with tongues (yXcuo-o-ais XaAowtv) ? do all interpret
1 Comp. Rom. iv.' n, "and he (Abraham) 'received a sign (<rtj/j.e'iov) of
circumcision, a seal (ff<ppayida) of the righteousness of the faith," etc.
NATURE OF THE CHARISMATA 769
Before we commence an examination of this interesting and
important passage, it is essential that we should endeavour to
disabuse our minds of preconceived ideas. Commentators are
too prone to apply to the Apostle's remarks a system of interpre-
tation based upon statements made by later and less-informed
writers, and warped by belief in the reality of a miraculous element
pervading all apostolic times, which have been derived mainly
from post-apostolic narratives. What do we really know of the
phenomena supposed to have characterised the Apostolic age,
and which were later, and are now, described as miraculous?
With the exception of what we glean from the writings of Paul,
we know absolutely nothing from any contemporary writer and
eye-witness. In the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles we
have detailed accounts of many miracles said to have been
performed by the Apostles and others ; but these narratives were
all written at a much later period, and by persons who are
unknown, and most of whom are not even affirmed to have been
eye-witnesses. 1 In the Acts of the Apostles we have an account
of some of the very Charismata referred to by Paul in the passage
above quoted, and we shall thus have the advantage of presently
comparing the two accounts. We must, however, altogether resist
any attempt to insert between the lines of the Apostle's writing
ideas and explanations derived from the author of the Acts and
from patristic literature, and endeavour to understand what it is
he himself says and intends to say. It must not be supposed that
we in the slightest degree question the fact that the Apostle Paul
believed in the reality of supernatural intervention in mundane
affairs, or that he asserted the actual occurrence of certain miracles.
Our desire is as far as possible to ascertain what Paul himself has
to say upon specific phenomena, now generally explained as
miraculous, and thus, descending from vague generalities to more
distinct statements, to ascertain the value of his opinion regarding
the character of such phenomena. It cannot fail to be instructive
to determine something of the nature of Charismata from an eye-
witness who believed them to have been supernatural. His
account, as we have seen, is the most precious evidence of the
Church to the reality of the miraculous.
The first point which must be observed in connection with the
Charismata referred to by Paul in the passage before us is that,
whilst there are diversities amongst them, all the phenomena
described are ascribed to "one and the same Spirit dividing to
each severally as he wills"; and, consequently, that, although there
may be differences in their form and value, a supernatural origin
1 It is suggestive that the curious passage, Mark xvi. 17-18, is not even by
the author of the second Gospel, but a later addition.
3D
770 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
is equally assigned to all the " gifts " enumerated. What, then, are
these Charismata? "A word of wisdom," " a word of knowledge,"
and " faith " are the first three mentioned. What the precise
difference was, in Paul's meaning, between the utterance of wisdom
(<ro<j>ia) and of knowledge (yvokris) it is impossible now with
certainty to say, nor is it very essential for us to inquire. The two
words are combined in Rom. xi. 33 : " O the depths of the riches
and wisdom (oro^tas) and knowledge (yvwo-ews) of God!" and in
this very Epistle some varying use is made of both words. Paul
tells the Corinthians (i, i. 17) that Christ did not send him "in
wisdom of word " (OVK ei> o-o</>ia Aoyou) or utterance : and (ii. i) "not
with excellency of word or wisdom " (Aoyov 77 <ro<ias, cf. ii. 4) ;
and further on he says (i. 30) that Christ Jesus "was made unto us
wisdom (o-o<ia) from God." The most suggestive expressions 1
are the following, we think : i Cor. ii. 6. " But we speak
wisdom (cro<ia.v) among the perfect, yet not the wisdom (cro<^iav)
of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, that come to nought,
7. but we speak God's wisdom (Oeov o-o^tav) in mystery, the hidden
wisdom, which God ordained before the ages unto our glory
8. which none of the rulers of this age has known, for had they
known it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. 9. But
as it is written, 'What eye saw not,' etc. 10. But unto us God
revealed them th rough the Spirit 1 1 even so also the
things of God knoweth no one but the Spirit of God. 12. But we
received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from
God, that we might know the things that are freely given us by
God ; 1 3. which things also we speak, not in words taught by human
wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual
things to the spiritual " 2 (Trveu/MariKots Trvevfj-ariKa o-vyKpii/ovres).
It is quite clear from all the antecedent context that Paul's preach-
ing was specially the Messiah crucified, " Christ the power of God
and the wisdom (tro^tav) of God," and we may conclude reasonably
that the Aoyos o-o</>*,s of our passage was simply the eloquent
utterance of this doctrine. In like manner, we may get some
insight into the meaning which Paul attached to the word " know-
ledge " (yvoxris). It will be remembered that at the very opening
of the first Epistle to the Corinthians Paul expresses his thankful-
ness that in everything they were enriched in Christ Jesus : i. 5.
" in all utterance (Xdyw) and in all knowledge (yvwo-ei), 6. even as
the testimony of the Christ was confirmed in you " ; that is to say,
according to commentators, by these very Charismata. Later,
1 The word is used in the following passages of Paul's four Epistles : Rom.
xi .33; i Cor. i. 17, 19, 20, 21 (twice), 22, 24, 30, ii. I, 4, 5, 6 (twice), 7, 13, iii.
19, xii. 8; 2 Cor. i. 12.
- There is considerable room for doubt as !?> the real sense of this last
phrase.
NATURE OF THE CHARISMATA 771
speaking of " tongues," he says (i Cor. xiv. 6): " What shall
I profit you, except I shall speak to you either in revelation or in
knowledge (ev yvwrei), or in prophecy, or in teaching ?" We
obtain a clearer insight into his meaning in the second Epistle, in
the passage 2 Cor. ii. 14-16, and still more in iv. 3-6 and x. 5,
where he describes metaphorically his weapons as not carnal, but
strong through God, " casting down reasonings and every high
thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and
bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of the
Christ "; and if we ventured to offer an opinion, it would be that
Paul means by Aoyos yvowrews simply Christian theology. We
merely offer this as a passing suggestion. Little need be said with
regard to the gift of " faith " (7rrrts), which is perfectly
intelligible.
Apologists argue that by these three " gifts " some supernatural
form of wisdom, knowledge, and faith is expressed, and we shall
have something more to say on the point presently ; but here we
only point out that there is no ground for such an asser-
tion except the fact that the Apostle ascribes to them a super-
natural origin, or, in fact, believes in the inspiration of such
qualities. All that can be maintained is that Paul accounts for
the possession of characteristics which we now know to be natural
by asserting that they are the direct gift of the Holy Spirit. There
is not the faintest evidence to show that these natural capabilities
did not antecedently exist in the Corinthians, and were not merely
stimulated into action in Christian channels by the religious enthu-
siasm and zeal accompanying their conversion ; but, on the con-
trary, every reason to believe this to be the case, as we shall further
see. 1 In fact, according to the Apostolic Church, every quality
was a supernatural gift, and all ability or excellence in practical
life directly emanated from the action of the Holy Spirit.
We may now proceed to "gifts of healings" (^apia-^ara
ta/mrwv), 2 which it will be noted are doubly in the plural, indi-
cating, as is supposed, a variety of special gifts, each having
reference probably to special diseases. What is there to show
that there was anything more miraculous in " gifts of healings "
than in the possession of an utterance of wisdom, an utterance of
knowledge, or faith ? Nothing whatever. On the contrary, every-
thing, from the unvarying experience of the world, to the inferences
which we shall be able to draw from the whole of this information
1 We may here say that attempts have been made to show that the Apostle
classifies the Charismata in groups of threes, and even sets forth the three persons
of the Trinity as the several donors. It would be useless for us to touch upon
the point.
2 The word fa^o, only occurs in the N. T. in I Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29. It might
better be rendered "means of healing," or "remedies."
772 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
regarding the Charismata, shows that there was no miraculous
power of healing either possessed or exercised. Reference is fre-
quently made to the passage in the so-called Epistle of James as
an illustration of this, v. 14: "Is any sick among you? let him
call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him,
having anointed him with oil in the name of the Lord : 15. And
the prayer of faith shall save the afflicted, and the Lord shall raise
him up ; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him."
The context, however, not only shows that in this there is no
allusion to any gift of healing or miraculous power, but seems to
ignore the existence of any such gift. The Epistle continues :
v. 1 6. "Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray for
one another that ye may be healed. The supplication of a
righteous man availeth much when it is working." And then the
successful instance of the prayer of Elijah, that it might not rain,
and again that it might rain, is given. The passage is merely an
assertion of the efficacy of prayer, and if, as is not unfrequently
done, it be argued that the gifts of healing were probably applied
by means of earnest prayer for the sick, it may be said that this is
the only "gift" which is supposed to have descended to our
times. It does not require much argument to show that the
reality of a miraculous gift cannot be demonstrated by appealing
to the objective efficacy of prayer. We may, in passing, refer
Apologists who hold the authenticity of the Epistles to the
Philippians and to Timothy to indications which do not quite
confirm the supposition that a power of miraculous healing actually
existed in the Apostolic Church. In the Epistle to the Philippians,
ii. 25 f., Paul is represented as sending Epaphroditus to them
(v. 26), "Since he was longing after you all and was distressed
because ye heard that he was sick. (27) For, indeed, he was sick
nigh unto death ; but God had mercy on him ; and not on him
only, but on me also, that I might not have sorrow upon sorrow.
1 sent him, therefore, the more anxiously, that, when ye see him,
ye may rejoice again, and that I may be the less sorrowful." The
anxiety felt by the Philippians, and the whole language of the
writer, in this passage, are rather inconsistent with the knowledge
that miraculous power of healing was possessed by the Church,
and of course by Paul, which would naturally have been exerted
for one in whom so many were keenly interested. Then, in
2 Tim. iv. 20, the writer says, "Trophimus I left at Miletus sick."
If miraculous powers of healing existed, why were they not exerted
in this case ? If they were exerted and failed for special reasons,
why are these not mentioned ? It is unfortunate that there is so
little evidence of the application of these gifts. On the other
hand, we may suggest that medical a*t scarcely existed at that
period in such communities, and that the remedies practised
NATURE OF THE CHARISMATA 773
admirably lent themselves to the theory of " gifts " of healings,
rather than to any recognition of the fact that the accurate
diagnosis of disease and successful treatment of it can only be the
result of special study and experience.
The next gift mentioned is (v. 10) "workings of powers"
(eVpy?/prra Suva/z,wv), very unwarrantably rendered in our
"authorised" version "the working of miracles." We have
already said enough regarding Paul's use of 8wa/zis. The phrase
before us would be even better rendered in- or inward-workings
of powers, 1 and the use made of evepyeiv by Paul throughout
his Epistles would confirm this. It may be pointed out that, as
the gifts just referred to are for "healings," it is difficult to imagine
any class of " miracles " which could well be classed under a
separate head as the special " working of miracles " contemplated
by Apologists. Infinitely the greater number of miracles related
in the Gospels and Acts are " healings " of disease. Is it possible
to suppose that Paul really indicated by this expression a distinct
order of " miracles " properly so-called ? Certainly not. Neither
the words themselves used by Paul, properly understood, nor the
context, permit us to suppose that he referred to the working of
miracles at all. We have no intention of conjecturing what these
" powers " were supposed to be ; it is sufficient that we show they
cannot rightly be exaggerated into an assertion of the power of
working miracles. It is much more probable that, in the
expression, no external working by the gifted person is implied
at all, and that the gift referred to " in-workings of powers " within
his own mind, producing the ecstatic state, with its usual
manifestations, or those visions and supposed revelations to which
Paul himself was subject. Demoniacs, or persons supposed to be
possessed of evil spirits, were called evepyouyMevoi, and it is easy
to conceive how anyone under strong religious impressions, at that
epoch of most intense religious emotion, might, when convulsed
by nervous or mental excitement, be supposed the subject of
inward workings of powers supernaturally imparted. Every period
of religious zeal has been marked by such phenomena. 2 These
conclusions are further corroborated by the next gifts enumerated.
The first of these is "prophecy" (irpo^rfia), by which is not
intended the mere foretelling of events, but speaking " unto men
2 We may point out further instances of the use of tvepyeiv tv in the New
Testament, in addition to those already referred to, and which should be
examined : Ephes. i. 20, ii. 2, iii. 20; Phil. ii. 13; Col. i. 29 ; I Thess.ii. 13 ;
2 Thess. ii. 7.
774 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
edification and exhortation and comfort," as the Apostle himself
says (xiv. 3); and an illustration of this may be pointed out in
Acts iv. 36, where the name Barnabas = " Son of prophecy," being
interpreted is said to be " Son of Exhortation" (uios7rapaKAr;cr<s).
To this follows the " discerning (or judging) of spirits "
(StaK/jwrt? Tri/tt'/xaTwv), a gift which, if we are to judge by
Paul's expressions elsewhere, was simply the exercise of natural
intelligence and discernment. In an earlier part of the first
Epistle, rebuking the Corinthians for carrying their disputes
before legal tribunals, he says : vi. 5, " Is it so that there is not
even one wise man among you who shall be able to discern
(8iaKplvat) between his brethren?" Again, in xi. 31, " But if we
discerned (SieKpivo^v) we should not be judged (eK/aivo/xeftx)"
(cf. v. 28, 29), and in xiv. 29, " Let Prophets speak two or three,
and let the others discern " (StaKpiveToxrav).
We reserve the "kinds of tongues" and "interpretation of
tongues " for separate treatment, and proceed to verses 28 f., in
which, after illustrating his meaning by the analogy of the body,
the Apostle resumes his observations upon the Charismata, and it
is instructive to consider the rank he ascribes to the various gifts.
He classes them : " First Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly
teachers, after that powers, after that gifts of healings, helpings,
governings, kinds of tongues." These so-called miraculous gifts
are here placed in a lower class than those of exhortation and
teaching, which is suggestive; for it is difficult to suppose that even
a man like Paul could have regarded the possession of such palp-
able and stupendous power as the instantaneous and miraculous
healing of disease, or the performance of other miracles, below the
gift of teaching or exhortation. It is perfectly intelligible that the
practice of medicine as it was then understood, and the skill which
might have been attained in particular branches of disease by
individuals, not to speak of those who may have been supposed to
be performing miracles when they dealt with cases of hysteria or
mental excitement, might appear to the Apostle much inferior to a
gift for imparting spiritual instruction and admonition ; but the
actual possession of supernatural power, the actual exercise of what
was believed to be the personal attribute of God, must have been
considered a distinction more awful and elevated than any gift of
teaching. It will be noticed also that other Charismata are here
introduced, whilst " discerning of spirits " is omitted. The new
gifts, " helpings " and " governings," have as little a miraculous
character about them as any that have preceded them. Is it not
obvious that all special ability, all official capacity, is simply
represented as a divine gift, and regarded as a " manifestation of
the Spirit " ?
It is important in the highest degree to remember that the
NATURE OF THE CHARISMATA 775
supposed miraculous Charismata are not merely conferred upon a
few persons, but are bestowed upon all the members of the
Apostolic Church. 1 "The extraordinary Charismata which the
Apostles conferred through their imposition of hands," writes Dr.
von Dollinger, " were so diffused and distributed that nearly
every one, or at any rate many, temporarily at least, had a share
in one gift or another. This was a solitary case in history, which
has never since repeated itself, and which, in default of experience,
we can only approximately picture to ourselves. One might say :
the metal of the Church was still glowing, molten, formless, and
presented altogether another aspect than, since then, in the condi-
tion of the cold and hardened casting." 2 The apologetic repre-
sentation of the case is certainly unique in history, and, there-
fore, in its departure from all experience might well have
excited suspicion. Difficult as it is to picture such a state, it is
worth while to endeavour to do so to a small extent. Let us
imagine communities of Christians, often of considerable impor-
tance, in all the larger cities as well as in smaller towns, all or
most of the members of which were endowed with supernatural
gifts, and, amongst others, with power to heal diseases and to
perform miracles ; all the intellectual and religious qualities
requisite for the guidance, edification, and government of the
communities supplied abundantly and specially by the Holy Spirit;
the ordinary dependence of society on the natural capacity and
power of its leaders dispensed with, and every possible branch
of moral culture and physical comfort provided with inspired
and miraculously-gifted ministries ; the utterance of wisdom and
knowledge, exhortation and teaching, workings of healings, dis-
cernment of spirits, helpings, governings, kinds of tongues super-
naturally diffused throughout the community by God himself.
As a general rule, communities have to do as well as they can
1 Cf. Eph. iv. 7, ii ; i Pet. iv. 10, n. Dean Stanley says : " It is impor-
tant to observe that these multiplied allusions imply a state of things in the
Apostolic age which has certainly not been seen since. On particular occasions,
indeed, both in the first four centuries, and afterwards in the Middle Ages,
miracles are ascribed by contemporary writers to the influence of the relics of
particular individuals ; but there has been no occasion when they have been so
emphatically ascribed to whole societies, so closely mixed up with the ordinary
course of life. It is not maintained that every member of the Corinthian Church
had all, or the greater part, of these gifts ; but it certainly appears that every-
one had some gift ; and, this being the case, we are enabled to realise the total
difference of the organisation of the Apostolic Church from any through which
it has passed in its later stages. It was still in a state of fusion. Every
part of the new society was instinct with a life of its own. The whole
atmosphere which it breathed must have confirmed the belief in the impor-
tance and novelty of the crisis " ( The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians,
4th ed., p. 224).
2 Christenthum und Kirchc, 2te aujl.> 1868, p. 298.
776 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
without such help, and eloquent instructors and able adminis-
trators do not generally fail them. The question, therefore,
intrudes itself: Why were ordinary and natural means so com-
pletely set aside, and the qualifications which are generally found
adequate for the conduct and regulation of life supplanted by
divine Charismata ? At least, we may suppose that communities
endowed with such supernatural advantages, and guided by the
direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, must have been distinguished
in every way from the rest of humanity, and must have presented
a spectacle of the noblest life, free from the weakness and incon-
sistency of the world, and betraying none of the moral and intel-
lectual frailties of ordinary society. At the very least, and
without exaggeration, communities in every member of which
there existed some supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit
might be expected to show very marked superiority and nobility
of character.
When we examine the Epistles of Paul and other ancient
documents, we find anything but supernatural qualities in the
Churches supposed to be endowed with such miraculous gifts.
On the contrary, it is scarcely possible to exaggerate the in-
tensely human character of the conduct of such communities :
their fickleness ; the weakness of their fidelity to the Gospel of
Paul ; their wavering faith, and the ease and rapidity with which
they are led astray ; their petty strifes and discords ; their party
spirit ; their almost indecent abuse of some of their supposed
gifts, such as " tongues," for which Paul rebukes them so severely.
The very Epistles, in fact, in which we read of the super-
natural endowments and organisation of the Church are
full of evidence that there was nothing supernatural in them.
The primary cause, apparently, for which the first letter was
written to the Corinthians was the occurrence of divisions and
contentions amongst them (i. 10 f.), parties of Paul, of Apollos, of
Cephas, of Christ, which make the Apostle give thanks (i. 14) that
he had baptised but few of them, that no one might say that they
were baptised into his name. Paul had not been able to speak to
them as spiritual, but as carnal, mere babes in Christ (iii. i f.) ; he
fed them with milk, not meat, for they were not yet able, " nor
even now are ye able," he says, " for ye are yet carnal. For
whereas there is among you envying and strife; are ye not carnal?"
He continues in the same strain throughout the letter, admonishing
them in no flattering terms. Speaking of his sending Timothy to
them, he says (iv. 18 f.) : " But some of you were puffed up, as
though I were not coming to you ; but I will come to you shortly,
if it be the Lord's will, and will know, r^ot the speech of them who
are puffed up, but the power." There is'serious sin amongst them,
which they show no readiness to purge away. Moreover, these
APPARENT EFFECTS OF THE CHARISMATA 777
Corinthians have lawsuits with each other (vi. i f.), and, instead of
taking advantage of those supernatural Charismata, they actually
take their causes for decision before the uninspired tribunals of the
heathen rather than submit them to the judgment of the saints.
Their own members, who have gifts of wisdom and of knowledge,
discerning of spirits and governings, have apparently so little light
to throw upon the regulation of social life that the Apostle has to
enter into minute details for their admonition and guidance. He
has even to lay down rules regarding the head-dresses of women in
the Churches (xi. 3 f.). Even in their very church assemblies
there are divisions of a serious character amongst them (xi. 18 f.).
They misconduct themselves in the celebration of the Lord's
Supper, for they make it, as it were, their own supper, "and one
is hungry and another is drunken." " What !" he indignantly
exclaims, " have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? or despise
ye the Church of God ?" To the Galatians Paul writes, marvel-
ling that they are so soon removing from him that called them
in the grace of Christ unto a different Gospel (i. 6). " O foolish
Galatians," he says (iii. i), "who bewitched you?" In that
community, also, opposition to Paul and denial of his authority had
become powerful.
If we turn to other ancient documents, the Epistles to the seven
Churches do not present us with a picture of supernatural perfec-
tion in those communities, though doubtless, like the rest, they had
received these gifts. The other Epistles of the New Testament
depict a state of things which by no means denotes any extra-
ordinary or abnormal condition of the members. We may quote a
short passage to show that we do not strain this representation
unduly. " But, certainly," says Dr. von Dollinger, " in spite of a
rich outpouring of spiritual gifts vouchsafed to it, a community
could fall into wanton error. Paul had in Corinth, contempo-
raneously with his description of the Charismatic state of the
Church there, to denounce sad abuses. In the Galatian com-
munity Judaistic seduction, and the darkening of Christian
doctrine through the delusion as to the necessity of the observance
of the law, had so much increased that the Apostle called them
fools and senseless ; but, at the same time, he appealed to the
proof which was presented by the spiritual gifts and miraculous
powers, in which they had participated not through the obser-
vance of the law, but through faith in Christ (Gal. iii. 2, 5). Now,
at that time the Charismata of teaching and knowledge must
already have been weakened or extinguished in these communities,
otherwise so strong an aberration would not be explicable.
Nowhere, however, in this Epistle is there any trace of an estab-
lished ministry ; on the contrary, at the close the " spiritual "
among them are instructed to administer the office of commination.
778 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
But, generally, from that time forward, the Charismatic state
in the Church more and more disappeared, though single
Charismata, and individuals endowed with the same, remained.
In the first Epistle to the believers in Thessalonica, Paul had
made it specially prominent that his Gospel had worked there not
as mere word, but with demonstration of the power of the Holy
Spirit (i. 5). In the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians
there is no longer the slightest intimation of, or reference to, the
Charismata, although in both communities the occasion for such
an allusion was very appropriate in Philippi through the Jewish
opponents, and in Colossae on account of the heretical dangers and
the threatening Gnostic asceticism. On the other hand, in the
Epistle to the Philippians bishops and deacons are already men-
tioned as ministers of the community. Then, in the Pastoral
Epistles, not only is there no mention of the Charismata, but a
state of the community is set forth which is wholly different from
the Charismatic. The communities in Asia Minor, the Ephesian
first of all, are partly threatened, partly unsettled by Gnostic
heresies, strifes of words, foolish controversies, empty babbling
about matters of faith, of doctrines of demons, of an advancing
godlessness, corroding like a gangrene (i Tim. iv. 1-3, vi. 3 f. 20,
2 Tim. ii. 14 f.). All the counsels which are here given to
Timothy, the conduct in regard to these evils which is recom-
mended to him, all is of a nature as though Charismata no longer
existed to any extent, as though, in lieu of the first spiritual soaring
and of the fulness of extraordinary powers manifesting itself in
the community, the bare prose of the life of the Church had
already set in." 1 Regarding this, it is not necessary for us to say
more than that the representation which is everywhere made, in
the Acts and elsewhere, and which seems to be confirmed by
Paul, is that all the members of these Christian communities
received the Holy Spirit, and the divine Charismata, but that
nowhere have we evidence of any supernatural results produced
by them. If, however, the view above expressed be accepted, the
difficulty is increased ; for, except in the allusions of the Apostle
to Charismata, it is impossible to discover any difference between
communities which had received miraculous spiritual " gifts " and
those which had not done so. On the contrary, it might possibly
be shown that a Church which had not been so endowed, perhaps,
on the whole, exhibited higher spiritual qualities than another
which was supposed to possess the Charismata. In none are we
able to perceive any supernatural characteristics, or more than the
very ordinary marks of a new religious life. It seems scarcely
necessary to depart from the natural order of nature, and
1 Christenthum . Kirche, 1868, p. 300 f.
THE GIFT OF TONGUES 779
introduce the. supernatural working of a Holy Spirit to produce
such common-place results. We venture to say that there is
nothing to justify the assertion of supernatural agency here, and
that the special divine Charismata existed only in the pious
imagination of the Apostle, who referred every good quality in
man to divine grace.
We have reserved the gift of " tongues " for special discussion,
because Paul enters into it with a fulness with which he does not
treat any of the other Charismata, and a valuable opportunity is
thus afforded us of ascertaining something definite with regard to
the nature of the gift ; and also because we have a narrative in the
Acts of the Apostles of the first descent of the Holy Spirit, mani-
festing itself in " tongues," with which it may be instructive to
compare the Apostle's remarks. We may mention that, in the
opinion of many, the cause which induced the Apostle to say so
much regarding Charismata in his first letter to the Corinthians
was the circumstance, that many maintained the gift of tongues to
be the only form of " the manifestation of the Spirit." This view
is certainly favoured by the narrative in the Acts, in which not
only at the first famous day of Pentecost, but on almost every
occasion of the imposition of the Apostle's hands, this is the only
gift mentioned as accompanying the reception of the Holy Spirit.
In any case, it is apparent from the whole of the Apostle's homily
on the subject that the gift of tongues was especially valued in the
Church of Corinth. 1 It is difficult to conceive, on the supposition
that amongst the Charismata there were comprised miraculous
gifts of healings and power of working miracles, that these could
have been held so cheap in comparison with the gift of tongues ;
but, in any case, a better comprehension of what this " gift " really
1 Dean Stanley says : "It may easily be conceived that this new life was
liable to much confusion and excitement, especially in a society where the
principle of moral stability was not developed commensurably with it. Such
was, we know, the state of Corinth. They had, on the one hand, been ' in
everything enriched by Christ, in all utterance, and in all knowledge,' ' coming
behind in no gift' (i. 5, 6, 7); but, on the other hand, the same contentious
spirit which had turned the most sacred names into party watchwords, and
profaned the celebration of the Supper of the Lord, was ready to avail itself of
the openings for vanity and ambition afforded by the distinctions of the different
gifts. Accordingly, various disorders arose ; every one thought of himself, and
no one of his neighbour's good ; and, as a natural consequence, those-gifts were
most highly honoured, not which were most useful, but which were most
astonishing. Amongst these the gift of tongues rose pre-eminent, as being in
itself the most expressive of the new spiritual life ; the very words, ' spiritual
gifts,' 'spiritual man' (irvev/jiaTiKa, xiv. i; Tri>v/j.a.rtK6s, xiv. 37), seem, in
common parlance, to have been exclusively appropriated to it ; and the other
gifts, especially that of prophecy, were despised, as hardly proceeding from the
same Divine source" (The Eps. of St. P. to the Corinthians, 1876, p. 210 f.).
Imagine this state of things in a community endowed with so many supernatural
gifts !
780 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
was cannot fail to assist us in understanding the true nature of the
whole of the Charismata. It is evident that the Apostle Paul him-
self does not rank the gift of tongues very highly, and, indeed, that
he seems to value prophecy more than all the other Charismata
(xiv. if.); but the simple yet truly noble eloquence with which
(xiii. i f.) he elevates above all these gifts the possession of spiritual
love is a subtle indication of their real character. Probably Paul
would have termed Christian charity a gift of the Spirit as much as
he does " gifts of healings " or "workings of powers"; but, how-
ever rare may be the virtue, it is not now recognised as miraculous,
although it is here shown to be more desirable and precious than
all the miraculous gifts. Even Apostolic conceptions of the
Supernatural cannot soar above the range of natural morality.
The real nature of the " gift of tongues " has given rise to an
almost interminable controversy, and innumerable treatises have
been written upon the subject. It would have been impossible
for us to have exhaustively entered upon such a discussion in this
work, for which it only possesses an incidental and passing interest ;
but fortunately such a course is rendered unnecessary by the fact
that, so far as we are concerned, the miraculous nature of the
"gift" alone comes into question, and may be disposed of without
any elaborate analysis of past controversy or minute reference to
disputed points. Those who desire to follow the course of the
voluminous discussion will find ample materials in the treatises
which we shall at least indicate in the course of our remarks, and
we shall adhere as closely as possible to our own point of view.
In i Cor. xii. 10 the Apostle mentions, amongst the other
Charismata, " kinds of tongues" (ycir/ yAoxro-wv) and "interpre-
tation of tongues " (tpprfveta. yAoxro-wv) as two distinct gifts. In
verse 28 he again uses the expression yen/ yAoxro-wv, and in a
following verse he inquires : " Do all speak with tongues ?"
(yAoxrorcus AaAoixri). 1 "Do all interpret?" (Siepp.ijvevova-i). He
says shortly after, xiii. i : " If I speak with the tongues of men and
of angels (ea^ TGUS yAaxnrcus TWV dvdpfinroiv AaAw KOI TWV
dyytAwv), and have not love," etc. In the following chapter the
expressions used in discussing the gift vary. In xiv. 2 he says :
" He that speaketh with a tongue " 2 (AttAwy yAaxrcr<;),3 using the
singular; and again (verse 22), of "the tongues " (at yAwo-o-cu),
being a sign ; and in verse 26 each "hath a tongue " (yAoknrai/
X et )- r ' he word yAwo-o-a or yAwrra has several significations in
Greek. The first and primary meaning "the tongue" as a mere
1 Cf. i Cor. xiv. 5, 6, 18, 23, 39 : Acts x. 46, xix. 6.
2 The rendering of the Authorised Version, "an unknown tongue," is
wholly imaginary. The " with " which we adop^ is more frequently rendered
" in"; it is a mere matter of opinion, of course, bu\ we maintain "with."
3 Cf. I Cor. xiv. 4, 13, 14, 19, 27.
THE GIFT OF TONGUES 781
member of the body, the organ of speech ; next, a tongue, or
language ; and further, an obsolete or foreign word not in ordinary
use. If we inquire into the use of yA.wo-<ra in the New Testa-
ment, we find that, setting aside the passages in Acts, Mark, and
i Cor. xii.-xiv., in which the phenomenon we are discussing is
referred to, the word is invariably used in the first sense, " the
tongue," 1 except in the Apocalypse, where the word as " language"
typifies different nations. 2 Anyone who attentively considers all
the passages in which the Charisma is discussed will observe that
no uniform application of any one signification throughout is
possible. We may briefly say that all the attempts which have
been made philologically to determine the true nature of the
phenomenon which the Apostle discusses have failed to produce
any really satisfactory result, or to secure the general adhesion of
critics. It is, we think, obvious that Paul does not apply the word,
either in the .plural or in the singular, in its ordinary senses, but
makes use of yXwcro-a to describe phenomena connected with
speech, without intending strictly to apply it either to the tongue
or to a definite language. We merely refer to this in passing, for
it is certain that no philological discussion of the word can
materially affect the case ; and such an argument is of no interest for
our inquiry. Each meaning has been adopted by critics and been
made the basis for a different explanation of the phenomenon.
Philology is incapable of finally solving such a problem.
From the time of Irenaeus, 3 or at least of Origen, the favourite
theory of the Fathers, based chiefly upon the narrative in Acts of
the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, was that
the disciples suddenly became supernaturally endowed with power
to speak other languages which they had not previously learned,
and that this gift was more especially conferred to facilitate the
promulgation of the Gospel throughout the world. Augustine
went so far as to believe that each of the Apostles was thus enabled
to speak all languages. 1 * The opinion that the " gift of tongues "
consisted of the power, miraculously conferred by the Holy Ghost,
to speak in a language or languages previously unknown to the
speaker long continued to prevail, and it is still the popular, as
well as the orthodox, view of the subject. As soon as the attention
of critics was seriously directed to the question, however, this
interpretation became rapidly modified, or was altogether aban-
1 Mark vii. 33, 35 ; Luke i. 64, xvi. 24 ; Acts ii. 3, 26 ; Rom. iii. 13,
xiv. ii ; Philip, ii. n ; James, i. 26, iii. 5, 6 (twice), 8; I Pet. iii. 10 ; i John
iii. 18 ; cf. I Cor. xiii. i ; Apoc., xvi. 10.
2 Apoc., v. 9, vii. 9, x. ii, xi. 9, xiii. 7, xiv. 6, xvii. 15.
3 Irenaeus, Adv. Har., v. 6, I, Eusebius, H. E., v. 7.
4 De Verb. Apost., clxxv. 3; Serm. 9: " Loquebatur enim tune unus homo
omnibus linguis, quia locutura era/ unitas ecclesia in omnibus linguis."
782 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
doned. It is unnecessary for us to refer in detail to the numerous
explanations which have been given of the phenomenon, or to
enumerate the extraordinary views which have been expressed
regarding it ; it will be sufficient if, without reference to minor
differences of opinion respecting the exact form in which it ex-
hibited itself, we broadly state that a great majority of critics,
rejecting the theory that yAokro-eus AaAeiv means to speak lan-
guages previously unknown to the speakers, pronounce it to be the
speech of persons in a state of ecstatic excitement, chiefly of the
nature of prayer or praise, and unintelligible to ordinary hearers.
Whether this speech consisted of mere inarticulate tones, of excited
ejaculations, of obsolete or uncommon expressions and provincial-
isms, of highly poetical rhapsodies of prayer in slow, scarcely
audible, accents, or of chaunted mysterious phrases, fragmentary
and full of rapturous intensity, as these critics variously suppose,
we shall not pause to inquire. It is clear that, whatever may have
been the form of the speech, if, instead of being speech in unlearnt
languages supernaturally communicated, yAwo-o-cus AaAetv was only
the expression of religious excitement, however that may be sup-
posed to have originated, the pretensions of the gift to a miraculous
character shrink at once into exceedingly small proportions.
Every unprejudiced mind must admit that the representation
that the gift of " tongues," of which the Apostle speaks in his
Epistle to the Corinthians, conferred upon the recipient the power
to speak foreign languages before unknown to him, may in great
part be traced to the narrative in Acts of the descent of the Holy
Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Although a few Apologists
advance the plea that there may have been differences in the
manifestation, it is generally recognised on both sides that, how-
ever differently described by the two writers, the yAwcrerous AaAeti/
of Paul and of the Acts' is, in reality, one and the same
phenomenon. The impression conveyed by the narrative has
been applied to the didactic remarks of Paul, and a meaning
forced upon them which they cannot possibly bear. It is not too
much to say that, but for the mythical account in the Acts, no one
would ever have supposed that the yAoWcus AaAeiv of Paul was
the gift of speaking foreign languages without previous study or
practice. In the interminable controversy regarding the pheno-
menon, moreover, it seems to us to have been a fundamental error,
on both sides too often, to have considered it necessary to the
acceptance of any explanation that it should equally suit both the
remarks of Paul and the account in Acts. The only right course
is to test the narrative by the distinct and authoritative statements
of the Apostle ; but to adopt the contrary course is much the same
procedure as altering the natural interpretation of an original
historical document in order to make it agree with the romance of
THE GIFT OF TONGUES 783
some unknown writer of a later day. The Apostle Paul writes as
a contemporary and eye-witness of phenomena which affected him-
self, and regarding which he gives the most valuable direct and
indirect information. The unknown author of the Acts was not
an eye-witness of the scene which he describes, and his narrative
bears upon its very surface the clearest marks of traditional and
legendary treatment. The ablest Apologists freely declare that
the evidence of Paul is of infinitely greater value than that of the
unknown and later writer, and must be preferred before it. The
majority of those who profess to regard the narrative as historical
explain away its clearest statements with startling ingenuity, or
conceal them beneath a cloud of words. The references to the
phenomenon in later portions of the Acts are in themselves quite
inconsistent with the earlier narrative in chapter ii. The detailed
criticism of Paul is the only contemporary, and it is certainly the
only trustworthy, account we possess regarding the gift of
" tongues." 1 We must, therefore, dismiss from our minds, if
possible, the bias which the narrative in the Acts has unfortunately
created, and attend solely to the words of the Apostle. If his
report of the phenomenon discredit that of the unknown and later
writer, so much the worse for the latter. In any case, it is the
testimony of Paul which is referred to and which we are called
upon to consider, and later writers must not be allowed to invest
it with impossible meanings. Even if we had not such undeniable
reasons for preferring the statements of Paul to the later and un-
trustworthy narrative of an unknown writer, the very contents of
the latter, contrasted with the more sober remarks of the Apostle,
would consign it to a very subordinate place.
Discussing the miracle of Pentecost in Acts, which he, of course,
regards as the instantaneous communication of ability to speak in
foreign languages, Zeller makes the following remarks : " The
supposition of such a miracle is opposed to a right view of divine
agency and the relation of God to the world, and, in this case in
particular, to a right view of the constitution of the human mind.
The composition and the properties of a body may be altered through
external influence, but mental acquirements are attained only
through personal activity, through practice ; and it is just in this
that spirit distinguishes itself from matter : that it is free, that there
is nothing in it which it has not itself spontaneously introduced.
The external and instantaneous in-pouring of a mental acquirement
is a representation which refutes itself." In reply to those who
object to this reasoning, he retorts : " The assertion that such a
miracle actually occurred contradicts the analogy of all attested
1 We need not here say anything of the reference in Mark xvi. 17, which is
undoubtedly a later and spurious addition to the Gospel.
784 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
experience ; that it is invented by an individual or by tradition
corresponds with it ; when, therefore, the historical writer has only
the choice between these two alternatives, he must, according to
the laws of historical probability, under all the circumstances, un-
conditionally decide for the second. He must do this even if an
eye-witness of the pretended miracle stood before him ; he must
all the more do so if he has to do with a statement which, beyond
doubt not proceeding from an eye-witness, is more possibly sepa-
rated by some generations from the event in question." 1
These objections are not confined to rationalistic critics, and do
not merely represent the arguments of scepticism. Neander
expresses similar sentiments, 2 and after careful examination pro-
nounces the narrative in Acts untrustworthy, and, adhering to the
representations of Paul, rejects the theory that yA.Wais \a\eiv
was speech in foreign languages supernatural ly imparted. Meyer,
who arrives at much the same result as Neander, speaks still more
emphatically. He says : " This supposed gift of tongues (all
languages), however, was in the apostolic age, partly unnecessary
for the preaching of the Gospel, as the preachers thereof only
required to be able to speak Hebrew and Greek; partly too general,
as amongst the assembly there were certainly many who were not
called to be teachers. And, on the other hand, again, it would
also have been premature, as, before all, Paul the Apostle of the
Gentiles would have required it, in whom, nevertheless, there is as
little trace of any subsequent reception of it as that he preached
otherwise than in Hebrew and Greek. But now, how is the event
to be historically judged 1 Regarding this the following is to be
observed : As the instantaneous bestowal of facility in a foreign
language is neither logically possible nor psychologically and
morally conceivable, and as not the slightest intimation of such a
thing in the Apostles is perceptible in their Epistles and elsewhere
(on the contrary, comp. xiv. n); as, further, if it was only
momentary, the impossibility increases, and as Peter himself in his
speech does not once make the slightest reference to the foreign
languages ; therefore whether, without any intimation in the text,
one consider that Pentecost assembly as a representation of all
future Christianity, or not the occurrence, as Luke relates it,
cannot be transmitted in its actual historical details. "3
Let us a little examine the particulars of the narrative in
Acts ii. All the brethren were assembled in one place, a house
(OIKOS), on the morning of the day of Pentecost. In the
preceding chapter (i. 15) we learn that the number of disciples
was then about 120, and the crowd which came together when
1 Zeller, Die Apostelgesch., p. 85 f. 2 *Rflanzung, u. s. w., p. 16.
3 Meyer, Kr. ex. H'buch iib. die Apostelgesch., $te aufl., 1870, p. 54 f.
THE GIFT OF TONGUES IN ACTS 785
the miraculous occurrence took place must have been great,
seeing that it is stated that 3,000 souls were baptised and added
to the Church upon the occasion (ii. 41). Passing over the state-
ment as to the numbers of the disciples, which might well surprise
us after the information given by the Gospels, 1 we may ask in what
house in Jerusalem could such a multitude have assembled?
Apologists have exhausted their ingenuity in replying to the
question, but whether placing the scene in one of the halls or
courts of the Temple, or in an imaginary house in one of the
streets leading to the Temple, the explanation is equally vague and
unsatisfactory. How did the multitude so rapidly know of what
was passing in a private house ? We shall say nothing at present
of the sound of the " rushing mighty wind " which filled all the
house, nor of the descent of the "tongues as of fire," nor of the
various interpretations of these phenomena by apologetic writers.
These incidents do not add to the historical character of the
narrative, nor can it be pronounced either clear or consistent.
The brethren assembled " were all filled with the Holy Spirit and
began to speak with other tongues (AaAeiv ere/oat? yAwa-crous),
as the Spirit gave them utterance." 2 Apologists, in order some-
what to save the historical credit of the account and reconcile it
with the statements of Paul, have variously argued that there is no
affirmation made in the narrative that speech in foreign languages
previously unknown was imparted. The members of the fifteen
nations who hear the Galilasans speaking " in our own language
wherein we were born " (ry ISiq. StaAexTO) ^pMv ev y eyev-
vr;&7//,ev) are disposed of with painful ingenuity ; but, passing
over all this, it is recognised by unprejudiced critics on both sides
that at least the author of Acts, in writing this account, intended
to represent the brethren as instantaneously speaking those pre-
viously unknown foreign languages. A few writers represent the
miracle to have been one of hearing rather than of speaking, the
brethren merely praising God in their own tongue, the Aramaic,
but the spectators understanding in their various languages. 3 This
only shifts the difficulty from the speakers to the hearers, and the
explanation is generally repudiated. It is, however, freely granted
by all that history does not exhibit a single instance of such a gift
of tongues having ever been made useful for the purpose of
preaching the Gospel. Paul, who claimed the possession of the
gift of tongues in a superlative degree (i Cor. xiv. 18), does not
appear to have spoken more languages than Aramaic and Greek.
1 John xvi. 31 ; Matt, xxviii. 7. ' 2 Acts ii. 4.
3 Schneckenburger, Beilrdge, p. 84 ; Svensen, Zeitschr. luth. 7'h. u. Kirchc,
1859, p. i f. This view was anciently held by Gregory Naz. (Orat. 44), and
some of the Fathers, and, in more recent times, it was adopted by Erasmus
and others.
786 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
He writes to the Romans in the latter tongue, and not in Latin,
and to the Galatians in the same language instead of their own.
Peter, who appears to have addressed the assembled nations in
Greek on this very occasion, does not in his speech either refer to
foreign languages or claim the gift himself, for in verse 15 he
speaks only of others : " For these (O^TOI) are not drunken."
Every one remembers the ancient tradition recorded by Papias,
and generally believed by the Fathers, that Mark accompanied
Peter as his "interpreter" (e/a/AT/vevrrys). 1 The first Epistle
bearing the name of Peter, and addressed to some of the very
nations mentioned in Acts, to sojourners " in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," is written in Greek ; and so are
the Epistle to the Hebrews and the other works of the New
Testament. Few will be inclined to deny that, to take only one
language for instance, the Greek of the writings of the New Testa-
ment leaves something to be desired, and that, if the writers
possessed such a supernatural gift, they evidently did not speak
even so important and current a language with absolute purity.
" Le style des tcrivains sacrfa" writes a modern Apologist, "montre
dairement qu'ils ont appris la langue grecque et qu'ils ne la
possedent pas de droit divin et par inspiration, car Us Ptcrivent
sans correction, en la surchargeant de locutions htbrdiques."* In
fact, as most critics point out, there never was a period at which a
gift of foreign tongues was less necessary for intercourse with the
civilised world, Greek being almost everywhere current. As
regards the fifteen nations who are supposed to have been repre-
sented on this great occasion, Neander says : " It is certain that
amongst the inhabitants of towns in Cappadocia, in Pontus, in
Asia Minor, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Cyrene, and in the parts of Libya
and Egypt peopled by Greek and Jewish colonies, the Greek
language was in great part more current than the old national
tongue. There remain, out of the whole catalogue of languages,
at most the Persian, Syriac, Arabic, Greek, and Latin. The more
rhetorical than historical stamp of the narrative is evident. "3
This rhetorical character, as contradistinguished from sober
history, is, indeed, painfully apparent throughout. The presence
in Jerusalem of Jews, devout men "from every nation under
heaven," is dramatically opportune, and thus representatives of the
fifteen nations are prepared to appear in the house and hear their
own languages in which they were born spoken in so supernatural,
1 Cf. Eusebius, H. E., iii. 39, v. 8 ; Irenaeus, Adv. Har., iii. i, I ; Tertullian,
Adv. Marc., iv. 5.
* De Pressens6, Hist, des Trois prem. Sticks, i., p. 356. Neander (Pftan-
sttng, u. s. w., p. 14 f.), Reuss (Rev. d. Thlol.^ 1851, iii., p. 84 f.), and many
other able writers, still more strongly enforce these arguments.
3 Neander, Pflanzung, u. s. w., p. 18.
ACCOUNT IN ACTS MUST BE REJECTED 787
though useless, a manner by the brethren. They are all said to
have been " confounded " at the phenomenon, and the writer adds
(ii. 7 f.) : " And they were all amazed, and marvelled, saying,
Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans ? And how hear
we every man in our own language wherein we were born ?" etc.
Did all the multitude say this? or is not the writer merely
ascribing probable sentiments to them? How, again, did
they know that the hundred and twenty, or more, brethren
were Galilseans ? Further on the writer adds more of the same kind
(verses 12, 13): "And they were all amazed and were in doubt, saying
one to another, What may this mean ? But others, mocking,
said : They are full of sweet wine." Is it not a strange manner of
accounting for such a phenomenon as (verse u) hearing people
speaking in their own tongues the great works of God to suppose
that they are drunken ? People speaking with tongues, in Paul's
sense (i Cor. xiv. 23, 24, 33), and creating an unintelligible tumult,
might well lead strangers to say that they were either mad or
drunken ; but the praise of God in foreign language, understood
by so many, could not convey such an impression. Peter does
not, in explanation, simply state that they are speaking foreign
languages which have just been supernatural!}- imparted to them, but
argues (verse 15) that "these are not drunken, as ye suppose, for it
is the third hour of the day," too early to be "full of sweet wine,"
and proceeds to assert that the phenomenon is, on the contrary, a
fulfilment of a prophecy of Joel, in which, although the pouring
out of God's Spirit upon all flesh is promised " in the last days,"
and, as a result, that "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy
and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall
dream dreams," not a single word is said of any gift of "tongues,"
foreign or otherwise. The miraculous phenomenon in question is
not mentioned in the prophecy, of which it is supposed to be the
accomplishment. It does not much help matters to argue that
the miracle, although not for future use, was intended as a sign.
We shall see what Paul says regarding yAwo-o-cus AaAetv as a
sign, but we may here merely point out that the effect produced
in the Corinthian Church is rather an impression of madness,
whilst here it leads to a mocking accusation of drunkenness. The
conversion of the 3,000 is by no means referred to the speaking
with tongues, but simply to the speech of Peter (ii. 37 f.,
41). From no point of view is there cohesion between the
different parts of the narrative ; it is devoid of verisimilitude. It
is not surprising that so many critics of all shades of opinion
recognise unhistorical elements in the narrative in Acts, not to use
a stronger term. To allow such an account to influence our inter-
pretation of Paul's statements regarding the gift of tongues is quite
out of the question ; and no one who appreciates the nature of
788 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the case, and who carefully examines the narrative of the unknown
writer, can, we think, hesitate to reject his theory of a supernatural
bestowal of power to speak foreign languages.
It is not difficult to trace the origin of the account in Acts, and,
although we cannot here pause to do so with any minuteness, we
may at least indicate the lines upon which the narrative is based.
There is no doubt that then, as now, the Jews commemorated at
the feast of Pentecost the giving of the law on Sinai. It seemed
good to the author of Acts that the prophet like unto Moses, 1 who
was to abrogate that law and replace it by a dispensation of grace,
should inaugurate the new law of love and liberty 2 with signs
equally significant and miraculous. It is related in Exodus xix. 18
that the Lord descended upon Sinai " in fire," and that the whole
mount quaked greatly. The voice of God pronounced the
decalogue, and, as the Septuagint version renders our Exodus xx.
18: " All the people saw the voice, and the lightnings and the
voice of the trumpet and the mountain smoking." According to
Rabbinical tradition when God came down to give the law
to the Israelites, he appeared not to Israel alone, but to all the
Other nations, and the voice in which the law was given went to
the ends of the earth and was heard of all peoples.3 It will be
remembered that the number of the nations was supposed to be
seventy, each speaking a different language, and the law was given
in the one sacred Hebrew tongue. The Rabbins explained,
however : " The voice from Sinai was divided into seventy voices
and seventy languages, so that all nations of the earth heard (the
law), and each heard it actually in its own language." 4 And again :
" Although the ten commandments were promulgated with one
single tone, yet it is said ( Exodus xx. 15), ' All people heard the
voices' (in the plural and not the voice in the singular); ' the reason
is : As the voice went forth it was divided into seven voices, and
then into seventy tongues, and every people heard the Law in its
own mother-tongue.' " 5 The same explanation is given of Psalm
Ixviii. 1 1, and the separation of the voice into seven voices and
seventy tongues is likened to the sparks beaten by a hammer from
molten metal on the anvil. 6 Philo expresses the same ideas in
several places. We can only extract one passage in which, speak-
ing of the giving of the law on Sinai, and discussing the manner
in which God proclaimed the decalogue, he says : " For God is
not like a man in need of a voice and of a tongue but it
seems to me that at that time he performed a most holy and
1 Acts Hi. 22, vii. 37. 2 Cf. Gal. iv. 21 f.
3 Bab, Sevachim, 116 a. ; Gfrorer, Dasjahrh. des Heils, ii. 392 f.
4 Schemoth Rabba, 70 d. ; Gfrorer, ib. , <ij. 393.
5 Midrash Tanchiiinah, 26, c. ; Gfrorer, ib., ii. 393.
6 Midrash Tillin ; Bab. Schabbath, 85 b. ; Gfrorer, ib., ii. 393 f.
ORIGIN OF LEGEND IN ACTS 789
beseeming wonder, commanding an invisible voice to be created
in air, more wonderful than all instruments not lifeless, but
neither a form of living creature composed of body and soul, but a
reasonable soul full of clearness and distinctness, which formed
and excited the air and transformed it into flaming fire, and sounded
forth such an articulated voice, like breath through a trumpet,
that it seemed to be equally heard by those who were near and
those furthest off." 1 A little further on he says : " But from the
midst of the fire streaming from heaven a most awful voice
sounded forth, the flame being articulated to language familiar to the
hearers, which made that which was said so vividly clear as to
seem rather seeing than hearing it." 2 It requires no elaborate
explanation to show how this grew into the miracle at Pentecost at
the inauguration of the Christian dispensation, when suddenly
there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind
which filled all the house where the disciples were, and there
appeared to them tongues as of fire parting asunder which sat
upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit
and began to speak with other tongues, even as the Spirit gave
them utterance, so that devout men from every nation under heaven
heard them speaking, everyone in his own language wherein he was
born, the great works of God.
When we turn to the other passages in the Acts where the gift
of tongues is mentioned, we find that the interpretation of foreign
languages supernaturally imparted is quite out of place. When
Peter is sent to Cornelius, as he is addressing the centurion and
his household, and even before they are baptised (x. 44), " the
Holy Spirit fell on all them who hear the word "; and the sign of
it is (v. 46) that they are heard "speaking with tongues and
magnifying God " (AaAoiWtov yAaxro-ats xat /AeyaA.wovrwi' T&V
#eov), precisely like the disciples at Pentecost (cf. ii. u, xi. 15 f.).
As this gift fell on all who heard the word (x. 44), it could
not be a sign to unbelievers ; and the idea that Cornelius and his
house immediately began to speak in foreign languages, which, as
in the case of the Corinthians, probably no one understood,
instead of simply " magnifying God " in their own tongue, which
everyone understood, is almost ludicrous, if without offence we
may venture to say so. The same remarks apply to xix. 6. We
must again allow an eminent Apologist, who will not be accused
of irreverence, to characterise such a representation. " Now, in
such positions and such company, speech in foreign tongues
would be something altogether without object and without meaning.
1 De decem Oraculis, 9, ed. Mangey, ii. 185 f.
1 Jf>., n, ed. Mangey, ii. 188 ; cf. De Septenario el festis, 22, ed.
Mangey, ii. 295 f.
790 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Where the consciousness of the grace of salvation, and of a
heavenly life springing from it, is first aroused in man, his own
mother tongue verily, not a foreign language, will be the natural
expression of his feelings. Or we must imagine a magical power
which, taking possession of men, like instruments without
volition, forces them to utter strange tones a thing contradicting
all analogy in the operations of Christianity." 1 The good sense
of the critic revolts against the natural submission of the
Apologist.
We have diverged so far in order prominently to bring before
the reader the nature and source of the hypothesis that the gift
of " tongues " signifies instantaneous power to speak unlearnt
foreign languages. Such an interpretation is derived almost
entirely from the mythical narrative in the Acts of the Apostles.
We shall now proceed to consider the statements of the Apostle
Paul, and endeavour to ascertain what the supposed miraculous
Charisma really is. That it is something very different from what
the unknown writer represents it in the episode of Pentecost
cannot be doubted. " Whoever has, even once, read with
attention what Paul writes of the speaking with tongues in the
Corinthian community," writes Thiersch, " knows that the differ-
ence between that gift of tongues and this (of Acts ii.) could
scarcely be greater. There, a speech which no mortal can under-
stand without interpretation, and also no philologist but the Holy
Spirit alone can interpret ; here, a speech which requires no inter-
pretation. That gift serves only for the edification of the speaker;
this clearly also for that of the hearer. The one is of no avail for
the instruction of the ignorant; the other, clearly, is imparted
wholly for that purpose." 2
It may be well that we should state a few reasons which show
that Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, does not intend, in
speaking of yA.too-o-cus XaXeiv, to represent speech in foreign
languages. In the very outset of the dissertation on the subject,
(xiv. 2), Paul very distinctly declares as the principal reason for
preferring prophecy to the gift of tongues : " For he that speaketh
with a tongue (XaAwv yAwo-aT/) speaketh not unto men, but unto
God ; for no one understandeth 3 (ovSels duowi)." How could
this be said if yXwa-tn; XaXfiv meant merely speaking a foreign
language ? The presence of a single person versed in the language
spoken would, in such a case, vitiate the whole of Paul's argument.
1 Neander, Pflanzung, u. s. w., p. 19.
2 Thiersch, Die Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, 2te aufl., 1858, p. 68 f.
3 The literal meaning, of course, is "no one heareth"; hut the sense is
" heareth with the understanding. " Cf. Markov. 33 and the Ixx. version of
Gen. xi. 7, Isaiah xxxvi. u, etc. ^ where dKofciv has this meaning. The
word is rightly rendered in the A. V.
PAUL DOES NOT MEAN FOREIGN LANGUAGES 791
The statement made is general, it will be observed, and not
limited to one community ; but, applied to a place like Corinth,
one of the greatest commercial cities, in which merchants, seamen,
and visitors of all countries were to be found, it would have been
unreasonable to have characterised a foreign tongue as absolutely
unintelligible. In xiv. 9, Paul says : " So likewise ye, unless ye
utter by the tongue (Sia. rfjs yAwo-o^s) words easy to be under-
stood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be
speaking into air." How could Paul use the expression, " by the
tongue," if he meant a foreign language in verse 2 and elsewhere?
He is comparing yAaxro-cus AaAeiv in the preceding verses with
the sounds of musical instruments, and the point reached in verse 9
clearly brings home the application of his argument the yAoxr-
O-GUS AaAeiv is unintelligible, like the pipe or harp, and, unless
the tongue utter words which have an understood meaning, it is
mere speaking into air. Is it possible that Paul could call speech
in a language foreign to him, perhaps, but which, nevertheless, was
the mother tongue of some nation, "speaking into air"? In such
case he must have qualified his statement by obvious explanations,
of which not a word appears throughout his remarks. That he
does not speak of foreign languages is made still more clear by the
next two verses (verse 10), in which, continuing his argument from
analogy, he actually compares yAoxro-cus AaAeiv with speech in
foreign languages, and ends (verse u) : "If, therefore, I know not
the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a
barbarian (foreigner) and he that speaketh a barbarian (foreigner)
in my judgment." 1 Paul's logic is certainly not always beyond
reproach, but he cannot be accused of perpetrating such an anti-
thesis as contrasting a thing with itself. He, therefore, explicitly
distinguishes (verse 10) yfvrj <j>o>vuv, "kinds of languages," 2 from
(xii. 10, 28, etc.) yv7/ yAwo-o-wv, "kinds of tongues." In
xiv. 6 Paul says : " If I come unto you speaking with tongues
(yAoWous AaAwv), what shall I profit you, unless I shall speak to
you, either in revelation, or knowledge, or in prophecy, or in
teaching ?" (ev diroKaXfyei fj tv yvio<ri ry ev -irpo^rfreiq. r) fv SiSa^y) ;
and then he goes on to compare such unintelligible speech
with musical instruments. It is obvious that revelation,
knowledge, prophecy, and teaching might equally be expressed in
foreign languages, and, therefore, in "speaking with tongues" it is
no mere difficulty of expression which makes it unprofitable, but
that general unintelligibility which is the ground of the whole
of Paul's objections. Paul exclaims (verse 18): " I thank God I
1 i Cor. xiv. u.
2 It is unnecessary to show that <f)uv^ is used to express language.
792 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
speak with a tongue (-yXoxro-y AaAto) 1 more than ye all (19), but
in a church I would rather speak five words with my understanding,
that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue
(fv yAaxroT;)." 2 We have already pointed out that there is no
evidence that Paul could speak many languages. So far as
we have any information, he only made use of Greek and
Aramaic, and never even preached where those languages were
not current. He always employed the former in his Epistles,
whether addressed to Corinth, Galatia, or Rome, and his
knowledge even of that language was not perfect. Speaking
" with a tongue " cannot, for reasons previously given, mean a
foreign language ; and this is still more obvious from what he says
in verse 19, just quoted, in which he distinguishes speaking with a
tongue from speaking with his understanding. Five words so
spoken are better than ten thousand in a tongue, because he
speaks with the understanding in the one case, and without it in
the second. It is clear that a man speaks with his understanding
as much in one language as another, but it is the main character-
istic of the speech we are discussing that it is throughout opposed
to understanding cf. verses 14, 15. It would be inconceivable
that, if this gift really signified power to speak foreign languages,
Paul could, on the one hand, use the expressions in this letter with
regard to it, and, on the other, that he could have failed to add
remarks consistent with such an interpretation. For instance, is
it possible that the Apostle, in repressing the exercise of the
Charisma, as he does, could have neglected to point out some
other use for it than mere personal edification? Could he have
omitted to tell some of these speakers with tongues that, instead
of wasting their languages in a Church where no one understood
them, it would be well for them to employ them in the instruction
of the nations whose tongues had been supernaturally imparted to
them ? As it is, Paul checks the use of a gift bestowed by the
Holy Spirit, and reduces its operation to the smallest limits, with-
out once indicating so obvious a sphere of usefulness for the
miraculous power. We need not proceed to further argu-
ments upon this branch of the subject ; although, in treating
other points, additional evidence will constantly present
itself. For the reasons we have stated, and many others,
the great majority of critics are agreed that the gift of
tongues, according to Paul, was not the power of speaking
foreign languages previously unknown. 3 But for the narrative
1 This is the reading of A, D, E, F, G, fc$, and other ancient codices, and
is adopted by most critics in preference to 7Xi*r<rcus, the reading of B, K, L.
2 I Cor. xiv. 1 8, 19.
3 So Bardili, Baur, Bleek, Davidson, Eichhorrf^Ewald, Fritzsche, Gfrorer,
Hausrath, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Keim, Meyer, Neander, Noack, Olshausen,
KINDS OF TONGUES AND THEIR INTERPRETATION 793
in Acts ii. no one would ever have thought of such an inter-
pretation.
Coming now to consider the two Charismata, " kinds of
tongues " and " the interpretation of tongues," more immediately
in connection with our inquiry, as so-called miraculous gifts of
the Holy Spirit, we shall first endeavour to ascertain some of their
principal characteristics. The theory of foreign languages super-
naturally imparted without previous study may be definitively
laid aside. The interpretation of tongues may go with it, but
requires a few observations. It is clear from Paul's words
throughout this dissertation that the interpretation of tongues not
only was not invariably attached to the gift of tongues 1 (i Cor.
xiv. 13, 27, 28), but was at least often a separate gift possessed
without the kinds of tongues (cf. xii. ro, 28, xiv. 26, 28). Nothing
can be more specific than xii. 10: " to another, kinds of
tongues; and to another, interpretation of tongues "; and again,
verse 30 : " Do all speak with tongues ? do all interpret ?" This is
indeed presaged by the "diversities of gifts," etc., of xii. 4 f.
Upon the hypothesis of foreign languages, this would presuppose
that some spoke languages which they could not interpret, and
consequently could not understand, and that others understood
languages which they could not speak. The latter point is
common enough in ordinary life ; but, in this instance, the
miracle of supernaturally receiving a perfect knowledge of
languages, instantaneously and without previous study, is as great
as to receive the power to speak them. The anomaly in the
miracle, merely to point out a suggestive discrepancy where all is
anomalous, is that the gift of tongues should ever have been
separated from the gift of interpretation. If a man understand
the foreign language he speaks, he can interpret it ; if he cannot
interpret it, he cannot understand it ; and if he cannot understand
it, can he possibly speak it? Certainly not, without his having
been made a perfectly mechanical instrument through which,
apart from the understanding and the will, sounds are involuntarily
produced, which is not to be entertained. Still pursuing the same
hypothesis the one gift is to speak languages which no one
understands, the other to understand languages which no one
speaks. Paul never even assumes the probability that the
Overbeck, Paulus, Pfleiderer, de Pressense, Renan, Reuss, Schaff, Schrader,
Schulz, Schwegler, Stap, Steudel, De Wette, Wieseler, Weisse, Zeller, and
others.
1 Ewald maintains that ' ' interpretation " was always separate from
"tongues" (Die Sendschr des Ap. Paul., p. 205, anm.). Wieseler at one
time (St. u. Krit., 1838, p. 720 f.) asserted that the speaker with tongues
was always his own interpreter. He subsequently (S/. n. K'rit., 1860, p. 117
f.) withdrew this extraordinary theory.
794 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
" tongue " spoken is understood by any one except the interpreter.
The interpretation of such obscure tongues must have been a
gift very little used never, indeed, except as the complement to
the gift of tongues. The natural and useful facility in languages
is apparently divided into two supernatural and useless halves.
The idea is irresistibly suggested, as apparently it was to the
Apostle himself, whether it would not have been more for the
good of mankind and for the honour of Christianity if, instead of
these two miraculously incomplete gifts, a little natural good
sense, five words even, to be spoken in the vernacular tongue
and requiring no interpretation, had been imparted. If, instead
of foreign languages, we substitute the utterance of ecstatic
religious excitement, the anomaly of speaking a language without
understanding it or being understood becomes intelligible ; and
equally so the interpretation, unaccompanied by the power of
speaking. It is obvious in both cases that, as no one understands
the tongue, no one can determine whether the interpretation of
it be accurate or not. But it is easily conceivable that a sympa
thetic nervous listener might suppose that he understood the
broken and incoherent speech of ecstasy, and might interpret it
according to his own stimulated imagination. The mysterious
and unknown are suggestive texts, and there is nothing more
infectious than religious excitement. In all this, however, is there
anything miraculous ?
We need not further demonstrate that the chief and general
characteristic of "kinds of tongues" was that they were unintelligible
(cf. i Cor. xiv. 2, 6-1 1, 13-19). Speaking with the spirit (irvtvpa)
is opposed to speaking with the understanding (vous) (cf. verses
14-16, etc.). They were not only unintelligible to others, but the
speaker himself did not understand what he uttered : (verse 14) "For
if I pray with a tongue (y^wo-cn/) my spirit (irvev/jLa) prayeth, but
my understanding (vot>s) is unfruitful " (cf. 15 f., 19). We have
already pointed out that Paul speaks of these Charismata in
general, and not as affecting the Corinthians only; and we must
now add that he obviously does not even insinuate that the " kinds
of tongues" possessed by that community was a spurious Charisma,
or that any attempt had been made to simulate the gift ; for
nothing could have been more simple than for the Apostle to
denounce such phenomena as false, and to distinguish the genuine
from the imitated speech with tongues. The most convincing
proof that his remarks refer to the genuine Charisma is that the
Apostle applies to himself the very same restrictions in the use of
"tongues" as he enforces upon the Corinthians (verses 18-19, 6,
etc.), and characterises his own gift precisely as he does theirs
(verses 6, n, 14, 15, 19). .
Now, what was the actual operation of this singular miraculous
UTILITY OF THE GIFTS EXAMINED 795
gift, and its utility whether as regards the community or the gifted
individual ? Paul restricts the speaking of " tongues " in church
because, being unintelligible, it is not for edification (xiv. 2 f.,
18 f., 23, 27, 28). He himself does not make use of his gift for
the assemblies of believers (verses 6, 18). Another ground upon
which he objects to the use of " kinds of tongues " in public is
that all the gifted apparently speak at once (verses 23, 27 f., 33). It
will be remembered that all the Charismata and their operations
are described as due to the direct agency of the Holy Spirit
(xii. 4 f.); and immediately following their enumeration, ending
with " kinds of tongues " and " interpretation of tongues," the
Apostle resumes (verse n), "but all these worketh one and the
same Spirit, dividing to each severally as he wills "; and in Acts ii. 4
the brethren are represented as speaking with tongues " as the
Spirit gave them utterance." Now, the first thought which presents
itself is : How can a gift which is due to the direct working of the
Holy Spirit possibly be abused ? We must remember clearly that
the speech is not expressive of the understanding of the speaker. The
TrvevjuariKot spoke under the inspiration of the supernatural Agent,
that which neither they nor others understood. Is it permissible
to suppose that the Holy Spirit could inspire speech with tongues
at an unfitting time ? Can we imagine that this Spirit can actually
have prompted many people to speak at one and the same time
to the utter disturbance of order ? Is not such a gift of tongues
more like the confusion of tongues in Babel 1 than a Christian
Charisma? "And the Lord said: Go to, let us go down
and there confound their language, that they may not understand
one another's speech." 2
In spite of his abstract belief in the divine origin of the
Charisma, Paul's language unconsciously betrays practical
doubt as to its character. Does not such sarcasm as the
following seem extremely indecorus when criticising a result
produced directly by the Holy Spirit ? (xiv. 23) " If, there-
fore, the whole church be come into one place and all speak
with tongues, and there come in unlearned and unbelieving
persons, will they not say ye are mad ?" At Pentecost such an
assembly was supposed to be drunken. 3 The whole of the counsel
of the Apostle upon this occasion really amounts to an injunction
to quench the Spirit. It is quite what might be expected in the
case of the excitement of ecstatic religion, that the strong emotion
should principally find vent in the form of prayer and praise
(verse 15 f.); equally so that it should be unintelligible, and that no
one should know when to say "Amen" (verse 16), and that all
1 Cf. Schrader, Der Ap. Paulus, ii., p. 72 f. a Gen. xi. 6, 7.
3 The same gift, it is generally understood, is referred to in Ephes. v. 18 f.
796 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
should speak at once ; and still more so that the practical result
should be tumult (verses 23, 33). All this, it might appear, could
be produced without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. So far,
is there any utility in the miracle ?
But we are told that it is " for a sign." Paul argues upon this
point in a highly eccentric manner. He quotes (v. 21) Isaiah
xxviii. u, 12, in a form neither agreeing with the Septuagint nor
with the Hebrew a passage which has merely a superficial and
verbal analogy with the gift of tongues, but whose real historical
meaning has no reference to it whatever: " In the Law it is written,
that with men of other tongues and with the lips of others will I
speak unto this people ; and yet for all that they will not hear me,
saith the Lord." The Apostle continues with singular logic :
"So that (wo-re) the tongues are for a sign (as o-^eiov) not
to those who believe, but to the unbelieving ; but prophecy is not
for the unbelieving, but for those who believe. If, therefore, the
whole Church be come into one place, and all speak with tongues,
and there come in unlearned or unbelieving persons, will they not
say that ye are mad ? But if all prophesy and there come in an
unbeliever he is convicted by all and so falling on his face
he will worship God, reporting that God is indeed in you." The
Apostle himself shows that the tongues cannot be considered a
sign by unbelievers, upon whom, apparently, they produce no
other impression than that the speakers are mad or drunken.
Under any circumstances, the " kinds of tongues " described by
the Apostle are a very sorry specimen of the " signs and wonders
and powers " of which we have heard so much. It is not
surprising that the Apostle prefers exhortation in a familiar tongue.
In an ecstatic state, men are incapable of edifying others.; we shall
presently see how far they can edify themselves. Paul utters the
pith of the whole matter at the very outset of his homily, when he
prefers exhortation to kinds of tongues : verse 2. " For he that
speaketh with a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for
no one understandeth, but in Spirit he speaketh mysteries " (A.aA.e?'
fj.vo"nrjpia). It is not possible to read his words without the
impression that the Apostle treats the whole subject with suppressed
impatience. His mind was too prone to believe in spiritual
mysteries, and his nervous nature too susceptible to religious
emotion and enthusiasm, to permit him clearly to recognise the
true character of the gift of " tongues"; but his good sense asserted
itself, and, after protesting that he would rather speak five words
with his understanding than ten thousand words in a tongue, he
breaks off with the characteristic exclamation (verse 20), "Brethren,
become not children in your minds" (p? iratSia yiVeo-fle TCUS tfrpca-iv).
The advice is not yet out of place. *.
What was the private utility or advantage of the supernatural
PROBABLE NATURE OF GIFT OF TONGUES 797
gift? How did he who spoke with a tongue edify himself? (verse
4). Paul clearly states that he does not edify the Church (verse
2 f.). In the passage just quoted the Apostle, however, says that
the speaker " with a tongue " " speaketh to God "; and further on
(verses 18, 19) he implies that, although he himself does not use
the gift in public, he does so in private. He admonishes (verse 28)
any one gifted with tongues, if there be no interpreter present, to
"keep silence in a church, but let him speak to himself and to
God." But in what does the personal edification of the individual
consist ? In employing language, which he does not comprehend,
in private prayer and praise ? In addressing God in some unin-
telligible jargon, in the utterance of which his understanding has
no part? Many strange purposes and proceedings have been
attributed to the Supreme Being, but probably none has been
imagined more incongruous than a gift of tongues unsuitable for
the edification of others, and not intelligible to the recipient, but
considered an edifying substitute in private devotion for his own
language. This was certainly not the form of prayer which Jesus
taught his disciples. 1 And this gift was valued more highly in the
Corinthian Church than all the rest ! Do we not get an instructive
insight into the nature of the other Charismata from this suggestive
fact ? The reality of miracles does not seem to be demonstrated
by these chapters. 2
We have already stated that the vast majority of critics explain
yAoxrcrcus AaAetv as speech in an ecstatic condition; and all
the phenomena described by Paul closely correspond with the
utterance of persons in a state of extreme religious enthusiasm
and excitement, of which many illustrations might be given from
other religions before and since the commencement of our era, as
well as in the history of Christianity in early and recent times.
Every one knows of the proceedings of the heathen oracles, the
wild writhings and cries of the Pythoness and the mystic utterances
of the Sibyl. In the Old Testament there is allusion to the
ecstatic emotion of the prophets in the account of Saul, i Sam.
xix. 24 (cf. Isaiah viii. 19, xxix. 4). The Montanists exhibited
similar phenomena, and Tertullian has recorded several instances
of such religious excitement, to which we have elsewhere referred.
Chrysostom had to repress paroxysms of pious excitement closely
resembling these in the fourth century ; 3 and even down to our
own times instances have never been wanting of this form of
1 Matt. vi. 5 f. ; Luke xi. I f.
2 It is impossible to refer to every writer by whom the arguments adopted
throughout this section may have been used or suggested, but we very gladly
express obligation, especially to the writings of Baur, Zeller, Meyer, Reuss,
Overbeck, Holtzmann, and Neander.
3 Horn, in Is., vi. 2.
798 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
hysterical religion. Into none of this can we enter here. Enough,
we trust, has been said to show the true character of the supposed
supernatural Charismata of Paul from his own account of them,
and the information contained in his Epistles.
Although we have been forced to examine in considerable
detail the passages in the writings of Paul cited by Apologists in
support of miracles, the study is one of great value to our inquiry.
These are the only passages which we possess in which a con-
temporary and eye-witness describes what he considers super-
natural phenomena, and conveys to us his impression of miraculous
agency. Instead of traditional reports of miracles narrated by
writers who are unknown, and who did not actually see the occur-
rences in question, we have here a trustworthy witness dealing with
matters in which he was personally interested, and writing a
didactic homily upon the nature and operation of Charismata
which he believed to be miraculous, and conferred upon the Church
by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit. The nineteenth
century here comes into direct contact with the age of miracles,
but at the touch these miracles vanish, and that which, seen
through the golden mist of pious tradition, seems to possess
unearthly power and beauty, on closer examination dwindles into
the prose of every-day life. The more minutely miracles are
scanned, the more unreal they are recognised to be. The point
to which we now desire to call attention, however, is the belief and
the mental constitution of Paul. We have seen something of the
nature and operation of the gift of tongues. That the phenomena
described proceeded from an ecstatic state, into which persons of
highly excitable nervous organisation are very liable to fall under
the operation of strong religious impressions, can scarcely be
doubted. Eminent Apologists 1 have gravely illustrated the
phenomena by the analogy of mesmerism, somnambulism, and the
effects of magnetism. Paul asserts that he was subject to the
influence, whatever it was, more than anyone, and there is nothing
which is more credible than the statement, or more characteristic
of the Apostle. We desire to speak of him with the profoundest
respect and admiration. We know more, from his epistles, of the
intimate life and feelings of the great Apostle of the Gentiles than
of any other man of the apostolic age, and it is impossible not to
feel warm sympathy with his noble and generous character. The
history of Christianity, after the death of its Founder, would sink
almost into commonplace if the grand figure of Paul were blotted
from its pages. But it is no detraction to recognise that his
nervous temperament rendered him peculiarly susceptible of those
religious impressions which result in conditions of ecstatic trance,
1 Bleek, Olshausen, and others.
PAUL'S STAKE IN THE FLESH 799
to which, as we actually learn from himself, he was exceptionally
subject. The effects of this temperament probably first made him
a Christian ; and to his enthusiastic imagination we owe most of
the supernatural dogmas of the religion which he adopted and
transformed.
One of these trances the Apostle himself recounts, 1 always
with the cautious reserve, "whether in the body or out of the
body I know not, God knoweth," how he was caught up to the
third heaven, and in Paradise heard unutterable words which it is
not lawful for a man to speak ; in immediate connection with which
he continues : " And lest I should be exalted above measure by the
excess of the revelations, there was given to me a stake (o-KoAoi/')
in the flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet me." 2 This was one of
the " visions (oTrrcuri'as) and revelations (aTro/coAt'i/'ets) of the
Lord " of which he speaks, and of which he had such an excess
to boast. Can any one doubt that this was nearly akin to the state
of ecstatic trance in which he spoke with tongues more than all the
Corinthians ? Does any one suppose that Paul, " whether in the
body or out of the body," was ever actually caught up into " the
third heaven," wherever that may be ? or doubt that this was
simply one of the pious hallucinations which visit those who are
in such a state ? If we are seriously to discuss the point it is
clear that evidence of such a thing is out of the question ; that
Paul himself admits that he cannot definitely describe what
happened ; that we have no other ground for considering the
matter than the Apostle's own mysterious utterance; that it is
impossible for a person subject to such visions and hallucinations
to distinguish between reality and seeming ; that this narrative has
not only all the character of hallucination, but no feature of sober
fact; and, finally, that, whilst it accords with all experiences of
visionary hallucination, it contradicts all experience of practical
life. We have seen that Paul believes in the genuineness and
supernatural origin of the divine Charismata, and he in like
manner believes in the reality of his visions and revelations. He
has equal reason, or want of reason, in both cases.
What was the nature of the "stake in the flesh" which,
upon the theory of the diabolical origin of disease, he calls
"an angel of Satan to buffet me"? There have been many
conjectures offered, but one explanation which has been advanced
by able critics has special force and probability. It is suggested
that this "stake in the flesh," which almost all now at least
recognise to have been some physical malady, and very many
1 2 Cor. xii. I f.
- Ib.,yj.\. 7. We need not discuss the connection of Kairij vireppoXrj. We
have adopted that which is also the reading of the A.V.
8oo SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
suppose to have been headache or some other similar periodical
and painful affection, was in reality a form of epilepsy. 1 It has
been ably argued that the representation of the malady as "an
angel of Satan " to buffet him, directly connects it with nervous
disorders like epilepsy, which the Jews especially ascribed to
diabolical influence ; and the mention of this a-KoX.o\f/ in immediate
continuation of his remarks on " visions " and " revelations,"
which a tendency to this very malady would so materially assist in
producing, further confirms the conjecture. 2 No one can deny,
and medical and psychological annals prove, that many men have
been subject to visions and hallucinations which have never been
seriously attributed to supernatural causes. There is not one
single valid reason removing the ecstatic visions and trances of the
Apostle Paul from this class.
We do not yet discuss the supposed vision in which he saw the
risen Jesus, though it is no exception to the rest, but reserve it
for the next chapter. At present, it suffices that we point out the
bearing of our examination of Paul's general testimony to miracles
upon our future consideration of his evidence for the Resurrection.
If it be admitted that his judgment as to the miraculous character
of the Charismata is fallacious, and that what he considered
miraculous were simply natural phenomena, the theory of the
reality of miracles becomes less tenable than ever. And if, further,
it be recognised, as we think it necessarily must be, that Paul was
subject to natural ecstatic trances, with all their accompanying
forms of nervous excitement " kinds of tongues," visions, and
religious hallucinations a strong and clear light will fall upon his
further testimony for miraculous occurrences which we shall shortly
have before us.
1 Ewald, Sendschr. des Ap. Paulus, p. 307 f. ; llausrath, Der Ap. Pan/us,
p. 52 f. ; Ilofmann, Die heil. Schr. N. T., 1866, ii. 3, p. 309 ; Holsten, Zuin
Ev. des Pauhts, it. s. u>., p. 85 f. ; Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 1 86 f. ; Strauss,
Das Leb.Jesu, p. 302 ; Weber u. Holtzmann, Gesch. V. 1st:, ii., p. 542 f,
2 Holsten, Zum Ev. des Paulus u. des Petrus, 1868, p. 85 f.
PART VI.
THE RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION
CHAPTER I.
THE RELATION OF EVIDENCE TO SUBJECT
WHEN the evidence of the Gospels regarding the great central
dogmas of ecclesiastical Christianity is shown to be untrustworthy
and insufficient, Apologists appeal with confidence to the testimony
of the Apostle Paul. We presume that it is not necessary to
show that, in fact, the main weight of the case rests upon his
Epistles, as undoubted documents of the apostolic age, written
some thirty or forty years after the death of the Master. The
retort has frequently been made to the earlier portion of this work
that, so long as the evidence of Paul remains unshaken, the apolo-
getic position is secure. We may quote a few lines from an able
work, part of a passage discussed in the preceding chapter, as a
statement of the case : " In the first place, merely as a matter of
historical attestation, the Gospels are not the strongest evidence
for the Christian miracles. Only one of the four, in its present
shape, is claimed as the work of an Apostle, and of that the
genuineness is disputed. The Acts of the Apostles stand upon
very much the same footing with the synoptic Gospels, and of this
book we are promised a further examination. But we possess at
least some undoubted writings of one who was himself a chief
actor in the events which followed immediately upon those
recorded in the Gospels ; and in these undoubted writings St.
Paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the good faith of
which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to be
endowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles,
or what were thought to be such, were actually wrought by him
and by his contemporaries Besides these allusions, St. Paul
repeatedly refers to the cardinal miracles of the Resurrection and
Ascension ; he refers to them as notorious and unquestionable
facts at a time when such an assertion might have been easily
refuted. On one occasion he gives a very circumstantial account
801 31-"
802 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
of the testimony on which the belief in the Resurrection rested
(i Cor. xv. 4-8). And not only does he assert the Resurrection
as a fact, but he builds upon it a whole scheme of doctrine : ' If
Christ be not risen,' he says, ' then is our preaching vain, and your
faith is also vain.' We do not stay now to consider the exact
philosophical weight of this evidence. It will be time enough to
do this when it has received the critical discussion that may be
presumed to be in store for it. But as external evidence, in the
legal sense, it is probably the best that can be produced, and it
has been entirely untouched so far." 1 We have already disposed
of the " allusions " above referred to. We shall in due time deal
with the rest of the statements in this passage, but at present it is
sufficient to agree at least with the remark that, "as external
evidence," the testimony of Paul " is probably the best that can be
produced." We know at least who the witness really is, which is
an advantage denied us in the case of the Gospels. It would
be premature to express surprise that we find the case of
miracles, and more especially of such stupendous miracles as the
Resurrection and Ascension, practically resting upon the testimony
of a single witness. This thought will intrude itself, but cannot at
present be pursued.
The allegation which we have to examine is that the Founder of
Christianity, after being dead and buried, rose from the dead and
did not again die, but, after remaining some time with his disciples,
ascended with his body into heaven. 2 It is unnecessary to com-
plicate the question by adding the other doctrines regarding the
miraculous birth and divine origin and personality of Jesus. In
the problem before us certain objective facts are asserted which
admit of being judicially tested. We have nothing to do here
with the vague modern representation of these events, by means of
which the objective facts vanish, and are replaced by subjective
impressions and tricks of consciousness or symbols of spiritual life.
Those who adopt such views have, of course, abandoned all that is
real and supernatural in the supposed events. The Resurrection
and Ascension with which we have to deal are events precisely
as objective and real as the death and burial no ideal process
figured by the imagination or embodiments of Christian hope,
but tangible realities, historical occurrences in the sense of
1 Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, 1876, p. lof.
1 In the Articles of the Church of England this is expressed as follows :
Art. ii. "who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, etc." Art. iii.
" As Christ died for us, and was buried ; so also it is to be believed that He
went down into Hell." Art. iv. " Christ did truly rise again from death, and
took again His Body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the
perfection of man's nature, wherewith He asce*mded unto Heaven, and there
sitteth, until He return to judge all men at the last day."
EVIDENCE FOR RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION 803
ordinary life. If Jesus, after being crucified, dead, and buried,
did not physically rise again from the dead, and in the flesh, 1
without again dying, " ascend into Heaven," the whole case falls
to the ground. These incidents, although stupendous miracles,
must have been actual occurrences. If they did not take place,
our task is at an end. If it be asserted that they really did
take place, their occurrence must be attested by adequate evidence.
Apologists, whilst protesting that the occurrences in question are
believed upon ordinary historical evidence, and that Christianity
requires no indulgence, but submits itself to the same tests as any
other affirmation, do not practically act upon this principle, but,
as soon as it is enunciated, introduce a variety of special pleas
which remove the case from the domain of history into that of
theology, and proceed upon one assumption after another, until
the fundamental facts become enveloped and, so to say, protected
from judicial criticism by a cloud of religious dogmas and
hypotheses. 2 By confining our attention to the simple facts
which form the basis of the whole superstructure of ecclesiastical
Christianity, we may avoid much confusion of ideas, and restrict
the field of inquiry to reasonable limits. We propose, therefore,
to limit our investigation to the evidence for the reality of the
Resurrection and Ascension.
What evidence could be regarded as sufficient to establish the
reality of such supposed occurrences ? The question is one which
demands the serious attention and consideration of every thoughtful
man. It is obvious that the amount of evidence requisite to
satisfy our minds as to the truth of any statement should be
measured by the nature of that statement and, we may as
well add, by its practical importance to ourselves. The news
that a man was married or a child born last week is received
without doubt, because men are married and children are born
every day ; and, although such pieces of gossip are frequently
untrue, nothing appears more natural or more in accordance with
our experience. If we take more distant and less familiar events,
we have no doubt that a certain monarch was crowned, and that
he subsequently died some centuries ago. If we ask for proof
of the statement, nothing may be forthcoming of a very minute
1 The disappearance of the body from the sepulchre, a point much insisted
upon, could have had no significance or reality if the body did not rise and
afterwards ascend.
2 A work of this kind may be mentioned in illustration : Dr. Westcott's
Gospel of the Resurrection. The argument of this work is of unquestionable
ability, but it is chiefly remarkable, we think, for the manner in which the
direct evidence is hurried over, and a mass of assertions and assumptions, the
greater part of which is utterly untenable and inadmissible, is woven into
specious and eloquent pleading, and does duty for substantial testimony.
804 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
or indubitable nature. No absolute eye-witness of the coronation
may have left a clear and detailed narrative of the ceremony ; and
possibly there may no longer be extant a sufficiently attested
document proving with certainty the death of the monarch.
There are several considerations, however, which make us perfectly
satisfied with the evidence incomplete as it may be. Monarch s
are generally crowned and invariably die ; and the statement that
any one particular monarch was crowned and died is so completely
in conformity with experience that we have no hesitation in
believing it in the specific case. We are satisfied to believe such
ordinary statements upon very slight evidence, both because our
experience prepares us to believe that they are true and because
we do not much care whether they are true or not. If life, or
even succession to an estate, depended upon either event, the
demand for evidence, even in such simple matters, would
be immensely intensified. The converse of the statement
would not meet with the same reception. Would anyone
believe the affirmation that Alfred the Great, for instance, did not
die at all ? What amount of evidence would be required before
such a statement could be pronounced sufficiently attested ?
Universal experience would be so uniformly opposed to
the assertion that such a phenomenon had taken place, that
probably no evidence readily conceivable could ensure the
belief of more than a credulous few. The assertion that a man
actually died and was buried, and yet afterwards rose from the
dead, is still more at variance with human experience. The pro-
longation of life to long periods is comparatively consistent with
experience ; and if a life extending to several centuries be
incredible, it is only so in degree, and is not absolutely contrary to
the order of nature, which certainly under present conditions does
not favour the supposition of such lengthened existence, but still
does not fix hard-and-fast limits to the life of man. The resurrec-
tion of a man who has once been absolutely dead, however, is
contrary to all human experience. If to this we add the assertion
that the person so raised from the dead never again died, but, after
continuing some time longer on earth, ascended bodily to some
invisible and inconceivable place called Heaven, there to " sit at
the right hand of God," the shock to reason and common-
sense becomes so extreme that it is difficult even to realise the
nature of the affirmation. It would be hopeless to endeavour to
define the evidence which could establish the reality of the alleged
occurrences.
As the central doctrines of a religion upon which the salvation
of the human race is said to depend, we are too deeply interested
to be satisfied with slight evidence or no ^vidence at all. It has
not unfrequently been made a reproach that forensic evidence is
PROPORTIONATE EVIDENCE 805
required of the reality of Divine Revelation. Such a course is
regarded as perfectly preposterous, whether the test be applied to
the primary assertion that a revelation has been made at all, or to
its contents. What kind of evidence, then, are we permitted
decorously to require upon so momentous a subject? Appa-
rently, just so much as Apologists can conveniently set before us,
and no more. The evidence deemed necessary for the settlement
of a Scotch peerage case, or a disputed will, is, we do not hesitate
to say, infinitely more complete than that which it is thought
either pious or right to expect in the case of religion. The actual
occurrence of the Resurrection and Ascension is certainly
a matter of evidence, and it is scarcely decent that any man
should be required to believe what is so opposed to human
experience, upon more imperfect evidence than is required for the
transfer of land or the right to a title, simply because ecclesiastical
dogmas are founded upon them, and it is represented that, unless
they be true, "our hope is vain." The testimony requisite to
establish the reality of such stupendous miracles can scarcely be
realised. Proportionately, it should be as unparalleled in its
force as those events are in fact. Evidence of the actual death
of the person requires to be as complete as evidence of his resur-
rection. One point, moreover, must never be forgotten. Human
testimony is exceedingly fallible at its best. It is liable to error
from innumerable causes, and most of all, probably, when religious
excitement is present, and disturbing elements of sorrow, fear,
doubt, or enthusiasm interfere with the 'calmness of judgment.
When any assertion is made which contradicts unvarying experi-
ence, upon evidence which experience knows to be universally
liable to error, there cannot be much hesitation in disbelieving the
assertion and preferring belief in the order of nature. And when
evidence proceeds from an age exceptionally exposed to error,
from ignorance of natural laws, and the prevalence of supersti-
tion, and religious excitement, it cannot be received without the
gravest suspicion. We make these brief remarks, in anticipation,
as nothing is more essential in the discussion upon which we are
about to enter than a proper appreciation of the allegations which
are to be tested, and of the nature of the testimony required for
belief in them.
We shall not limit our inquiry to the testimony of Paul, but shall
review the whole of the evidence adduced for, the Resurrection
and Ascension. Hitherto, our examination of the historical books
of the New Testament has been mainly for the purpose of
ascertaining their character, and the value of their evidence for
miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation. It is unnecessary
for us here minutely to recapitulate the results. The Acts of the
Apostles, we have shown, cannot be received as testimony of the
806 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
slightest weight upon any of the points before us. Briefly to state
the case of the Gospels in other words than our own, we repeat the
honest statement of the able writer quoted at the beginning of this
chapter : " In the first place, merely as a matter of historical attesta-
tion, the Gospels are not the strongest evidence for the Christian
miracles. Only one of the four, in its present shape, is claimed as the
work of an Apostle, and of that the genuineness is disputed." 1 We
may add that the third Synoptic does not, in the estimation of
any one who has* examined the Acts of the Apostles, gain
additional credibility by being composed by the same author as
the latter work. The writers of the four Gospels are absolutely
unknown to us, and in the case of three of them it is not even
affirmed that they were eye-witnesses of the Resurrection and
Ascension and other miracles narrated. The undeniably doubtful
authorship of the fourth Gospel, not to make a more positive
statement here, renders this work, which was not written until
upwards of half a century, at the very least, after the death of
Jesus, incapable of proving anything in regard to the Resurrection
and Ascension. A much stronger statement might be made,
but we refer readers to our preceding arguments, and we shall
learn something more of the character of the Gospel narratives
as we proceed.
Although we cannot attach any value to the Gospels as evidence,
we propose, before taking the testimony of Paul, to survey the
various statements made by them regarding the astounding miracles
we are discussing. Enough has been said to show that we cannot
accept any statement as true simply because it is made by a Gospel
or Gospels. When it is related in the first Synoptic, for instance,
that Pilate took water and washed his hands before the multitude,
saying, " I am innocent of this man's blood : see ye to it " 2 an
incident to which no reference, be it said in passing, is made by
the other Evangelists, although it is sufficiently remarkable to have
deserved notice we cannot of course assume that Pilate actually
said or did anything of the kind. A comparison of the various
accounts of the Resurrection and Ascension, however, and careful
examination of their details, will be of very great use, by enabling
us to appreciate the position of the case apart from the evidence of
Paul. The indefinite impression fostered by Apologists, that the
evidence of the Gospels supplements and completes the evidence
of the Apostle, and forms an aggregate body of testimony of
remarkable force and volume, must be examined, and a clear
conception formed of the whole case.
One point may at once be mentioned before we enter upon our
examination of the Gospels. The Evangelists narrate such
1 Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 10. 2 Matt, xxvii. 24.
EVIDENCE OF NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 807
astonishing occurrences as the Resurrection and Ascension with
perfect composure and absence of surprise. This characteristic is
even made an argument for the truth of their narrative. The
impression made upon our minds, however, is the very reverse of
that which Apologists desire us to receive. The writers do not in
the least degree seem to have realised the exceptional character of
the occurrences they relate, and betray the assurance of persons
writing in an ignorant and superstitious age, whose minds have
become too familiar with the supernatural to be at all surprised
either by a resurrection from the dead or a bodily ascension.
Miracles in their eyes have lost their strangeness and seem quite
commonplace. It will be seen, as we examine the narratives, that
a stupendous miracle, or a convulsion of nature, is thrown in by
one or omitted by another as a mere matter of detail. An earth-
quake and the resurrection of many bodies of saints are mere
trifles which can be inserted without wonder, or omitted without
regret. The casual and momentary expression of hesitation to
believe, which is introduced, is evidently nothing more than a
rhetorical device to heighten the reality of the scene. It would
have been infinitely more satisfactory had we been able to perceive
that these witnesses, instead of being genuine denizens of the age
of miracles, had really understood the astounding nature of the
occurrences they report, and did not consider a miracle the most
natural thing in the world.
CHAPTER II.
THE EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPELS
IN order more fully to appreciate the nature of the narratives which
the four Evangelists give of the last hours of the life of Jesus, we
may take them up at the point where, mocked and buffeted by the
Roman soldiers, he is finally led away to be crucified. 1
According to the Synoptics, the Roman guard entrusted with the
duty of executing the cruel sentence find a man of Cyrene, Simon
by name, and compel him to carry the cross. 2 It was customary
for those condemned to crucifixion to carry the cross, or at least
the main portion of it, themselves to the place of execution, and
no explanation is given by the Synoptists for the deviation from
this practice which they relate. The fourth Gospel, however, does
not appear to know anything of this incident, or of Simon of
Cyrene, but distinctly states that Jesus bore his own cross. 3 On
the way to Golgotha, according to the third Gospel, Jesus is
followed by a great multitude of the people, and of women who
were bewailing and lamenting him, and he addresses to them a few
prophetic sentences. We might be surprised at the singular fact
1 Let no one suppose that, in freely criticising the Gospels, \\eregard without
emotion the actual incidents which lie at the bottom of these narratives, suppos-
ing them to be genuine. No one can, without pain, form to himself any ade-
quate conception of the terrible sufferings of the Master, maltreated and insulted
by a base and brutal multitude, too degraded to understand his noble character,
and too ignorant to appreciate his elevated teaching ; and to follow his
course from the tribunal which sacrificed him to Jewish popular clamour to the
spot where he ended a brief but self-sacrificing life by the shameful death of a
slave may well make sympathy take the place of criticism. Profound venera-
tion for the great Teacher, however, and earnest interest in all that concerns his
history, rather command serious and unhesitating examination of the statements
made with regard to him, than discourage an attempt to ascertain the truth ;
and it would be anything but respect for his memory to accept without question
the Gospel accounts of his life simply because they were composed with the
desire to glorify him.
2 Matt, xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21 ; Luke xxiii. 26.
3 fiaffTdfav eavrif rbv <TTavp6v, John xix. 1 7- If, instead of this reading, which
is that of the Sinaitic and Alexandrian codices and other authorities, adopted
by Tischendorf and others, the rbv ffravpbv avrov of the received text and Lach-
mann, or avrij) T. <sr., of B, X, etc., be preferred, the result is the same. We may
mention, in passing, that the fourth Gospel has no reference to a saying ascribed
by the Synoptics to Jesus, in which bearing his crx>ss is used typically : Matt. x.
38, xvi. 24 ; Mark viii. 34, x. 21 ; Luke ix. 23, xit. 27.
4 Luke xxiii. 27 f. ; cf. xxi. 23 ; Matt. xxiv. 19.
808
VINEGAR MINGLED WITH GALL 809
that there is no reference to this incident in any other Gospel, and
that words of Jesus, so weighty in themselves and spoken at so
supreme a moment, should not elsewhere have been recorded, but
for the fact that, from internal evidence, the address must be
assigned to a period subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem.
The other Evangelists may, therefore, well ignore it.
It was the custom to give those about to be crucified a draught
of wine containing a strong opiate, which in some degree alle-
viated the intense suffering of that mode of death. Mark 1 probably
refers to this (xv. 23) when he states that, on reaching the place of
execution, " they gave him wine (olvov) mingled with myrrh."
The fourth Gospel has nothing of this. Matthew says (xxvii. 34) :
"They gave him vinegar (oos) to drink mingled with gall" 2
(/jitTa x^%)- Even if, instead of oos with the Alexandrian
and a majority of MSS., we read oivos, " wine," with the
Sinaitic, Vatican, and some other ancient codices, this is a curious
statement, and is well worthy of a moment's notice as suggestive
of the way in which these narratives were written. The concep-
tion of a suffering Messiah, it is well known, was more particularly
supported, by New Testament writers, by attributing a Messianic
character to Psalm xxii., Ixix., and Isaiah liii., and throughout the
narrative of the Passion we are perpetually referred to these and
other Scriptures, as finding their fulfilment in the sufferings of
Jesus. The first Synoptist found in Psalm Ixix. 21 (Sept. Ixviii.
21): " They gave me also gall (xoA^i/) for my food, and in my
thirst they gave me vinegar (oos) to drink "; and apparently, in
order to make the supposed fulfilment correspond as closely as
possible, he combined the " gall " of the food with the vinegar or
wine in strangely literal fashion, 3 very characteristic, however, of
the whole of the Evangelists. Luke, who seems not to have
understood the custom known perhaps to Mark, represents (xxiii.
36) the soldiers as mocking Jesus by " offering him vinegar "
(o'os) ; he omits the gall, but probably refers to the same
Psalm without being so falsely literal as Matthew.
1 We shall, for the sake of brevity, call the Gospels by the names assigned
to them in the Canon.
2 There have been many attempts to explain away xM> ar) d to make it
mean either a species of Vermuth* or any bitter substance (Olshausen, Leidens-
gesch., 168) ; but the great mass of critics rightly retain its meaning " gall."
So Ewald, Meyer, Bleek, Strauss, Weisse, Schenkel, Volkmar, Alford,
Wordsworth, etc.
3 "St. Matthew mentally refers it to Psalm Ixix. 21 6os (or possibly olvov,
which Tischendorf admits from fr$, B, D, K, L, etc.)^eri xoX^s " (Farrar, Life
of Christ, ii., p. 400, note i).
4 Luke omits the subsequent offer of " vinegar" (probably the Fosca of the
Roman soldiers) mentioned by the other Evangelists. We presume the
reference in xxiii. 36 to be the same as the act described in Matt, xxvii. 34 and
Mark xv. 23.
8io SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
We need not enter into the discussion as to the chronology of
the Passion week, regarding which there is so much discrepancy in
the accounts of the fourth Gospel and of the Synoptics, nor shall
we pause minutely to deal with the irreconcilable difference which,
it is admitted, exists in their statement of the hours at which the
events of the last fatal day occurred. The fourth Gospel (xix. 4)
represents Pilate as bringing Jesus forth to the Jews "about the
sixth hour " (noon). Mark (xv. 25), in obvious agreement with
the other Synoptics as further statements prove, distinctly says :
" And it was the third hour (9 o'clock a.m.), and they crucified
him." At the sixth hour (noon), according to the three Synoptists,
there was darkness over the earth till about the ninth hour (3
o'clock p.m.), shortly after which time Jesus expired. 1 As,
according to the fourth Gospel, the sentence was not even passed
before midday, and some time must be allowed for preparation
and going to the place of execution, it is clear that there is a very
wide discrepancy between the hours at which Jesus was crucified
and died, unless, as regards the latter point, we take agreement in
all as to the hour of death. In this case, commencing at the hour
of the fourth Gospel and ending with that of the Synoptics, Jesus
must have expired after being less than three hours on the cross.
According to the Synoptics, and also, if we assign a later hour for
the death, according to the fourth Gospel, he cannot have been
more than six hours on the cross. We shall presently see that this
remarkably rapid death has an important bearing upon the history
and the views formed regarding it. It is known that crucifixion,
besides being the most shameful mode of death, and indeed chiefly
reserved for slaves and the lowest criminals, was one of the most
lingering and atrociously cruel punishments ever invented by the
malignity of man. Persons crucified, it is stated and admitted,
generally lived for at least twelve hours, and sometimes even sur-
vived the excruciating tortures of the cross for three days. We
shall not further anticipate remarks which must hereafter be made
regarding this.
We need not do more than again point out that no two of the
Gospels agree upon so simple, yet important, a point as the
inscription on the cross. 2 It is argued that " a close examination
of the narratives furnishes no sufficient reason for supposing that
all proposed to give the same or the entire inscription," and, after
some curious reasoning, it is concluded that "there is at least no
possibility of showing any inconsistency on the strictly literal
interpretation of the words of the evangelist." 3 On the contrary,
1 Matt, xxvii. 45 f. ; Mark xv. 33 f. ; Luk^ xxiii. 44 f.
2 Cf. Matt, xxvii. 37 ; Mark xv. 26 ; Luke *xiii. 38 ; John xix. 19.
3 Westcott, Int. to Study of the Gospels, 4th ed., p. 328, note 10.
PARTING OF THE GARMENTS 811
we had ventured to suppose that, in giving a form of words said
to have been affixed to the cross, the evangelists intended to give
the form actually used, and consequently " the same " and " entire
inscription," which must have been short ; and we consider it
quite inconceivable that such was not their deliberate intention,
however imperfectly fulfilled.
We pass on merely to notice a curious point in connection with
an incident related by all the Gospels. It is stated that the
Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus divided his garments amongst
them, casting lots to determine what part each should take. The
clothing of criminals executed was the perquisite of the soldiers
who performed the duty, and there is nothing improbable in the
story that the four soldiers decided by lot the partition of the
garments indeed, there is every reason to suppose that such was
the practice. The incident is mentioned as the direct fulfilment
of the Psalm xxii. 1 8, which is quoted literally from the Septuagint
version (xxi. 18) by the author of the fourth Gospel. He did not,
however, understand the passage, or disregarded its true meaning,
and in order to make the incident accord better, as he supposed,
with the prophetic Psalm, he represents that the soldiers amicably
parted the rest of his garments amongst them without lot, but cast
lots for the coat, which was without seam : (xix. 24) " They said,
therefore, among themselves : Let us not rend it, but cast lots
for it, whose it shall be ; that the Scripture might be fulfilled :
They parted my garments among them, and for my vesture they
cast lots. These things, therefore, the soldiers did." The
Evangelist does not perceive that the two parts of the sentence in
the Psalm really refer to the same action, but exhibits the partition
of the garments and the lots for the vesture as separately fulfilled.
The Synoptists apparently divide the whole by lot. 1 They do
not expressly refer to the Psalm, except in the received text
of Matthew xxvii. 35, into which and some other MSS. the
quotation has been interpolated. 2 That the narrative of the
Gospels, instead of being independent and genuine history, is
constructed upon the lines of supposed Messianic Psalms and
passages of the Old Testament will become increasingly evident
as we proceed.
It is stated by all the Gospels that two malefactors the first
and. second calling them " robbers " were crucified with Jesus,
the one on the right hand and the other on the left. The state-
ment in Mark xv. 28, that this fulfilled Isaiah liii. 12, which is
found in our received text, is omitted by all the oldest codices,
1 Matt, xxvii. 35 ; Mark xv. 24 ; Luke xxiii. 34.
2 "Certainly an interpolation" (Westcott, Int. to Study of Gospels, p. 325,
note 2).
812 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
and is an interpolation ;' but we shall hereafter have to speak of
this point in connection with another matter, and we now merely
point out that, though the verse was thus inserted here, it is
placed in the mouth of Jesus himself by the third Synoptist
(xxii. 37), and the whole passage from which it was taken has
evidently largely influenced the composition of the narrative before
us. According to the first and second Gospels, 2 the robbers
joined with the chief priests and the scribes and elders and those
who passed by in mocking and reviling Jesus. This is directly
contradicted by the third Synoptist, who states that only one of
the malefactors did so (xxiii. 39 f.) : " But the other answering
rebuked him and said : Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou
art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we
are receiving the due reward of our deeds ; but this man did
nothing amiss. And he said : Jesus, remember me when thou
comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him : Verily, I say
unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." It requires
very little examination to detect that this story is legendary, and
cannot be maintained as historical. Those who dwell upon its
symbolical character do nothing to establish its veracity. This
exemplary robber speaks like an Apostle, and in praying Jesus as
the Messiah to remember him when he came into his kingdom,
he shows much more than apostolic appreciation of the claims
and character of Jesus. The reply of Jesus, moreover, contains a
statement not only wholly contradictory of Jewish belief as to the
place of departed spirits, but of all Christian doctrine at the time
as to the descent of Jesus into Hades.. Into this, however, it is
needless for us to go. 3 Not only do the other Gospels show no
knowledge of so interesting an episode, but, as we have pointed
out, the first and second Synoptics positively exclude it. We
shall see, moreover, that there is a serious difficulty in under-
standing how this conversation on the cross, which is so exclusively
the property of the third Synoptist, could have been reported to
him.
The Synoptics represent the passers-by and the chief priests,
scribes, and elders as mocking Jesus as he hung on the cross.
The fourth Gospel preserves total silence as to all this. It is
curious also that the mocking is based upon that described in the
Psalm xxii., to which we have already several times had to Eefer.
In verse 7 f. we have : "All they that see me laughed me to scorn ;
they shot out the lip ; they shook the head (saying), 8. He trusted
' " Certainly an interpolation" (Westcott, //>., p. 326, note 5).
2 Matt, xxvii. 44 ; Mark xv. 32.
3 It is unnecessary for us to discuss the various* ideas of which this episode
is supposed to be symbolical.
THE WOMEN BY THE CROSS 813
in the Lord, let Him deliver him, let Him save him (seeing) that
he delighteth in him." 1 Compare with this Matt, xxvii. 39 f.,
Mark xv. 29 f., Luke xxiii. 35. Is it possible to suppose that the
chief priests and elders and scribes could actually have quoted the
words of this Psalm, there put into the mouth of the Psalmist's
enemies, as the first Synoptist represents (xxvii. 43)? It is obvious
that the speeches ascribed to the chief priests and elders can be
nothing more than the expressions which the writers considered
suitable to them, and the fact that they seek their inspiration in a
Psalm which they suppose to be Messianic is suggestive.
We have already mentioned that the fourth Gospel says nothing
of any mocking speeches. The author, however, narrates an
episode (xix. 25-27) in which the dying Jesus is represented as
confiding his mother to the care of " the disciple whom he loved,"
of which, in their turn, the Synoptists seem to be perfectly
ignorant. We have already elsewhere remarked that there is no
evidence that there was any disciple whom Jesus specially
loved, except the repeated statement in this Gospel. No other
work of the New Testament contains a hint of such an individual,
and much less that he was the Apostle John. Nor is there any
evidence that any one of the disciples took the mother of Jesus to
his own home. There is, therefore, no external confirmation of
this episode ; but there is, on the contrary, much which leads to
the conclusion that it is not historical. There has been some
discussion as to whether four women are mentioned (xix. 25), or
whether " his mother's sister " is represented as " Mary, the wife
of Clopas," or was a different person. There are, we think, reasons
for concluding that there were four ; but, in the doubt, we
shall not base any argument on the point. The Synoptics 2 dis-
tinctly state that "the women that followed him from Galilee,"
amongst whom were " Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of
James and Joseph and the mother of Zebedee's sons,"3 and, as the
third Synoptic says, " all his acquaintance," 1 * were standing "afar
off" (jMiKpoBtv). They are unanimous in saying this, and there is
every reason for supposing that they are corrects This is, conse-
quently, a contradiction of the account in the fourth Gospel that
John and the women were standing "by the cross of Jesus."
Olshausen, Liicke, and others, suggest that they subsequently came
from a distance up to the cross ; but the statement of the Synoptists
is made at the close, and after this scene is supposed to have taken
1 7. Udvres oi Bewpovvrts pe ^e/j.vKT-^piffdv /j.f, e\d\i)<rcu> tv xeiXecrij', tif.lv(\<ra.v
KetpaK-qv, 8. "HXiriffev tiri Kvpiov, pvffdffdu avrbv, ffuadru avr6v, 6ri 0t\ci avrbv.
Ps. xxi. , Sept. ; cf. verses 4, 5.
2 Matt, xxvii. 55 f. ; Mark xv. 40 ; Luke xxiii. 49.
3 Matt, xxvii. 56 ; Mark xv. 40. 4 Luke xxiii. 49.
5 Cf. Matt. xxvi. 31, 56; Mark xiv. 27.
8i4 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
place. The opposite conjecture, that from standing close to the
cross they removed to a distance, has little to recommend it.
Both explanations are equally arbitrary and unsupported by
evidence.
It may be well, in connection with this, to refer to the various
sayings and cries ascribed by the different Evangelists to Jesus on .
the cross. We have already mentioned the conversation with the
" penitent thief," which is peculiar to the third Gospel, and now
that with the " beloved disciple," which is only in the fourth. The
third Synoptic 1 states that, on being crucified, Jesus said, " Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they do "a saying which is
in the spirit of Jesus and worthy of him, but of which the other
Gospels do not take any notice. 2 The fourth Gospel again has a
cry (xix. 28) : " After this, Jesus, knowing that all things are now
fulfilled, that the Scripture might be accomplished, saith : I thirst."
The majority of critics understand by this that " I thirst " is said
in order " that the Scripture might be fulfilled " by the offer of the
vinegar, related in the following verse. The Scripture referred to
is of course Psalm Ixix. 21 : " They gave me also gall for my food,
and in my thirst they gave me vinegar (oos) to drink " ; which
we have already quoted in connection with Matthew xxvii. 34.
The third Synoptic (xxiii. 36) represents the vinegar as being
offered in mockery at a much earlier period, and Matthew and
Marks connect the offer of the vinegar with quite a different cry
from that in the fourth Gospel. Nothing could be more natural
than that, after protracted agony, the patient sufferer should cry,
" I thirst "; but the dogmatic purpose, which dictates the whole
narrative in the fourth Gospel, is rendered obvious by the reference
of such a cry to a supposed Messianic prophecy. This is further
displayed by the statement (v. 29) that the sponge with vinegar
was put "upon hyssop" (I'o-p-wTrw) the two Synoptics have "on
a reed " (KaA.a/xa>) which the author probably uses in association
with the paschal lamb,* an idea present to his mind throughout the
passion. The first and second Synopticss represent the last cry of
Jesus to have been a quotation from Psalm xxii. i : "Eli (or Mark,
Eloi), Eli, lema sabacthani ? that is to say : My God, my God,
why didst thou forsake me ?" This, according to them, evidently,
was the last articulate utterance of the expiring Master, for they
merely add that " when he cried again with a loud voice " Jesus
yielded up his spirit. 6 Neither of the other Gospels has any
1 xxiii. 34.
3 Strauss calls attention to Isaiah liii. 12, where, of the servant of Jehovah,
it is said that he " made intercession for the transgressors " (Das Leben Jesu,
p. 584).
3 Matt, xxvii. 48 f.; Mark xv. 36. 4 Exod. xii x 22 ; cf. Levit. xiv. 4, 6, 49.
5 Matt, xxvii. 46 ; Mark xv. 34. 6 Matt, xxvii. 50 ; Mark xv. 37.
THE SEVEN SAYINGS ON THE CROSS 815
mention of this cry. The third Gospel substitutes : " And when
Jesus cried with a loud voice he said : Father, into thy hands I
commend my spirit, and having said this he expired." 1 This is an
almost literal quotation from the Septuagint version of Psalm xxxi.
5. The fourth Gospel has a totally different cry (xix. 30), for, on
receiving the vinegar, which accomplished the Scripture, he repre-
sents Jesus as saying, " It is finished " (TeTe/Wrai), and imme-
diately expiring.
It will be observed that seven sayings are attributed to Jesus on
the cross, of which the first two Gospels have only one, the third
Synoptic three, and the fourth Gospel three. We do not intend to
express any opinion here in favour of any of these, but we merely
point out the remarkable fact that, with the exception of the one
cry in the first two Synoptics, each Gospel has ascribed different
sayings to the dying Master, and not only no two of them agree,
but in some important instances the statement of the one Evange-
list seems to exclude the accounts of the others. Everyone
knows the hackneyed explanation of Apologists, but in works
which repeat each other so much elsewhere it certainly is a curious
phenomenon that there is so little agreement here. If all the
Master's disciples " forsook him and fled," 2 and his few friends and
acquaintances stood "afar off" regarding his sufferings, it is
readily conceivable that pious tradition had unlimited play. We
must return to the cry recorded in Matthew and Mark, 3 the
only one about which two witnesses agree. Both of them give this
quotation from Psalm xxii. i in Aramaic : Eli (Mark : Eloi), Eli,-*
lema sabacthani. The purpose is clearly to enable the reader to
understand what follows, which we quote from the first Gospel :
" And some of them that stood there, when they heard it said :
This man calleth for Elijah The rest said : Let be, let us see
whether Elijah cometh to save him." 5 It is impossible to confuse
"Eli" or "Eloi" with " Elijahu" and the explanations- suggested
by Apologists are not sufficient to remove a difficulty which seems
to betray the legendary character of the statement. The mistake
of supposing that Jesus called for Elijah could not possibly have
been made by those who spoke Aramaic; that strangers not
perfectly understanding Aramaic should be here intended cannot
be maintained, for the suggestion is represented as adopted by
" the rest." The Roman soldiers had probably never heard of
Elijah ; and there is nothing to support the allegation of mockery
1 Luke xxiii. 46. 2 Matt. xxvi. 56. 3 Matt, xxvii. 46 ; Mark xv. 34.
4 The Sinaitic cod., Matt, xxvii. 46 reads : AwJ, Aou, \efj.6. ffaftaxOafd ; the
cod. Alex., ij\l, ^Xi, K. T. X.; cod. Vat., Awei, Awel, K. r. X. D has ^Xei, ijtel,
K.T.\- We only note the variations in the first two words, which are those upon
which the question turns.
5 Matt, xxvii. 47, 49 ; cf. Mark xv. 35, 36.
816 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
as accounting for the singular episode. The verse of the Psalm
was too well known to the Jews to admit of any suggested play
upon words.
The three Synoptics state that, from the sixth hour (mid-day) to
the ninth (3 o'clock), " there was darkness over all the earth "
(ovcoros eyej/ero eirl Trao-ai/ TTJV y^v). 1 The third Gospel
adds, " the sun having failed " (TOV fi\iov /<XrovTos). 2 By
the term " all the earth " some critics maintain that the Evangelist
merely meant the Holy Land, 3 whilst others hold that he uses the
expression in its literal sense. The fourth Gospel takes no notice
of this darkness. Such a phenomenon is not a trifle to be ignored
in any account of the crucifixion, if it actually occurred. The
omission of all mention of it either amounts to a denial of its
occurrence, or betrays most suspicious familiarity with supernatural
interference. Many efforts have been made to explain this
darkness naturally, or at least to find some allusion to it in con-
temporary history, all of which have signally failed. As the moon
was at the full, it is admitted that the darkness could not have
been an eclipse. The Fathers appealed to Phlegon the Chronicler,
who mentions'' an eclipse of the sun about this period accompanied
by an earthquake, and also to a similar occurrence referred to by
Eusebius, 5 probably quoted from the historian Thallus ; but, of
course, modern knowledge has dispelled the illusion that these
phenomena have any connection with the darkness we are dis-
cussing, and the theory that the Evangelists are confirmed in their
account by this evidence is now generally abandoned. It is apart
from our object to show how common it was amongst classical and
other writers to represent nature as sympathising with national or
social disasters ; 6 and as a poetical touch this remarkable darkness
of the Synoptists, of which no one else knows anything, is quite
intelligible. The statement, however, is as seriously and deliber-
ately made as any other in their narrative, and does not add to its
credibility. It is obvious that the account is mythical, and it
bears a strange likeness to passages in the Old Testament, from
the imagery of which the representation in all probability was
derived.?
1 Matt, xxvii. 45 ; Mark xv. 33 ; Luke xxiii. 44.
2 Luke xxiii. 45. This is the reading of the Sinaitic and Vatican (tic\elir. )
codices. A reads nai ^ffKorlffOi) o i)\ios.
3 Dr. Farrar says : " It is quite possible that the darkness was a local gloom
which hung densely over the guilty city and its immediate neighbourhood "
(Life of Christ, 5th ed., ii., p. 414).
4 xiii. Olympiad. 5 Chron. ad Olymp. , 202.
6 Cf. Virgil., Georg., i. 463-468; Dio Cass., 40.17, 56.29 ; Plin. H. N.,
2.30; Plutarch., V. Rom., 27, p. 34; Cas., 69, p. 740 f. ; Wetstein,
Grotius, ad h. /. *
7 Cf. Joel ii. IO, 31, iii. 15 ; Amos viii. 9 ; Isaiah xiii. 10, /. 3, etc.
MIRACLES OCCURRING AT THE CRUCIFIXION 817
The first and second Gospels state that when Jesus cried with
a loud voice and yielded up his spirit " the veil of the temple was
rent in twain from the top to the bottom." 1 The third Synoptic
associates this occurrence with the eclipse of the sun, and narrates
it before the final cry and death of the Master. 2 The fourth
Gospel takes no notice of so extraordinary a phenomenon. The
question might be asked : How could the chief priests, who do
not appear to have been at all convinced by such a miracle, but
still continued their invincible animosity against the Christian sect,
reveal the occurrence of such a wonder, of which there is no
mention elsewhere? Here again the account is legendary and
symbolical, and in the spirit of the age of miracles. 3
The first Synoptist, however, has further marvels to relate. He
states in continuation of the passage quoted above: "and the earth
was shaken (eo-et<r#r;) and the rocks were rent and the sepulchres
were opened, and many bodies of the saints who slept were raised ;
and they came out of the sepulchres after his resurrection, and
entered into the holy city and appeared unto many. "4 How great
must be the amazement of anyone who may have been inclined to
suppose the Gospels sober historical works, on finding that the
other three Evangelists do not even mention these astounding
occurrences related by the first Synoptist! An earthquake
(o-etoyxos) 5 and the still more astounding resurrection of many
saints who appeared unto " many," and, therefore, an event by no
means secret and unknown to all but the Synoptist, and yet three
other writers, who give accounts of the crucifixion and death of
Jesus, and who enter throughout into very minute details, do not
even condescend to mention them ! Nor does any other New
Testament writer chronicle them. It is unnecessary to say that
the passage has been a very serious difficulty for Apologists ; and
one of the latest writers of this school, reproducing the theories of
earlier critics, deals with it in a Life of Christ, which " is avowedly
and unconditionally the work of a believer," 6 as follows: "An
earthquake shook the earth and split the rocks, and as it rolled
away from their places the great stones which closed and covered
the cavern sepulchres of the Jews, it seemed to the imaginations
of many to have disimprisoned the spirits of the dead, and to
have filled the air with ghostly visitants, who after Christ had
risen appeared to linger in the Holy City." In a note he adds :
" Only in some such way as this can I account for the singular and
1 Matt, xxvii. 51 ; Mark xv. 38. 2 Luke xxiii. 45.
3 We have elsewhere referred to the wonderful occurrences related by
Josephus at the Temple about the time of the siege (Bell. Jud., vi. 5, 3 ;
cf. Apoc. , xi. 19).
4 Matt, xxvii. 51-53. 5 So the phenomenon is distinctly called in v. 54.
6 Farrar, Life of Christ, i., Pref., p. viii.
3G
8i8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
wholly isolated allusion of Matt, xxvii. 52, 53. " z It is worthy of
note, and we may hereafter refer to the point, that learned divines
thus do not scruple to adopt the " vision hypothesis " of the resur-
rection. Even if the resurrection of the saints so seriously related
by the Evangelist be thus disposed of, and it be assumed that the
other Gospels, likewise adopting the " vision " explanation, conse-
quently declined to give an objective place in their narrative to what
they believed to be a purely subjective and unreal phenomenon,
there still remains the earthquake, to which supernatural incident of
the crucifixion none of the other Evangelists think it worth while to
refer. Need we argue that the earthquake is as mythical as the
resurrection of the saints ? In some apocryphal writings even the
names of some of these risen saints are given. 2 As the case
actually stands, with these marvellous incidents related solely by
the first Synoptist and ignored by the other Evangelists, it would
seem superfluous to enter upon more detailed criticism of the
passage, and to point out the incongruity of the fact that these
saints are said to be raised from the dead just as the Messiah
expires, or the strange circumstance that, although the sepulchres
are said to have been opened at that moment and the resurrection
to have then taken place, it is stated that they only came out of
their graves after the resurrection of Jesus. The allegation, more-
over, that they were raised from the dead at that time, and before
the resurrection of Jesus, virtually contradicts the saying of the
Apocalypse (i. 5) that Jesus was the " first begotten of the dead,"
and of Paul (i Cor. xv. 20) that he was "the first fruits of them
who had fallen asleep. "3 Paul's whole argument is opposed to
such a story ; for he does not base the resurrection of the dead
upon the death of Jesus, but, in contradistinction, upon his
resurrection only. The Synoptist evidently desires to associate the
1 Farrar, ib. , ii., p. 419. Dean Milman, following the explanation of
Michaelis, says : ' ' Even the dreadful earthquake which followed seemed to
pass away without appalling the enemies of Jesus. The rending of the veil of
the Temple from the top to the bottom, so strikingly significant of the abolition
of the local worship, would either be concealed by the priesthood, or attributed
as a natural effect to the convulsion of the earth. The same convulsion would
displace the stones which covered the ancient tombs and lay open many of the
innumerable rock-hewn sepulchres which perforated the hills on every side of
the city, and expose the dead to public view. To the awe-struck and depressed
minds of the followers of Jesus, no doubt, were confined those visionary
appearances of these spirits of their deceased brethren, which are obscurely
intimated in the rapid narratives of the Evangelists" (Hist, of Christianity, i.,
p. 336). It will be observed that, inadvertently, Dr. Milman has put " Evan-
gelists " in the plural.
2 Anaphora Pilati, Thilo, Cod. Apoc. N. T., p. 810 f. ; Tischendorf, Evang.
Apocr., p. 424.
3 Can the author of the Apocalypse or Paul evet. have heard of the raising
of Lazarus?
EARTHQUAKE AND RESURRECTION OF SAINTS 819
resurrection of the saints with the death of Jesus to render that
event more impressive, but delays the completion of it in order
to give a kind of precedence to the resurrection of the Master.
The attempt leads to nothing but confusion. What could be the
object of such a resurrection ? It could not be represented as any
effect produced by the death of Jesus, nor even by his alleged
resurrection, for what dogmatic connection could there be between
that event and the fact that a few saints only were raised from
their graves, whilst it was not pretended that the dead "saints"
generally participated in this resurrection? No intimation is given
that their appearance to^ many was for any special purpose, and
certainly no practical result has ever been traced to it. Finally we
might ask : What became of these saints raised from the dead ?
Did they die again ? Or did they also " ascend into Heaven " ?
A little reflection will show that these questions are pertinent. It
is almost inconceivable that any serious mind could maintain the
actual truth of such a story, upon such evidence. Its objective
truth not being maintainable, however, the character of the work
which advances such an unhesitating statement is determined, and
the value of its testimony can without difficulty be settled.
The continuation of this episode in the first Synoptic is quite in
keeping with its commencement. It is stated : " But when the
centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus saw. the
earthquake (o-ewr/Aov) and the things that were done (TO, yevo^eva)
they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was a son of God "
('AA/>7#ws vlbs Otov r[v ovros). 1 In Mark the statement is very
curiously varied : "And when the centurion who stood over against
him saw that he so expired, he said : Truly this man was a son of
God." 2 It is argued on the one hand that the centurion's wonder
was caused by Jesus dying with so loud a cry, and the reading
of many MSS. would clearly support this ; 3 and on the other that
the cause of his exclamation was the unexpectedly rapid death of
Jesus. Whichever view be taken, the centurion's deduction, it
must be admitted, rests upon singularly inconclusive reasoning.
1 Matt, xxvii. 54. This is the reading of the Vatican Cod. and D, with
some others. Cod. A, C, E, F, and many others, read 6eov viks. The
Sinaitic MS. has 'AX. viks fy TOV Oeov oCros. The rendering of the A. V., " the
Son of God," cannot be sustained linguistically, whatever may have been the
writer's intention.
= Mark xv. 39. The A. V. has : " saw that he so cried out, and gave up
the ghost"; /cpd|a$ has certainly high authority (A, C, E, G, H, etc.; D
has Kpdfcvra), but the Sin., Vat., and some other codices and versions, omit
it, and it is rejected by Tischendorf. We, therefore, take the reading for the
moment which leaves the question most open.
3 Meyer, who takes the view, considers that, hearing Jesus expire with so
loud a cry, the centurion concluded him to be & " Hero" (Ev. des Mark u.
Lukas, jte Aujl., 203 f. ).
820 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
We venture to think that it is impossible that a Roman soldier
could either have been led to form such an opinion upon such
grounds, or to express it in such terms. In Luke we have a third
reading: "But when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified
God, saying, Certainly this man was righteous "' ( "Ovrws 6
av#po>7ros OVTO<S SIKCUOS ryy). There is nothing here about
the " Son of God "; but when the writer represents the Roman
soldier as glorifying God the narrative does not seem much more
probable than that of the other Synoptists.
The fourth Evangelist does not refer to any such episode,
but, as usual, introduces a very remarkable incident of his
own, of which the Synoptists, who record such peculiar details
of what passed, seem very strangely to know nothing. The fourth
Evangelist states : " The Jews, therefore, because it was the pre-
paration, that the bodies might not remain upon the cross on the
sabbath (for that sabbath-day was a high day), besought Pilate
that their legs might be broken and they might be taken away.
So the soldiers came and brake the legs of the first, and of the
other who was crucified with him ; but when they came to Jesus,
as they saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs ; but
one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith
there came out blood and water. And he that hath seen hath
borne witness, and his witness is true ; and that man knoweth that
he saith what is true, that ye also may believe. For these things
came to pass that the Scripture might be fulfilled : A bone of him
shall not be broken. And again another Scripture saith : They
shall look on him whom they pierced." 2 It is inconceivable that,
if this actually occurred, and occurred more especially that the
" Scripture might be fulfilled," the other three Evangelists could
thus totally ignore it all. 3 The second Synoptist does more : he
not only ignores, but excludes it ; for (xv. 43 f.) he represents
Joseph as begging the body of Jesus from Pilate " when evening
was now come." " And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead ;
and, calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had
been long dead. And, when he knew it of the centurion, he gave
the corpse to Joseph. " Now, although there could be no doubt
on the point, the fourth Gospel clearly states (xix. 38, //.era TO.VTO.)
that Joseph made his request for the body after the order had been
given by Pilate to break the legs of the crucified, and after it had
been executed as above described. If Pilate had already given
1 xxiii. 47. 2 John xix. 31-37.
3 The Sin., Vat., and other codices insert in Matt, xxvii. 49 the phrase from
John xix. 34, clXXos 5 Xa^uv Xctyx'?*') <=w&v afrrov rrjv irXfvpdv, /ecu j-i)\6ev
i>3w/3 teal ai}j.a.. Notwithstanding this high authority, it is almost universally
acknowledged that the phrase js an interpolation heVe.
4 Mark xv. 44-45.
THE CRURIFRAGIUM 821
the order to break the legs, how is it possible he could have mar-
velled, or acted as he is described in Mark to have done?
It is well known that the Crurifragium, which is here applied,
was not usually an accompaniment of crucifixion, though it may
have been sometimes employed along with it, 1 but that it was a
distinct punishment. It consisted in breaking, with hammers or
clubs, the bones of the condemned from the hips to the feet. We
shall not discuss whether, in the present case, this measure really
was adopted or not. The representation is that the Jews requested
Pilate to break the legs of the crucified that the bodies might be
removed before the Sabbath, and that the order was given and
executed. The first point to be noted is the very singular manner
in which the leg-breaking was performed. The soldiers are said
to have broken the legs of the first, and then of the other who
was crucified with Jesus, thus passing over Jesus in the first
instance ; and then the Evangelist says : "but when they came to
Jesus, as they saw that he was dead already, they brake not his
legs, but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side." This
order of procedure is singular ; but the whole conduct of the
guard is so extraordinary that such details become comparatively
insignificant. An order having been given to the Roman soldiers,
in accordance with the request of the Jews, to break the legs of
the crucified, we are asked to believe that they did not execute it
in the case of Jesus ! It is not reasonable to suppose that
Roman soldiers either were in the habit of disregarding their
orders, or could have any motive for doing so in this case, and
subjecting themselves to the severe punishment for disobedience
inflicted by Roman military law. It is argued that they saw that
Jesus was already dead, and, therefore, that it was not necessary
to break his legs ; but soldiers are not in the habit of thinking
in this way : they are disciplined to obey. The fact is that the
certainty that Jesus was dead already did not actually exist in
their minds, for, in that case, why should the soldier have
pierced his side with a spear ? The only conceivable motive
for doing so was to make sure that Jesus really was dead ; but is
it possible to suppose that a Roman soldier, being in the slightest
doubt, actually chose to assure himself in this way when he might
still more effectually have done so by simply obeying the order of
his superior and breaking the legs ? The whole episode is mani-
festly unhistorical.
It is clear that to fulfil in a marked way the prophecies which
the writer had in his mind, and wished specially to apply to
Jesus, it was necessary that, in the first place, there should have
been a distinct danger of the bones being broken, and at the
1 Ebrarcl admits that it was not common (Evang. Gesch., p. 565, anm . 31).
822 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
same time of the side not being pierced. The order to break
the legs of the crucified is therefore given, but an extraordinary
exception is made in favour of Jesus, and a thrust with the lance
substituted, so that both passages of the Scripture are supposed
to be fulfilled. What Scriptures, however, are fulfilled ? The
first, "A bone of him shall not be broken," is merely the
prescription with regard to the Paschal lamb, Ex. xii. 46,' and the
dogmatic view of the fourth Evangelist leads him throughout to
represent Jesus as the true Paschal lamb. The second is Zech.
xii. io, 2 and anyone who reads the passage, even without the
assistance of learned exegesis, may perceive that it has no such
application as our Evangelist gives it. We shall pass over, as not
absolutely necessary for our immediate purpose, very many
important details of the episode ; but regarding this part of the
subject we may say that we consider it evident that, if an order
was given to break the legs of the crucified upon this occasion,
that order must have been executed upon Jesus equally with any
others who may have been crucified with him.
There has been much discussion as to the intention of the
author in stating that, from the wound made by the lance, there
forthwith came out "blood and water" (af/m *at v&up) ; and
likewise as to whether the special testimony here referred to in
the third person is to attest more immediately the flow of blood
and water, or the whole episode. 3 In regard to the latter point,
we need not pause to discuss the question. As to the " blood
and water," some see in the statement made an intention to show
the reality of the death of Jesus, whilst others more rightly
regard the phenomenon described as a representation of a
supernatural and symbolical incident, closely connected with the
whole dogmatic view of the Gospel. It is impossible not to see
in this the same idea as that expressed in i John v. 6 : "This
is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ ; not in the
water only, but in the water and the blood." 4 As a natural
incident it cannot be entertained, for in no sense but mere
quibbling could it be said that "blood and water "could flow
from such a wound, and as a supernatural phenomenon it must
be rejected. As a proof of the reality of the death of Jesus, it
could only have been thought of at a time when gross ignorance
prevailed upon all medical subjects. We shall not here discuss
the reality of the death of Jesus, but we may merely point out that
1 Cf. Numbers ix. 12 ; Ps. xxxiv. 20.
2 Cf. Ps. xxii. 1 6. We need not discuss here the variation in the quotation
from Zech. xii. io.
3 Of course we do not here even touch upon the wider question raised by
this passage.
4 Cf. John vii. 37~39> i- 5 etc.
THE DESCENT FROM THE CROSS 823
the almost unprecedentedly rapid decease of Jesus was explained
by Origen 1 and some of the Fathers as miraculous. It has been
argued that the thrust of the lance may have been intended to
silence those objectors who might have denied the actual death on
the ground that the legs of Jesus were not broken like those of the
two malefactors, 2 and it certainly is generally quoted as having
assured the fact of death. The statement that blood flowed frpm
the wound by no means supports the allegation; and, although
we may make little use of the argument, it is right to say that there
is no evidence of any serious kind advanced of the reality of the
death of Jesus, here or in the other Gospels. 3
The author of the fourth Gospel himself seems to betray that
this episode is a mere interpolation of his own into a narrative to
which it does not properly belong. According to his own account
(xix. 31), the Jews besought Pilate that the legs might be broken
and that the bodies "might be taken away" (dpBwriv). The
order to do this was obviously given, for the legs are forthwith
broken, and, of course, immediately after, the bodies, in pursuance
of the same order, would have been taken away. As soon as the
Evangelist has secured his purpose of showing how the Scriptures
were fulfilled by means of this episode, he takes up the story as
though it had not been interrupted, and proceeds verse 38 : "After
these things " (/^era TO.VTO), that is to say after the legs of the male-
factors had been broken and the side of Jesus pierced, Joseph
besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and
Pilate gave leave. But, if verse 31 f. be historical, the body must
already have been taken away. All the Synoptics agree with the
fourth Gospel in stating that Joseph of Arimathaea begged for and
obtained the body of Jesus from Pilate.* The second and third
Synoptics describe him as belonging to the Council, but the first
Gospel merely calls him "a rich man," whilst the fourth omits both
of these descriptions. They all call him a disciple of Jesus
secretly for fear of the Jews, the fourth Gospel characteristically
adds although the term that he was "waiting for the Kingdom
of God," used by the second and third Gospels, is somewhat
vague. The fourth Gospel introduces a second personage in the
1 " Oravit Patrem, et exauditus est, et siatim ut clamawt ad Patrem >
receptus est aui sicut qui potestatem habebat ponendi animam suant, posuit earn
qiiando voluit ipse Miraculum enim erat quoniam post ires horas receptus
est 1' etc. (Orig. in Matth. ed. Delarue, 1740, iii., 140, p. 928).
2 The use of the verb vtoau does not favour the view that the writer intended
to express a deep wound.
3 It has likewise been thought that the representation in Mark xv. 44, that
Pilate marvelled at the rapid death of Jesus, and sent for the centurion to ascer-
tain the fact, was made to meet similar doubts, or at least to give assurance of
the reality of the death.
According to Luke xxiii. 53, Joseph actually " took down the body.
824 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
shape of Nicodemus, " who at the first came to him by night," 1
and who, it will be remembered, had previously been described as
" a ruler of the Jews." 2 The Synoptics do not once mention such
a person, either in the narrative of the Passion or in the earlier
chapters, and there are more than doubts as to his historical
character.
The accounts of the Entombment given by the three Synoptists,
or at least by the second and third, distinctly exclude the narrative
of the fourth Gospel, both as regards Nicodemus and the part he
is represented as taking. The contradictions which commence
here between the account of the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics,
in fact, are of the most glaring and important nature, and demand
marked attention. The fourth Gospel states that, having obtained
permission from Pilate, Joseph came and took the body of Jesus
away. "And there came also Nicodemus bringing a mixture
of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight. They took,
therefore, the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with
the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now, in the
place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden
a new sepulchre wherein was never man yet laid. There, there-
fore, on account of the preparation of the Jews (e*ei o$v Sia
TTJV TTapaa-Kfvrjv TMV 'IovSaW), they laid Jesus, for the sepulchre
was at hand " (on eyyvs y]V TO fj.vrjfj.elov). 3
According to the first Synoptic, when Joseph took the body,
he simply wrapped it " in clean linen " (cv o-tvSoVt Kattapfy and
" laid it in his own new sepulchre, which he hewed in the rock :
and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and
departed." 4 There is no mention of spices or any anointing of
the body, and the statement that the women provide for this is
not made in this Gospel. According to the writer, the burial is
complete, and the sepulchre finally closed. Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary come merely " to behold the sepulchre " at
the end of the Sabbath, s The fourth Evangelist apparently does
not know anything of the sepulchre being Joseph's own tomb, and
the body is, according to him, although fully embalmed, only laid
in the sepulchre in the garden on account of the Sabbath and
because it was at hand. We shall refer to this point, which must
be noted, further on.
There are very striking differences between these two accounts,
but the narratives of the second and third Synoptists are still more
emphatically contradictory of both. In Mark 6 we are told that
Joseph " brought linen, and took him down and wrapped him in
1 John iii. I. 3 Ib., iii. i,vii. 50.
3 Ib., xix. 39-42. 4 Matt, xxvii. 59 f.
5 Ib., xxviii. I. 6 Mark xv.-46.
THE EMBALMMENT 825
the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which had been hewn out
of a rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the sepulchre."
There is no mention here of any embalming performed by Joseph
or Nicodemus, nor are any particulars given as to the ownership
of the sepulchre, or the reasons for its selection. We are, how-
ever, told 1 : "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene
and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices that
they might come and anoint him." It is distinctly stated in
connection with the entombment, moreover, in agreement with
the first Synoptic 2 : "And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother
of Joses beheld where he was laid." 3 According to this account
and that of the first Gospel, the women, having remained to the
last and seen the body deposited in the sepulchre, knew so little
of its having been embalmed by Joseph and Nicodemus that they
actually purchase the spices and come to perform that office
themselves.
In Luke the statement is still more specific, in agreement with
Mark, and in contradiction to the fourth Gospel. Joseph took
down the body "and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre
that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid
And women who had come with him out of Galilee followed after,
and beheld the sepulchre and how his body was laid. And they
returned and prepared spices and ointments." Upon the first
day of the week, the author adds, " they came unto the sepulchre
bringing the spices which they had prepared." 4
Which of these accounts are we to believe ? According to the
first Gospel, there is no embalmment at all; according to the second
and third Gospels, the embalmment is undertaken by the women,
and not by Joseph and Nicodemus, but is never carried out ;
according to the fourth Gospel, the embalmment is completed on
Friday evening by Joseph and Nicodemus, and not by the women.
According to the first Gospel, the burial is completed on Friday
evening ; according to the second and third, it is only provisional ;
and according to the fourth, the embalmment is final, but it is
doubtful whether the entombment is final or temporary ; several
critics consider it to have been only provisional. In Mark the
women buy the spices " when the Sabbath was past " (Siayeyo/^i/ov
TO? vappdrov) ;5 i n Luke before it has begun f and in
Matthew and John they do not buy them at all. In the first and
fourth Gospels the women come after the Sabbath merely to
behold the sepulchre,? and in the second and third they bring the
1 Mark xvi. I. 2 Matt, xxvii. 61.
3 Mark xv. 47. 4 Luke xxiii. 53 f., xxiv. i.
5 Mark xvi. i. 6 Luke xxiii. 35.
? Matt, xxviii. I ; John xx. I.
826 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
spices to complete the burial. Amid these conflicting statements
we may suggest one consideration. It is not probable, in a hot
climate, that a wounded body, hastily laid in a sepulchre on
Friday evening before six o'clock, would be disturbed again on
Sunday morning for the purpose of being anointed and embalmed.
Corruption would, under the circumstances, already have com-
menced. Besides, as Keim 1 has pointed out, the last duties to the
dead were not forbidden amongst the Jews on the Sabbath, and
there is really no reason why any care for the body of the Master
which reverence or affection might have dictated should not at
once have been bestowed.
The enormous amount of myrrh and aloes " about a hundred
pound weight " (u>s Atr/xxs l/carov) brought by Nicodemus has
excited much discussion, and adds to the extreme improbability
of the story related by the fourth Evangelist. To whatever weight
the litra may be reduced, the quantity specified is very great ; and
it is a question whether the body thus enveloped " as the manner
of the Jews is to bury " could have entered the sepulchre. The
practice of embalming the dead, although well known amongst
the Jews, and invariable in the case of kings and noble or very
wealthy persons, was by no means generally prevalent. In the
burial of Gamaliel the elder, chief of the party of the Pharisees,
it is stated that over eighty pounds of balsam were burnt in his
honour by the proselyte Onkelos ; but this quantity, which was
considered very remarkable, is totally eclipsed by the provision of
Nicodemus.
The key to the whole of this history of the burial of Jesus, how-
ever, is to be found in the celebrated chapter liii. of " Isaiah." We
have already, in passing, pointed out that, in the third Gospel
(xxii. 37), Jesus is represented as saying: "For I say unto you,
that this which is written must be accomplished in me : And he
was reckoned among transgressors." The same quotation from
Is. liii. 12 is likewise interpolated in Mark xv. 28. Now the whole
representation of the burial and embalmment of Jesus is evidently
based upon the same chapter, and more especially upon verse 9,
which is wrongly rendered both in the Authorised Version and in
the Septuagint, in the latter of which the passage reads : " I will
give the wicked for his grave and the rich for his death." 2 The
Evangelists, taking this to be the sense of the passage, which they
suppose to be a Messianic prophecy, have represented the death
of Jesus as being with the wicked, crucified as he is between two
robbers ; and through Joseph of Arimathaea, significantly called
1 Schabbath 151. I ; Keim, Jesu von Nazara, iii. 522, anm. I.
2 Kat ouiirw roi)y irovripovs avrl rijj Ta0i)s avrov^tKal roi)j ir\ovcriovs avrl TOU
Oavdrov airrov. Is. liii. 9.
THE WATCH AT THE SEPULCHRE 827
" a rich man " (avfyxoTros TrXovo-ios) by the first Synoptist,
especially according to the fourth Evangelist by his addition of the
counsellor Nicodemus and his hundred pounds weight of mingled
myrrh and aloes, as being " with the rich in his death." Unfortu-
nately, the passage in the " prophecy " does not mean what the
Evangelists have been led to understand, and the ablest Hebrew
scholars and critics are now agreed that both phrases quoted refer,
in true Hebrew manner, to one representation, and that the word
above translated " rich " is not used in a favourable sense, but that
the passage must be rendered : " And they made his grave with
the wicked and his sepulchre with the evil-doers," or words to that
effect. Without going* minutely into the details of opinion on the
subject of the " servant of Jehovah " in this writing of the Old
Testament, we may add that upon one point at least the great
majority of critics are of one accord : that Is. liii. and other
passages of " Isaiah " describing the sufferings of the " Servant
of Jehovah " have no reference to the Messiah. As we have
touched upon this subject, it may not be out of place to add that
Psalms xxii. and Ixix., which are so frequently quoted in con-
nection with the passion, and represented by New Testament and
other early writers as Messianic, are determined, by sounder
principles of criticism applied to them in modern times, not to
refer to the Messiah at all.
We now come to a remarkable episode, which is peculiar to the
first Synoptic and strangely ignored by all the other Gospels. It
is stated that the next, day that is to say, on the Sabbath
the chief priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate, saying :
" Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was yet alive :
After three days I am raised (Mero. r/aeis ^/xepas eyet'/ao/xm).
Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the
third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away and say unto
the people : He is risen from the dead : so the last error shall be
worse than the first. Pilate said unto them : Ye have a guard
("E^ere KoutrrwSiai') : go, make it as sure as ye can. So they
went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, with the
guard." 1 Not only do the other Evangelists pass over this strange
proceeding in total silence, but their narratives, or at least those of
the second and third Synoptists, exclude it. The women came
with their spices to embalm the body, in total ignorance of there
being any guard to interfere with their performance of that last sad
office for the Master. We are asked to believe that the chief
priests and the Pharisees actually desecrated the Sabbath by seal-
ing the stone, and visited the house of the heathen Pilate on so
holy a day, for the purpose of asking for the guard. 2 These
1 Matt, xxvii. 62-66. 2 Cf. John xviii. 28, xix. 31.
828 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
priests are said to have remembered and understood a prophecy of
Jesus regarding his resurrection, of which his disciples are repre-
sented to be in ignorance. 1 The remark about "the last error,"
moreover, is very suspicious. The ready acquiescence of Pilate is
quite incredible. 2 That he should employ Roman soldiers to
watch the sepulchre of a man who had been crucified cannot be
entertained ; and his friendly, " Go, make it as sure as ye can," is
not in the spirit of Pilate. It is conceivable that to satisfy their
clamour he may, without much difficulty, have consented to crucify
a Jew, more especially as his crime was of a political character
represented as in some degree affecting the Roman power ; but,
once crucified, it is not in the slightest degree likely that Pilate
would care what became of his body, and still less that he would
employ Roman soldiers to mount guard over it.
It may be as well to dispose finally of this episode, so we at
once proceed to its conclusion. When the resurrection takes
place, it is stated that some of the guard went into the city, and,
instead of making their report to Pilate, as might have been
expected, told the chief priests all that had occurred. A council
is held, and the soldiers are largely bribed, and instructed : " Say
that his disciples came by night and stole him while we slept.
And if this come to the governor's ears we will persuade him and
make you free from care. So they took the money and did as
they were taught." 3 Nothing could be more simple than the
construction of the story, which follows the usual broad lines of
legend. The idea of Roman soldiers confessing that they slept
whilst on watch, and allowed that to occur which they were there
to prevent ! and this to oblige the chief priests and elders, at the
risk of their lives ! Then, are we to suppose that the chief priests
and council believed this story of the earthquake and angel, and
yet acted in this way? and if they did not believe it, would not
the very story itself have led to the punishment of the men, and
to the confirmation of the report they desired to spread, that the
disciples had stolen the body? The large bribe seems to have
been very ineffectual, since the Christian historian is able to
report precisely what the chief priests and elders instruct them
to say. 4 Is it not palpable that the whole story is legendary?
1 Cf. John xx. 9.
2 It has been argued that Pilate does not give a Roman guard, but merely
permits the chief priests to make use of their own guard. This, however, is
opposed to the whole tenour of the story, and the suggestion is generally
rejected. Tertullian says : " Tuttf Judtei detractum et sepulchre conditiim
magna etiam militaris custodies diligentia circumsederunt " (Afol., 21).
3 Matt, xxviii. 11-15.
4 Olshausen, to obviate the difficulty of supposing that the Sanhedrin did
all this, supposes that Caiaphas the high priest may have been the principal
agent (Bib/. Comm., ii. 2, p. 190 f.).
THE RESURRECTION 829
If it be so, and we think this cannot be doubted, a conclusion
which the total silence of the other Gospels seems to confirm,
very suggestive consequences may be deduced from it. The
first Synoptist, referring to the false report which the Sanhedrin
instruct the soldiers to make, says : " And this saying was
spread among the Jews unto this day." 1 The probable origin
of the legend may have been an objection to. the Christian
affirmation of the resurrection to the above effect ; but it is
instructive to find that Christian tradition was equal to the
occasion, and invented a story to refute it. It is the tendency to
this very system of defence and confirmation, everywhere apparent,
which renders early Christian tradition so mythical and untrust-
worthy.
We now enter upon the narrative of the Resurrection itself.
The first Synoptist relates that Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary came to behold the sepulchre " at the close of the Sabbath,
as it began to dawn into the first day of the week " ('Oi/'e 8e <ra(3-
j3a.T<av, ry eTri(j)(acrKova"f) ets utav cra/3/3aT(ov), 2 that is to say, shortly
after six o'clock on the evening of Saturday, the end of the
Sabbath, the dawn of the next day being marked by the glimmer
of more than one star in the heavens. The second Synoptic
represents that, " when the Sabbath was past," Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, and
that they came to the sepulchre " very early on the first day of the
week after the rising of the sun " (KCU A.tav irpwi TV)S /uas
(rafifidriov ...... avaretAai/ros TOV 77X101;). 3 The third Synoptist
states that the women who came with Jesus from Galilee came to
the sepulchre, but he subsequently more definitely names them :
" Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James,
and the other women with them " 4 a larger number of women
and they came " upon the first day of the week at early dawn "
(T?7 Se yu,tp TMV (rappdrwi 1 op6pov /3a#ecos). The fourth Evangelist
represents that Mary Magdalene only 5 came to the sepulchre,
on the first day of the week, " early, while it was yet dark "
The first Evangelist indubitably makes the hour at which the
women come to the sepulchre different and much earlier than the
others, and at the same time he represents them as witnessing
the actual removal of the stone, which, in the other three Gospels,
the women already find rolled away from the mouth of the sepulchre. 7
It will, therefore, be interesting to follow the first Synoptic. It is
1 Matt, xxviii. 15. 2 Ib., xxviii. I.
3 Mark xvi. 2. 4 Luke xxiii. 55, xxiv. I, 10.
5 It is argued from the ot5a/j.fv of xx. 2 that there were others with her,
although they are not named.
6 John xx. I. 7 Mark xvi. 4 ; Luke xxiv. 2 ; John xx. I.
830 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
here stated : 2. " And behold there was a great earthquake
(o-eur/Aos) : for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven
and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3. His
appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. 4.
And for fear of him the keepers did shake and became as dead
men. 5. And the angel answered and said unto the women : Fear
ye not, for I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified.
6. He is not here : for he was raised (riyepOrj yap), as he said :
Come, see the place where he lay. 7. And go quickly, and tell
his disciples that he was raised (fjy(pOrj) from the dead, and
behold he goeth before you into Galilee : there shall ye see him :
behold, I have told you. 8. And they departed quickly from the
sepulchre with fear and great joy ; and ran to tell his disciples." 1
We have here in the first place another earthquake, and apparently,
on the theory of the course of cosmical phenomena held during the
" Age of Miracles," produced by the angel who descended to roll
away the stone from the sepulchre. This earthquake, like the
others recorded in the first Synopiic, appears to be quite unknown
to the other Evangelists, and no trace of it has been pointed out in
other writings. With the appearance of the angel we obviously
arrive upon thoroughly unhistorical ground. Can we believe,
because this unknown writer tells us so, that " an angel," 2 causing
an earthquake, actually descended and took such a part in this
transaction ? Upon the very commonest principles of evidence,
the reply must be an emphatic negative. Every fact of science,
every lesson of experience, excludes such an assumption ; and we
may add that the character of the author, with which we are now
better acquainted, as well as the course of the narrative itself,
confirms the justice of such a conclusion. If the introduction of
the angel be legendary, must not also his words be so ?
Proceeding to examine the narrative as it stands, we must
point out a circumstance which may appropriately be men-
tioned here, and which is well worthy of attention. The women
and the guard are present when the stone is rolled away from the
sepulchre, but they do not witness the actual Resurrection. It is
natural to suppose that, when the stone was removed, Jesus, who,
it is asserted, rises with his body from the dead, would have come
forth from the sepulchre : but not so; the angel only says (verse 6):
" He is not here, for he was raised (riyepQrj yap) "; and he merely
invites the women to see the place where he lay. The actual
resurrection is spoken of as a thing which had taken place before,
1 Matt, xxviii. 2.
* Compare his description with Dan. x. 6. It is worthy of consideration
also that when Daniel is cast into the den of lions a stone is rolled upon the
mouth of the den, and sealed with the signet of the king and his lords (vi. 17).
ORDER TO GO INTO GALILEE 831
and, in any case, it was not witnessed by anyone. In the other
Gospels the resurrection has already occurred before anyone
arrives at the sepulchre; and the remarkable fact is, therefore,
absolutely undeniable that there was not, and that it is not even
pretended that there was, a single eye-witness of the actual Resur-
rection. The empty grave, coupled with the supposed subsequent
appearances of Jesus, is the only evidence of the Resurrection.
We shall not, however, pursue this further at present. The
removal of the stone is not followed by any visible result. The
inmate of the sepulchre is not observed to issue from it, and yet
he is not there. May we not ask what was the use, in this narra-
tive, of the removal of the stone at all ? As no one apparently
came forth, the only purpose seems to have been to permit those
from without to enter and see that the sepulchre was empty.
Another remarkable point is that the angel desires the women
to go quickly and inform the disciples, " he goeth before you into
Galilee ; there shall ye see him." One is tempted to inquire why,
as he rose from the dead in Jerusalem, and, in spite of previous
statements, the disciples are represented as being there also, 1
Jesus did not appear to them in the Holy City, instead of sending
them some three days' journey off to Galilee. At the same time,
Jesus is represented by the first two Synoptics as saying at the
Last Supper, when warning the disciples that they will all be
offended at him that night and be scattered : " But after I shall
have been raised I will go before you into Galilee." 2 At present
we have only to call attention to the fact that the angel gives the
order. With much surprise, therefore, we immediately after
read that, as the women departed quickly to tell the disciples
in obedience to the angel's message (verse 9) : " Behold Jesus
met them, saying, Hail. And they came up to him and laid hold
of his feet, and worshipped him. 10. Then saith Jesus unto
them : Be not afraid ; go, tell my brethren that they depart into
Galilee, and there they shall see me." 3 What was the use of the
angel's message, since Jesus himself immediately after appears and
delivers the very same instructions in person ? This sudden and
apparently unnecessary appearance has all the character of an
afterthought. One point is very clear: that the order to go into
Galilee and the statement that there first Jesus is to appear to the
disciples are unmistakable, repeated and peremptory.
We must now turn to the second Gospel. The women going
to the sepulchre with spices that they might anoint the body
of Jesus which, according to the fourth Gospel, had already
been fully embalmed, and, in any case, had lain in the sepulchre
1 Luke xxiv. 33 ; John xx. 18 f. * Matt. xxvi. 32 ; Mark xiv. 28.
3 Ib. t xxviii. 9, 10.
832 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
since the Friday evening are represented as saying amongst
themselves : " Who will roll us away the stone from the door
of the sepulchre?" 1 This is a curious dramatic speculation, but
very suspicious. These women are apparently not sufficiently
acquainted with Joseph of Arimathaea to be aware that, as the
fourth Gospel asserts, the body had already been embalmed, and
yet they actually contemplate rolling the stone away from the
mouth of the sepulchre which was his property. 2 Keim has
pointed out that it was a general rule 3 that, after a sepulchre had
been closed in the way described, it should not again be opened.
Generally, the stone was not placed against the opening of the
sepulchre till the third day, when corruption had already
commenced ; but here the sepulchre is stated by all the Gospels
to have been closed on the first day, and the unhesitating
intention of the women to remove the stone is not a happy
touch on the part of the second Synoptist. They find the stone
already rolled away.* Verse 5 : " And entering into the sepulchre,
they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long
white garment ; and they were affrighted. 6. And he saith unto
them : Be not affrighted : Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, the
crucified : he was raised (^yepBrj) ; he is not here ; behold the
place where they laid him. 7. But go, tell his disciples and
Peter that he goeth before you unto Galilee ; there shall ye see
him, as he said unto you. 8. And they went out and fled from
the sepulchre : for trembling and astonishment seized them,
and they said nothing to anyone ; for they were afraid." 5 In
Matthew the angel rolls away the stone from the sepulchre and
sits upon it, and the women only enter to see where Jesus lay,
upon his invitation. Here, they go in at once, and see the angel
(" a young man ") sitting at the right side, and are affrighted. He
re-assures them, and, as in the other narrative, says, " he was
raised." He gives them the same message to his disciples
and to Peter, who is specially named ; and the second Synoptic
thus fully confirms the first in representing Galilee as the place
where Jesus is to be seen by them. It is curious that the women
should say nothing to anyone about this wonderful event, and in
this the statements of the other Gospels are certainly not borne
out. There is one remarkable point to be noticed, that,
according to the second Synoptist also, not only is there no eye-
witness of the Resurrection, but the only evidence of that
marvellous occurrence which it contains is the information of the
1 Mark xvi. 3. 2 Keim, Jesu v. Nazara, Hi., p. 522. 3 Ib., iii. 522, anm. I.
4 Mark xvi. 4. The continuation, "for it was very great" (fy y&p /u^-yas
ff<f>6dpa.), is peculiar, but of course intended to represent the difficulty of its
removal.
5 Mark xvi. 5.
NO EYE-WITNESS OF THE RESURRECTION 833
" young man." There is no appearance of Jesus to anyone
narrated, and it would seem as though the appearance described
in Matt, xxviii. 9 f. is excluded. It is well known that Mark xvi.
9-20 did not form part of the original Gospel, and is inauthentic.
It is unnecessary to argue a point so generally admitted. The
verses now appended to the Gospel are by a different author,
and are of no value as evidence. We, therefore, exclude them
from consideration.
In Luke, as in the second Synoptic, the women find the stone
removed, and here it is distinctly stated that " on entering in they
found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 4. And it came to pass as
they were perplexed thereabout, behold two men stood by them in
shining garments ; 5. And as they were afraid, and bowed their
faces to the earth, they said unto them : Why seek ye the living
among the dead ? 6. He is not here, but was raised (r/ye/30?/) ;
remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee ;
7. saying, that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the
hands of sinful men, and be crucified and the third day rise again.
8. And they remembered his words, 9. and returned from the
sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven and to all the
rest n. And these words appeared to them as an idle tale, and
they believed them not." 1 The author of the third Gospel is not
content with one angel, like the first two Synoptists, but introduces
"two men in shining garments," who seem suddenly to stand
beside the women, and, instead of re-assuring them, as in the
former narratives, rather adopt a tone of reproof (verse 5). They
inform the women that " Jesus was raised "; and here again not
only has no one been an eye-witness of the resurrection, but the
women only hear of it from the angels. There is one striking
peculiarity in the above account. There is no mention of
Jesus going before his disciples into Galilee to be seen of them,
nor indeed of his being seen at all ; but " Galilee " is introduced
by way of a reminiscence. Instead of the future, the third
Synoptist substitutes the past, and, as might be expected, he gives
no hint of any appearances of Jesus to the disciples beyond the
neighbourhood of Jerusalem. When the women tell the disciples
what they have seen and heard, they do not believe them. The
thief on the cross, according to the writer, was more advanced in
his faith and knowledge than the Apostles. Setting aside Matt,
xxviii. 9, 10, we have hitherto no other affirmation of the Resurrec-
tion than the statement that the sepulchre was found empty,
and the angels announced that Jesus was raised from the
dead.
1 Luke xxiv. 3-9, II. It is unnecessary to say that verse 12 is a later inter-
polation.
3H
834 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
The account of the fourth Evangelist differs completely from
the narratives of all the Synoptists. According to him, Mary
Magdalene alone comes to the sepulchre and sees the stone taken
away. She, therefore, runs and conies to Simon Peter and to "the
other disciple whom Jesus loved," saying : " They took
the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not (OVK ot
where they laid (e^xav) him. 3. Peter, therefore, went forth and
the other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. 4. And the two
ran together ; and the other disciple outran Peter and came first to
the sepulchre ; 5. and stooping down, looking in, he seeth the
linen clothes lying ; yet went he not in. 6. Then cometh Simon
Peter following him and went into the sepulchre and beholdeth
the linen clothes lying, 7. and the napkin that was on his head,
not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped in one place by
itself. 8. Then went in, therefore, the other disciple also, who
came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and believed. 9. For as
yet they knew not the Scriptures, that he must rise again from the
dead. 10. So the disciples went away to their own homes." 2
Critics have long ago pointed out the careful way in which the
actions of " the beloved disciple " and Peter are balanced in this
narrative. If the " other disciple " outstrips Peter, and first looks
into the sepulchre, Peter first actually enters; and if Peter first sees
the careful arrangement of the linen clothes, the other sees and
believes. The evident care with which the writer metes out
a share to each disciple in this visit to the sepulchre, of which
the Synoptics seem totally ignorant, is very suggestive of artistic
arrangement, and the careful details regarding the folding and
position of the linen clothes, which has furnished so much
matter for apologetic reasoning, seems to us to savour more of
studied composition than natural observation. So very much is
passed over in complete silence which is of the very highest
importance, that minute details like these, which might well be
composed in the study, do not produce so much effect as some
critics think they should do. There is some ambiguity as to what
the disciple " believed," according to verse 8, when he went into
the sepulchre ; and some understand that he simply believed what
Mary Magdalene had told them (verse 2), whilst others hold that
he believed in the resurrection, which, taken in connection with
the following verse, seems undoubtedly to be the author's meaning.
If the former were the reading, it would be too trifling a point to be so
prominently mentioned, and it would not accord with the contented
1 From the use of this plural, as we have already pointed out, it is argued
that there were others with Mary who are not named. This by no means
follows, but if it were the case the peculiarity of,the narrative becomes all the
more apparent.
2 John xx. 2-10.
THE APPEARANCE TO MARY MAGDALENE 835
return home of the disciples. Accepting the latter sense, it is
instructive to observe the very small amount of evidence with
which " the beloved disciple " is content. He simply finds the
sepulchre empty and the linen clothes lying, and although no one
even speaks of the resurrection, no one professes to have been an eye-
witness of it, and "as yet they know not the Scriptures, that he must
rise again from the dead," he is nevertheless said to see and believe.
It will have been observed that hitherto, although the two disciples
have both entered the sepulchre, there has been no mention
of angels : they certainly did not see any. In immediate
continuation of the narrative, however, we learn that when they
have gone home Mary Magdalene, who was standing without at
the tomb weeping, stooped down, and, looking into the sepulchre
where just before the disciples had seen no one she beheld
" two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet,
where the body of Jesus lay. 13. They say unto her: Woman,
why weepest thou ? She saith unto them : Because they took
away (fjpav) my Lord, and I know not where they laid
him." 1 This, again, is a very different representation and con-
versation from that reported in the other Gospels. Do we acquire
any additional assurance as to the reality of the angels and the
historical truth of their intervention from this narrative? We
think not. Mary Magdalene repeats to the angels almost the very
words she had said to the disciples, verse 2. Are we to suppose
that " the beloved disciple," who saw and believed, did not com-
municate his conviction to the others, and that Mary was left
precisely in the same doubt and perplexity as before, without an
idea that anything had happened except that the body had been
taken away, and she knew not where it had been laid ? She
appears to have seen and spoken to the angels with singular com-
posure. Their sudden appearance does not even seem to have
surprised her.
We must, however, continue the narrative, and it is well to
remark the maintenance, at first, of the tone of affected ignorance,
as well as the dramatic construction of the whole scene : Verse
14. " Having said this, she turned herself back and beholdeth
Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 15. Jesus saith
unto her : Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She,
supposing that it was the gardener, saith unto him : Sir, if thou
didst bear him hence, tell me where thou didst lay him, and I
will take him away. 16. Jesus saith unto her : Mary. She
turned herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew : 2 Rabboni, which
1 John xx. 12, 13.
2 This is the reading of the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices, besides D and
many other important MSS.
836 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
is to say, Master. 17. Jesus saith unto her : Touch me not (Mr/
ftov UJTTOU) ; for I have not yet ascended to the Father : but
go to my brethren, and say unto them : I ascend unto my Father
and your Father, and my God and your God. 18. Mary
Magdalene cometh announcing to the disciples that she has
seen the Lord, and he spake these things unto her." 1
To those who attach weight to these narratives and consider
them historical it must appear astonishing that Mary, who up 'to the
very last had been closely associated with Jesus, does not recognise
him when he thus appears to her, but supposes him at first to
be the gardener. As part of the evidence of the Gospel such a
trait is of much importance, and must hereafter be alluded to.
After a couple of days, not know Jesus whom she had daily seen
for so long! The interpretation of the reply of Jesus, verse 17,
" Touch me not," etc., has long been a bone of contention among
critics, but it does not sufficiently affect the inquiry upon which
we are engaged to require discussion here. Only one point may-
be mentioned in passing, that if, as has been supposed in connec-
tion with Matt, xxviii. 9, Jesus be understood to repel, as premature,
the worship of Mary, that very passage of the first Gospel, in which
there is certainly no discouragement of worship, refutes the theory.
We shall not say more about the construction of this dialogue,
but we may point out that, as so many unimportant details are
given throughout the narrative, it is somewhat remarkable that the
scene terminates so abruptly, and leaves so much untold that it
would have been of the utmost consequence for us to know.
What became of Jesus, for instance ? Did he vanish suddenly ?
or did he bid Mary farewell, and leave her like one in the flesh ?
Did she not inquire why he did not join the brethren ? whither
he was going? It is scarcely possible to tell us less than the
writer has done; and as it cannot be denied that such minor points
as where the linen clothes lay, or where Mary " turned herself
back " (verse 14), or "turned herself" (verse 16) merely, cannot be
compared in interest and importance to the supposed movements
and conduct of Jesus under such circumstances, the omission to
relate the end of the interview, or more particular details of it,
whilst those graphic touches are inserted, is singularly instructive.
It is much more important to notice that here again there is no
mention of Galilee, nor, indeed, of any intention to show himself
to the disciples anywhere, but simply the intimation sent to them :
" I ascend unto my Father and your Father," etc. a declaration
which seems emphatically to exclude further "appearances," and to
limit the vision of the risen Jesus to Mary Magdalene. Certainly
this message implies in the clearest way that the Ascension was
1 John xx. 14-18.
THE JOURNEY TO EMMAUS 837
then to take place, and the only explanation of the abrupt
termination of the scene immediately after this is said is, that, as
he spoke, Jesus then ascended. The subsequent appearances
related in this Gospel must, consequently, either be regarded as an
after-thought or as visions of Jesus after he had ascended. This
demands serious attention. . We shall see that, after sending this
message to his disciples, he is represented as appearing to them on
the evening of the very same day.
According to the third Synoptic, the first appearance of Jesus to
anyone after the Resurrection was not to the women, and not to
Mary Magdalene, but to two brethren, 1 who were not Apostles at
all, the name of one of whom, we are told, was Cleopas. 2 The
story of the walk to Emmaus is very dramatic and interesting, but
it is clearly legendary. None of the other Evangelists seem to
know anything of it. It is difficult to suppose that Jesus should,
after his resurrection, appear first of all to two unknown Christians
in this manner, and accompany them in such a journey. The
particulars of the story are to the last degree improbable, and in
its main features incredible, and it is impossible to consider
them carefully without perceiving the transparent inauthenticity of
the narrative. The two disciples were going to a village called
Emmaus threescore furlongs distant from Jerusalem, and while
they are conversing Jesus joins them, " but their eyes were holden
that they should not know him." He asks the subject of their
discourse, and pretends ignorance, which surprises them. Hear-
ing the expression of their perplexity and depression, he says to
them : 25. "O foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the
prophets spake. 26. Was it not necessary that the Christ should
suffer these things, and enter into his glory? 27. And beginning
at Moses and at all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all
the Scriptures the things concerning himself." When they reach
the village, he pretends to be going further (verse 28), but they
constrain him to stay. 30. " And it came to pass, as he sat at
meat with them, he took the bread and blessed and brake, and
gave to them ; 31. and their eyes were opened, and they knew
him, and he vanished out of their sight." Now, why all this
mystery ? why were their eyes holden that they should not know
him ? why pretend ignorance? why make "as though he would go
further"? Considering the nature and number of the alleged
appearances of Jesus, this episode seems most disproportionate
and inexplicable. The final incident completes our conviction of
the unreality of the whole episode : after the sacramental blessing
and breaking of bread, Jesus vanishes in a manner which removes
the story from the domain of history. On their return to
1 Luke xxiv. 13-34. - Ib., verse 18.
838 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Jerusalem, the Synoptist adds that they find the Eleven, and are
informed that " the Lord was raised and was seen by Simon." Of
this appearance we are not told anything more.
Whilst the two disciples from Emmaus were relating these things
to the Eleven, the third Synoptist states that Jesus himself stood
in the midst of them : verse 37. " But they were terrified and
affrighted, and supposed that they saw a spirit." The apparent
intention is to represent a miraculous sudden entry of Jesus into
the midst of them, just as he had vanished at Emmaus ; but, in
order to re-assure them, Jesus is represented as saying : verse 39.
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me
and behold, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me
having. 41. And while they yet believed not for joy, and
wondered, he said unto them : Have ye here any food ? 42. And
they gave him a piece of a broiled fish. 1 43. And he took it and
did eat before them." The care with which the writer demon-
strates that Jesus rose again with his own body is remarkable, for
not only does he show his hands and feet, we may suppose for the
purpose of exhibiting the wounds made by the nails by which he
was affixed to the cross, but he eats, and thereby proves himself
to be still possessed of his human organism. It is apparent
that there is direct contradiction between this and the repre-
sentation of his vanishing at Emmaus, and standing in the midst
of them now. The Synoptist, who is so lavish in his use of
miraculous agency, naturally sees no incongruity here. One or
other alternative must be adopted : If Jesus possessed his own
body after his resurrection and could eat and be handled, he could
not vanish ; if he vanished, he could not have been thus corporeal.
The aid of a miracle has to be invoked in order to reconcile the
representations. We need not here criticise the address which he
is supposed to make to the disciples, 2 but we must call attention to
the one point that Jesus (verse 49) commands the disciples to
tarry in Jerusalem until they be " clothed with power from on
high." This completes the exclusion of all appearances in Galilee,
for the narrative proceeds to say that Jesus led them out towards
Bethany and lifted up his hands and blessed them : verse 51.
"And it came to pass, while blessing them, he parted from them,
and was carried up into heaven "; whilst they returned to
Jerusalem, where they " were continually in the temple " praising
God. We shall return to the Ascension presently ; but, in the
1 We omit Kal airb /AcXifffflov Kyplov, which is not found in the most ancient
codices.
2 The statement in xxiv. 44, however, is suggestive as showing how the
fulfilment of the Prophets and Psalms is in the, mind of the writer. We
have seen how much this idea influenced the account of the Passion in the
Gospels.
APPEARANCE TO THE ELEVEN IN LUKE AND JOHN 839
meantime, it is well that we should refer to the accounts of the
other two Gospels.
According to the fourth Gospel, on the first day of the week,
after sending to his disciples the message regarding his Ascension,
which we have discussed, when it was evening: xx. 19. "And
the doors having been shut where the disciples were, for fear of
the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them :
Peace be unto you. 20. And having said this, he showed unto
them both his hands and his side. The disciples, therefore,
rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21. So then he said to them
again : Peace be unto you : as the Father hath sent me, I also
send you. 22. And when he said this, he breathed on them, and
saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit : 23. Whosesoever
sins ye forgive they are forgiven unto them ; whosesoever ye retain
they are retained." This appearance of Jesus to the Eleven bears
so far analogy to that in the third Gospel, which we have just
examined, that it occurs upon the same day and to the same
persons. Is it probable that Jesus appeared twice upon the same
evening to the eleven disciples? The account in the fourth
Gospel itself confirms the only reasonable reply, that he did not
do so ; but the narrative in the third Synoptic renders the matter
certain. That appearance was the first to the Eleven (xxiv. 36 f.),
and he then conducted them towards Bethany, and ascended into
heaven (verse 50 f.). How, then, we may inquire, could two
accounts of the same event dififer so fundamentally? It is absolutely
certain that both cannot be true. Is it possible to suppose that
the third Synoptist could forget to record the extraordinary
powers supposed to have been, on this occasion, bestowed upon
the ten Apostles to forgive sins and to retain them ? Is it
conceivable that he would not relate the circumstance that Jesus
breathed upon them, and endowed them with the Holy Ghost?
Indeed, as regards the latter point, he seems to exclude it ; verse
49 and Acts (ii.) certainly represent the descent of the Holy
Spirit as taking place at Pentecost. On the other hand, can
we suppose that the fourth Evangelist would have ignored the
walk to Bethany and the solemn parting there ? or the injunction
to remain in Jerusalem ? not to mention other topics. The two
episodes cannot be reconciled.
In the fourth Gospel, instead of showing his hands and feet,
Jesus is represented as exhibiting " his hands and his side "; and
that this is not accidental is most clearly demonstrated by the
fact that Thomas, who is not present, refuses to believe (verse 25)
unless he see and put his finger into the print of the nails in his
hands and put his hand into his side ; and Jesus, when he appears
again, allows him (verse 27) to put his finger into his hands and
his hand into his side. In the Synoptic the wound made by that
840 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
mythical lance is ignored, and, in the fourth Gospel, the wounds
in the feet. The omission of the whole episode of the leg-breaking
and lance-thrust by the three Synoptics thus gains fresh significance.
On the other hand, it may be a question whether, in the opinion
of the fourth Evangelist, the feet of Jesus were nailed to the cross
at all. It was at least as common, not to say more, that the
hands alone of those who were crucified were nailed to the
cross, the legs being simply bound to it by cords. Opinion is
divided as to whether Jesus was s'o bound, or whether the feet
were likewise nailed ; but the point is not important to our
examination and need not be discussed, although it has con-
siderable interest in connection with the theory that death did
not actually ensue on the cross, but that, having fainted through
weakness, Jesus, being taken down after so unusually short a
time on the cross, subsequently recovered. There is no final
evidence upon the point.
None of the explanations offered by Apologists remove the
contradiction between the statement that Jesus bestowed the
Holy Spirit upon this occasion, and that of the third Synoptic and
Acts. There is, however, a curious point to notice in connection
with this: Thomas is said to have been absent upon this occasion,
and the representation, therefore, is that the Holy Spirit was
only bestowed upon ten of the Apostles. Was Thomas excluded?
Was he thus punished for his unbelief? Are we to suppose that
an opportunity to bestow the Holy Spirit was selected when
one of the Apostles was not present ? We have somewhat
anticipated the narrative (xx. 24 f.), which relates that upon the
occasion above discussed, Thomas, one of the Twelve, was not
present, and, hearing from the rest that they have seen the Lord,
lie declares that he will not believe without palpable proof by
touching his wounds. The Evangelist continues : verse 26.
" And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas
was with them. Jesus cometh, the doors having been shut (TMV
Ovpu>v KK\fur/jifvo)v), and stood in the midst and said :
Peace be unto you. 27. Then saith he to Thomas: Reach hither
thy finger and behold my hands ; and reach hither thy hand and
put it into my side, and be not unbelieving, but believing. 28.
Thomas answered and said unto him : My Lord and my God.
28. Jesus saith unto him : Because thou hast seen me, thou
hast believed ; blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have
believed."
The third Synoptic gives evidence that the risen Jesus is not
incorporeal by stating that he not only permitted himself to be
handled, but actually ate food in their* presence. The fourth
Evangelist attains the same result in a more artistic manner through
the doubts of Thomas, but in allowing him actually to put his
THE INCREDULITY OF THOMAS 841
finger into the prints of the nails in his hands, and his hand into
the wound in his side, he asserts that Jesus rose with the same
body as that which had hung on the cross. He, too, whilst
doing this, actually endows him with the attribute of incor-
poreality ; for, upon both of the occasions which we are discussing,
the statement is markedly made that, when Jesus came and stood
in the midst, the doors were shut where the disciples were. It can
scarcely be doubted that the intention of the writer is to represent
a miraculous entry.
We are asked to believe that, when Thomas had convinced
himself that it was indeed Jesus in the flesh who stood before
him, he went to the opposite extreme of belief and said to
Jesus : (Kal t7Tv aimo) " My Lord and my God "! In repre-
senting that Jesus, even before the Ascension, was addressed
as " God " by one of the Twelve, the Evangelist commits one of
those anachronisms with which we are familiar, in another shape,
in the works of great painters, who depict pious bishops of their
own time as actors in the scenes of the Passion. These touches
betray the hand of the artist, and remove the account from the
domain of sober history. In the message sent by Jesus to his
disciples he spoke of ascending " to your God and my God,"
but the Evangelist at the close of his Gospel strikes the same
note as that upon which he commenced his philosophical prelude.
We shall only add one further remark regarding this episode,
and it is the repetition of one already made. It is much to be
regretted that the writer does not inform us how these interviews
of Jesus with his disciples terminated. We are told of his entry,
but not of his mode of departure. Did he vanish suddenly ? Did
he depart like other men ? Then, it would be important to know
where Jesus abode during the interval of eight days. Did he
ascend to heaven after each appearance ? or did he remain on
earth ? Why did he not consort as before with his disciples ?
These are not jeering questions, but serious indications of the
scantiness of the information given by the Evangelists, which is not
compensated by some trifling detail of no value occasionally
inserted to heighten the reality of a narrative. This is the last
appearance of Jesus related in the fourth Gospel; for the character
of chapter xxi. is too doubtful 1 to permit it to rank with the Gospel.
The appearance of Jesus therein related is, in fact, more palpably
legendary than the others. It will be observed that in this Gospel,
as in the third Synoptic, the appearances of Jesus are confined to
Jerusalem and exclude Galilee. These two Gospels are, therefore,
clearly in contradiction with the statement of the first two
Synoptics. 2
1 Cf. p. 538 f. z " Matt, xxviii. 7 ; Mark xvi. 7.
842 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
It only remains for us to refer to one more appearance of Jesus :
that related in the first Synoptic, xxviii. 16 f. In obedience to the
command of Jesus, the disciples are represented as having gone
away into Galilee, " unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed
them." We have not previously heard anything of this specific
appointment. The Synoptist continues: verse 17. "And when
they saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted. 18. And
Jesus came and spake unto them, saying : All authority was given
to me (e860r) pn) in heaven and on earth. 19. Go ye and
make disciples of all the nations, baptising them into the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ; 20. teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you ; and lo,
I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world." This
appearance not only is not mentioned in the other Gospels, but it
excludes the appearances in Judaea, of which the writer seems to be
altogether ignorant. If he knew of them, he practically denies
them.
There has been some discussion as to what the doubt mentioned
in verse 17 refers, some critics maintaining that "some doubted"
as to the propriety of worshipping Jesus ; whilst others more
correctly consider that they doubted as to his identity; but we need
not mention the curious apologetic explanations offered. 1 Are we
to regard the mention of these doubts as an " inestimable proof of
the candour of the Evangelists " ? If so, then we may find fault
with the omission to tell us whether, and how, those doubts were
set at rest. As the narrative stands the doubts were not
resolved. Was it possible to doubt without good reason of the
identity of one with whom, until a few days previously, the disciples
had been in daily and hourly contact at least for a year, if not
longer? Doubt in such a case is infinitely more decisive than
belief. We can regard the expression, however, in no other light
than as a mere rhetorical device in a legendary narrative. The
rest of the account need have little further discussion here. The
extraordinary statement in verse i8 2 seems as clearly the expression
of later theology as the baptismal formula in verse 1 9, where the
doctrine of the Trinity is so definitely expressed. Some critics
suppose that the eleven were not alone upon this occasion, but
1 Dr. Farrar makes the following remarks on this point : "The oi 5e ed
of Matt, xxviii. 17 can only mean 'hut some doubted' not as Wetstein
and others take it, whether they should worship or not, hut respecting the whole
scene. All may not have stood near to Him, and even if they did, we have
seen in four previous instances (Matt, xxviii. 17 ; Luke xxiv. 16, 37 : John xxi.
4) that there was something unusual and not instantly recognisable in His
resurrection body. At any rate, here we have another inestimable proof of the
candour of the Evangelists, for there is nothing io be said in favour of the
conjectural emendation oi)W (Life of Christ, ii. 445, note i).
2 This is supposed to be a reference to Daniel vii. 14.
APPEARANCES CANNOT BE HARMONISED 843
that either all the disciples of Jesus were present, or at least the
500 brethren 1 to whom Paul refers, i Cor. xv. 6. This mainly
rests on the statement that "some doubted," for it is argued that,
after the two previous appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem
mentioned by the other Evangelists, it is impossible that the Eleven
could have felt doubt, and consequently that others must have
been present who had not previously been convinced. It is
scarcely necessary to point out the utter weakness of such an argu-
ment. It is not permissible to patch on to this Gospel scraps
cut out of the others.
It must be clear to every unprejudiced student that the appear-
ances of Jesus narrated by the four Gospels in Galilee and Judaea
cannot be harmonised, and we have shown that they actually exclude
each other. 2 The first Synoptist records (verse 10) the order for
the disciples to go into Galilee, and, with no further interruption
than the mention of the return of the discomfited guard from the
sepulchre to the chief priest, he (verse 16) states that they went
into Galilee, where they saw Jesus in the manner just described.
No amount of ingenuity can insert the appearances in Jerusalem
here without the grossest violation of all common sense. This is
the only appearance to the Eleven recorded in Matthew.
We must again point out the singular omission to relate the
manner in which this interview was ended. The episode and
the Gospel, indeed, are brought to a very artistic close by the
expression, " Lo, I am with you all the days unto the end of the
world "; but we must insist that it is a very suggestive fact that it
does not occur to these writers to state what became of Jesus.
No point could have been more full of interest than the manner
in which Jesus here finally leaves the disciples, and is dismissed
from the history. That such an important part of the narrative is
omitted is in the highest degree remarkable and significant.
Had a formal termination to the interview been recounted, it
would have been subject to criticism, and by no means necessarily
evidence of truth ; but it seems to us that the circumstance that
it never occurred to these writers to relate the departure of Jesus
is a very strong indication of the unreality and shadowy nature of
the whole tradition.
1 Dr. Farrar, without explanation or argument, boldly asserts the presence of
the 500 (Life of Christ, ii. 445).
2 Dean Alford, whilst admitting that it is fruitless to attempt a harmony of
.the different accounts, curiously adds: " Hence the great diversity in this
portion of the narrative : and hence I believe much that is now dark might l>o
explained, were the facts themselves, in their order of occurrence, l>efore
us. Till that is the case (and I am willing to believe that it will be one of our
delightful employments hereafter, to trace the true harmony of the Holy
Gospels, under His teaching of whom they are the record), we must be content
to walk by faith, and not by sight " (Gk. Test on John, xx. 1-29, i., p. 905).
844 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
We are thus brought to consider the account of the Ascension,
which is, at least, given by one Evangelist. In the appendix to
the second Gospel, as if the later writer felt the omission and
desired to complete the narrative, it is vaguely stated : xvi. 19. "So
then after the Lord spake unto them he was taken up into heaven
and sat on the right hand of God." 1 The writer, however, omits
to state how he was taken up into heaven ; and sitting " at the
right hand of God " is an act and position which those who assert
the " Personality of God " may possibly understand, but which we
venture to think betrays that the account is a mere theological
figment. The third Synoptist, as we have incidentally shown,
gives an account of the Ascension. Jesus having, according
to the narrative in xxiv. 50 f., led the disciples out to Bethany,
lifted up his hands and blessed them (verse 51) : "And it came to
pass while blessing them he parted from them, and was carried up
into heaven." 2 The whole of the appearances narrated in the
third Synoptic, therefore, and the Ascension are thus said to occur
on the same day as the Resurrection. In Matthew there is a
different representation made, for the time consumed in the
journey of the disciples to Galilee obviously throws back the
Ascension to a later date. In Mark there is no appearance at all
recorded, but the command to the disciples to go into Galilee
confirms the first Synoptic. In the fourth Gospel, Jesus revisits
the Eleven a second time after eight days ; and, therefore, the
Ascension is here necessarily later still. In neither of these
Gospels is there any account of an Ascension at all.
We may here point out that there is no mention of the
Ascension in any of the genuine writings of Paul, and it would
appear that the theory of a bodily Ascension, in any shape, did
not form part of the oldest Christian tradition. The growth of the
legend of the Ascension is apparent in the circumstance that the
author of the third Gospel follows a second tradition regarding
that event, when composing Acts. Whether he thought a fuller and
more detailed account desirable, or it seemed necessary to prolong
the period during which Jesus remained on earth after his Resur-
rection and to multiply his appearances, it is impossible to say ;
but the fact is that he does so. He states in his second work that
to the Apostles Jesus "presented himself alive, after he suffered, by
many proofs, being seen (oTrrai/o/iei/os) by them during forty days,
1 Cf. Psalm ex. i.
a The last phrase, "and was carried up into heaven," /ecu avefapero ds
rbv ovpovbv, is suspected by Griesbach, omitted by Tischendorf, and pro-
nounced inauthentic by some critics. The words are not found in the Sinaitic
Codex and D, but are in the great majority of thfc,oldest MSS., including the
Alexandrian and Vatican, C, F, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, etc. The preponder-
ance of authority is greatly in their favour. Compare also Acts i. 2.
THE ASCENSION ACCORDING TO ACTS 845
and speaking of the things concerning the Kingdom of God." It
is scarcely possible to doubt that the period of forty days is sug-
gested by the Old Testament and the Hebrew use of that number,
of which, indeed, we already find examples in the New Testament
in the forty days' temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, 1 and his
fasting forty days and forty nights. 2 Why Jesus remained on
earth this typical period we are not told,3 but the representation
evidently is of much more prolonged and continuous intercourse
with his disciples than any statements in the Gospels have led us
to suppose, or than the declaration of Paul renders in the least
degree probable. If, indeed, the account in Acts were true, the
numbered appearances recited by Paul show singular ignorance
of the phenomena of the Resurrection.
We need not discuss the particulars of the last interview
with the Apostles (i. 4 f.), although they are singular enough,
and are indeed elsewhere referred to, but at once proceed to the
final occurrences. Verse 9. " And when he had spoken these
things, while they are looking he was lifted up; and a cloud
received him out of their sight. 10. And as they were gax.ing
stedfastly into the heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by
them in white apparel; n. which also said: Men of Galilee
(avBpts raA.iA.aioi), why stand ye looking into the heaven ? This
Jesus, who was taken up from you into the heaven, shall come in
like manner as ye saw him going into the heaven. 12. Then
returned they into Jerusalem," etc. A definite statement is here
made of the mode in which Jesus finally ascended into heaven,
and it presents some of the incongruities which might have been
expected. The bodily Ascension up the sky in a cloud, apart
from the miraculous nature of such an occurrence, seems singularly
to localise "Heaven," and to present views of cosmical and celestial
phenomena suitable certainly to the age of the writer, but which
are not endorsed by modern science. The sudden appearance of
the "two men in white apparel," the usual description of angels,
is altogether in the style of the author of Acts, but does it increase
the credibility of the story ? It is curious that the angels open
their address to the Apostles in the same form as almost every
other speaker in this book. One might ask, indeed, why such an
angelic interposition should have taken place? for its utility is not
apparent, and in the short sentence recorded nothing which is new
is embodied. No surprise is expressed at the appearance of the
angels, and nothing is said of their disappearance. They are
introduced, like the chorus of a Greek play, and are left
1 Mark i. 13 ; Luke iv. 2. a Matt. iv. 2.
3 The testimony of the Epistle of Barnabas (chapter xv.) does not agree with
this.
846 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
unceremoniously, with an indifference which betrays complete
familiarity with supernatural agency. Can there be any doubt
that the whole episode is legendary ?
It may not seem inappropriate to mention here that the idea of
a bodily Ascension does not originate with the author of the third
Synoptic and Acts, nor is it peculiar to Christianity. The transla-
tion of Enoch 1 had long been chronicled in the sacred books ; and
the ascent of Elijah 2 in his whirlwind and chariot of fire before the
eyes of Elisha was another well-known instance. The vision of
Daniel (vii. 13), of one like the "Son of man" coming with the
clouds of heaven, might well have suggested the manner of his
departure, but another mode has been suggested. 3 The author of
Acts was, we maintain, well acquainted with the works of Josephus.-*
We know that the prophet like unto Moses was a favourite repre-
sentation in Acts of the Christ. Now, in the account which
Josephus gives of the end of Moses, he states that, although he
wrote in the holy books that he died lest they should say that he
went to God, this was not really his end. After reaching the
mountain Abarim he dismissed the senate; and as he was about to
embrace Eleazar, the high priest, and Joshua, "a cloud suddenly
having stood over him he disappeared in a certain valley." 5 This
we merely mention in passing.
Our earlier examination of the evidence for the origin and
authorship of the historical books of the New Testament very
clearly demonstrated that the testimony of these works for miracles
and the reality of Divine Revelation, whatever that testimony
might seem to be, could not be considered of any real value. We
have now examined the accounts which the four Evangelists
actually give of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, and
there can be no hesitation in stating as the result that, as might
have been expected from works of such uncertain character, these
narratives must be pronounced mere legends, embodying vague
and wholly unattested tradition. As evidence for such stupendous
miracles they are absolutely of no value. No reliance can be
placed on a single detail of their story. The aim of the writers
1 Gen. v. 24 ; Ecclesiasticus xliv. 16, xlix. 14 ; Heh. xi. 5.
2 2 Kings ii. II ; Ecclesiasticus xlviii. 9, n.
3 Strauss, Das Lebenjesu, p. 618.
4 Cf. Fortnightly Review, 1877, p. 502 f. ,
5 vtyovs ai<pt>L8iov virtp avrbv ffrdvTos d,<j>a.i>ieTai icard. TIPOS <f><ipayyo$.
Antiq. /ud., iv. 8, 48.
EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES INADEQUATE 847
has obviously been to make their narrative of the various appear-
ances of Jesus as co'nvincing as possible, and they have freely
inserted any details which seemed to them calculated to give them
impressiveness, force, and verisimilitude.
An apologetic writer has said: "Any one who will attentively
read side by side the narratives of these appearances on the first
day of the Resurrection will see that they have only been preserved
for us in general, interblended and scattered notices (see Matt,
xxviii. 16; Luke xxiv. 34; Acts i. 3), which, in strict exactness,
render it impossible, without many arbitrary suppositions, to
produce from them a certain narrative of the order of events.
The lacunce, the compressions, the variations, the actual differences,
the subjectivity of the narrators as affected by spiritual revelations,
render all harmonies at the best uncertain." 1 Passing over with-
out comment the strange phrase in this passage which we have
italicised, and which seems to claim divine inspiration for the
writers, it must be obvious to any one who has carefully read the
preceding pages that this is an exceedingly moderate description
of the wild statements and irreconcilable contradictions of the
different narratives we have examined. But, such as it is, with
all the glaring inconsistencies and impossibilities of the accounts
even thus subdued, is it possible for anyone who has formed even
a faint idea of the extraordinary nature of the allegations which
have to be attested to consider such documents really evidence
for the Resurrection and bodily Ascension ?
The usual pleas which are advanced in mitigation of judgment
against the Gospels for these characteristics are of no avail. It
may be easy to excuse the writers for their mutual contradictions,
but the pleas themselves are an admission of the shortcomings
which render their evidence valueless. " The differences of
purpose in the narrative of the four Evangelists " 2 may be fancifully
1 Farrar, Life of Christ, ii. 432, note I.
2 " Professor Westcott, with his usual profundity and insight, points out the
differences of purpose in the narrative of the four Evangelists. St. Matthew
dwells chiefly on the majesty and glory of the Resurrection ; St. Mark, both
in the original part and in the addition (Mark xvi. 9-20), insists upon it as
a fact ; St. Luke, as a spiritual necessity; St. John, as a touchstone of
character (Introd., 310-315)" (Farrar, ib., ii. 432, note i). Dr. Westcott
says: "The various narratives of the Resurrection place the fragmentariness
of the Gospel in the clearest light. They contain difficulties which it is
impossible to explain with certainty, but there is no less an intelligible fitness
and purpose in the details peculiar to each account It is necessary to repeat
these obvious remarks, because the records of the Resurrection have given
occasion to some of the worst examples of that kind of criticism from which the
other parts of the Gospels have suffered, though not in an equal degree. It is
tacitly assumed that we are in possession of all the circumstances of the event,
and thus, on the one hand, differences are urged as fatal, and, on the other,
elaborate attempts are made to show that the details given can be forced into
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
set forth, or ingeniously imagined, but no "purpose" can trans-
form discordant and untrustworthy narratives into evidence for
miracles. Unless the prologue to the third Gospel be considered
a condemnation of any of the other Synoptics which we may have
existed before it, none of the Evangelists makes the smallest
reference to any of his brethren or their works. Each Gospel
tacitly professes to be a perfectly independent work, giving the
history of Jesus, or at least of the active part of his life, and of his
death and Resurrection. The apologetic theory, derived from the
Fathers, that the Evangelists designed to complete and supplement
each other, is totally untenable. Each work was evidently
intended to be complete in itself; but when we consider that
much the greater part of the contents of each of the Synoptics is
common to the three, frequently with almost literal agreement,
and generally without sufficient alteration to conceal community of
source or use of each other, the poverty of Christian tradition
becomes painfully evident. We have already pointed out the
fundamental difference between the fourth Gospel and the
Synoptics. In no part of the history does greater contradiction
and disagreement between the three Synoptics themselves, and
likewise between them and the fourth Gospel, exist than in the
account of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. It is
impossible to examine the four narratives carefully without feeling
that here tradition, for natural reasons, has been more than usually
wavering and insecure. Each writer differs essentially from the
rest, and the various narratives not only disagree, but exclude each
other. The third Synoptist, in the course of some years, even
contradicts himself. The phenomena which are related, in fact,
were too subjective and unsubstantial for sober and consistent
narrative, and free play was allowed for pious imagination to frame
details by the aid of supposed Messianic utterances of the Prophets
and Psalmists of Israel.
Such a miracle as the Resurrection, startling as it is in our
estimation, was commonplace enough in the view of these writers.
We need not go back to discuss the story of the widow's son
restored to life by Elijah, 1 nor that of the dead man who revived
on touching the bones of Elisha. 2 The raising from the dead of
the son of the widow of Nain 3 did not apparently produce much
effect at the time, and only one of the Evangelists seems to have
thought it worth while to preserve the narrative. The case of
Jairus' daughter, 4 whatever it was, is regarded as a resurrection of
the semblance of a complete and connected narrative. The true critic will
pause before he admits either extreme " (hit. to the Study of the Gospels, 4th
ed., p. 329, 331).
1 I Kings xvii. 17 f. 2 2 Xings xiii. 21.
3 Luke vii. 1 1 f. 4 Mark v. 35 f. ; Luke viii. 46 f.
FAMILIARITY WITH RAISING THE DEAD 849
the dead, and is related by two of the Synoptists ; but the raising
of Lazarus is only recorded by the fourth Evangelist. The
familiarity of the age with the idea of the resurrection of the
dead, according to the Synoptists, is illustrated by the repre-
sentation which they give of the effect produced by the fame
of Jesus upon Herod and others. We are told by the first
Synoptist that Herod said unto his servants : " This is John the
Baptist ; he was raised from the dead ; and therefore the powers
work in him." 1 The second Synoptist repeats the same statement,
but adds : " But others said that it is Elijah ; and others said that
it is a prophet like one of the prophets." 2 The statement of the
third Synoptist is somewhat different. He says : " Now Herod
the tetrarch heard all that was occurring : and he was perplexed
because it was said by some that John was raised from the dead,
and by some that Elijah appeared, and by others that one of the
old prophets rose up. And Herod said : John I beheaded, but
who is this of whom I hear such things, and he sought to see
him. "3 The three Synoptists substantially report the same thing ;
the close verbal agreement of the first two being an example of
the community of matter of which we have just spoken. The
variations are instructive as showing the process by which each
writer made the original form his own. Are we to assume that
these things were really said ? Or must we conclude that the
sayings are simply the creation of later tradition ? In the latter
case, we see how unreal and legendary are the Gospels. In the
former, we learn how common was the belief in a bodily
resurrection. How could it seem so strange to the Apostles that
Jesus should rise again, when the idea that John the Baptist or
one of the old prophets had risen from the dead was so readily
accepted by Herod and others ? How could they so totally mis-
understand all that the chief priests, according to the first Synoptic,
so well understood of the teaching of Jesus on the subject of his
Resurrection, since the world had already become so familiar with
the idea and the fact ?
Then, the episode of the Transfiguration must have occurred to
everyone, when Jesus took with him Peter and James and John
into a high mountain apart, " and he was transfigured before them ;
and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment became white
as the light. And behold, there was seen (w<0r;) by them Moses
and Elijah talking with him "; and then " a bright cloud over-
shadowed them " and " a voice came out of the cloud : This is
my beloved son," etc. "And when the disciples heard they fell
1 Matt. xiv. 2 ; cf. Mark vi. 14.
2 Mark vi. 15.
3 Luke ix. 7-9.
31
850 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
on their face and were sore afraid." 1 The third Synoptist even
knows the subject of their conversation : " They were speaking of
his decease which he was about to fulfil in Jerusalem." 2 This is
related by all as an objective occurrence. 3 Are we to accept it as
such ? Then how is it possible that the disciples should be so
obtuse and incredulous as they subsequently showed themselves
to be regarding the person of Jesus and his Resurrection ? How
could the announcement of that event by the angels to the women
seem to them as an idle tale, which they did not believe ? 4 Here
were Moses and Elijah before them, and in Jesus, we are told,
they recognised one greater than Moses and Elijah. The miracle
of the Resurrection was here again anticipated and made palpable
to them. Are we to regard the Transfiguration as a subjective
vision ? Then why not equally so the appearances of Jesus after
his passion? We can regard the Transfiguration, however, as
nothing more than an allegory without either objective or
subjective reality. Into this at present we cannot further go. It
is sufficient to repeat that our examination has shown the Gospels
to possess no value as evidence for the Resurrection and
Ascension.
1 Matt. xvii.. I f. ; cf. Mark ix. 2 f., Luke ix. 28 f. Nothing could be more
instructive than a careful comparison of the three narratives of this occurrence
and of the curious divergencies and amplifications of a common original
introduced by successive editors.
2 Luke ix. 31.
3 We need not here speak of the use of the verb opdw.
4 Luke xxiv. II.
CHAPTER III.
THE EVIDENCE OF PAUL
WE may now proceed to examine the evidence of Paul. " On
one occasion," it is affirmed in a passage already quoted, " he
gives a very circumstantial account of the testimony upon which
the belief in the Resurrection rested (i Cor. xv. 4-8)." 1 This
account is as follows : i Cor. xv. 3. " For I delivered unto you
first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures, 4. and that he was buried, and that
he has been raised (ey^ycprai) the third day according to the
Scriptures, 5. and that he was seen by Cephas, then by the
Twelve. 6. After that, he was seen by about five hundred
brethren at once (e<a7ra), of whom the greater part remain unto
this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7. After that, he was
seen by James ; then by all the Apostles. 8. And last of all he
was seen by me also as the one born out of due time." 2 Can this
be considered "a very circumstantial account"? It may be
exceedingly unreasonable, but we must at once acknowledge that
we are not satisfied. The testimony upon which belief in the
Resurrection is said to rest is comprised in a dozen lines' for we
may so far anticipate as to say that this cannot be regarded as
a resumt of evidence which we can find elsewhere. We shall
presently point out a few circumstances which it might be useful
to know.
The Apostle states, in this passage, that the doctrines which he
had delivered to the Corinthians he had himself " received." He
does not pretend to teach them from his own knowledge, and the
question naturally arises : From whom did he " receive " them ?
Formerly, divines generally taught that Paul received these doc-
trines by revelation, and up to recent times Apologists have con-
tinued to hold this view, even when admitting the subsidiary use of
tradition. If this claim were seriously made, the statements of the
Apostle, so far as our inquiry is concerned, would certainly not gain
in value, for it is obvious that Revelation could not be admitted to
prove Revelation. It is quite true that Paul himself professed to
have received his Gospel not from men, but from God by direct
revelation, and we shall hereafter have to consider this point and
the inferences to be drawn from such pretensions. At present the
1 Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 12. 2 I Cor. xv. 3.
851
852 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
argument need not be complicated by any such supposition, for
certainly Paul does not here advance any such claim himself, and
apologetic and other critics agree in declaring the source of his
statements to be natural historical tradition. The points which he
delivered, and which he had also received, are three in number : (i)
that Christ died for our sins ; (2) that he was buried ; and (3) that
he has been raised the third day. In strictness the Kal on might
oblige us to include, " and that he was seen by Cephas, then by the
Twelve," after which the construction of the sentence is changed.
It is not necessary to press this, however, and it is better for the
present to separate the dogmatic statements from those which are
more properly evidential.
It will be observed that, although the death, burial, and Resurrec-
tion are here taught as " received," evidence only of one point is
offered : that Jesus " was seen by " certain persons. We have
already pointed out that the Gospels do not pretend that any one
was an eye-witness of the Resurrection itself, and it is important to
notice that Paul, the earliest and most trustworthy witness pro-
duced, entirely passes over the event, and relies solely on the fact
that Jesus was supposed to have been seen by certain persons to
prove that he died, was buried, and had actually risen the third
day. The only inference which we here wish to draw from this is,
that the alleged appearances are thus obviously separated from the
death and burial by a distinct gulf. A dead body, it is stated, or
one believed to be dead, is laid in a sepulchre; after a certain time,
it is alleged that the dead person has been seen alive. Supposing
the first statement to be correct of which there must, of course,
be the most clear and detailed evidence the second, being in
itself, according to all our experience, utterly incredible, leaves
further a serious gap in the continuity of evidence. What occurred
in the interval between the burial and the supposed apparition ?
If it be asserted as in the Gospels it is that, before the
apparition, the sepulchre was found empty and the body gone,
the natural reply is that this very circumstance may have assisted
in producing a subjective vision, but that, in so far as the disap-
pearance of the body is connected with the appearance of the
person apparently alive, the fact has no evidential value. The person
supposed to be dead, for instance, may not have been actually
so, but have revived; for, although we have no intention our-
selves of adopting this explanation of the Resurrection, it is, as an
alternative, certainly preferable to belief in the miracle. Or, in the
interval, the body may have been removed from a temporary to a
permanent resting-place, unknown to those who are surprised to
find the body gone and in the Gospels the conflicting accounts
of the embalming and hasty burial, as we^ave seen, would fully
permit of such an argument if we relied at all on those narratives.
INFLUENCE OF THE PROPHETIC GNOSIS 853
Many other means of accounting for the absence of the body might
be advanced, any one of which, in the actual default of testimony
to the contrary, would be irrefutable. The mere surprise of finding
a grave empty which was supposed to contain a body betrays a
blank in the knowledge of the persons, which can only be naturally
filled up. This gap, at least, would not have existed had the
supposed resurrection occurred in the presence of those by whom
it is asserted Jesus " was seen." As it is, no evidence whatever is
offered that Jesus really died ; no evidence that the sepulchre was
even found empty ; no evidence that the dead body actually rose
and became alive again ; but, skipping over the intermediate steps,
the only evidence produced is the statement that, being supposed
to be dead, he is said to have been seen by certain persons. 1
There is a peculiarity in the statement to which we must now
refer. The words, "according to the Scriptures" (KO.TU TO.S
y/>a<tt) are twice introduced into the brief recapitulation of
the teaching which Paul had received and delivered : (i) "That
Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures," and (3)
"that he has been raised the third day, according to the Scriptures."
It is obvious that mere historical tradition has only to do with the
fact " that Christ died," and that the object, " for our sins," is a
dogmatic addition. The Scriptures supply the dogma. In the
second point, the appeal to Scripture is curious, and so far
important as indicating that the Resurrection on the third day was
supposed to be a fulfilment of prophecy ; and we have thus an
indication, regarding which we must hereafter speak, of the manner
in which the belief probably originated. The double reference to
the Scriptures is peculiarly marked, and we have already more
than once had occasion to point out that the narratives of the
Gospels betray the very strong and constant influence of parts of
the Old Testament supposed to relate to the Messiah. It cannot,
we think, be doubted by any independent critic that the details of
these narratives are largely due to the influence of the prophetic
gnosis. It is natural to suppose that the early Christians, once
accepting the idea of a suffering Messiah, should assume that
prophecies which they believed to have reference to him had
really been fulfilled, and that the actual occurrences corresponded
minutely with the prophecies. It is probable that Christian
tradition generally was moulded from foregone conclusions.
What were the " Scriptures," according to which " Christ died
for our sins," and " has been raised the third day "? The passages
which Paul most probably had in view were, as regards the death
' The curious account in Matt., xxviii. I f., of the earthquake and rolling
away of the stone by an angel in the presence of the women, who nevertheless
saw no Resurrection, will not be forgotten.
854 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
for our sins Isaiah liii., Psalms xxii. and Ixix., and for the
Resurrection Psalm xvi. 10 and Hosea vi. 2. We have already
pointed out that historical criticism has shown that the first four
passages just indicated are not Messianic prophecies at all, and we
may repeat that the idea of a suffering Messiah was wholly foreign
to the Jewish prophets and people. The Messiah " crucified," as
Paul himself bears witness, was " to Jews a stumbling block," 1 and
modern criticism has clearly established that the parts of Scripture
by which the early Christians endeavoured to show that such a
Messiah had been foretold can only be applied by a perversion of
the original signification. In the case of the passages supposed
to foretell the Resurrection the misapplication is particularly
flagrant. We have already discussed the use of Psalm xvi. 10,
which in Acts 2 is put into the mouth of the Apostles Peter and
Paul, and shown that the proof passage rests upon a mistranslation
of the original in the Septuagint. 3 Any reader who will refer to
Hosea vi. 2 will see that the passage in no way applies to the
Messiah, although, undoubtedly, it has influenced the formation of
the doctrine of the Resurrection. The "sign of the prophet
Jonah,'" which, in Matt. xii. 40, is put into the mouth of Jesus, is
another passage used with equal incorrectness ; and a glimpse of
the manner in which Christian tradition took shape, and the
Gospels were composed, may be obtained by comparing with the
words in the first Synoptic the parallel in the third (xi. 29-3i).4
We shall have more to say presently regarding the Resurrection
" on the third day."
We may now proceed to examine the so-called " very circum-
stantial account of the testimony on which the belief in the
Resurrection rested." " And that he was seen by Cephas, then
by the Twelve. After that he was seen by above 500
brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this
present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen by
James, then by all the Apostles, and last of all he was seen by me
also, "s There can be no doubt, we think, from the terms in which
this statement is made, that Paul intended to give the appearances
in chronological order. It would likewise be a fair inference that
he intended to mention all the appearances of which he was
aware. So far the account may possibly merit the epithet
"circumstantial," but in all other respects it is scarcely possible to
conceive any statement less circumstantial. As to where the
risen Jesus was seen by these persons, in what manner, under
what circumstances, and at what time, we are not vouchsafed a
single particular. Moreover, the Apostle was not present on any
4
1 I Cor. i. 23. 2 ii. 25 f., xiii. 35 f. 3 P. 82.
4 Cf. Matt. xvi. 4; Mark viii. n. 5 i Cor. xv. 5-8.
THE APPEARANCES MENTIONED BY PAUL 855
of these occasions, excepting, of course, his own vision, and,
consequently, merely reports appearances of which he has been
informed by others ; but he omits to mention the authority upon
which he makes these statements, or what steps he took to ascer-
tain their accuracy and reality. For instance, when Jesus is said
to have been seen by 500 brethren at once, it would
have been of the highest importance for us to know the exact
details of the scene, the proportion of inference to fact, the
character of the Apostle's informant, the extent of the investigation
into the various impressions made upon the individuals composing
the 500, as opposed to the collective affirmation. We con-
fess that we do not attach much value to such appeals to the
experience of 500 persons at once. It is difficult to find out
what the actual experience of the individuals was, and each
person is so apt to catch the infection of his neighbour and
join in excitement, believing that, though he does not himself sec
or feel anything, his neighbour does, that probably, when inquiry is
pressed home, the aggregate affirmation of a large number may
resolve itself into the actual experience of very few. The fact is,
however, that in this " very circumstantial account " we have
nothing except a mere catalogue by Paul, without a detail or
information of any kind, of certain appearances which he did not
himself see always excepting his own vision, which we reserve
but merely had "received" from others. As evidence of the
death and Resurrection it has no value.
If we compare these appearances with the instances recorded in
the Gospels, the result is by no means satisfactory. The first
appearance is said to be to Cephas. It is argued that Paul passes
in silence over the appearances to women, both because the
testimony of women was not received in Jewish courts, and because
his own opinions regarding the active participation of women in
matters connected with the Church were of a somewhat exclusive
character. 1 The appearance to Cephas is generally identified with
that mentioned, Luke xxiv. 34.* Nothing could be more cursory
than the manner in which this appearance is related in the Synoptic.
The disciples from Emmaus, returning at once to Jerusalem,
found the Eleven and those who were with them saying : " The
Lord was raised indeed, and was seen by Simon." Not another
syllable is said regarding an appearance which, according to Paul,
was the first which had occurred. The other Gospels say still less,
for they ignore the incident altogether. It is difficult to find room
for such an appearance in the Gospel narratives. If we take the
1 Cf. I Cor. xiv. 34 f.
2 So Bisping, Maier, Meyer, Neander, Osiander, Riickert, Stanley, de
Wette, etc.
856 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
report of Paul to be true, that Jesus was first seen by Cephas, the
silence of three Evangelists and their contradictory representations,
on the one hand, and the remarkable way in which the third
Gospel avoids all but a mere indirect reference to the occurrence,
on the other, are phenomena which we leave Apologists to explain. 1
He is next seen " by the Twelve." This vision is identified
with that narrated in John xx. 19 f. and Luke xxiv. 36 f., 2 to which,
as Thomas was absent on the first occasion, some critics under-
stand the episode in John xx. 26 f. to be added. On reference to
our discussion of these accounts, it will be seen that they have few
or no elements of credibility. If the appearance to the Twelve
mentioned by Paul be identified with these episodes, and their
details be declared authentic, the second item in Paul's list becomes
discredited.
The appearance to 500 brethren at once is not mentioned in any
of the Gospels, but critics, and especially apologetic critics, assert
with more or less of certainty the identity of the occasion with the
scene described in Matt, xxviii. 16 f.3 We remarked whilst dis-
cussing the passage that this is based chiefly on the statement that
" some doubted," which would have been inconsistent, it is thought,
had Jesus already appeared to the Eleven. 4 The identity is
denied by others. 5 The narrative in the first Synoptic would
scarcely add force to the report in the Epi'stle. Is it possible
to suppose that, had there been so large a number of
persons collected upon that occasion, the Evangelist would not
have mentioned the fact ? On the other hand, does it not some-
what discredit the statement that Jesus was seen by so large a
number at once, that no record of such a remarkable occurrence
exists elsewhere ? How could the tradition of such an event,
witnessed by so many, have so completely perished that neither in
the Gospels nor Acts, nor in any other writing, is there any
reference to it, and our only knowledge of it is this bare statement,
without a single detail ? There is only one explanation : that the
1 Gfrorer thinks the germ of Paul's incident to lie in the statement
John xx. 4 (Die heiL Sage, i. , p. 376 f.). Dr. Farrar thinks the details " may
have been of a nature too personal to have been revealed " (Life of Christ, ii.,
P- 437)-
2 So Bisping, Maier, Meyer, Neander, Osiander, Stanley, de Wette, etc.
3 So Grotius, Maier, Osiander, Wordsworth, etc., ad 1. Ebrard, Wiss. Kr.
ev. Gesch., p. 591 f. , 599; zu Ohh. Leidensgesch., p. 210; Farrar, Life of
Christ, ii., p. 445 ; cf. Olshausen, Leidensgesch., p. 227 ; Stanley, Corinthians,
p. 288.
4 Beyschlag considers that, in these doubts, we have clearly an erroneous
mixing up of the story of Thomas (John xx. 24 f. ), and he thinks that probably
in the incident of Jesus eating fish, described by the third Synoptic (xxiv. 42),
we have a reminiscence of John xxi. 13 (Stud. it. Jfr., 1870, p. 218, anm).
5 Alford, Bisping, Hofmann, Meyer, de Wette, etc.
THE APPEARANCES MENTIONED BY PAUL 857
assembly could not have recognised in the phenomenon, whatever
it was, the risen Jesus, or that subsequently an explanation was
given which dispelled some temporary illusion. In any case, we
must insist that the total absence of all confirmation of an appear-
ance to 500 persons at once renders such an occurrence more than
suspicious. The statement that the greater number were still
living when Paul wrote does not materially affect the question.
Paul doubtless believed the report that such an appearance had
taken place, and that the majority of witnesses still survived ; but
does it necessarily follow that the report was true ? The survivors
were certainly not within reach of the Corinthians, and could not
easily be questioned. The whole of the argument of Paul which
we are considering, as well as that which follows, was drawn from
him by the fact that, in Corinth, Christians actually denied a
Resurrection, and it is far from clear that this denial did not extend
to denying the Resurrection of Jesus himself. That they did deny
this we think certain, from the care with which Paul gives what he
considers evidence for the fact. Another point may be mentioned.
Where could so many as 500 disciples have been collected at one
time? The author of Acts states (i. 15) the number of the
Christian community gathered together to elect a successor to
Judas as "about 120." Apologists, therefore, either suppose the
appearance to 500 to have taken place in Jerusalem, when numbers
of pilgrims from Galilee 'and other parts were in the Holy City, or
that it occurred in Galilee itself, where they suppose believers to
have been more numerous. This is the merest conjecture ; and
there is not even ground for asserting that there were so many as
500 brethren in any one place by whom Jesus could have been
seen.
The appearance to James is not mentioned in any of our
Gospels. Jerome preserves a legend from the Gospel of the
Hebrews, which states that James, after having drunk the cup of
the Lord, swore that he would not eat bread until he should see
him risen from the dead. When Jesus rose, therefore, he appeared
to James ; and, ordering a table and bread to be brought, blessed
and broke the bread, and gave it to James. 1 Beyond this
legendary story there is no other record of the report given by
Paul. The occasion on which he was seen by " all the Apostles "
is indefinite, and cannot be identified with any account in the
Gospels.
It is asserted, however, that, although Paul does not state from
whom he " received " the report of these appearances of the risen
Jesus, he must have heard them from the Apostles themselves.
At any rate, it is added, Paul professes that his preaching on the
1 Hieron., De vir. ill., ii.
858 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
death, burial, and Resurrection is the same as that of the other
Apostles. 1 That the other Apostles preached the Resurrection of
Jesus may be a fact, but we have no information as to the precise
statements they made. We shall presently discuss the doctrine
from this point of view, but here we must confine ourselves to Paul.
As for the inference that, associating with the Apostles, he must
have been informed by them of the appearances of Jesus, we may
say that this by no means follows so clearly as is supposed. Paul
was singularly independent, and in his writings he directly dis-
claims all indebtedness to the elder Apostles. He claims that his
Gospel is not after man, nor was it taught to him by man, but
through revelation of Jesus Christ. 2 Now Paul himself informs us
of his action after it pleased God to reveal his Son in him that he
might preach him among the Gentiles. It might, indeed, have
been reasonably expected that Paul should then have sought out
those who could have informed him of all the extraordinary occur-
rences supposed to have taken place after the death of Jesus.
Paul does nothing of the kind. He is apparently quite satisfied
with his own convictions. " Immediately," he says, in his
characteristic letter to the Galatians, "I communicated not
with flesh and blood ; neither went I away to Jerusalem to
them who were Apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia,
and returned again unto Damascus. Then, after three years, I
went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and abode with him fifteen
days ; but other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the
brother of the Lord. Now the things which I write, behold before
God I lie not Then after fourteen years I went up again to
Jerusalem "3 upon which occasion, we know, his business was
not of a nature to allow us to suppose that he obtained much
information regarding the Resurrection.
We may ask : Is there that thirst for information regarding the
facts and doctrines of Christianity displayed here, which entitles
us to suppose that Paul eagerly and minutely investigated the
evidence for them ? We think not. Paul made up his own
mind in his own way, and, having silently waited three years,
it is not probable that the questions which he then asked
were of any searching nature. The protest that he saw none of
the other Apostles may prove his independence, but it certainly
does not prove his anxiety for information. When Paul went up
to make the acquaintance of Cephas his object clearly was not to
be taught by him, but to place himself in communication with the
man whom he believed to be the chief of the Apostles, and, we
may assume, largely with a view to establish a friendly feeling, and
secure recognition of his future ministry. We should not, of
1 I Cor. xv. ii, 12. 2 Gal. i. II, 12. 3 Gal. i. 16, 18, ii. i.
VALUE OF PAUL'S BELIEF AS EVIDENCE 859
course, be justified in affirming that the conversation between the
two great Apostles never turned upon the subject of the Resurrec-
tion; but we think that it is obvious that Paul's visit was not in the
least one of investigation. He believed ; he believed that certain
events had occurred " according to the Scriptures " ; and the
legitimate inference from Paul's own statements must be that, in
this visit after three years, his purpose was in no way connected
with a search for evidential information. The author of Acts, it
will be remembered, represents him as, before any visit to
Jerusalem, publicly and boldly preaching in Damascus that Jesus
is the Son of God, and " confounding the Jews proving that
this is the Christ." 1 This representation, it will be admitted, shows
an advanced condition of belief little supporting the idea of subse-
quent investigation. When all conjectures are exhausted, how-
ever, we have the one distinct fact remaining that Paul gives no
authority for his report that Jesus was seen by the various persons
mentioned, nor does he furnish any means by which we can judge
of the nature and reality of the alleged phenomena. We continue
here to speak of the appearances to others, reserving the appear-
ance to himself, as standing upon a different basis, for separate
examination.
What is the value of this evidence ? The fact to be proved is
that, after a man had been crucified, dead, and buried, he actually
rose from the dead, and appeared alive to many persons. The
evidence is that Paul, writing some twenty years after the supposed
miraculous occurrences, states, without detailed information of any
kind, and without pretending to have himself been an eye-witness
of the phenomena, that he has been told that Jesus was, after his
death and burial, seen alive on the occasions mentioned ! As to
the Apostle Paul himself, let it be said in the most emphatic
manner possible that we do not suggest the slightest suspicion
of the sincerity of any historical statement - he makes. We
implicitly accept the historical statements, as distinguished from
inferences, which proceed from his pen. It cannot be doubted
that Paul was told that such appearances had been seen. We do
not question the fact that he believed them to have taken place ;
and we shall hereafter discuss the weight to be attached to this
circumstance. Does this, however, guarantee the truth of the
reports or inferences of those who informed the Apostle ? I )oes
the mere passage of any story or tradition through Paul necessarily
transmute error into truth self-deception or hallucination into
objective fact ? Are we without any information as to what was
really stated to Paul, as to the personality and character of his
informants, as to the details of what was believed to have occurred,
1 Acts ix. 20, 22, 27.
86o SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
as to the means taken to test the reality of the alleged phenomena,
without an opportunity of judging for ourselves on a single point
to believe in the reality of these appearances simply because Paul
states that he has been informed that they occurred, and himself
believes the report ?
So far as the belief of Paul is concerned, we may here remark
that his views regarding the miraculous Charismata in the Church
do not prepare us to feel any confidence in the sobriety of his judg-
ment in connection with alleged supernatural occurrences. We
have no reliance upon his instinctive mistrust of such statements,
or his imperative requirement of evidence, but every reason to
doubt them. On the other hand, without in any way imputing
wilful incorrectness or untruth to the reporters of such phenomena,
let it be remembered how important a part inference has to play
in the narrative of every incident, and how easy it is to draw
erroneous inferences from bare facts. 1 In proportion as persons
are ignorant, on the one hand, and have their minds disturbed, on
the other, by religious depression or excitement, hope, fear, or any
other powerful emotion, they are liable to confound facts and
inferences, and both to see and analyse wrongly. In the case of
a supposed appearance alive of a person believed to be dead, it
will scarcely be disputed, there are many disturbing elements,
especially when that person has just died by a cruel and shameful
death, and is believed to be the Messiah. The occurrence which
we at any time see is, strictly speaking, merely a series of appear-
ances, and the actual nature of the thing seen is determined in
our minds by inferences. How often are these inferences correct ?
We venture to say that the greater part of the proverbial incorrect-
ness and inaccuracy which prevail arise from the circumstance
that inferences are not distinguished from facts, and are constantly
erroneous. In that age, under such circumstances, and with
Oriental temperaments, it is absolutely certain that there was
exceptional liability to error ; and the fact that Paul repeats the
statements of unknown persons, dependent so materially upon
inference, cannot possibly warrant us in believing them when they
contradict known laws which express the results of universal
experience. It is infinitely more probable that these persons
were mistaken than that a dead man returned to life again, and
1 We may merely in passing refer to the case of Mary Magdalene in the
fourth Gospel. She sees a figure standing beside her, and infers that it is the
gardener ; presently something else occurs which leads her to infer that she
was mistaken in her first inference, and to infer next that it is Jesus. It is a
narrative upon which no serious argument can be based ; but had she at first
turned away, her first inference would have remained, and, according to the
narrative, have been erroneous. We might alsoVgue that, if further examina-
tion had taken place, her second inference might have proved as erroneous as
the first is declared to have been.
VALUE OF PAUL'S BELIEF AS EVIDENCE 861
appeared to them. We shall presently consider how much
importance is to be attached to mere belief in the occurrence
of such phenomena; but with regard to the appearances referred to
by Paul, except in so far as they attest the fact that certain persons
may have believed that Jesus appeared to them, such evidence
has not the slightest value, and is indeed almost ludicrously
insufficient to establish the reality of so stupendous a miracle as
the Resurrection. It will have been observed that of the Ascension
there is not a word obviously for Paul the Resurrection and
Ascension were one act.
Having so far discussed Paul's report that Jesus rose from the
dead and was seen by others, we turn to his statement that, last of
all, he was seen also by himself. In the former cases we have
had to complain of the total absence of detailed information as to
the circumstances under which he was supposed to have been
seen ; but it may be expected that, at least in his own case, we
shall have full and minute particulars of so interesting and extra-
ordinary a phenomenon. Here, again, we are disappointed. Paul
does not give us a single detail. He tells us neither when, where,
nor how he saw Jesus. It was all the more important that he
should have entered into the particulars of this apparition, because
there is one peculiarity in his case which requires notice. Whereas
it may be supposed that in the other instances Jesus is represented
as being seen immediately after the Resurrection and before his
Ascension, the appearance to Paul must be placed years after that
occurrence is alleged to have taken place. The question, therefore,
arises : Was the appearance to Paul of the same character as the
former ? Paul evidently considers that it was. He uses the very
same word when he says " he was seen (w^drf) by me," that
he employs in stating that " he was seen (w^Oif) by Cephas "
and the rest, and he classes all the appearances together in precisely
the same way. If, therefore, Paul knew anything of the nature of
the appearances to the others, and yet considers them to have
been of the same nature as his own, an accurate account of his
own vision might have enabled us in some degree to estimate that
of the others. Even without this account, it is something to know
that Paul believed that there was no difference between the earlier
and later appearances. And yet, if we reflect that in the appear-
ances immediately after the Resurrection the representation is that
Jesus possessed the very same body that had hung on the cross
and been laid in the sepulchre, and that, according to the Gospels,
he exhibited his wounds, allowed them to be touched, assured the
disciples of his corporeality by permitting himself to be handled,
and even by eating food in their presence, and that in the case of
Paul the appearance took place years after Jesus is said to
have ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of
862 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
God, the identity of the apparitions becomes a suggestive
feature.
The testimony of Paul must at least override that of the Gospels,
and, whatever may have been the vision of Paul, we may fairly
assume that the vision of Peter and the rest was like it. Beyond
this inference, Paul gives us no light with regard to the
appearance of Jesus to himself. He merely affirms that Jesus did
appear to him. " Have I not seen Jesus our Lord ?" he says in
one place. 1 Elsewhere he relates : " But when he was pleased,
who set me apart from my mother's womb, and called me through
his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among
the Gentiles ; immediately, I communicated not with flesh and
blood but I went away into Arabia and returned again unto
Damascus." 2 Various opinions have been expressed regarding the
rendering of airoKaXtyai TOV vtbv avrov kv e/W. The great
majority of critics agree that the direct and natural sense must be
adopted : " to reveal his Son in me," that is to say, " within
me," " in my spirit." 3 Others maintain that tv epn must be
rendered " through me," 4 giving ev the sense of 8td ; but in that
case the following context would be quite unnecessary. Hilgen-
felds thinks that the meaning is " in his person "; and Riickert and
a few others read " to me." The liberties taken by interpreters of
the New Testament with the preposition eV, too frequently from
preconceived dogmatic reasons, are remarkable. The importance
of this passage chiefly lies in the question whether the revelation
here referred to is the same as the appearance to him of Jesus of
the Corinthian letter. Some critics incline to the view that it is so, 6
whilst others consider that Paul does not thus speak of his vision,
but rather of the doctrine concerning Jesus which formed his
Gospel, and which Paul claimed to have received, not from man,
but by revelation from God. 7 Upon this point we have only a few
remarks to make. If it be understood that Paul refers to the
appearance to him of Jesus, it is clear that he represents it in these
1 i Cor. ix. I. 2 Gal. i. 15-17.
3 So Alford, Bisping, Ellicott, Ewald, Holtzmann, Jowett, Meyer, Olshausen,
Schrader, Usteri, de Wette, Wieseler, Winer, Wordsworth, ad 1. ; Baur, Paulus,
i., p. 75 f. > Holsten, Zttm Ev. Paulus, u. s. w., p. 42 f., anm. ; Meijboom,
Jezus 1 Opstand., p. 105 ; Neander, Pfianzung, p. 117.
4 Grotius, Annot. in N. T., vi., p. 553 ; Baumgarten-Crusius, Br. an die
Gal., p. 26 ; Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 82.
s Der Galaterbr., p. 121.
6 Baur, Paulus, i. , p. 75 f. ; Meijboom, Jezus 1 Opstand., p. 105 f. ; Jowett,
Eps. of St. Paul, i., p. 216 f., 230 f. ; Ewald, Holtzmann, Schrader, Usteri,
Wieseler, etc., in 1.
7 Holsten, Zutn ev. Paul. u. s. w., p. 42, anm.; Neander, Pfianzung, p. 117;
Alford, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, Lightfoot, Meyer, a Wette, Wordsworth, etc.,
in 1.
VALUE OF PAUL'S BELIEF AS EVIDENCE 863
words as a subjective vision, within his own consciousness. If, on
the other hand, he do not refer to the appearance, then the
passage loses all distinct reference to that occurrence. We do not
intend to lay any further stress upon the expression than this, and
it is fair to add that we do not think there is any special reference
to the apparition of Jesus in the passage, but simply an allusion to
his conversion to Christianity, which the Apostle considered a
revelation in his mind of the true character and work of the
Christ which had previously been so completely misunderstood by
him. We may as well say at once that we desire to take the
argument in its broadest form, without wasting time by showing
that Paul himself uses language which seems to indicate that he
recognised the appearance of Jesus to have been merely subjective.
The only other passage which we need now mention is the account
which Paul gives, 2 Cor. xii. 2 f., of his being caught up to the
third heaven. A few critics consider that this may be the occasion
on which Jesus appeared to him, to which he refers in the passage
of the former letter which we are considering; 1 but the great
majority are opposed to the supposition. In any case there is no
evidence that the occasions are identical, and we therefore are not
entitled to assume that they are so.
It will have been observed that we have hitherto confined our
attention wholly to the undoubted writings of Paul. Were there
no other reason than the simple fact that we are examining the
evidence of Paul himself, and have, therefore, to do with that
evidence alone, we should be thoroughly justified in this course.
It is difficult to clear the mind of statements regarding Paul and
his conversion which are made in the Acts of the Apostles, but it
is absolutely essential that we should understand clearly what Paul
himself tells us and what he does not tell us, for the present totally
excluding Acts. What, then, does Paul himself tell us of the
circumstances under which he saw Jesus ? Absolutely nothing.
The whole of his evidence for the Resurrection consists in the bare
statement that he did see Jesus. Now, can the fact that any man
merely affirms, without even stating the circumstances, that a
person once actually dead and buried has risen from the dead and
been seen by him, be seriously considered satisfactory evidence for
so astounding a miracle ? Is it possible for anyone of sober mind,
acquainted with the nature of the proposition, on the one hand,
and with the innumerable possibilities of error, on the other, to
regard such an affirmation even as evidence of much importance
in such a matter ? We venture to say that, in such a case, an
affirmation of this nature, even made by a man of high character
and ability, would possess little weight. If the person making it,
' Dr. Jowott thinks this not improbable ( The Epistles of St. Paul, i., p. 229).
864 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
although of the highest honour, were known to suppose himself
the subject of constant revelations and visions, and if, perhaps, he
had a constitutional tendency to nervous excitement and ecstatic
trance, his evidence would have no weight at all. We shall
presently have to speak of this more in detail in connection with
Paul. Such an allegation, even supported by the fullest informa-
tion and most circumstantial statement, could not establish the
reality of the miracle ; without them, it has no claim to belief.
What is the value of a person's testimony who simply makes an
affirmation of some important matter, unaccompanied by particulars,
and the truth of which cannot be subjected to the test of even the
slightest cross-examination ? It is worth nothing. It would not
be received at all in a Court of Justice. If we knew the whole of
the circumstances of the apparition to Paul, from which he inferred
that he had seen the risen Jesus, the natural explanation of the
supposed miracle might be easy. We have only the bare report
of a man who states that he had seen Jesus, unconfirmed by any
witnesses. Under no circumstances could isolated evidence like
this be of much value. The facts and inferences are alike with-
out corroboration, but on the other hand are contradicted by
universal experience.
When we analyse the evidence, it is reduced to this : Paul
believed that he had seen Jesus. This belief constitutes the whole
of Paul's evidence for the Resurrection. It is usual to argue
that the powerful effect which this belief produced upon his
life and teaching renders it of extraordinary force as testimony.
This we are not prepared to admit. If the assertion that Jesus
appeared to him had not been believed by Paul, it would not
have secured a moment's attention. That this conviction
affected his life was the inevitable consequence of such belief.
Paul eminently combined works with faith in his own life. When
he believed Jesus to be an impostor, he did not content himself
with sneering at human credulity, but vigorously persecuted his
followers. When he came to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, he
was not more inactive, but became the irrepressible Apostle of the
Gentiles. He acted upon his convictions in both cases ; but his
persecution of Christianity no more proved Jesus to be an
impostor than his preaching of Christianity proved Jesus to
be the Messiah. It only proved that he believed so. He was as
earnest in the one case as in the other. We repeat, therefore, that
the evidence of Paul for the Resurrection amounts to nothing
more than the belief that Jesus had been seen by him. We
shall presently further examine the value of this belief as
evidence for so astounding a miracle.
We must not form exaggerated conceptions of the effect upon
Paul of the appearance to him of Jesus. That his convictions and
PAUL'S CONVERSION NOT ASCRIBED TO VISION 865
views of Christianity were based upon the reality of the Resurrec-
tion is undeniable ; and that they received powerful confirmation
and impulse through his vision of Jesus is also not to be doubted ;
but let us clear our minds of representations derived from other
sources, and understand what Paul himself does and does not
say of this vision ; and for this purpose we must confine our-
selves to the undoubted writings of the Apostle. Does Paul him-
self ascribe his conversion to Christianity to the fact of his having
seen Jesus ? Most certainly not. That is a notion derived solely
from the statements in Acts. The sudden and miraculous con-
version of Paul is a product of the same pen which produced the
story of the sudden conversion of the thief on the cross an episode
equally unknown to other writers. Paul neither says when nor
where he saw Jesus. The revelation of God's Son in him not
being an allusion to this vision of Jesus, but merely a reference to
the light which dawned upon Paul's mind as to the character and
mission of Jesus, there is no ground whatever, from the writings of
the Apostle himself, to connect the appearance of Jesus with his
conversion. The statement in the Epistle to the Galatians
simply amounts to this : When it pleased him who elected him
from his mother's womb, and called him by his grace, to reveal to
his mind the truth concerning his Son, that he might preach him
among the Gentiles, he communicated not with flesh and blood,
neither did he go up to Jerusalem to those who were Apostles
before him, but immediately went away to Arabia, and after that
returned again to Damascus. It can scarcely be doubted that
Paul here refers to his change of views to his conversion but as
little can it be doubted that he does not ascribe that conversion to
the appearance to him of Jesus spoken of in the Corinthian letter.
Let any reader who honestly desires to ascertain the exact
position of the case ask himself the simple question whether,
supposing the Acts of the Apostles never to have existed, it is
possible to deduce from this, or any other statement of Paul, that
he actually ascribes his conversion to the fact that Jesus appeared
to him in a supernatural manner. He may possibly in some
degree base his apostolic claims upon that appearance, although it
may be doubted how far he does even this ; if he did so, it would
only prove the reality of his belief, but not the reality of the vision ;
but there is no evidence whatever in the writings of Paul that he
connected his conversion with the appearance of Jesus. All that
we can legitimately infer seems to be that, before his adoption of
Christianity, he had persecuted the Church ;' and further it -may
be gathered from the passage in the Galatian letter that at the
time when this change occurred he was at Damascus. At least he
1 i Cor. xv. 9.
3*
866 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
says that from Arabia he " returned again to Damascus," which
seems to imply that he first went from that city to Arabia. When
we consider the expressions in the two letters, it becomes apparent
that Paul does not set forth any instantaneous conversion of the
character related elsewhere. To the Galatians he describes his
election from his mother's womb and call by the grace of God as
antecedent to the revelation of his Son in him : " When he who
separated me from my mother's womb and called me by his grace
was pleased to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him
among the Gentiles," etc. And if the reading "through me" be
adopted, the sense we are pointing out becomes still more
apparent. In the Corinthian letter again, the expressions should
be remarked : Verse 8. " And last of all he was seen by me also,
as the one born out of due time. 9. For I am the least of the
Apostles, that am not fit to be called an Apostle, because I perse-
cuted the Church of God; 10. but by the grace of God I am what
I am : and his grace which was (bestowed) upon me was not in
vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but
the grace of God with me. n. Whether, therefore, it were I or
they, so we preach, and so ye believed." 1 Peter sees Jesus first,
Paul sees him last ; and as the thought uppermost in his mind in
writing this Epistle was the parties in the Corinthian Church, and
the opposition to himself and denial even of his Apostleship, the
mention of his having seen Jesus immediately leads him to speak
of his apostolic claims. " Am I not an Apostle ? have I not seen
Jesus our Lord ?" he had just before exclaimed, and proceeded to
defend himself against his opponents : here, again, he reverts to the
same subject, with proud humility calling himself, on the one
hand, " the least of the Apostles," but, on the other, asserting that
he had " laboured more abundantly than they all." He is led to
contrast his past life with his present; the time when he persecuted
the Church with that in which he built it up. There is, however,
no allusion to any miraculous conversion when he says, " by the
grace of God I am what I am." He may consider his having seen
the Lord and become a witness of his resurrection one part of his
qualification for the Apostolate, but assuredly he does not repre-
sent this as the means of his conversion.
We shall not pause to discuss at length how far being a witness
for the Resurrection really was made a necessary qualification for
the apostolic office. The passages, Luke xxiv. 48, Acts i. 22, ii.
32, upon which the theory mainly rests, are not evidence of the
fact ^vhich can for a moment be accepted. It is obvious that the
Twelve were Apostles from having been chosen disciples of the
Master from the commencement of his active career, and not from
\
1 i Cor. xv. 8.
PAUL'S CONVERSION ACCORDING TO ACTS 867
any fortuitous circumstance at its close. If Paul says, " Am I
not an Apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" he
continues : "Are ye not my work in the Lord? If I am not an
Apostle unto others, yet I am at least to you : for the seal of mine
Apostleship are ye in the Lord. My defence to them that examine
me is this." 1 There can be no doubt that the claims of Paul to
the Apostolate were, during his life, constantly denied, and his
authority rejected. As we have elsewhere pointed out, there is no
evidence that his Apostleship was ever recognised by the elder
Apostles, nor that his claim was ever submitted to them. Even
in the second century the Clementine Homilies deny him the
honour, and make light of his visions and revelations. All the
evidence we possess shows that Paul's vision of Jesus did not
secure for him much consideration in his own time a circumstance
which certainly does not tend to establish its reality.
What weight can we, then, attach to the representation in the
Acts of the Apostles of the conversion of Paul? Our examination
of that work has sufficiently shown that none of its statements can
be received as historical. Where we have been able to compare
them with the Epistles of Paul, they have not been in agreement.
Nothing could be more obvious than the contradiction between
the narrative of Paul's conduct after his conversion, according to
Acts, and the account which Paul gives in the Galatian letter.
We need not repeat the demonstration here. Where we possess
the means of comparison we discover the inaccuracy of Acts.
Why should we suppose that which we cannot compare more
accurate ? So far as our argument is concerned, it matters very
little whether we exclude the narrative of the conversion of Acts or
not. We point out, however, that there is no confirmation what-
ever in the writings of Paul of the representation of his conversion
by means of a vision of Jesus, which, upon all considerations, may
much more reasonably be assigned to a somewhat later period.
If we ventured to conjecture, we should say that the author of
Acts has expanded the scattered sayings of Paul into this narrative,
making the miraculous conversion by a personal interposition of
Jesus, which he therefore relates no less than three times, counter-
balance the disadvantage of his not having followed Jesus in the
flesh. It is curious that he has introduced the bare statement into
the third Synoptic, that Jesus " was seen by Simon " (<5<0r/
2ipiw), 2 which none of the other Evangelists mentions, but
which he may have found, without further particulars, <5<07/
K??(/>a, in the Epistle whence he derived, perhaps, materials for
the other story. In no case can the narrative in Acts be
received as evidence of the slightest value ; but in order not
1 I Cor. ix. 1-3. * Luke xxiv. 34.
868 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
to pass over even such statements in silence, we shall very briefly
examine it.
The narrative is repeated thrice : in the first instance (ix. i f.) as
a historical account of the transaction ; next (xxii. 4 f.) introduced
into a speech supposed to be delivered by Paul to the Jews when
taken prisoner in consequence of their uproar on finding him in
the Temple purifying himself with the four men who had a vow
a position which cannot historically be reconciled with the character
and views of Paul ; and, thirdly, again put into the mouth of the
Apostle (xxvi. 9 f.) when he pleads his cause before King Agrippa.
Paul is represented in the headlong career of persecuting the
Church, and going with letters from the high priest empowering
him to bring Christian men and women bound unto Jerusalem.
" And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh to
Damascus, and suddenly there shone round about him a light out
of the heaven, and he fell upon the earth and heard a voice saying
unto him : Saul, Saul, why persecutes! thou me ? And he said,
Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou perse-
cutest. But rise and go into the city, and it shall be told thee
what thou must do." 1 In the second account there is so far
no very wide discrepancy, but there, as in the third, the time is
said to be about noon. There is a very considerable difference in
the third account, however, more especially in the report of what
is said by the voice : xxvi. 13. " At mid-day, O King, I saw in the
way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining
round about me and those journeying with me; 14. and when we
all fell to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew
tongue : Saul, Saul, why persecutes! thou me ? it is hard for thee
to kick against pricks. 15. And I said: Who art thou, Lord?
And the Lord said : I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 1 6. But
rise and stand upon thy feet ; for I was seen by thee for this
purpose, to choose thee a minister and a witness both of these
things which thou sawest, and of the things in which I will appear
unto thee; 17. delivering thee from the people and from the
Gentiles, unto whom I send thee ; 18. to open their eyes, that
they may turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of
Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins,- and a
lot among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." 2
It will be admitted that this address is widely different from that
reported in the two earlier accounts. Apologists argue that in this
third narrative Paul has simply transferred from Ananias to Jesus
the message delivered to him by the former, according to the
second account. Let us first see what Ananias is there repre-
sented as saying. Acts xxii. 14 : "And he said : The God of our
%
1 Acts ix. 3 ; cf. xxii. 6-8, 10. a Acts. xxvi. 13.
PAUL'S CONVERSION ACCORDING TO ACTS 869
fathers chose thee, to know his will and to see the Righteous
One; 1 15. for thou shalt be a witness to him unto all men of
what thou hast seen and heard." 2 Now, Paul clearly professes in
the speech which he is represented as delivering before Agrippa to
state what the voice said to him : " And he said," " and I said,"
"and he said," distinctly convey the meaning that the report is to
be what was actually said. If the sense of what Ananias said to him
is embodied in part of the address ascribed to the voice, it is
strangely altered and put into the first person ; but, beyond this,
there is much added which appears neither in the speech of
Ananias nor anywhere else in any of the narratives. If we
further compare the instructions given to Ananias in the vision of
the first narrative with his words in the second and those ascribed
to the voice in the third, we shall see that these again differ very
materially. Acts ix. 15. "But the Lord said unto him : Go; for
this man is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before
Gentiles and kings, and the sons of Israel : 16. For I will show
him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." 3 What
must we think of a writer who deals so freely with his materials,
and takes such liberties even with so serious a matter as this
heavenly vision and the words of the glorified Jesus ?
In the third account Jesus is represented as saying : " It is
hard for thee to kick against pricks."* This is a well-known
proverbial saying, frequently used by classical Greek and Latin
authors, 5 and not altogether strange to Hebrew. It is a singularly
anthropomorphic representation to put such a saying into the
mouth of the divine apparition, and it assists in betraying the
mundane origin of the whole scene. Another point deserving
consideration is that Paul is not told what he is to do by the voice
of Jesus, but is desired to go into the city to be there instructed
by Ananias. This is clearly opposed to Paul's own repeated
asseverations. " For neither did I receive it from man nor was
taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ," 6 is his state-
ment. The details of the incident itself, moreover, are differently
stated in the various accounts, and cannot be reconciled. Accord-
ing to the first account, the companions of Paul " stood speechless"
1 It will be remembered that this epithet occurs in Acts iii. 14, vii, 52, and
nowhere else in the New Testament.
2 Acts xxii. 14. 3 lb., ix. 15.
4 xxvi. 14. This phrase was introduced into Acts ix. 5 of the Authorised
Version by Erasmus from the Vulgate ; but it is not found there in any Greek
MS. of the slightest authority.
5 Cf. ADsch., Prom., 323; Agarnem., 1633; Eurip., Bafch., jgi ; Pindar.,
Pyth., ii. 173 ; Terent., Phorm., i. 2, 27; Plaut., True., iv. 2, 59. Baum-
garten, Beelen, Grotius, Mackett, Humphrey, Kuinoel, Meyer, Olshausen,
Overbeck, Wetstein, De Wette, Wordsworth, etc., in 1. Zeller, Afg., p. 193,
anm. i. 6 Gal. i. 1 1 f .
870 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
(ix. 7); in the third, they "all fell to the earth" (xxvi. 14).
The explanation that they first fell to the ground and then rose up
fails satisfactorily to harmonise the two statements ; as does like-
wise the suggestion that the first expression is simply an idiomatic
mode of saying that they were speechless, independent of position.
Then again, in the first account, it is said that the men stood
speechless, " hearing the voice (aKoiWres TVJS <coi/vjs), but seeing no
one." 1 In the second we are told : " And they that were with me
saw indeed the light ; but they heard not the voice (TTJI/ <wi/j)i/
OVK iJKova-av) of him speaking to me." 2 No two statements could
be more contradictory. The attempt to reconcile them by
explaining the verb axovw in the one place " to hear " and in the
other " to understand " is inadmissible, because wholly arbitrary.
It is quite obvious that the word is used in the same sense in both
passages, the difference being merely the negative. In the third
account the voice is described as speaking "in the Hebrew
tongue," 3 which was probably the native tongue of the companions
of Paul from Jerusalem. If they heard the voice speaking
Hebrew, they must have understood it. The effort to make the
vision clearly objective, and, at the same time, to confine it to
Paul, leads to these complications. The voice is heard, though the
speaker is not seen, by the men in the one story, whilst the light is
seen and the voice not heard in the other, and yet it speaks in Hebrew
according to the third, and even makes use of classical proverbs,
and uses language wondrously similar to that of the author of Acts.
We may remark here that Paul's Gospel was certainly not
revealed to him upon this occasion; and, therefore, the expressions
in his Epistles upon this subject must be referred to other
revelations. There is, however, another curious point to be
observed. Paul is not described as having actually seen Jesus in
the vision. According to the first two accounts, a light shines
round about him, and he falls to the ground and hears a voice ;
when he rises he is blind.* If, in the third account, he sees the
light from heaven above the brightness of the sun shining round
about him and his companions^ they equally see it according to
the second account. 6 The blindness, therefore, is miraculous and
symbolic, for the men are not blinded by the light.? It is singular
that Paul nowhere refers to this blindness in his letters. It cannot
be doubted that the writer's purpose is to symbolise the very
change from darkness to light, in the case of Paul, which, after
Old Testament prophecies, is referred to in the words ascribed,
in the third account, 8 to the voice. Paul, thus, only sees the
1 Acts ix. 7. 2 76., xxii. 9. , 3 /J. f xxvi. 14.
4 Acts ix. 3, 4, 8, xxii. 6, 7, II. 5 xxvi. 13.
6 xxii. 9. 7 xxii. II does not refute this. s xxvi. 18.
PAUL'S CONVERSION ACCORDING TO ACTS 871
light which surrounds the glorified Jesus, but not his own person,
and the identification proceeds only from the statement : " I am
Jesus whom thou persecutest." It is true that the expression is
strangely put into the mouth of Jesus, in the third account : " for
I was seen by thee (<tf/p rrot) for this purpose," etc.; 1 but the
narrative excludes the actual sight of the speaker, and it is scarcely
possible to read the words just quoted, and their context, without
being struck by their incongruity. We need not indicate the
sources of this representation of light shrouding the heavenly
vision, so common in the Old Testament. Before proceeding to
the rest of the account, we may point out in passing the similarity
of the details of this scene to the vision of Daniel x. 7-9..
Returning to the first narrative, we are told that, about
the same time as this miracle was occurring to Paul, a
supernatural communication was being made to Ananias in
Damascus: ix. 10. "And to him said the Lord in a vision:
Ananias. And he said, Behold I am here, Lord. n. And the
Lord said unto him : Rise and go to the street which is called
Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of
Tarsus; for, behold he prayeth; 12. and he saw a man named
Ananias, who came in and put his hand on him that he might
receive sight. 13. But Ananias answered, Lord, I heard from
many concerning this man, how much evil he did to thy saints in
Jerusalem : 14. And here he hath authority from the chief priests
to bind all that call on thy name. 15. But the Lord said, Go,
etc. (quoted above). 17. And Ananias went away, and entered
into the house ; and having put his hands on him said : Brother
Saul, the Lord hath sent me, even Jesus that appeared unto thee
in the way by which thou earnest, that thou mightest receive
sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. 18. And immediately
there fell from his eyes as it were scales ; and he received sight,
rose up, and was baptised, and having taken food was strength-
ened." We have already had occasion to point out, in connection
with the parallelism kept up in Acts between the Apostle of the
Gentiles and the Apostle of the Circumcision, that a similar
double vision is narrated by the author as occurring to Peter
and Cornelius. Some further vision is referred to in v. 12; for
in no form of the narrative of Paul's vision on the way to Damascus
is he represented as seeing a man named Ananias coming to him
for the purpose described. Many questions are suggested by the
story just quoted. How did Ananias know that Paul had
authority from the chief priests to arrest any one ? How could
he argue in such a way with the Lord ? Did he not then know
that Jesus had appeared to Paul on the way ? How did he get
1 xxvi. 1 6.
872 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
that information? Is it not an extraordinary thing that Paul
never mentions Ananias in any of his letters, nor in any way alludes
to these miracles? We have already referred to the symbolic
nature of the blindness and recovery of sight on receiving the
Holy Spirit and being baptised, and this is rendered still more
apparent by the statement : v. 9. "And he was three days without
sight, and neither did eat nor drink."
We may further point out that in immediate connection with
this episode Paul is represented, in the second account, as stating
that, on going to Jerusalem, he has another vision of Jesus :
xxii. 17. " And it came to pass that, when I returned to Jerusalem
and was praying in the Temple, I was in a trance, 18. and saw him
saying unto me : Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jeru-
salem ; for they will not receive thy witness concerning me. 19.
And I said : Lord, they, themselves know that I was wont to
imprison and beat in every synagogue them that believe on thee.
20. And when the blood of Stephen, thy witness, was shed, I also
was standing by and consenting, and keeping the garments of them
that slew him. 21. And he said unto me: Go, for I will send
thee far hence unto the Gentiles." It seems impossible, con-
sidering the utter silence of Paul, that the apparition to which
he refers can have spoken to him as described upon these occa-
sions. We have elsewhere remarked that there is not the slightest
evidence in his own or other writings connecting Stephen with
Paul, and it may be appropriate to add here that, supposing him
to have been present when the martyr exclaimed, "Lo, I behold
the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right
hand of God," 1 it is singular that he does not name him as one of
those by whom Jesus " was seen."
To resume this discussion, however : we have already shown
that the statements of the Acts regarding Paul's conduct after this
alleged vision are distinctly in contradiction with the statements of
Paul. The explanation here given of the cause of Paul's leaving
Jerusalem, moreover, is not in agreement with Acts ix. 29 f., and
much less with Gal. i. 20 f.^ The three narratives themselves are
full of irreconcilable differences and incongruities, which destroy
all reasonable confidence in any substantial basis for the story. It
is evident that the three narratives are from the same pen, and
betray the composition of the author of Acts. They cannot be
regarded as true history. The hand of the composer is very
apparent in the lavish use of the miraculous, so characteristic of
the whole work. Such a narrative cannot be received in evidence.
The whole of the testimony before us, then, simply amounts to
this : Paul believed that he had seen Jesus some years after his
.
1 vii. 56.
EVIDENCE FOR RESURRECTION INADEQUATE 873
death ; there is no evidence that he ever saw him during his life.
He states that he had " received " that he was seen by various
other persons, but he does not give the slightest information as to
who told him, or what reasons he had for believing the statements
to be correct ; and still less does he narrate the particulars of the
alleged appearances, or even of his own vision. Although we have
no detailed statements of these extraordinary phenomena, we may
assume that, as Paul himself believed that he had seen Jesus,
certain other people of the circle of his disciples likewise believed
that they had seen the risen Master. The whole of the evidence
for the Resurrection reduces itself to an undefined belief on the
part of a few persons, in a notoriously superstitious age, that after
Jesus had died and been buried they had seen him alive. These
visions, it is admitted, occurred at a time of the most intense
religious 'excitement, and under circumstances of wholly excep-
tional mental agitation and distress. The wildest alternations of
fear, doubt, hope, and indefinite expectation added their effects to
oriental imaginations already excited by indignation at the fate of
their Master, and sorrow or despair at such a dissipation of their
Messianic dreams. There was present every element of intellectual
and moral disturbance. Now, must we seriously ask again whether
this bare and wholly unjustified belief can be accepted as satisfac-
tory evidence for so astounding a miracle as the Resurrection ?
Can the belief of such men, in such an age, establish the reality of
a phenomenon which contradicts universal experience ? It comes
to us in the form of bare belief from the Age of Miracles, unsupported
by facts, uncorroborated by evidence, unaccompanied by proof of
investigation, and unprovided with material for examination.
What is such belief worth ? We have no hesitation in saying that
it is absolutely worth nothing.
We might here well bring our inquiry to a close, for we have no
further evidence to deal with. The problem, however, is so full of
interest that we cannot yet lay it down, and although we must
restrain our argument within certain rigid limits, and wholly refrain
from entering into regions of mere speculation, we may further
discuss the origin and nature of the belief in the Resurrection.
Recognising the fact that, although its nature and extent are very
indefinite, there existed an undoubted belief that after his death
Jesus was seen alive, the argument is advanced that there must
have been a real basis for this belief. " The existence of a
Christian society," says an apologetic writer, " is the first and (if
rightly viewed) the final proof of the historic truth of the miracle
on which it was founded. It may, indeed, be said that the Church
874 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
was founded upon the belief in the Resurrection, and not upon the
Resurrection itself; and that the testimony must therefore be
limited to the attestation of the belief, and cannot reach to the
attestation of the fact. But belief expressed in action is for the
most part the strongest evidence which we can have of any historic-
event. Unless, therefore, it can be shown that the origin of the
apostolic belief in the Resurrection, with due regard to the fulness
of its characteristic form and the breadth and rapidity of its
propagation, can be satisfactorily explained on other grounds, the
belief itself is a sufficient proof of the fact." 1 This is obviously
Paley's argument of the Twelve men 2 in a condensed form.
Belief in action may be the strongest evidence which we can have
of any historic event ; but when the historic event happens to be
an event in religious history, and an astounding miracle like the
Resurrection, such bare evidence, emanating from such an age, is
no evidence at all. The breadth and rapidity of its propagation
absolutely prove nothing but belief in the report of those who
believed ; although it is very far from evident that people em-
braced Christianity from a rational belief in the Resurrection. No
one pretends that the Gentiles who believed made a preliminary
examination of the truth of the Resurrection. If breadth and
rapidity of propagation be taken as sufficient proof of the truth of
facts, we might consider Buddhism and Mohammedanism as satis-
factorily attested creeds. There could not be a greater fallacy than
the supposition that the origin of a belief must be explained upon
other grounds, or that belief itself accepted as a sufficient proof of
the fact asserted. The truth or falsehood of any allegation is
determined by a balance of evidence, and the critic is no more
bound to account for the formation of erroneous belief than he is
bound to believe because he may not, after a great lapse of time,
be able so clearly to demonstrate the particular manner in which
that erroneous belief originated, that any other mode is definitely
excluded. The allegation that a dead man rose from the dead and
appeared to several persons alive is contrary to universal experience ;
but, on the other hand, the prevalence of defective observation,
mistaken inference, self-deception, and credulity, any of which
might lead to such belief, are only too much in accordance with it.
Is it necessary to define which peculiar form of error is present in
every false belief before, with this immense preponderance of
evidence against it, we finally reject it ? We think not. Any
explanation consistent with universal experience must be adopted,
rather than a belief which is contradictory to it.
There are two theories which have been advanced to explain
1 Westcott, The Gospel of the ^Resurrection, 3rd ed., p. 106 f.
3 Evidences and Hone Paulina, ed. Potts, 1850, p. 6.
THE THEORY OF SURVIVAL
the origin of the Apostolic belief in the Resurrection, to which we
may now briefly refer ; but it must be clearly understood that the
suggestion of an explanation is quite apart from our examination
of the actual evidence for the Resurrection. Fifty explanations
might be offered, and be considered unsatisfactory, without in the
least degree altering the fact that the testimony for the final
miracle of Christianity is totally insufficient, and that the allegation
that it actually occurred cannot be maintained. The first explana-
tion, adopted by some able critics, is that Jesus did not really die
on the cross, but, being taken down alive, and his body, being
delivered to friends, he subsequently revived. In support of this
theory, it is argued that Jesus is represented by the Gospels as
expiring after having been but three to six hours upon the cross,
which would have been an unprecedentedly rapid death. It is
affirmed that only the hands and not the feet were nailed to the
cross. The crurifragium, not usually accompanying crucifixion,
is dismissed as unknown to the three Synoptists, and only inserted
by the fourth Evangelist for dogmatic reasons ; and of course the
lance-thrust disappears with the leg-breaking. Thus the apparent
death was that profound faintness which might well fall upon such
an organisation after some hours of physical and mental agony on
the cross, following the continued strain and fatigue of the previous
night. As soon as he had sufficiently recovered, it is supposed
that Jesus visited his disciples a few times to re-assure them, but
with precaution on account of the Jews, and was by them believed
to have risen from the dead, as indeed he himself may likewise
have supposed, reviving as he had done from the faintness of death. 1
Seeing, however, that his death had set the crown upon his work,
the Master withdrew into impenetrable obscurity, and was heard of
no more.
We have given but the baldest outline of this theory ; for it
would occupy too much space to represent it adequately and show
1 Gfrorer, who maintains the theory of a Scheintod with great ability, thinks
that Jesus had believers amongst the rulers of the Jews, who, although they
could not shield him from the opposition against him, still hoped to save him
from death. Joseph, a rich man, found the means of doing so. He prepared
the new sepulchre close to the place of execution, to be at hand begged the
body from Pilate the immense quantity of spices bought by Nicodemus being
merely to distract the attention of the Jews and Jesus, being quickly carried to the
sepulchre, was restored to life by their efforts. He interprets the famous verse,
John xx. 17, curiously. The expression, "I have not yet ascended to my Father
and your Father," etc., he takes as meaning simply the act of dying
"going to heaven"; and the reply of Jesus is equivalent to: "Touch
me not, for I am still flesh and blood I am not yet dead." Jesus
sees his disciples only a few times mysteriously, and, believing that he
had set the final seal to the truth of his work by his death, he then
retires into impenetrable gloom (Das Heili^thnm und die Wahrheit, p. 107 f.,
p. 231 f.).
876 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
the ingenuity with which it is worked out, and the very consider-
able support which it receives from statements in the Gospels, and
from inferences deducible from them. We do not ourselves adopt
this explanation, although it must be clearly repeated^ that, were the
only alternative to do so or to fall back upon the hypothesis of a
miracle, we should consider it preferable. A serious objection
brought against the theory seems to be that it is not natural to
suppose that, after such intense and protracted fatigue and anxiety,
followed by the most cruel agony on the cross, agony both of soul
and body, 1 ending in unconsciousness only short of death, Jesus
could within a short period have presented himself to his disciples
with such an aspect as could have conveyed to them the impression
of victory over death by the Prince of Life. He must still, it is
urged, have presented the fresh traces of suffering and weakness
little calculated to inspire them with the idea of divine power and
glory. This is partly, but not altogether, true. There is no
evidence, as we shall presently show, that the appearances of
Jesus occurred so soon as is generally represented ; and, in their
astonishment at again seeing the Master whom they supposed to
be dead, the disciples could not have been in a state minutely
to remark the signs of suffering, 2 then probably, with the power
of a mind like that of Jesus over physical weakness, little apparent.
Time and imagination would doubtless soon have effaced from
their minds any such impressions, and left only the belief that he
had risen from the dead to develop and form the Christian
doctrine. A more powerful objection seems to us the disappear-
ance of Jesus. We cannot easily persuade ourselves that such a
teacher could have renounced his work and left no subsequent
trace of his existence. Still, it must be admitted that many
explanations might be offered on this head, the most obvious
being that death, whether as the result of the terrible crisis
through which he had passed or from some other cause, may
soon after have ensued. We repeat, however, that we neither
advance this explanation nor think it worth while to discuss it
seriously, not because we think it untenable, although we do not
adopt it, but because we consider that there is another explanation
of the origin of belief in the Resurrection which is better, and
which is, in our opinion, the true one. We mean that which is
usually called the "vision hypothesis."
1 Holsten remarks that the cry put into the mouth of Jesus on the Cross, in
the first and second Synoptics, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?" if genuine, can scarcely be otherwise historically conceived than as a
surrender of his last hope that God's will would not continue his sufferings even
unto death (Zurn Ev. des Paulus u. Petr., p. 227).
2 The repeated statement in the Gospels, that trie women and his disciples
did not at first recognise the risen fesus, is quoted in connection with this point.
THE VISION HYPOTHESIS 877
The phenomenon which has to be accounted for is the Apostolic
belief that, after he had been dead and buried, Jesus " was seen "
(w<0r/) by certain persons. The explanation which we offer, and
which has long been adopted in various forms by able critics, is
that doubtless Jesus was seen, but the vision was not real and
objective, but illusory and subjective : that is to say, Jesus was
not himself seen, but only a representation of Jesus within the
minds of the beholders. This explanation not only does not
impeach the veracity of those who affirmed that they had seen
Jesus, but, accepting to a certain extent a subjective truth as the
basis of the belief, explains upon well-known and natural principles
the erroneous inference deduced from the subjective vision. It
seems to us that the points to be determined are simple and
obvious : Is it possible for a man to mistake subjective impres-
sions for objective occurrences ? Is it possible that any consider-
able number of persons can at the same time receive similar
subjective impressions and mistake them for objective facts ? If
these questions can be answered affirmatively, and it can be
shown that the circumstances, the characters, the constitution of
those who believed in the first instance, favoured the reception of
such subjective impressions and the deduction of erroneous
inferences, it must be admitted that a satisfactory explanation can
thus be given of the Apostolic belief on other grounds than the
reality of a miracle opposed to universal experience.
No sooner is the first question formulated than it becomes
obvious to everyone who is acquainted with psychological and
physiological researches, or who has even the most elementary
knowledge of the influence of the mind upon the body, that it
must at once be answered in the affirmative. Indeed, the affirma-
tion that subjective impressions, in connection with every sense,
can be mistaken for, and believed to be, actual objective effects is
so trite that it seems almost superfluous to make it. Every reader
must be well acquainted with illustrations of the fact. The only
difficulty is to deal authoritatively with such a point within
moderate compass. We must limit ourselves to the sense of
sight. "There are abundant proofs," says Sir Benjamin Brodie,
" that impressions may be made in the brain by other causes
simulating those which are made on it by external objects through
the medium of the organs of sense, thus producing false percep-
tions, which may, in the first instance, and before we have had
time to reflect on the subject, be mistaken for realities." 1 The
limitation here introduced, " before we have had time to reflect on
the subject," is, of course, valid in the case of those whose reason
is capable of rejecting the false perceptions, whether on the ground
1 Psychological Inquiries, 1854, p. 78 ; cf. 79 f.
878 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
of natural law or of probability ; but, in anyone ignorant of
natural law, but familiar with the idea of supernatural agency and the
occurrence of miraculous events, it is obvious that reflection, if
reflection of a sceptical kind can even be assumed, would have little
chance of arriving at any true discrimination of phenomena.
Speaking of the nervous system and its functions, and more
immediately of the relation of the Cerebrum to the Sensorium
and the production of spectral illusions, Dr. Carpenter says, in his
work on the Principles of Mental Physiology : . " Still stronger
evidence of the same associated action of the Cerebrum and
Sensorium is furnished by the study of the phenomena designated
as Spectral Illusions. These are clearly sensorial states not
excited by external objects; and it is also clear that they frequently
originate in cerebral changes, since they represent creations of the
mind, and are not mere reproductions of past sensations." Dr.
Carpenter refers, in illustration, to a curious illusion to which Sir
John Herschel was subject, " in the shape of the involuntary
occurrence of visual impressions, into which geometrical regularity
of form enters as the leading character. These were not of the
nature of those ocular Spectra which may be attributed with
probability to retinal changes." 1 Dr. Carpenter then continues :
" We have here not a reproduction of sensorial impressions formerly
received, but a construction of new forms by a process which, if
it had been carried on consciously, we should have called imagina-
tion. And it is difficult to see how it is to be accounted for in
any other way than by an unconscious action of the cerebrum ;
the products of which impress themselves on the sensorial con-
sciousness, just as, in other cases, they express themselves through
the motor apparatus." 2 The illusions described by Sir John
Herschel, who, as he himself says, was " as little visionary as most
people," should be referred to.
Of the production of sensations by ideas there can be no possible
doubt, 3 and, consequently, as little of the realisation by the person
in whom they are produced of subjective impressions exactly as
though they were objective. With regard to false perceptions, Dr.
Carpenter says : " It has been shown that the action of ideational
states upon the Sensorium can modify or even produce sensations.
But the action of pre-existing states of Mind is still more frequently
shown in modifying the interpretation which we put upon our sense-
impressions. For, since almost every such interpretation is an act
of judgment based upon experience, that judgment will vary
1 Sir John Herschel gives a full account of them in his Popular Lectures on
Scientific Subjects (Daldy, Isbester, & Co., 1876, p. 402 f.).
2 Principles of Menial Physiology, 4th ed., l876*p. 113 f.
3 Ib., p. 155 f.
IDEATIONAL PRODUCTION OF SENSATIONS 879
according to our mental condition at the time it is delivered;
and will be greatly affected by any dominant idea or feeling, so as
even to occasion a complete mis-interpretation of the objective
source of the sense-impression, as often occurs in what is termed
'absence of mind.' The following case, mentioned by Dr. Tuke 1
as occurring within his own knowledge, affords a good example of
this fallacy : ' A lady was walking one day from Penrhyn to
Falmouth, and, her mind being at that time, or recently, occupied
by the subject of drinking-fountains, thought she saw in the road
a newly-erected fountain, and even distinguished an inscription
upon it namely, " If any man thirst, let him come unto me and
drink." Some time afterwards she mentioned the fact with
pleasure to the daughters of a gentleman who was supposed to
have erected it. They expressed their surprise at her statement,
and assured her that she must be quite mistaken. Perplexed with
the contradiction between the testimony of her senses and of those
who would have been aware of the fact had it been true, and
feeling that she could not have been deceived (" for seeing is
believing "), she repaired to the spot, and found to her astonish-
ment that no drinking-fountain was in existence only a few
scattered stones, which had formed the foundation upon which the
suggestion of an expectant imagination had built the superstructure.
The subject having previously occupied her attention, these sufficed
to form, not only a definite erection, but one inscribed by an
appropriate motto corresponding to the leading idea.' " 2
We may give as another illustration an illusion which presented
itself to Sir Walter Scott.3 He had been reading, shortly after the
death of Lord Byron, an account in a publication professing to
detail the habits and opinions of the poet. As Scott had been
intimate with Lord Byron, he was deeply interested in the publica-
tion, which contained some particulars relative to himself and
other friends. " Their sitting-room opened into an entrance hall,
rather fantastically fitted up with articles of armour, skins of wild
animals, and the like. It was when laying down his book, and
passing into this hall, through which the moon was beginning to
shine, that the individual of whom I speak saw, right before him,
and in a standing posture, the exact representation of his departed
friend whose recollection had been so strongly brought to his
imagination. He stopped for a single moment, so as to notice the
wonderful accuracy with which fancy had impressed upon the
bodily eye the peculiarities of dress and posture of the illustrious
poet. Sensible, however, of the delusion, he felt no sentiment
save that of wonder at the extraordinary accuracy of the
1 Influence of the Mind on the Body, p. 44. 2 Carpenter, ib., 206 f.
3 It is likewise quoted by Dr. Carpenter,' p. 207 f.
88o SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
resemblance, and stepped onward towards the figure, which resolved
itself, as he approached, into the various materials of which it was
composed. These were merely a screen, occupied by great-coats,
shawls, plaids, and such other articles as usually are found in a
country entrance-hall. The spectator returned to the spot from
which he had seen the illusion, and endeavoured, with all his
power, to recall the image which had been so singularly vivid.
But this was beyond his capacity," etc. 1 Although Sir Walter
Scott might be sensible of the delusion, it may be more than
doubted whether, in the first century of our era, such an apparition
proceeding from or connected with religious agitation of mind
would have been considered so.
Dr. Abercrombie 2 mentions many instances of spectral illusions,
" some of the most authentic facts " relating to which he classes
under the head of "intense mental conceptions so strongly im-
pressed upon the mind as, for the moment, to be believed to have
a real existence." We cannot, however, venture to quote illustra-
tions. 3 Dr. Hibbert, in whose work on Apparitions many inte-
resting instances are to be found, thus concludes his consideration
of the conditions which lead to such illusions : " I have at length
concluded my observations on what may be considered as the
leading mental laws which are connected with the origin of spectral
impressions. The general inference to be drawn from them is,
that Apparitions are nothing more than morbid symptoms, which
are indicative of an intense excitement of the renovated feelings of the
mind."* Subjective visions, believed to have had objective reality,
abound in the history of the world. They are familiar to all who
have read the lives of the Saints, and they have accompanied the
progress of Christianity in various forms from the trances of
Montanism to the vision of the " Immaculate Conception " in the
Grotto of Lourdes.
If we turn to the inquiry whether a similar subjective impression
can be received by many persons at one time and be mistaken by
them for an objective reality, an equally certain reply in the
affirmative must unhesitatingly be given. The contagiousness of
emotion is well known,s and the rapidity with which panic, for
instance, spreads from a single individual to the mass is remarked
every day. The most trifling incident, unseen by more than a
1 Demonology and Witchcraft, 1868, Letter i., p. 37 f.
3 Inquiries Concerning the Intellectual Powers, igth ed., p. 274 f.
3 Everyone remembers the case of Luther and his visions of the Devil.
4 Sketches of the Philosophy of Apparitions, by Samuel Hibbert, M.D.,
F.R.S.E., and ed., 1825, p. 375.
5 We might point in illustration to the use of ^'Tongues" in the Corinthian
Church, where the contagiousness of the ecstatii state is exemplified ( I Cor.
xiv. 23, 26 f.).
THE CONTAGIOUSNESS OF EMOTION 881
few, and, therefore, more pliant in the imagination of the many,
has instantaneously convinced multitudes of the most erroneous
inferences. We need not refer to the numerous religious and
other mental epidemics which have swept over the face of the
world, infecting society v ith the wildest delusions. From
Montanism to camp meetings and revivals in our own day,
it has been demonstrated that religious excitement and dominant
ideas have spread with astonishing rapidity and power amongst
the circles in which they have arisen. In certain states of nervous
expectation, false impressions are instantaneously transmitted from
one to another in a religious assembly. Dr. Carpenter says :
" Moreover, if not only a single individual, but several persons,
should be ' possessed ' by one and the same idea or feeling, the
same misinterpretation may be made by all of them ; and in such
a case the concurrence of their testimony does not add the least
strength to it. Of this we have a good example in the following
occurrence cited by Dr. Tuke, as showing the influence of a
' dominant idea ' in falsifying the perceptions of a number of
persons at once : ' During the conflagration at the Crystal Palace
in the winter of 1866-67, when the animals were destroyed by the
fire, it was supposed that the Chimpanzee had succeeded in
escaping from his cage. Attracted to the roof, with this expec-
tation in full force, men saw the unhappy animal holding on to it,
and writhing in agony to get astride one of the iron ribs. It need
not be said that its struggles were watched by those below with
breathless suspense, and, as the newspapers informed us, ' with
sickening dread.' But there was no animal whatever there ; and
all this feeling was thrown away upon a tattered piece of blind, so
torn as to resemble to the eye of fancy the body, arms, and legs
of an ape ! ' (Op. at., p. 44). Another example of a like influ
ence affecting several individuals simultaneously in a similar
manner is mentioned by Dr. Hibbert in his well-known treatise on
Apparitions : ' A whole ship's company was thrown into the
utmost consternation by the apparition of a cook who had died a
few days before. He was distinctly seen walking ahead of the
ship, with a peculiar gait by which he was distinguished when
alive, through" having one of his legs shorter than the other. On
steering the ship towards* the object it was found to be a piece of
floating wreck.' Many similar cases might be referred to, in which
the imagination has worked up into 'apparitions' some common-
place objects, which it has invested with attributes derived from
the previous mental state of the observer ; and the belief in such
an apparition as a reality, which usually exists in such cases, unless
antagonised by an effort of the reason, constitutes a delusion." 1
1 Principles of Mental Physiology, 1876, p. 208 f.
3L
882 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
We must maintain, indeed, that a number of persons assembled
under the influence of strong similar ideas, and excited by the same
active religious emotion, are more likely to be affected by similar
subjective impressions to the extent of believing them to be objec-
tive than one or two would be. The excitement of each acts upon
the whole body, and is itself increased by reaction from the
aggregate emotion. Each receives impressions from the other,
which are vividly felt even without being verified by personal
experience. The most nervous temperament in the assembly
gives the final impetus to the excited imagination of the rest. In
moments of supreme expectation and doubt enthusiasm overcomes
reason. If one man see, if one man hear, the mental impression
is credited with an objective cause, even when unfelt by others,
and then a similar impression is soon carried from the brain to the
sensorium of all. This does not involve the supposition of a
diseased mind in ordinary cases, and in the instances which we
have in view the false perceptions were, obviously, determined and
encouraged by foregone conclusions of a nature rarely possible,
and, when existing, rarely resisted. " There are many persons,"
adds Dr. Carpenter, " quite sane upon ordinary matters, and even
(it may be) distinguished by some special form of ability, who are
yet affected with what the writer once heard Mr. Carlyle term a
' diluted insanity '; allowing their minds to become so completely
'possessed' by 'dominant ideas' that their testimony as to what
they declare themselves to have witnessed even when several
individuals concur in giving exactly the same account of it must
be regarded as utterly untrustworthy." 1
That subjective impressions can, in the opinion of eminent
Apologists, be recorded by an Evangelist as objective reality, we
have already pointed out in connection with the statement of the
first Synoptist, that " Many bodies of the saints were raised ; and
they came out of the sepulchres after his Resurrection and appeared
unto many " (xxvii. 52 f.). Milman and Dr. Farrar explain this
by the supposition that the earthquake "seemed to have filled
the air with ghostly visitants, who after Christ had risen appeared
to linger in the Holy City." 2 It follows as a logical consequence
that, as this subjective impression felt by many at once is described
in the Gospel as objective, these writers not only admit the
possibility of such a mistake .on the part of the observers, but
that the Gospel, in adopting that mistake, may be suspected of
a similar course in recording the appearances of Jesus. 3
1 Principles of Mental Physiology, 1876, p. 209.
2 Farrar, Life of Christ, ii., p. 419; Milman, Hist, of Christianity, i. 336 f.
Passages quoted p. 817 f. t
3 We refer readers to some most interesting remarks of Dr. Lightfoot on the
miraculous elements in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (Apost. Fathers, part ii.,
88 3
We have thus replied to the question whether the "vision
hypothesis " could explain the belief of 500, or even of eleven
persons, who supposed they had seen Jesus, and we do not
think that any one who seriously considers the age and the
circumstances under which the phenomenon is alleged to have
occurred can doubt that such belief could very easily have
resulted from merely subjective impressions. Before going further
into the discussion of the matter, however, we must again, with a
little more minuteness, call attention to the date of the actual
statements upon which the whole argument turns. The Apostle
Paul writes about a quarter of a century after the time when it is
said that Jesus " was seen " by those whom he names. Whatever
opinion may be formed as to the amount of information obtained
by Paul during the visit he paid to Jerusalem for the purpose of
making the acquaintance of Peter, it is undeniable that some
years had elapsed between the time when Jesus is supposed to
have been seen and the time when Paul could have received
information regarding these appearances from any of the Apostles.
If we date the death of Jesus in the year 33, almost the latest
date assigned to it by any eminent critic, and the conversion of
Paul about A.D. 38-40,' it will be remembered that the Apostle
himself states that he did not go to Jerusalem till three years after,
which brings us to A.D. 41-43 as the earliest time when Paul first
came in personal contact with Peter and James. He did not go
up to Jerusalem again for fourteen years after that, and we have
no reason to believe that he met any of the Apostles in the
interval, but the contrary, from his own account of that second
visit, Gal. ii. 2. He could not, therefore, have heard anything of
the appearances of Jesus even from Peter and James till some
eight to ten years after they had taken place. From the other
Apostles, in all probability, he cannot have heard anything till
nearly twenty years had elapsed since they supposed they had seen
Jesus.
Where did he get his information regarding the 500 brethren
at once ? From whom did he get it ? If the supposed appearance
took place, as so many suggest, in Galilee, the date of his
information is still more uncertain. If, on the other hand, it
occurred in Jerusalem, whilst so many of the number were visitors
1885, p. 598) which are particularly appropriate whilst considering this argument.
They are quoted in A Reply to his Essays, 1889, p. 154 f.
1 The Chronicon Paschale dates it 42 ; and the following critics date it as
noted : Michaelis, about 37 ? Kuinoel, 40 ; Heinrichs, 37 ? Eichhorn, 37 or
38 ; Hug, 35 ; Schmidt, 41 ; Bertholdt, 40 ; Feihnoser, 35 ; Winer, 38 ?
de Wette, 37 or 38 ; Schott, 37 ; Schrader, 39 ; Anger, 38 ? Wieseler, 40 ;
Ewald, 38 ; Meyer, 35 (Wieseler, Chronologic des apost. Zeitalters, 1848,
Chronologische Tabelle ; Meyer, Apg., p. 24).
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
only, it is obvious that the greater part must subsequently have
left the Holy City and become scattered to their respective homes.
The difficulty of obtaining information from more than a few of
the 500 becomes obvious. In any case, from no authority which
we are entitled to assume could Paul have been minutely informed
of these appearances less than eight to ten years after they occurred,
and, then, of the vision of the Eleven, only from one of the number
to whom the first vision appeared. Now, no one who considers the
operation of memory, even in persons of more than usual sobriety
of imagination, dealing with circumstances not likely to be
exaggerated or distorted by feeling in the course of time, can doubt
that, in ten years, all the details of such occasions, amidst which
much excitement certainly prevailed, must have assumed a very
different aspect from that which they originally bore. We may be
permitted to quote a few words on this subject : " Though we are
accustomed to speak of memory as if it consisted in an exact
reproduction of past states of Consciousness, yet experience is con-
tinually showing us thatthisreproductionisvery often inexact, through
the modification which the ' trace ' has undergone in the interval.
Sometimes the trace has been partially obliterated ; and what
remains may serve to give a very erroneous (because imperfect)
view of the occurrence And where it is one in which our own
Feelings are interested, we are extremely apt to lose sight of what
goes against them, so that the representation given by Memory is
altogether one-sided. This is continually demonstrated by the
entire dissimilarity of the accounts of the same occurrence or con-
versation, which shall be given by two or more parties concerned
in it, even when the matter is fresh in their minds, and they are
honestly desirous of telling the truth. And this diversity will
usually become still more pronounced with the lapse of time, the trace
becoming gradually but unconsciously modified by the habitual
course of thought and feeling ; so that when it is so acted on after
a lengthened interval as to bring up a reminiscence of the original
occurrence, that reminiscence really represents, not the actual
occurrence, but the modified trace of it." 1 This is specially likely
to occur where, as in our case, there were Old Testament
prophecies supposed to describe minutely the sufferings, death, and
resurrection of the Messiah, to furnish lines which the transforma-
tion of memory must insensibly follow. Unconsciously, we may
be certain, the misty outlines of the original transaction would
acquire consistency and take form according to the tenour of so
infallible an index. It would require a memory of iron and of
more than stubborn doggedness to resist the unobtrusive influence
of supposed prophecies. Be it clearly understood that we speak
1 Carpenter, Principles of Mental Physiology, 1876, p. 456.
EFFECT OF TIME UPON MEMORY 885
of an unconscious process, which is perfectly consistent with
complete belief that the transformed trace exactly represents what
originally took place.
Adhering more closely to the point before us. can we suppose
that the account which Paul received of these appearances, after
that lapse of time, was a perfectly sober and unwarped description
of what actually took place ? We think not. Is it possible that
the vision of the 500, for instance, had escaped the maturing
influence of time ? or that of the Eleven ? We believe that it is
not possible. However, Paul does not give a single detail, and
consequently this argument mainly affects the abstract value of all
such evidence, whether at first or second hand, but it likewise
makes more vague the original transaction, so indefinitely sketched
for us, which we have to explain. What was it the 500 really saw?
"Jesus," says the report matured by time; and modern divines,
taking the statement in its most objective sense, demand an
explanation of the unknown phenomenon which led 500 to believe
that they actually saw the risen Master. Did the 500 originally
think anything of the kind ? What impression did the individuals
receive ? Did any two receive precisely the same impressions ?
There is not the slightest evidence that they did. Although Paul
gives the most meagre report of these appearances that could well
be conceived, it must be remembered that the impression made
upon his own mind was not by the events themselves, but by the
narrative of the events recounted at least eight or ten years after-
wards. There can be no doubt that, earlier, Paul the persecutor
must also frequently have heard of the Resurrection, and of
alleged occasions when Jesus had been seen after his death and
burial, from persecuted members of the Christian community; but
beyond the undefined certainty of this we are not entitled to go.
That what he heard must have received warmth of colouring from
the fire of persecution is most probable. Of this, however, we
shall speak presently.
It is not necessary further to enlarge upon the superstition of
the age of which we write. We have elsewhere quoted the opinion
of an orthodox divine and Hebrew scholar on the character of the
Jewish people about that period. " Not to be more tedious,
therefore, in this matter," he says, "let two things only be
observed : i. That the nation under the second Temple was
given to magical arts beyond measure ; and ii. That it was given
to an easiness of believing all manner of delusions beyond
measure." 1 And again : " It is a disputable case whether the
Jewish nation were more mad with superstition in matters of
1 Lightfoot, Horn Hebraiac el Talmudiae ; Works, ed. Pitman, 1823, xi. ,
p. 81.
886 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
religion, or with superstition in curious arts." 1 Even supposing
the Twelve to have been men of superior intelligence to most of
their fellow countrymen of the period, it cannot reasonably be
questioned that they were " men of like passions " and failings
with the rest, and that, as were the most eminent men of all
countries for centuries after, they were ignorant of the true order
of nature, full of superstitious ideas regarding cosmical phenomena,
and ready at all times to believe in miracles and supernatural
interference with the affairs of life. As Jews, moreover, they had
inherited belief in angelic agency and divine apparitions. The
Old Testament is full of narratives in which God appears to
the Patriarchs and Lawgivers of Israel. Celestial visions had
been familiar to every Jew from his infancy, and the constant
personal communications of God with his peculiar people were
still the most sacred traditions of the nation.
Nursed in the prevalent superstition of the time, educated by
the Law and the Prophets to familiarity with the supernatural,
and prepared by the fervid imagination of their race to recognise
wonders in heaven and earth, the disciples were naturally prepared
for the great Christian Miracle. The special circumstances in
which they were placed at the death of Jesus conduced in
the highest degree to excite that expectant attention which, in
their state of profound agitation, rendered them readily susceptible
of extraordinary impressions. The disciples had for a long
period followed Jesus and felt the influence of his elevated
character. It may be doubted how far they had entered into the
spirit of his teaching, or understood the spiritual wisdom which
lay beneath the noble simplicity of his language ; but it cannot be
doubted that his personal greatness must have produced a
profound effect upon their 'minds. When they came at last to
understand, if in a material and imperfect way, his views as to
his Messianic character, they can have had little difficulty in
believing, in spite of the mysterious lowliness and humility of his
aspect, although probably in a sense widely different from his
own, that the hope of Israel had at last come, and that the hour
of her redemption was at hand. It is probable that, as the enmity
of the priests and rulers increased, and the danger of his position
became more apparent, whilst he disdained unworthily to shrink
from his public work, he must have felt all the peril before him,
and observed the anxiety of his followers. It may be conceived
that, under such circumstances, his teaching may have assumed
even a higher spirituality than before, and, rising above the clouds
of the present, soared out into that calmer future when the religion
he founded would be accepted by men,and become a light to
1 Ib. , xi. , p. 299 f.
MENTAL PREPARATION OF THE TWELVE 887
the Gentiles and the glory of his people Israel. It is probable that
he may have spoken of his death in spiritual terms as a sacrifice
for them and for the world, which would secure the triumph of his
work and regenerate mankind. Comforting those who had left all
and followed him, but from whom he might so soon be parted,
and knowing their doubts and fears, he must have re-assured their
minds by inspiriting views of the inseparable nature of his union
with those who loved him and did his commandments ; his spirit
dwelling within them and leading them safely through the world, in
the peace and security of souls raised by the truth beyond the
reach of its corruption and its wrong.
That they must have felt the strongest conviction of his
Messianic character cannot be doubted, however confused
may have been their ideas of the exact nature of his office,
and of the manner in which his coming was to secure the
triumph of Israel. The shock to their expectations and the
utter dissipation of their hopes which must have been felt
in the first moment of his arrest, hurried trial, and cruel condem-
nation can well be imagined. It is probable that, in that first
moment of terror and bewilderment, the disciples indeed all
forsook him and fled. No one who had consorted with the
Great Teacher, however, and felt the influence of his mind, could
long have resisted the reaction to nobler thoughts of him. In all
the bitterness of sorrow for the loss of their master and friend, in
horror at his agonising and shameful death, and in doubt, con-
sternation, and almost despair, they must have gathered together
again and spoken of these strange events. Believing Jesus to
have been the Messiah, how could they interpret his death on the
cross ? If he was the Messiah, could he thus die ? If Enoch and
Elijah, if Moses, precursors of the Messiah, had not seen death,
how could that prophet like unto Moses whom God had raised
up end his career by a shameful death on the cross?
Throughout that time of fiery trial and supreme mental agita-
tion they must have perpetually sought in their own minds some
explanation of the terrible events then occurring and seeming to
blast all their hopes, and doubtless mystic utterances of Jesus
must have assumed new meanings meanings probably different
from his own. In the accounts of the coming Messiah in the
prophets they must have searched for some light by which to
solve the inexplicable problem. Is it not conceivable that, in
that last time of danger and darkness, when he saw the persecu-
tion against him become more vehement, and felt that the path
which he had chosen led him through danger and distress,
perhaps to death Jesus may, in the bitter contemplation of that
fanatical opposition of bigotry and superstition, have applied
to himself the description of the suffering servant of God,
888 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
suffering as all noble souls have done who are in advance of
their age, and preach great truths which condemn either directly
or by implication the vices and follies of their time " the
oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely," and, worse still,
the ignoble insults of popular ignorance and fickleness ? Here
might seem to them the solution of the enigma ; and, returning
from that first flight of terror and bewilderment, feeling all the
intense reaction of affection and grief, and faith in the Master
quickened by shame at their abandonment of him in his moment
of supreme affliction, still believing that he must be the Messiah,
and in mute longing and expectation of the next events which
were to confirm or confound their hopes, the disciples must
have been in the climax of nervous agitation and excitement, and
ready to receive any impression which might be suggested in
their embarrassment. 1
According to Paul, it was Peter who first saw the risen Jesus.
According to the first and fourth Gospels, the first appearance
was to the women, and notably, in the latter, to Mary Magdalene,
out of whom had been cast " seven devils," and whose tempera-
ment probably rendered her unusually susceptible of all such
impressions. Did Paul intentionally omit all mention of the
appearances to the women, or did he not know of them ?
In the latter case, we have an instructive light thrown on
the Gospel tradition ; in the former, the first suggestion
of the Resurrection becomes even more clearly intelligible. It
will be observed that in all this explanation we are left chiefly to
conjecture, for the statements in the Gospels cannot, upon any
point, be used with the slightest confidence. On the other hand,
all that is demanded is that a probable or possible explanation of
the origin of the belief in the Resurrection should be given ; and,
in the total absence of historical data, we are entitled to draw
inferences as to the course of events at the time. It may well be
that a mistake as to the sepulchre, rendered not improbable if any
hint of the truth be conveyed in the conflicting traditions of the
Gospel, or one of many other suggestions which might be
advanced, might lead the women or Peter to believe that the
sepulchre was empty. Or some other even trifling circumstance,
which we can no longer indicate with precision, might convey to
the women or to Peter, in their state of nervous excitement,
the last impulse wanting to cause that rapid revulsion from extreme
depression, which is so suitable to the state which we may, perhaps,
1 Ewald points out that, according to the belief of the period, the souls of
the dead hovered for a time between heaven and edtoh, and he considers that
the belief undeniably played an important part in this sphere of visions of the
Christ (Gesch. d. V. Isr,, vi., p. 72 a.).
THE STRONG SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS 889
be allowed to call creative subjectivity. If we are to accept
the indications scattered about the New Testament, the impetuous
ardent temperament of Peter was eminently one to bound into
sudden ecstatic enthusiasm, and in all probability some common-
place or trifling incident may have been the spark which kindled
into flame the materials already at glowing heat. The strong
subjective impression that Jesus had risen would create a vision of
him which, at once confirming previous conclusions, resolving
perplexing doubts, and satisfying feverish expectations, would be
accepted by each mind with little or no question as an objective
reality. If Peter, or even the women, brought to the disciples the
assurance that they had seen the Lord, we cannot doubt that, in
the unparalleled position in which they were then placed, under
all the circumstances of intense feeling and religious excitement
at the moment, such emotions would be suddenly called into
action as would give to these men the impression that they had
seen the Master whom they had lost. These subjective impres-
sions would be strengthened daily and unconsciously into ever
more objective consistency, and, being confirmed by supposed
prophecy, would be affirmed with a confidence insensibly inspired
by dogmatic considerations. That the news would fly from
believer to believer, meeting everywhere excited attention and
satisfying eager expectancy, is certain ; and that these devout souls,
swayed by every emotion of glad and exultant enthusiasm, would
constantly mistake the suggestions of their own thoughts for
objective realities is probable. Jesus died, was buried, and rose
again " according to the Scriptures." This would harden every
timid supposition into assurance ; and, as time went on, what was
doubtful would become certain, what was mysterious, clear ; and
those who had seen nothing would take up and strengthen the
tradition of those who had seen the Lord.
It is argued that there was not time for the preparation of the
disciples to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus between his
crucifixion and " the third day," when that event is alleged to have
occurred, and, consequently, no probability of subjective impres-
sions of so unexpected a nature being received. To those
Apologists who adopt this argument we might point to many
passages in the Gospels which affirm that the Resurrection on the
third day was predicted. These, however, we assign, of course, to
a later date. The argument assumes that there was no preparation
in the teaching of Jesus, but this, as we have endeavoured to suggest,
is not the case. If there had been no other, the mere assurance
that he was the Messiah must have led to reflections, which
demanded some other sequel to his career than the death of a
slave. The mere suggestion of such a problem as must have
proposed itself to the minds of the disciples: If all is to end here,
890 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Jesus was not the Messiah : if he was the Messiah, what will
now happen ? must have led to expectant attention. But there
was much more than this. In such moments as those of the
Passion, thought works feverishly and fast. It is not to be
supposed that Peter and the rest did not foresee the end, when
Jesus was led away prisoner in the hands of his enemies. It is
still less to be imagined that their minds were not ceaselessly
revolving that problem, on the solution of which depended their
fondest hopes and highest aspirations. It is most probable,
indeed, that no time could have found the disciples in a state so
ripe for strong impressions as that immediately succeeding the
death of their Master.
There are, however, other aspects in which this point may be
placed. What evidence is there that Jesus was seen, or supposed
to have been seen, on the third day ? Absolutely none worthy of
the name. Paul does not say that he was ; and as for the Gospels,
their statement is of no value, and the tradition which they record
may be set down as a foregone dogmatic conclusion. Paul very
distinctly shows this. He says : " For I delivered unto you first
of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he
has been raised the third day, according to the Scriptures." 1
The repetition of the phrase, " according to the Scriptures," is very
marked, and points to the fact that the purpose for which Jesus
died "for our sins" and the date of his Resurrection "the
third day" are statements directly based upon Scripture. We
have mentioned that the Scriptures supposed to indicate the third
day do not really apply to the Messiah at all, but this does not
affect the question before us. Now, believing this epoch to be
denned in prophecy, this is .precisely one of those points upon
which memory would, in the lapse of time, be most likely to adjust
itself to the prophecy. We will assume that Jesus was not " seen"
before the third day. It is obvious that, if he was seen forty days
after, it might be affirmed that he had been actually raised long
before, on the third day. The vision occurring on the third day
itself, even, could not prove that he had not "risen" before.
There is, in fact, no reason o fix the third day except the
statement of "Scripture," and, the moment we accept that, we
must recognise the force of dogmatic influence. 2 The fact
that the third day has from early times been set apart as the
Christian Sabbath does not prove anything. If the third day was
1 i Cor. xv. 3 f.
* We do not go into any argument based on the order given in the first two
Synoptics to go into Galilee a three days' journey *t least where the disciples
were to see Jesus. Nor need we touch upon other similar points which arise
out of the narratives of the Gospels.
JESUS ONLY APPEARED TO BELIEVERS 891
believed to be the day indicated by " Scripture" for the Resurrec-
tion, of course that day would be selected as the time at which it
must have occurred, and on which it should be commemorated.
So far as the vision hypothesis is concerned, the day is of no
consequence whatever, and the objection upon this point has no
force.
There is another consideration which we must mention, which
is not only important in connection with an estimate of the
evidence for the Resurrection, but the inferences from which
clearly support the explanation we are proposing. Before stating
it we may, in passing, again refer to the fact that it is nowhere
affirmed that anyone was an eye-witness of the actual Resurrection.
It is supposed to be proved by the circumstance that Jesus was
subsequently " seen." Observe, however, that the part of this
miracle which could not well have been ascribed to subjective
impressions the actual resurrection is, naturally enough, not
seen by anyone, but that which comes precisely within the scope
of such subjective action is said to have been seen by many. To
come at once to our point, neither Paul, nor the Gospels, nor
Christian tradition in any form, pretends that Jesus was seen
by any one but his disciples and those who believed in him. *In
fact, Jesus only appeared to those who were prepared by faith and
expectant attention to see him in the manner we assert. We are
at present merely speaking of the earlier appearances, and reserving
Paul for separate discussion. Why, we may inquire, did Jesus
not appear to his enemies as well as to his friends ? Nothing of
course could have been more intelligible than his desire to comfort
and reassure those who believed in and mourned for him, but to
do this by no means excluded a wider manifestation of himself,
supposing him to have actually risen from the dead. On the
hypothesis that he only rose again and was seen through the
yearning and enthusiastic faith of his followers, the reason why he
was not seen by others is not hard to find. Yet it might be
thought that the object of at once establishing beyond doubt his
supernatural mission, and convincing his enemies of their crime
and the Jews of their blindness and folly, was important enough.
Had he shown himself to the Chief Priests and elders, and con-
founded the Pharisees with the vision of him whom they had so
cruelly nailed to the accursed tree, how might not the future of his
followers have been smoothed, and the faith of many made strong !
Or if he had stood again in the Courts of the Roman Procurator,
no longer a prisoner buffeted and spat upon, but the glorious
Messiah, beyond the reach of Jewish malignity or Roman
injustice ! But no, he was seen by none but those devoted to him.
We shall, of course, be told by Apologists that this also was " for
the trial of our faith "; though, to anyone who earnestly reflects, it
892 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
must seem childish to ask men to believe what is beyond their
reason, yet conceal the evidence by which reason is supposed to
be guided. The reply, however, is clear : for the trial of our faith
or for any other reason, it is nevertheless certain that this evidence
does not exist. When the argument which we are now discussing
was first advanced long ago by Celsus, Origen had no better
refutation than, after admitting the fact that Jesus was not after
his resurrection seen as before publicly and by all men, to take
refuge in the belief that the passage of Paul regarding his appear-
ances contains wonderful mysteries which, if understood, would
explain why Jesus did not show himself after that event as he had
done before it. 1
We must now proceed to show that the vision of Paul is satis-
factorily explained by the same hypothesis. We have already
proved that there is no evidence of any value that Paul's conver-
sion was due to his having seen Jesus in a manner which he
believed to be objective and supernatural. To represent the arch
persecutor Paul transformed in a moment, by a miraculous vision
of Jesus, into the Apostle of the Gentiles was highly characteristic
of the author of Acts, who further represents Paul as immediately
preaching publicly in Damascus and confounding the Jews.
Widely different is the statement of Paul. He distinctly affirms
that he did not communicate with flesh and blood, nor went he up
to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before him, but that he
immediately went away into Arabia. The Fathers delighted in
representing this journey to Arabia as an instance of Paul's fervour
and eagerness to preach the Gospel in lands over which its sound
had not yet gone forth. There can be no doubt, however,
that Paul's journey to Arabia and his sojourn there were for
the purpose of reflection. It is only in legends that instantaneous
spiritual revolutions take place. In sober history the process is
more slow and progressive. We repeat that there is no evidence
which can at all be accepted that Paul's conversion was effected
by a vision, and that it is infinitely more probable that it was, so
to say, merely completed and crowned by " seeing Jesus "; but, at
the same time, even if the view be held that this vision was the
decisive circumstance which induced Paul at once to resign his
1 Contra Ce/s., ii. 63. It is curious that, in an earlier chapter, Origen, dis-
cussing the question of Celsus, whether any one who had been actually dead
had ever risen with a real body, says that if Celsus had been a Jew who believed
that Elijah and Elisha had raised little children he could not have advanced
this objection. Origen adds that he thinks the reason why Jesus appeared to
no other nation but the Jews was, that they had become accustomed to miracles,
and could, by comparing the works of Jesus and wkat was told of him with
what had been done before, recognise that he was greater than all who had
precededjiim. ii. 57.
PREPARATION FOR THE VISION OF PAUL 893
course of persecution and embrace Christianity, our argument is
not materially affected. In any case, much silent, deep, and
almost unconscious preparation for the change must long before
have proceeded in the mind of Paul, which was finally matured in
the Arabian waste. Upon no view that is taken can this be
excluded ; upon every ground of common sense, experience, and
necessary inference, it must be admitted.
Indifference is the only great gulf which separates opinions.
There was no stolid barrier of apathy between Saul of Tarsus and
belief in the Messiahship of Jesus. In persecuting Christianity,
Paul proved two things : the earnestness and energy of his con-
victions, and the fact that his attention was keenly directed to the
new sect. Both points contributed to the result we are discussing.
Paul's Judaism was no mere formalism. It was the adoption,
heart and soul, of the religion of his people ; which was to him no
dead principle, but a living faith stimulating that eager, impetuous
character to defend its integrity with "fire and sword." He did
not, like so many of his countrymen, turn away with scorn from
the followers of the despised Nazarene and leave them to their
delusion ; but turned to them, on the contrary, with the fierce
attraction of the zealot whose own belief is outraged by the
misbelief of others. The earnest Jew came into sharp collision
with the earnest Christian. The earnestness of each was an
element of mutual respect. The endurance and firmness of the
one might not melt the bigoted resolution of the other, but it
arrested his attention and commanded his unconscious sympathy.
Just so would the persecutor have endured and resisted persecu-
tion ; so, subsequently, he actually did meet it. And what was
the main difference between the persecutor and the persecuted ? It
consisted in that which constituted the burden of the apostolic
preaching : the belief that " this was the Christ." The creed of
the new sect at least was nc it complicated. It was little more at
that time than a question of identity, until Paul himself developed
it into an elaborate system of theology.
In this question of identity, however, there was comprised a vast
change of national ideas. To the devout Jew looking for the
hope of Israel, yearning and praying for the advent of that Son of
David who was to sit upon the throne of his fathers, restore the
fortunes of the people, drive out the heathen and subdue the
nations again to the yoke of Israel, establishing the worship of
God in its purity and turning the Gentiles to the service of the
God of Gods it was an abhorrent thought that the lowly peasant
who had died a shameful death on Golgotha should be represented
as the Messiah, the promised King of the Jews. Still, there was
something sufficiently startling in the idea to excite reflection. A
political aspirant, who pretended to play the part, and after some
894 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
feeble attempt at armed insurrection had been crushed by the heel
of the Roman, could not have attracted attention. In that there
would have been no originality to astonish, and no singularity to
require explanation. This man, on the contrary, who was said to
be the Messiah, assumed no earthly dignity ; claimed no kingdom
in this world ; had not even a place whereon to lay his head ; but
ended a short and unambitious career as the teacher of a simple but
profound system of morality by death on a cross. There was no
vulgar imitation here. This was the reverse of the Messiah of the
Jews. In spite of so much dissimilarity, however, there was in the
two parties a fundamental agreement of belief. The Jew expected
the Messiah ; the Christian believed he had now come. The
Messiah expected by the Jew was certainly a very different Saviour
from the despised and rejected Jesus of Nazareth, but at the root
of the Christian faith lay belief in a Messiah. It was a thoroughly
Jewish belief, springing out of the covenant with the fathers, and
based upon the I^aw and the Prophets. The difference was not
one of principle, but one of details. Their interpretation of the
promises was strangely dissimilar, but the trust of both was in the
God of Israel. To pass from one to the other did not involve the
adoption of a new religion, but merely a modification of the views
of the old. Once convinced that the Messiah was not a political
ruler but a spiritual guide, not a victorious leader but a suffering
servant of God, the transition from Judaic hopes to recognition
of Jesus was almost accomplished.
It is clear that Paul, in his capacity of Persecutor, must have
become well acquainted with the views of the Christians, and
probably must have heard them repeatedly expounded by his
captives before the Jewish Sanhedrin. He must have heard the
victims of his blind religious zeal affirming their faith with all that
ecstatic assurance which springs out of persecution. The vision
of Peter contributed to the vision of Paul. There can be no
doubt that Paul must have become aware of the application to
Jesus of Old Testament prophecies, and of the new conception
thence derived of a suffering Messiah. The political horizon was
certainly not suggestive of the coming of the Lord's Anointed.
Never had the fortunes of Israel been at a lower ebb. The hope
of a Prince of the house of David to restore dominion to the
fallen race was hard to entertain. The suggestion of an alternative
theory based upon a new interpretation of the prophets, if start-
ling, was not untimely, when the old confidence was becoming
faint in many minds, and the hope of his coming seemed so dis-
tant and unsure. If we do not misjudge the character of Paul,
however shocked he may haye been at first by the substitution of
a crucified Nazarene for the triumphant ICessiah of his earlier
visions, there must have been something profoundly pleasing to his
PAUL'S VISIONS AND REVELATIONS 895
mind in the conception of a spiritual Messiah. As he became
familiar with the idea, it is probable that flashes of doubt must
have crossed his mind as to the correctness of his more material
views. If the belief were true, which Christians professed, that
this Jesus, despised and rejected of men, was the suffering servant
of God, and this servant of God actually the Messiah ! If
the claim of this Jesus, who had been esteemed smitten of God
and afflicted had been verified by his rising again from the dead
and ascending to the right hand of God ! This aspect of the
Messianic idea had a mystery and significance congenial to the
soul of Paul. The supernatural elements could have presented
no difficulties to him. Belief in the Resurrection was part of his
creed as a Pharisee. That the risen Messiah should have been
seen by many, the fundamental idea once admitted, could not sur-
prise the visionary Jew. We can well imagine the conflict which
went on in the ardent mind of Paul when doubts first entered it ;
his resistance and struggle for the faith of his youth ; the pursu-
ance, as duty, of the course he had begun, whilst the former
conviction no longer strengthened the feverish energy ; the excite-
ment of religious zeal in the mad course of persecution not to be
arrested in a moment, but become, by growing doubt, bitterness
and pain to him ; the suffering inflicted sending its pang into his
own flesh. There was ample preparation in such a situation for
the vision of Paul.
The constitution and temperament of the Apostle were eminently
calculated to receive impressions of the strongest description.
We have mentioned the conjecture of many able men that his
" stake in the flesh " was a form of epilepsy. It is, of course, but
a conjecture, though one which has great probability, 1 and we
must not treat it otherwise ; but, if it could be proved correct,
much light would be thrown upon Paul's visions. We have
discussed the Apostle's statements regarding the supernatural
Charismata in the Church, and have seen his extreme readiness
to believe in the lavish bestowal of miraculous gifts, where others
could recognise but ordinary qualities. That Paul should be
able to claim the power of speaking with tongues more than all
the Corinthians, whose exercise of that spiritual gift he so
unceremoniously restrains, is in perfect keeping with all that we
elsewhere learn about him. Everywhere we find the keenly
impressionable nature so apt to fall into the ecstatic state when
brought under the influence of active religious emotion,
must glory," he exclaims with irresistible impulse on coming to a
theme so congenial to him, " I must glory ; it is not indeed
expedient, but I will come to visions and revelations of the
' Cf. Gal. iv. 13 : I Cor. ii. 3.
896 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Lord." 1 Even when he speaks of the stake in his flesh, which
he does in such suggestive connection with his visions, he
describes it as sent lest he should " be exalted above measure by
the excess of the revelations." 2 We have so repeatedly had to
refer to Paul's claim to have received his Gospel by special
revelation that we need not again speak of it here. If we could
quote Acts as a genuine representation of Christian tradition
regarding Paul, we might point out the visions and revelations
therein so freely ascribed to him, but his own writings are amply
sufficient for our purpose. Even his second journey to Jerusalem
is attributed to the direction of revelation. 3
The only vision regarding which the Apostle gives any
particulars is that referred to, 2 Cor. xii. 2 : " I know a man in
Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body I know not,
whether out of the body I know not, God knoweth), such an
one caught up even unto the third heaven. 3. And I know such
a man (whether in the body or out of the body I know not, God
knoweth), 4. that he was caught up into Paradise and heard
unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
5. For such an one will I boast," etc. 4 It has been argued from
this passage, and the repetition of the expression " whether in the
body or out of th6 body I know not," that Paul himself could
clearly distinguish objective facts from subjective impressions.
No interpretation could well be more erroneous. It is evident
that Paul has no doubt whatever of his having been in the third
heaven and in Paradise, and as little of his having heard the
unspeakable words. That is quite objectively real to him. His
only doubt is whether the body was caught up with his soul upon
this occasion. 5 No one who has carefully considered such
phenomena and examined the statements here made can have any
doubt as to the nature of this vision. The conception of being
caught up into "the third heaven," "into Paradise," and there
hearing these " unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man
to utter," betrays in no doubtful manner the source of the
subjective impressions. Of course, divines who are prepared to
see in this passage the account of an actual objective event will
not consider it evidence that Paul had subjective visions which he
believed to have been objective facts ; but to those who, more
rightly and reasonably, we think, recognise the subjective character
of the vision, it must at once definitely settle the point that Paul
could mistake subjective impressions for objective realities, and
1 2 Cor. xii. I. 2 2 Cor. xii. 7. 3 Gal. ii. 2. * 2 Cor. xii. 2-5.
5 Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1864, p. 174 f. ; Holsten, Zum Ev.
Paulus u. Petr., p. 21 f., p. 122 f. Hilgenfeld points^out that the representation
of such a separation from the body as Paul here contemplates is to be found in
Philo (De Somniis, i., 6).
8 9 7
consequently the argument for the similar subjectivity of the vision
of Jesus becomes complete. The possibility of such a mistake is
precisely what Apologists question. Here is an instance in which
the mistake has clearly been made by Paul.
The Apostle's own statements show him to have been super-
latively visionary and impressionable, with restless nervous energy,
it is true, but, at the same time, with keen physical and mental
susceptibility. Liable to be uplifted by "the excess of revela-
tions, "glorying in "visions and revelations of the Lord," possessing
ecstatic powers more than all others, subjecting his very movements,
his visits to Jerusalem, to the direction of impulses which he
supposed to be revelations ; there has never been a case in which
both temperament and religious belief more thoroughly combined
to ascribe, with perfect conviction, objective reality to subjective
impressions connected with divine things then occupying his
mind.
Paul, moreover, lived in a time when the Messianic longing of
the Jews led them to be profoundly interested students of the later
apocalyptic writings, which certainly made a deep impression upon
the Apostle, and in which he must have been struck by the image
of the promised Messiah, like the Son of Man, coming on the
clouds of heaven (Dan. vii. 13, cf. i Cor. xv. 47). At no time was
such a vision more likely to present itself to him than when his
mind was fixed upon the Messianic idea with all the intensity of
one who had been persecuting those who asserted that the Messiah
had already come. Here was reason for all that concentration of
thought upon the subject which produces such visions ; and when
doubt and hesitation entered into that eager intense spirit, the
conflict must have been sharp and the nerves highly strung. The
Jesus whom he saw with his mind's eye was the climax of convic-
tion in such a nature ; and the vision vividly brought to him
his own self-reproachful thoughts for mistaken zeal, and the
remorse of noble souls which bounds to reparation. He devoted
himself as eagerly to Christianity as he had previously done to
Judaism. He changed the contents but not the form of his mind.
Paul the Christian was the same man as Paul the Jew ; and, in
abandoning the conception of a Messiah " according to the flesh,"
and placing his whole faith in one " according to the spirit," he
displayed the same characteristics as before. The revolution in his
mind, of which so much is said, was merely one affecting the
Messianic idea. He did not at a bound become the complete
Apostle of the Gentiles, but, accepting at first nothing more than
belief in a Messiah according to the spirit, his comprehensive and
peculiar system of theology was, of course, only the result of
subsequent reflection. That his conviction should have been com-
pleted by a subjective vision is no more strange than that he
3 M
SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
should believe in supernatural Charismata, miraculous speaking
with tongues, and being actually caught up into the third heaven,
into Paradise, and hearing there unutterable words which it is not
lawful for a man to utter. Paul evidently never questioned the
source of his visions. They were simply accepted as divine
revelations, and they excited all the less of misgiving in his soul
from the fact that, without doubt, they expressed the expected
solution of problems which intensely occupied his mind, and
reflected conclusions already practically formed by his own
thoughts. 1
There remain two points to be briefly considered. The first of
these is the assertion, constantly made in various shapes, that the
cardinal miracles of the Resurrection and Ascension were pro-
claimed as unquestionable facts, without contradiction, at a time
when such an assertion might have been easily refuted. The
production of the body, the still occupied sepulchre, it is said,
would have set such pretensions at rest. It is unnecessary to say
that the proclamation of the Resurrection and Ascension as facts
proved nothing beyond the belief, perhaps, of those who asserted
them. So far as Paul is concerned, we may seek in vain for any
assertion of a bodily Ascension. But there is not the slightest
evidence to show when the Resurrection and Ascension were first
publicly proclaimed as unquestionable facts. Even the Gospels
do not state that they were mentioned beyond the circle of dis-
ciples. The second Synoptist, who does not state that Jesus
himself was seen by anyone, makes the curious affirmation at the
close of his Gospel as we have it, that the women, on receiving
the announcement of the Resurrection from the angels, and the
command for the disciples and Peter to go into Galilee, " went
out and fled from the sepulchre ; for trembling and astonishment
seized them, and they said nothing to anyone ; for they were
afraid." 2 In the fourth Gospel, although the " beloved disciple "
went into the sepulchre, "and he saw and believed," it is related
of him and Peter : " So the disciples went away again unto their
own home. "3 The Eleven, in fact, who all forsook their Master
1 " If those appearances (to his disciples) were purely subjective" objects
Dr. Farrar, "how can we account for their sudden, rapid, and total ces-
sation ?' (Life of Christ, ii., p. 432, note i). We might reply that,
if objective, such a cessation would be still more unaccountable. Being sub-
jective, the appearances, of course, ceased when the conditions of excitement
and expectancy which produced them passed away. But, in point of fact,
they did not suddenly and totally cease. The appearance to Paul occurred
after a considerable interval, and there is the tradition of more than one
appearance to him ; but throughout the history of the Church we hear of
similar subjective visions whenever a fitting individual has been found in the
state to receive them.
2 Mark xvi. 8. 3 j o h n xx. 10.
RESURRECTION DENIED AT THE TIME 899
and fled who are represented as meeting with closed doors " for
fear of the Jews " with closed doors after eight days, it is again
said, although a week before ten of them are said to have seen
Jesus were not likely to expose themselves to the fate of Jesus
by rushing into the highways and asserting the Resurrection.
Beyond the statement of the Gospels, the value of which we have
seen, and which is accompanied by so many confused circum-
stances, there is no evidence whatever that the sepulchre was
found empty. There is no evidence that the sepulchre was really
known to the disciples, none of whom, probably, was present at
the crucifixion ; and it might well be inferred that the women,
who are represented as ignorant that the body had already been
embalmed, yet who are the chief supposed witnesses for the empty
sepulchre and the informants of the disciples, were equally
ignorant of the sepulchre in which the body was laid. We might
ask whether the 500 brethren who are said to have seen Jesus at
the same time came from Galilee, or wherever they were, and
examined the state of the sepulchre? We have already said,
however, that, if the sepulchre had been shown to be empty, the
very last thing which could be proved by that circumstance would
be the correctness of the assertion that it had become so in
consequence of a stupendous miracle. On the other hand, if it
had been shown that it was occupied by a body, it is exceedingly
doubtful whether the fact would have convinced anyone not
previously sure that Jesus could not have risen from the dead, and
he would not have required such evidence. When the Resur-
rection was publicly proclaimed as a fact, the body could no longer
have been recognisable ; and the idea that any of those in autho-
rity could have thought such demonstration necessary to refute a
story whispered about amongst an obscure sect in Jerusalem, or
even more courageously asserted, is a product of later times.
When Jesus of Nazareth, the head of the nascent sect, was
suppressed by a shameful death, his humble and timid followers
were, obviously, for a time despised ; and there is little reason to
suppose that the chief priests and rulers of the Jews would have
condescended to any public contradiction of their affirmations, if
they had even felt indifference to the defilement of exposing, for
such a purpose, a decaying body to the gaze of Jerusalem. This
kind of refutation is possible only in the imagination of divines.
Besides, what evidence is there that even a single indifferent
person found the sepulchre empty? There is not an iota of
proof.
On the contrary, there is the very strongest evidence that, when
the assertion of the Resurrection and Ascension as " unquestion-
able facts " was made, it was contradicted in the only practical and
practicable way conceivable : (i) by all but universal disbelief in
900 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Jerusalem ; (2) by actual persecution of those who asserted it. It
is a perfectly undeniable fact that the great mass of the Jews
totally denied the truth of the statement by disbelieving it, and
that the converts to Christianity, who soon swelled the numbers
of the Church and spread its influence amongst the nations, were
not the citizens of Jerusalem, who were capable of refuting such
assertions, but strangers and Gentiles. The number of the commu-
nity of Jerusalem after the forty days seems to be stated by the
author of Acts as "about 120," and, although the numbers
added to the Church, according to this document, are evidently
fabulous, the converts at Pentecost are, apparently, chiefly from
amongst the devout men of every nation upon earth congregated
at Jerusalem. To this hour the Jews have retained as their
inheritance the denial by their forefathers of the asserted facts.
The assertion, secondly, was emphatically denied by the perse-
cution, as soon as it became worth any one's while to persecute,
of those who made it. It was in this way denied by Paul himself,
at a time when verification was infinitely more possible than when
he came to join in the assertion. Are we to suppose that the
Apostle took no trouble to convince himself of the facts before he
began to persecute ? He was in the confidence of the high priests,
it seems; can he ever have heard the slightest doubt from them on
the subject ? Is it not palpable that Paul and his party, by their
very pursuit of those who maintained such allegations, stigmatised
them as falsehoods, and perhaps as imposture ? If it be said that
Paul became convinced of his mistake, it is perfectly obvious that
his conversion was not due to local and circumstantial evidence,
but to dogmatic considerations and his supposed vision of Jesus.
He disbelieved when the alleged occurrences were recent and, as
it is said, capable of refutation ; he believed when the time for
such refutation had passed.
The second point to which we have referred is the vague and
final objection of Apologists that, if the vision of Jesus was merely
subjective, the fabric of the Church and even of Christianity is
based upon unreality and self-deception. Is this possible ? they
ask. Is it possible that for eighteen centuries the Resurrection
and Ascension have been proclaimed and believed by millions,
with no other original foundation than self-delusion ? The vague-
ness and apparent vastness of this objection, perhaps, make it a
formidable argumentum ad hominem, but it vanishes into very
small proportions as we approach it. Must we, then, understand
that the dogmas of all religions which have been established must
have been objective truths ? and that this is a necessary inference
from their wide adoption ? If so, then all historical religions before
Christianity, and after it, must take rank as substantially true. In
that case the religion of the Veda, of Buddha, of Zoroaster, of
CHRISTIANITY BASED ON BELIEF OF A FEW 901
Mohammed, for instance, can as little be based on unreality and self-
deception as Christianity. They have secured wide acceptance
from mankind. Millions have for centuries devoutly held their
tenets, and to this day the followers of Sakya Muni are as numerous
as the believers in the religion of Paul. If not, the objection at
once falls to the ground as an argument, and the problem becomes
a simple matter of evidence, which has been fully discussed and
disposed of.
When we analyse the fact, it becomes apparent that, ultimately,
belief in the Resurrection and Ascension resolves itself into the
belief of a few or of one. It requires very little reflection to perceive
that the Christian Church is founded much more upon belief in the
Resurrection than on the reality of the fact itself. Nothing is more
undeniable than the circumstance that not more than a very small
number of men are even alleged to have seen the risen Jesus.
The mass of those who have believed in the Resurrection have
done so because of the assurance of these few men, and perhaps
because they may have been led to think that the event was
predicted in Scripture. Up to this day, converts to the dogma
are made, if made at all, upon the assurance of Paul and the
Gospels. The vast question at last dwindles down to the inquiry :
Can a few men, can one man, draw erroneous inferences and be
honestly deceived by something supposed to have been seen?
We presume that there can be no hesitation in giving an affirmative
reply. The rest follows as a matter of course. Others simply
believe the report of those who have believed before them. In
course of time, so many believe that it is considered almost out-
rageous to disbelieve or demand evidence. The number of those
who have believed is viewed at last as an overwhelming proof of
the truth of the creed.
It is a most striking and extraordinary fact that the life and
teaching of Jesus have scarcely a place in the system of Paul.
Had we been dependent upon him, we should have had no idea
of the Great Master who preached the Sermon on the Mount,
and embodied pure truths in parables of such luminous simplicity.
His noble morality would have remained unknown, and his
lessons of rare spiritual excellence have been lost to the world.
Paul sees no significance in that life, but concentrates all interest
in the death and Resurrection of his Messiah. The ecclesiastical
Christianity which was mainly Paul's work has almost effaced the
true work of Jesus. In the sepulchre hewn out of the rock are
deposited the teaching and example of Jesus, and from it there
rises a mystic Christ lost in a halo of theology.
CONCLUSIONS
WE have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or
conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something
which we could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of
communications which are essentially beyond and undiscoverable
by reason cannot be attested in any other way than by miraculous
signs distinguishing them as divine. It is admitted that no other
testimony could justify our believing the specific Revelation which
we are considering, the very substance of which is supernatural
and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its doctrines, if not
proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be pronounced
"the wildest delusions." "By no rational being could a just and
benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing
announcements."
On examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity
as Divine Revelation, we find that, even if the actual occur-
rence of the supposed miracles could be substantiated, their
value as evidence would be destroyed by the necessary admission
that miracles are not limited to one source and are not exclusively
associated with truth, but are performed by various spiritual
Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and are not always evidential,
but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive and for the trial of
faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed are beyond
Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the
human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and
inconclusive a nature could sufficiently attest them. This alone
would disqualify the Christian miracles for the duty which only
miracles are capable of performing.
The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation,
moreover, is not only without any special divine character, being
avowedly common also to Satanic agency, but it is not original
either in conception or details. Similar miracles are reported long
antecedently to the first promulgation of Christianity, and con-
tinued to be performed for centuries after it. A stream of miracu-
lous pretension, in fact, has flowed through all human history,
deep and broad as it has passed through the darker ages, but
dwindling down to a thread as it has entered days of enlighten-
ment. The evidence was too hackneyed and commonplace to
make any impression upon those before whom the Christian
miracles are said to have been performed, kid it altogether failed
to convince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily
902
CONCLUSIONS 903
addressed. The selection of such evidence for such a purpose is
much more characteristic of human weakness than of divine
power.
The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact
thai their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of
ignorance and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown
in any time or place where science has provided witnesses fitted
to appreciate and ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of
supernatural power. There is not the slightest evidence that
any attempt was made to investigate the supposed miraculous
occurrences, or to justify the inferences so freely drawn from
them, nor is there any reason to believe that the witnesses pos-
sessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of knowledge and
sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No miracle
has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent reality,
and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of
imagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles,
connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all
miraculous pretension.
There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural
interference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles
have sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power
has not a single valid argument to support it. History clearly
demonstrates that, wherever ignorance and superstition have pre-
vailed, every obscure occurrence has been attributed to super-
natural agency, and it is freely acknowledged that, under their
influence, inexplicable and miraculous are convertible terms. On
the other hand, in proportion as knowledge of natural laws has
increased, the theory of supernatural interference with the order of
nature has been dispelled, and miracles have ceased. The effect
of science, however, is not limited to the present and future, but
its action is equally retrospective, and phenomena which were once
ignorantly isolated from the sequence of natural cause and effect
are now restored to their place in the unbroken order. Ignorance
and superstition created miracles ; knowledge has for ever annihi-
lated them.
To justify miracles two assumptions are made : first, an Infinite
Personal God ; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the
execution of which necessarily involves supernatural action.
Miracles, it is argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects pro-
duced without adequate causes, but, on the contrary, are caused
by the intervention of this Infinite Personal God for the purpose
of attesting and carrying out the Divine design. Neither of the
assumptions, however, can be reasonably maintained.
The assumption of an Infinite Personal God, a Being at once
limited and unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of
904 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
human thought can possibly attach itself. Moreover, the assump-
tion of a God working miracles is emphatically excluded by
universal experience of the order of nature. The allegation of a
specific Divine cause of miracles is further inadequate from the
fact that the power of working miracles is avowedly not limited to
a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other spiritual Beings ; and
it must, consequently, always be impossible to prove that the
supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not with
another. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design
of Revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is
derived from the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as
is likewise the assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally
vicious as arguments. The circumstances which are supposed to
require this Divine design, and the details of the scheme, are
absolutely incredible, and opposed to all the results of science.
Nature does not countenance any theory of the original perfection
and subsequent degradation of the human race ; and the sup-
position of a frustrated original plan of creation, and of later
impotent endeavours to correct it, is as inconsistent with Divine
omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed punishment of the
human race, and the mode devised to save some of them, are
opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially
inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles.
Whatever definition may be given of miracles, such exceptional
phenomena must at least be antecedently incredible. In the
absence of absolute knowledge, human belief must be guided by
the balance of evidence, and it is obvious that the evidence for
the uniformity of the order of nature, which is derived from
universal experience, must be enormously greater than can be the
testimony for any alleged exception to it. On the other hand,
universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of the senses,
imperfect observation, and erroneous inference as not only possible,
but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of phenomena,
even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more
especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement
and superstition are present. When the report of the original
witnesses only reaches us indirectly and through the medium of
tradition, the probability of error is further increased. Thus the
allegation of miracles is discredited, both positively by the
invariability of the order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility
of human observation and testimony. The history of miraculous
pretension in the world, and the circumstances attending the
special exhibition of it which we are examining, suggest natural
explanations of the reported facts which wholly remove them from
the region of the supernatural.
When we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the
CONCLUSIONS 905
Christian miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances
neutralising the preceding considerations. On the contrary, we
find that the case turns not upon miracles substantially before us,
but upon the mere narratives of miracles said to have occurred
over eighteen hundred years ago. It is obvious that, for such
narratives to possess any real force and validity, it is essential that
their character and authorship should be placed beyond all doubt.
They must proceed from eye-witnesses capable of estimating aright
the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels, however, are
strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which now
distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works
themselves, and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels.
Of the writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed,
only two are even said to have been Apostles, the alleged authors
of the second and third Synoptics neither having been personal
followers of Jesus nor eye-witnesses of the events they describe.
Under these circumstances, we are wholly dependent upon external
evidence for information regarding the authorship and trustworthi-
ness of the four canonical Gospels.
In examining this evidence we proceeded upon clear and
definite principles. Without forming or adopting any theory
whatever as to the date or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched
the writings of the Fathers, during a century and a half after the
events in question, for information regarding the composition and
character of these works, and even for any certain traces of their
use, although, if discovered, these could prove little beyond the
mere existence of the Gospels used at the date of the writer. In
the latter and minor investigation we were guided by canons of
criticism previously laid down, and which are based upon the
simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the
Fathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a
complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition
and character of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the
tradition preserved by Papias, after the middle of the second
century, the details of which fully justify the conclusion that
our first and second Synoptics, in their present form, cannot be
the works said to have been composed by Matthew and Mark.
There is thus no evidence whatever directly connecting any of
the canonical Gospels with the writers to whom they are popu-
larly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no value in itself, is
separated by a long interval of profound silence from the epoch at
which they are supposed to have been composed. With one
exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and
a half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the
anonymous use of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This
fact, of course, does not justify the conclusion that none of these
906 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
Gospels was actually in existence during any part of that time, nor
have we anywhere suggested such an inference; but strict examina-
tion of the evidence shows that there is no positive proof that they
were. The exception to which we refer is Marcion's Gospel,
which was, we think, based upon our third Synoptic, and conse-
quently must be accepted as evidence of the existence of that
work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightest information
as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges against it of
adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to
its infallible character. If it be received that Tatian's Diatessaron
is based upon our four Gospels, nothing further than their mere
existence at that period is proved. The canonical Gospels con-
tinue to the end anonymous documents of no evidential value
for miracles. They do not themselves pretend to be inspired
histories, and they cannot escape from the ordinary rules of
criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the inferences from
external testimony. Apart from continual minor contradictions
throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to reconcile
the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth
Gospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They
must be pronounced mere narratives, compiled long after the
events recorded, by unknown persons who were neither eye-
witnesses of the alleged miraculous occurrences, nor hearers of
the statements they profess to report. They cannot be accepted
as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of Divine
Revelation.
Applying these tests to the Acts of the Apostles, we arrived at
the same results. Acknowledged to be composed by the same
author who produced the third Synoptic that author's identity is
not thereby made more clear. There is no evidence of the
slightest value regarding its character, but, on the other hand, the
work itself teems to such an extent with miraculous incidents and
supernatural agency that the credibility of the narrative
requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for it
any serious consideration. When the statements of the author
are compared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle
Paul, and with authentic accounts of the development of the
early Christian Church, it becomes evident that the Acts of the
Apostles, as might have been supposed, is a legendary composi-
tion of a later day, which cannot be regarded as sober and
credible history, and rather discredits than tends to establish the
reality of the miracles with which its pages so suspiciously
abound.
The remaining books of the New Testament Canon required
no separate examination, because, even if genuine, they contain
no additional testimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond
CONCLUSIONS 907
the implied belief in such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resur-
rection. It is unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or
other the Apostles believed in these miracles, and the assumption
that they did so supersedes the necessity for examining the
authenticity of the Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse. In like
manner, the recognition as genuine of four Epistles of Paul, which
contain his testimony to miracles, renders it superfluous to discuss
the authenticity of the other letters attributed to him.
The general belief in miraculous power and its possession by
the Church is brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle
Paul. After elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to
the unhesitating conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality
of miracles, the unconscious testimony of Paul clearly demon-
strates the facility with which erroneous inferences convert the
most natural pheno*mena into supernatural occurrences.
As a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence
for the cardinal dogmas of Christianity : the Resurrection and
Ascension of Jesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that
their accounts of these events are not only full of legendary
matter, but that they even contradict and exclude each other ; and
so far from establishing the reality of such stupendous miracles,
they show that no reliance is to be placed on the statements of
the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul, which
is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an
Apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early
missionaries of Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and
utterly insufficient. His so-called " circumstantial account of the
testimony upon which the belief in the Resurrection rested"
consists merely of vague and undetailed hearsay, differing, so far
as it can be compared, from the statements in the Gospels, and
without other attestation than the bare fact that it is repeated by
Paul, who doubtless believed it, although he had not himself been
a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the risen Jesus
which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personal testimony to
the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of which we have
no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle.
Considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul,
of which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no
hesitation in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as
were likewise, in all probability, the appearances to the excited
disciples of Jesus, if they ever really occurred. The testimony of
Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to ecstatic
fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an earnest
denial of the great Christian dogma emphasised by the active
persecution of those who affirmed it ; and a vision, especially in
the case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years
9o8 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
after the fact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of
verification, is not an argument of convincing force. We were
compelled to pronounce the evidence for the Resurrection and
Ascension absolutely and hopelessly inadequate to prove the
reality of such stupendous miracles, which must consequently be
unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, or even con-
ceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting
the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be
accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient
in the case of any common question of property or title before a
legal tribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point
to be established, the more complete must be the proof required.
If we test the results at which we have arrived by general
considerations, we find them everywhere confirmed and established.
There is nothing original in the claim of Christianity to be regarded
as Divine Revelation, and nothing new either in the doctrines said
to have been revealed, or in the miracles by which it is alleged to
have been distinguished. There has not been a single historical
religion largely held amongst men which has not pretended to be
divinely revealed, and the written books of which have not been
represented as directly inspired. There is not a doctrine,
sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has not substantially
formed part of earlier religions ; and not a single phase of the
supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculous conception,
birth, and incarnation, to his death, resurrection, and ascension,
which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies. Heaven
and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held an
important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races.
The same may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity,
the elevated precepts of which, although in a less perfect and
connected form, had already suggested themselves to many noble
minds and been promulgated by ancient sages and philosophers.
That this Inquiry into the reality of Divine Revelation has been
limited to the claim of Christianity has arisen solely from a
desire to condense it within reasonable bounds, and confine it to
the only religion in connection with which it could practically
interest us now.
There is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity
which can be considered characteristic of a religion divinely
revealed for the salvation of mankind. Originally said to have
been communicated to a single nation, specially selected as the
peculiar people of God, and for whom distinguished privileges
were said to be reserved, it was almost unanimously rejected by
that nation at the time, and it has continued, to be repudiated by
its descendants with singular unanimity to the* present day. After
more than nineteen centuries, this Divine scheme of salvation has
CONCLUSIONS 909
not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a third of
the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinction
could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it
as Supernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower
numerical position. Sakya Muni, a teacher only second in
nobility of character to Jesus, and who, like him, proclaimed a
system of elevated morality, has even now almost twice the
number of followers, although his missionaries never sought
converts in the West. Considered as a scheme Divinely devised
as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human race and
saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himself
incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual
death upon the cross for the sins of the world, such results as
these can only be regarded as practical failure, although they may
not be disproportionate for a system of elevated morality.
We shall probably never be able to determine how far the great
Teacher may, through his own speculations or misunderstood
spiritual utterances, have suggested the supernatural doctrines
subsequently attributed to him, and by which his whole history and
system soon became transformed ; but no one who attentively
studies the subject can fail to be struck by the absence of such
dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It is to the
excited veneration of the followers of Jesus that we owe most
of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and
people. We may look in vain, even in the synoptic Gospels, for
the doctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of
Ephesus. The great transformation of Christianity was effected by
men who had never seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted
with his teaching after it had become transmuted by tradition.
The fervid imagination of the East constructed Christian theology.
It is not difficult to follow the development of the creeds of the
Church, and it is certainly most instructive to observe the progres-
sive boldness with which its dogmas were expanded by pious
enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents several stages
of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had passed
away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples,
who had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his
life, piously distorted it after his death. His simple lessens of
meekness and humility were soon forgotten. With lamentable
rapidity, the elaborate structure of ecclesiastical Christianity,
following stereotyped lines of human superstition, and deeply
coloured by Alexandrian philosophy, displaced the simple morality
of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, which commenced amongst the
very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity of the Christian
body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations of
Churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which
9 io SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
naturally enough culminated in doctrines of Immaculate Concep-
tion and Papal Infallibility.
It is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim
such conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of
humanity, but remove the only solid basis of morality ; and it is
alleged that, before existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is
bound to provide a substitute for the shattered idol. To this
we may reply that speech or silence does not alter the reality
of things. The recognition of Truth cannot be made dependent
on consequences, or be trammelled by considerations of spurious
expediency. Its declaration in a serious and suitable manner to
those who are capable of judging can never be premature. Its
suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a humiliating compro-
mise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality is concerned,
belief in a system of future rewards and punishments, although of
an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent, have
promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and
even in our own ; but it may, we think, be shown that education
and civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit.
How .far Christianity has promoted education and civilisa-
tion we shall not here venture adequately to discuss. We
may emphatically assert, however, that whatever beneficial
effect Christianity has produced has been due, not to its super-
natural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic theology,
on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science.
Wherever it has been dominant civilisation has stood still.
Science has been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or
a chapter of Genesis. Almost every great advance which has been
made towards enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the
protest or the anathema of the Church. Submissive ignorance,
absolute or comparative, has been tacitly fostered as the most
desirable condition of the popular mind. " Except ye be con-
verted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the
kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of Doctors of
Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of assimilation
by the virile mind. Even now the friction of theological resis-
tance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The early
enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so in-
telligible to the simple as well as profound to the wise, was
of great value to the world ; but, experience being once systema-
tised and codified, if higher principles do not constrain us,
society may safely be left to see morals sufficiently observed.
It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating rules, morality
has hitherto assumed the character of # Divine institution;
but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than it must
be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of
CONCLUSIONS 9 i !
social experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a
theological question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and
uprightness have finally expired. Morality, which has ever
changed its complexion and modified its injunctions according to
social requirements, will necessarily be enforced as part of human
evolution, and is not dependent on religious terrorism or super-
stitious persuasion. If we are supposed to say, Cui bono ? and
only practise morality, or be ruled by right principles, to gain a
heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost ; for such grudging
and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation which can
as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever
been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in
any degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively
turns to the true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of
thought and action, we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a
system of rewards and punishments in a future state which has for
so long been represented as essential to Christianity.
The argument so often employed by theologians, that Divine
Revelation is necessary for man, and that certain views con-
tained in that Revelation are required by our moral conscious-
ness, is purely imaginary and derived from the Revelation which
it seeks to maintain. The only thing absolutely necessary for man
is Truth ; and to that, and that alone, must our moral conscious-
ness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the expectation
that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through natural
channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished
as supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all
that we desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tanta-
mount to complaining that the mind of man is not differently
constituted. To attain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever
that may be, should be our earnest aim, and more than this is not
for humanity.
We gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our theology
is human invention, and our eschatologyan unhealthy dream. We are
freed from the incubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines
of Divine government which outrage morality and set cruelty and
injustice in the place of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished
anthropomorphic visions of future blessedness, the details of
which are either of unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we
are at least delivered from quibbling discussions of the meaning
of euwvios, and our eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt
whether mankind is to be tortured in hell for ever and a day, or
for a day without the ever. At the end of life there may be no
definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light of .apocalyptic
imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable horror of a
Purgatory or a Hell, lurid with flames, for the helpless victims of
9 i2 SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous
representations at all as part of the contents of " Divine Revela-
tion," it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge
of the ways of the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him
endowed with the perfection of human conceptions of justice and
mercy, but submit to call wrong right and right wrong at the foot
of an almighty Despot. But now the reproach of such reasoning
is shaken from our shoulders, and returns to the Jewish superstition
from which it sprang.
Let us ask what has actually been destroyed by such an inquiry
pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by any means be
made less true ? Can reality be melted into thin air ? The
supposed Revelation not being a reality, that which has been
destroyed is only an illusion, and that which is left is the truth.
Losing belief in it and its contents, we have lost nothing but that
which the traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed
cool waters and green shades before him, melts swiftly away.
There were no cool fountains really there to allay his thirst ; no
flowery meadows for his wearied limbs ; his pleasure was delusion,
and the wilderness is blank. Rather the mirage, with its pleasant
illusion, is the human cry, than the desert with its barrenness.
Not so, is the friendly warning ; seek not vainly in the desert that
which is not there, but turn rather to other horizons and to surer
hopes. Do not waste life clinging to ecclesiastical dogmas which
represent no eternal verities, but search elsewhere for truth which
may haply be found.
INDEX
ABERCROMBIE, DR., On Spectral Illu- |
sions, 880.
Acts of the Apostles : Character of,
567 f. ; alleged references to, 568 f. ;
by Clement of Rome, 568 f. ; by
Epistle of Barnabas, 570 ; by Shep-
herd of Hermas, 571 f. ; by Pseudo-
Ignatius, 572 f. ; by Epistle of
Polycarp, 574 f. ; by Epistle to
Diognetus, 578 f. ; by Tatian, 576 f. ;
by Dionysius of Corinth, 589 ; by
Athenagoras, 580 f. ; by Epistle of
Vienne and Lyons, 580 f. ; Canon
of Muratori on, 581 f. ; Fathers
assign it to Luke, 582 ; discussion
of authorship, 582 f. ; not written
by Luke the follower of Paul, 583 f.;
evidence regarding authorship, 585 f. ;
Luke not mentioned in, 586 ; views
of Fathers regarding him, 587 f. ;
Ewald on authorship of Luke, 588 ;
argument from superscription, 588 f. ;
traditional view of authorship un-
supported by evidence, 590 f. ; the
personal sections, 591 f. ; could not
have been written by companion of
Paul, 595 f. ; comparison with the
Pauline Epistles, 595 f. ; theory of
authorship of Timothy, 598 f. ;
personal sections do not solve prob-
lems, 599 f. ; considerations exclud-
ing Luke by proving later date,
600 f. ; use of works of Josephus
by author, 605 f. ; consequent date,
611 ; original purpose of author,
613 f. ; parallelism between Peter
and Paul, 617 f. ; the speeches in,
618 f. ; speeches composed by
author, 621 f. ; speeches of Peter
and Paul compared, 623 f. ; sup-
posed traces of translation, 629 f. ;
incongruities in speech of Peter,
632 f. ; is its account of primitive
Christianity true, 638 f.; martyrdom
of Stephen in, 659 f. ; no other evi-
dence of Stephen's existence, 66 1 f. ;
his trial in, 662 f. ; based on that of
Jesus, 663 f. ; how could Stephen's
speech have been reported, 665 f. ;
errors in the speech, 666 f. ; speech
examined, 667 f.; the speech com-
posed by author, 670 f.; Philip and
the Eunuch in, 673 f. ; raising of Tabi-
tha from dead by Peter, 676 f. ; Peter
and Cornelius in, 677 f. ; Paul and
Ananias in, 679 f.; Peter in the
house of a tanner in Joppa, 68 1 ;
supposed abrogation of Mosaic pro-
scriptions, 68 1 ; statements of, com-
pared with Paul's Epistles, 686 f.;
Paul's visits to Jerusalem in, com-
pared with Paul's Epistles, 687 f. ;
question of circumcision at Antioch,
700 f., 709 f. ; council at Jerusalem
and Paul's Epistles, 703 f.; Peter's
speech, 706 f. ; speech of James,
711 f. ; speeches composed by
author, 713 f.; the Apostolic Decree,
714 f. ; the Decree composed by
author, 716 f.; Paul's account ex-
cludes Decree, 718 f.; no trace of
Decree anywhere, 723 f. ; the alleged
circumcision of Titus, 725 f. ; Paul
preaches a different Gospel, 729 f. ;
the final agreement of the Council,
730 f. ; alleged circumcision of
Timothy, 736 f. ; Paul's relation to
theTwelve misrepresented in, 743 f. ;
conclusion : Acts not historical,
750 f. ; the Gift of Tongues in, 781 f. ;
the account in, must be rejected,
787 f.; origin of the account in,
788 f. ; the Ascension in, 844 f.;
representation of Paul's vision in,
not historical, 867 f.
Alford, Dean, on discrepancy regard-
ing appearances of Jesus, 843, n. 2.
Angelology and Demonology of Jews,
61 f.
Apocalypse of John, referred to as
913
914
INDEX
Scripture by Justin Martyr, 188 f.,
512 f.; in Canon of Muratori, 429 f.;
testimony of Papias according to j
Andrew of Caesarea, 485 f. ; Diony-
sius of Alexandria denies author-
ship of John, 511, 513 f. ; Lucke's
argument on it, 511 f.; de Wette's
argument, 512; Ewald's argument,
512, 515 f.; external argument for
John's authorship, 512 f.; Melito of
Sardis wrote on it, 513 ; assigned to
Cerinthus, 514 ; certainty of date of,
514 ; objection on ground of author's
calling himself "Servant of Christ"
only, 514 f. ; Judaistic character of,
516 f.; character of John in Synop-
tics, Sigf. ; this strongly in favour
of his authorship, 521 f.; attacks
Paul in Epistles to the Churches,
522 f., 747 f.
Apollinaris, Claudius, 395 f. ; fragments
attributed to him, 395 ; on the Pass-
over, 395 f.; no evidence for fourth
Gospel, 505.
Arnold, Dr., on Miracles, 12.
Ascensio Isaia, referred to by Origen
and Epiphanius, 61, n. 5; Angel of
Sun and Moon, 61.
Ascension, Resurrection and, evidence
of the Gospels, 808 f. ; not peculiar to
Christianity, 846; evidence of Paul
for, 851 f . ; evidence inadequate,
872 f.
Athenagoras, cosmical theories of, 72 ;
worksascribed to him, 398 f. ; alleged
references to Synoptics, 399 f. ; no
evidence for fourth Gospel in, 505 ;
his Logos doctrine not that of Gos-
pel, 55-
Atterbury, Bishop, Christianity can
only be attested by miracles, 3 f.
Augustine, Saint, demonology of, 79 f. ;
on antipodes, 80 f. ; miracles report-
ed by, 100 f.
BARNABAS, Epistle of, on clean and
unclean animals, 81 f. ; account of,
137 f. ; identity of author, 137; date
of, 1 38 f. ; alleged use of Synoptics
examined, 1 39 f. ; alleged reference
to fourth Gospel, 435 f.
Basilides, fragments of writings of,
322 f.; opinions of Tischendorf and
Westcott regarding them, 322 f. ;
his gospel, 323 f. ; statements of
Agrippa Castor, 323 f. ; alleged quo-
tations from Synoptics, 325 f.; alleged
statements of Hippolytus, 327 f. ;
they do not refer to him, but to his
followers, 328 f. ; alleged references
to fourth Gospel, 498 f.
Beelen, on : "to the Jew first," 734,
n. I.
Beyschlag, his view of some appear-
ances of Jesus, 856, n. 4.
Brodie, Sir Benjamin, on brain im-
pressions, 877.
Butler, Bishop, Christianity beyond
reason, 3 ; so can only be proved
by miracles, 3 f.
CANONS OF CRITICISM regarding Gos-
pels, 122 f.; illustrations of, 122 f. ,
308.
Carpenter, Dr., on spectral illusions,
878 f. ; occurring to many at same
time, 88 1.
Celsus, his work : True Doctrine, 422 f. ;
Origen's refutation, 422 f. ; date,
422 f. , 427 ; Origen's ignorance re-
garding him, 422 f. ; no evidence for
Synoptics, 427 ; nor for fourth Gos-
pel, So/-
Christianity, not the only religion
claiming to be divinely revealed, I f. ;
evidence for it must be supernatural,
2 f. ; primitive, 638 f. ; only a sect
of Judaism, 641 f. ; the Synoptics a
history of Jesus the Messiah, 642 f. ;
Jesus upheld Mosaism, 646 f. ; Prose-
lytes, 653 f. ; development of, 749 f.
Clement of Alexandria, his cosmical
theories, 71 f., 77 f.
Clement of Rome, on the Phoenix, 81 ;
I Epistle to Corinthians, I28f. ; date,
129 f. ; alleged use of Synoptics,
131 f. ; no references to fourth Gos-
pel, 435-
Clementines, Cosmical theories of, 77
f. ; how composed, 299 f. ; not by
Clement of Rome, 298 f. ; date of the
Homilies, 300 f. ; alleged quotations
of Synoptics, 301 f. ; animosity
against Paul, 318 f. ; discovery of
concluding portion by Dressel, 486 ;
alleged reference to fourth Gospel,
486 f. ; quotation from Apocryphal
Gospel, 489 ; its views opposed to
those of fourth Gospel, 489 f. ; es-
sential identity of Judaism and
Christianity maintained in, 492 f.;
they nlaintain that Jesus preached
only one year, 496.
Credner, on Canon of Muratori and
INDEX
915
fourth Gospel, 509 ; his argument
for John as author of fourth Gospel,
523 f-
Cyprian of Carthage, on Demons,
73-
DEMONOLOGY and Angelology of Jews,
64 f.
Diognetus, Epistle to, author un-
known, 320 f. ; last two chapters by
different author, 321 f. ; date, 321 ;
no references to Synoptics, 321 ;
claimed as witness for fourth Gospel,
496 f. ; final statement of the case,
. .497 f.
Dionysius of Alexandria argues that
fourth Gospel and Apocalypse not
by same author, 511 ; attributes
Gospel to Apostle John, 511.
Dionysius of Corinth, fragments of his
writings and date, 381 f. ; interpre-
tations of Scriptiires of the Lord,
382 f.; Tischendorf's and Westcott's
strange inferences, 382 f. ; refuted,
383 f. ; no evidence for fourth Gos-
pel, 505-
Dollinger, Dr. von, on the Charismata,
775. 777 f-
ENOCH, Book of, on Angels and
Demons, 59 f.
Eusebius, Angelology and Demon-
lgy> 79 f- 5 silence of, 270 f. ; . on
Hegesippus, 270 f. ; on Papias,
276 f., 290 f. ; on Pantsenus, 291 f. ;
on Matthew's Gospel, 292 f. ; on
Tatian's Diatessaron, 370 f.
Ewald, on miracles, 19, n. I ; on
authorship of fourth Gospel, 512 f.;
his theory regarding its composition,
538 f-> 558 f.; on Luke as author of
Acts, 588 f. ; on belief regarding
souls of dead, 888, n. i.
FARRAR, Dr., if miracles incredible
Christianity false, 7 ; on Hume's
argument, 45 f. ; on earthquake and
resurrection of saints at Crucifixion,
317 f.; on "some doubted," 842,
n. I ; on subjectivity of authors of
Gospels, 847 ; on Westcott's remarks
on Resurrection, 847, n. 2 ; his view
of appearance of Jesus to Cephas,
856, n. i , 882 ; objections to visions
being subjective, 898, n. I.
Fathers, The, their cosmical theories,
71 f-
GFRORER, his view of fourth Gospel,
558 f. ; his view of appearance of
Jesus to Cephas, 856, n. i ; his
" Scheintod" theory, 875, n. i.
Gospel, The fourth, External evidence
f or 435 f-5 statement regarding it
in Canon of Muratori, 507 f. ; Canon
ascribes it to John, 508 f. ; Credner
argues it ascribes it to another, 509 ;
authorship and character of, 510 f.;
difference of Greek between it and
Apocalypse, 511 f.; not both by
same author, 511 f. ; Dionysius of
Alexandria assigns it to John, 511,
5 1 3 f. ; Liicke on this problem , 5 1 1 f. ;
de Wette's argument, 512 f. ; ex-
ternal evidence for John as author
of Apocalypse, 512 f. ; character of
John in Synoptics proves his author-
ship of Apocalypse, 516 f. ; and
against his authorship of Gospel,
522 f. ; its Greek compared with that
of Apocalypse, 524 f.; the Logos
doctrine, 525 f. ; its animosity against
Jews, 526 f. ; author not a Jew, 526 f. ;
errors from that fact, 527 f. ; state-
ments regarding Pool of Bethesda
examined, 529 f. ; regarding woman
of Samaria, 531 f.; indications in
Synoptics, 532 f. ; the desciple whom
Jesus loved, 535 f. ; chap. xxi. , 538 f. ;
Ewald's theory regarding it, 538 f. ;
author not eye-witness of scenes
described, 545 f. ; fundamental differ-
ence between it and Synoptics, 548
f. ; few miracles in common, 551 f. ;
the last supper, 552 f. ; the arrest,
553 f. ; the inscription on the Cross,
554, 810 ; the raising of Lazarus,
555 f.; the teaching of Jesus pro-
foundly different from that of Sy-
noptics, 557 f.; Gfrdrer's view of
John's authorship, 559 f.; the
arguments destroy its historical
value, 560 f. ; artificial construc-
tion, 561 f.; Paschal controversy
against John's authorship, 563 f. ;
Irenseus on necessity for four gospels,
564 f. ; its testimony of no value
for miracles, 565 ; its evidence for
Resurrection and Ascension, 808 f. ;
chronology of Passion Week, 810 ;
parting the garments, 811 ; the two
malefactors, 811 f.; the mother of
Jesus, 813 ; the sayings on the Cross,
814 f.; miracles during the Cruci-
fixion, 816 ; thrust of spear and
916
INDEX
Crurifragium, 820 f.; the Descent
from the cross, 823 f. ; the Entomb-
ment, 824 f. ; the Embalmment,
825 f. ; the Resurrection, 829 f. ;
Mary Magdalene at the Sepulchre,
835 f.; appearance to the Eleven,
839 f. ; incredulity of Thomas, 841 f. ;
the Ascension, 844 f.
Gospels, The Synoptic, the evidence
required for, 121 f. ; canons of criti-
cism, 122 f.; result of examination
of evidence regarding them, 433 f. ;
they give a history of Jesus the
Messiah, 642 f. ; the suffering
Messiah, 644 f. ; their evidence for
Resurrection and Ascension, 808 f. ;
chronology of Passion Week, 810 f. ;
inscription on the Cross, 554 f.,
810 ; parting of the garments, 811 ;
the two malefactors, 811 f. ; the
mocking speeches, 812 f. ; the say-
ings on the Cross, 814 f. ; miracles
during the Crucifixion, 816 f. ; the
Descent from the Cross, 823 f. ; the
Entombment, 824 f. ; the Embalm-
ment, 825 f. ; watch at the Sepul-
chre, 827 f. ; the Resurrection,
829 f. ; the journey to Emmaus,
837 f. ; the Ascension, 844 f. ; famili-
arity with resurrection of dead,
848 f.; episode of Transfiguration,
849 f-
HAMILTON, Sir William, on a god
understood, 43, n. 2.
Harris, Dr. Rendel, on Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles, 151, n. i, 441 ;
on Bar-Hebrseus and Diatessaron of
Tatian, 375 ; on Arabic Diatessaron,
380.
Hegesippus, account of and date, 268
f. ; use of Gospel according to the He-
brews, 270 f. ; fragments of his works,
270 f. ; his account of martyrdom of
James the Just, 272 f. ; alleged refer-
ences to Synoptics, 272 f. ; frag-
ment preserved by Stephanus
Gobarus, 275 ; alleged reference to
fourth Gospel, 474 f.
Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, date 408 f. ;
TischendorPs argument, 409 f. ; re-
futed, 411 f. ; alleged references to
Synoptics, 421 f. ; no evidence for
fourth Gospel, 506.
Hermas, see Shepherd.
Herschel, Sir John, subject to involun-
tary visual impressions, 878.
Heurtley, Dr., Christianity must be
attested by miracles, 4.
Hibbert, Dr., on spectral illusions,
880 f.
Hippolytus, his references to Basilides
and his school, 328 f. ; references to
Valentinus and his school, 330 f. ;
unwarrantable assertions of Tischen-
dorf regarding him, 330 f.
Holsten, on cry from Cross, 876, n. I.
Hume, his argument on miracles, 45 f.
IGNATIUS, Epistles of, 158 f. ; their
different forms, 158 f. ; question of
their date and authenticity, 162 f. ;
arguments of Dr. Lightfoot, 163 f. ;
on case of Paul, 164 ; on case of
Peregrinus, 164 f. ; reasons for
believing martyrdom of Ignatius in
Antioch and not in Rome, 166 f. ;
evidence of John Malalas, 168 f. ;
remains of, interred long in Antioch,
170 f. ; Epistles spurious, 171 ;
alleged references to Synoptics, 171
f. ; alleged references to fourth
Gospel, 441 f.
Irenseus, his argument against disciples
of Valentinus, 332 f. ; date of his
work against Heresies, 411 f. ; quo-
tations from Presbyters, 479 f. ; on
necessity for four Gospels, 564 f.
JEROME, on Pantaenus, 291 f.; on
appearance of Jesus to James, 857.
Josephus, on King Solomon and
demons, 69 f. ; Jewish superstitions,
70 f. ; use of his works, by author of
third Synoptic and Acts, 605 f. ;
Ascension of Moses, 846.
Jowett, Dr. , on Paul's relation to party
of Circumcision, 746, n. 2.
Judas, different accounts of his death,
by Papias, 296 ; in Acts, 632 f. ,
636 f. ; in third Synoptic, 637.
Justin Martyr, cosmical theories,
71 f. ; account of, 181 f. ; date of
his works, 182 f. ; Memoirs of the
Apostles, 182 f. ; not our Gospels,
184 f. ; title does not indicate
plurality of Gospels, 186 f. ; read in
Christian assemblies, 187 f. ; refers
to Apocalypse of John as prophecy,
188 f.; references to Old Testament,
188 f. ; descent of Jesus always traced
through Mary, 190 f. ; removal of
Joseph to Bethlehem from uncanon-
ical source, 194 f. ; genealogies of
INDEX
917
Jesus different from Synoptics, 195 f. ;
also birth and infancy, 196 f. ; Magi
from Arabia, 198 f. ; Jesus believed
to be carpenter, 199 f. ; narrative of
baptism, 200 f. ; miracles of Jesus
explained as magical art, 204 f. ;
peculiarities of trial of Jesus, 205 f. ;
similarity to Gospel of Peter, 207 f. ;
Agony in Garden, 208 f. ; details of
Crucifixion, 210 f. ; alleged use of
Synoptics examined, 216 f. ; com-
parisons of references to Sermon on
Mount with Synoptics, 219 f. ;
systematic variation from them,
240 f. ; further alleged references,
241 f. ; alleged quotations advanced
by Dr. Westcott examined, 243 f. ;
summary of result, 257 f. ; sayings of
Jesus unknown to Synoptics, 258 f. ;
was name of Peter connected with
the "Memoirs," 261 f. ; Gospel of
Peter and of the Hebrews, 262 f. ;
result regarding alleged quotations,
266 f. ; alleged references to fourth
Gospel, 448 f. ; his Logos doctrine
derived from Philo, 449 f. ; and from
Old Testament and its Apocrypha,
454 f. ; his narratives of Jesus opposed
to those of fourth Gospel, 437 f.
LACTANTIUS, Angelology and Demon-
ology of, 78 f. ; on antipodes, 80.
Liddon, Dr., necessity of miraculous
evidence, 22, n. i.
Lightfoot, John, D.D., Master of
Catherine Hall, on Jewish super-
stition, 57 f. , 885 f.
Lightfoot, Dr., on Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles, 150 f. ; on martyr
journey of Ignatius, 163 f. ; on case
of Paul, 164 ; on case of Peregrinus,
164 f.; on John Malalas, 168 f. ; on
Papias in Chronicon Paschale, 278,
n. 6 ; on Oracles of God, 287, n. 2 ;
on I Cor. x. on the Apostles of the
Circumcision, 654, n. i, 656, n. 2
and n. 3; on " Many days" of Acts,
690, n. i and 3 ; on visits of Paul
to Jerusalem, 701, n. 2; on Judaisers
in Paul's Epistle, 713, n. 3 ; on I
Cor. xii. 10, 763, n. 4.
Logos doctrine, in Canonical Epistles,
449 f. ; in Philo, 450 f. ; sources of,
in Justin Martyr, 453 f. ; in Old
Testament and Apocrypha, 454 f.
Liicke on authorship of fourth Gospel,
Luke, Gospel of, alleged to be muti-
lated by Marcion, 348 f. ; views of
critics on this, 348 f. ; Sanday's
linguistic analysis proves it to be
original of Marcion s gospel, 361 f. ;
the consequence of this, 362 f. ;
statement in Canon of Muratori,
429 ; circumstances excluding Luke's
authorship, 600 f.; indications of
date of, 601 f. , 61 1 ; use of works of
Josephus, 605 f. ; the journey to
Emmaus, 837 f. ; appearance to the
Eleven, 838 f.
MANSEL, Dean, miracles inseparable
from Christianity, 5 f. ; analysis of
miracles, 23 f. ; argument of Efficient
Cause, 24 f. ; assumption of a Per-
sonal God, 40 f.
Marcion, account of, 344 f. ; his work
Antitheses, 346 f. ; attacked by Ter-
tullian, 346 f.; his gospel, 348 f. ;
views of critics, 348 f. ; works of
Tertullian and Epiphanius against
him, 352 f. ; Reuss on him, 353 f. ;
was his gospel that of Luke, 354 f. ;
views of Hahn, Ritschl, Volkmar,
and Hilgenfeld, 355 f. ; Dr. Sanday's
linguistic analysis proves it a muti-
lated Luke, 361 f. ; his views
adopted, 361 ; result, 362 f.; no
evidence of his knowing other
Synoptics, 363 f. ; no evidence that
he knew fourth Gospel, 499 f.
Mark, Gospel of, tradition of Papias,
278 f. ; Mark said to be interpreter
of Peter, 279 f. ; this tradition
examined, 281 f. ; not applicable to
our Gospel, 283 f.
Matthew, Gospel of, account of Papias,
286 f. ; meaning of Oracles of the
Lord, 287 f. ; not applicable to our
Gospel, 281 f. ; Matthew wrote in
Hebrew, 286 f. ; our Gospel Greek,
290 f. ; not a translation, 295 f. ;
not that described by Papias, 295 f. ;
a history of Jesus the Messiah,
642 f.; the last appearance of Jesus,
842.
Melitoof Sardis, 387 f.; Dr. Westcott's
interpretation of his mention of " Old
Books," 387 f. ; translation of frag-
ment, 388 ; no reference to New
Testament, 388 f. ; ignorance of
Melito of books of O. T., 391 f.;
other supposed works of, 392 f. ; no
evidence for fourth Gospel, 505.
9i8
INDEX
Messiah, Synoptics the history of Jesus
as the, 642 f. ; a suffering, 644 f.
Meyer on the Gift of Tongues, 784 f.
Mill, J. S., on Hume's argument on
miracles, 46 f.
Milman, Dean, on the Age of Miracles,
56 f. ; on demoniacal possession,
84 f. ; on martyrdom in reign of
Trajan, 166, n. i ; account of earth-
quake at Antioch, 168 ; on miracles
at Crucifixion, 818, n. 1,882.
Miracles, necessary to attest Revela-
tion, I f. ; dual character, 7 f. ;
incompetent to perform function,
10 f. ; their relation to order of
Nature, 18 f. ; the Age of, 55 f. ;
permanent stream of miraculous pre-
tension, 83 f. ; Christian and Pagan,
91 f. ; continuance of miraculous
power, 92 f. ; ecclesiastical, 93 f. ; of
Narcissus of Jerusalem, 97 ; of
Gregory of Nyssa, 97 f. ; of St.
Anthony, 98 f. ; reported by St.
Augustine, 100 f. ; in relation to
superstition, 109 f. ; no distinction
between Gospel and other, no f. ;
alleged belief of civilised world,
1 1 6 f. ; evidence required for, 1 18 f. ;
direct evidence for, 753 f. ; no one
claims directly to have worked a
miracle, 756 f. ; the evidence of
Paul, 756 f. ; proportionate evidence
for, 803 f.
Mozley, Dr., Christianity must be
attested by miracles, 4 f. ; real
character of miracles, 1 1 f. ; analysis
of miracles, 22 f. ; argument regard-
ing Efficient Cause, 25 f. ; miracles
asserted to be not contrary to Order
of Nature, 28 f.; the argument from
experience, 33 f. ; assumption of
Personal Deity, 37 f. ; asserts distinc-
tive character of Christian miracles,
92 f. ; alleged difference between
Gospel and other miracles, 112 f.
Muratori, Canon of, described, 428 f. ;
statement regarding Luke's Gospel,
429 ; other books, 429 f. ; date, 430 f. ;
statement regarding Shepherd of
Hermas, 430 f. ; statement regarding
composition of fourth Gospel, 507 f.
NEANDER, on martyrdom of Ignatius,
167 ; rejects Ignatian Epistles, 167;
on views of Clementine Homilies
opposed to fourth Gospel, 489 f. ,
496 ; on the Gift of Tongues, 784, 786.
Newman, Dr., Miracles necessary to
prove Revelation, 4 ; their evidential
value, 9 f. ; on tendency of religious
minds to superstition, 56 f.
ORIGEN, his cosmical theories, 75 f. ;
on Resurrection, 892.
PAI.EY, on miracles, 40 f. ; argument
against Hume, 51 f.; on Paul's visits
to Jerusalem, 698, n. 2.
Papias of Hierapolis, miracle narrated
by 93 5 date of, 276 ; fragments
of his Exposition, 276 f. ; his
statements regarding Presbyters,
276 f. ; tradition regarding
Mark, 277 f. ; preferred tradi-
tion to written works, 277, 297 f. ;
not applicable to our second Synop-
tic, 281 f. ; account of Gospel ascribed
to Matthew, 286 f. ; meaning of
" Oracles of the Lord," 287 f. ; work
not the same as our first Synoptic,
289 f.; used Gospel of the Hebrews,
297 f. ; on death of Judas, 296 ;
woman accused of many sins from
Gospel of Hebrews, 297 ; no evidence
for fourth Gospel, 477 f. ; argument
of Tischendorf on supposed use of
Epistle of John, 478 f. ; statement
regarding him and fourth Gospel in
Latin MS., 479 f. ; Irenams and
quotations from Presbyters, 479 f. ;
not the Presbyters of Papias, 482 f. ;
his testimony to Apocalypse, 485 f.
Paul, the Apostle, animosity against
him in Clementines, 318 f.; attacks
on him in Apocalypse, 522 f. , 747 f-
parallelism between him and Peter
in Acts, 617 f. ; shows no knowledge
of Stephen, 66 1 f. ; Ananias and, in
Acts, 679 f. ; Epistles of, compared
with Acts, 686 f. ; his actions after
conversion in Epistles and Acts
compared, 687 f. ; visits to Jerusalem
in Epistles and Acts compared,
689 f. ; question of circumcision at
Antioch in Acts, 700 f. ; compared
with Epistles, 701 f. ; the Council at
Jerusalem not mentioned by, 73 f- !
Peter's speech, 706 f. ; his quarrel
with Peter, 708 f. ; his writings
exclude Apostolic Decree, 718 f. ;
alleged circumcision of Titus in
Acts, 7^45 f. ; his irony regarding
Apostles, 726 f. ; final attitude of
Apostles mere toleration, 729; he
INDEX
919
preaches a different Gospel, 730 f. ;
gave no preference to Jews, 732 f. ;
his alleged circumcision of Timothy
not historic, 736 f. ; his whole con-
duct in Acts opposed to his prin-
ciples, 739 f. ; his relations to the
Twelve, 744 f. ; his testimony for
miracles, 763 f. ; nature of the
Charismata, 768 f.; on the Gift of
Tongues, 779 f., 790 f. ; does not
mean foreign languages, 790 f. ; Inter-
pretation of Tongues, 793 f. ; on
abuse of the Gifts, 794 f. ; probable
nature of the Gift of Tongues, 797 f. ;
his Stake in the flesh, 799 f. ; his
evidence for miracles, 801 f. ; his
evidence for the Resurrection, 851 f. ;
influence on, of Prophetic Gnosis,
852 f. ; appearances mentioned by,
854 f. ; the appearance to Cephas,
855 f. ; to the Twelve, 856 ; to the
500 brethren, 856 f. ; to James, 857 ;
from whom did he " receive " these
reports, 857 f. ; value of his evidence,
858 f. ; his own vision of Jesus, 86 1 f. ;
his conversion not attributed to this
vision, 864 f. ; representation of it in
Acts, 867 f. ; his conversion accord-
ing to Acts, 871 f. ; his evidence
for the Resurrection inadequate,
872 f. ; date of his information,
883 f. ; effect of time upon memory,
885 f. ; his vision subjective, 892 f. ;
his preparation for it, 893 f. ; his
Visions and Revelations, 895 f. ; his
apotheosis of Jesus, 901.
Peter, the Gospel of, the Akhmhn frag-
ment, 207 f.
Philo Judseus considers stars spiritual
beings, 61 ; his Logos doctrine,
/I/I/I f. , 450 f. , 454 f. ; his account of
Moses giving the Law, 785 f.
Polycarp, Epistle of, 175 f. ; alleged
references to Synoptics, 178 f. ;
alleged evidence for fourth Gospel,
445 f-
Powell, Prof. Baden, on Deity working
miracles, 43 f. ; not miracles but nar-
rative of them now in question, 118.
Pressense, de, on the Gift of Tongues,
786.
Proselytes to Judaism, 653 f.
Ptolemseus and Heracleon, date of,
408 f. ; TischendorPs arguments on,
409 f. ; refuted, 411 f. ; alleged
references to Synoptics, 420 f. ; no
evidence for fourth Gospel, 506 f.
RESURRECTION and Ascension, evi-
dence of the Gospels, 808 f.; evi-
dence of Paul, 851 f.; evidence in-
adequate, 872 f. ; theory of survival
or "Scheintod," 875 f.; the Vision
hypothesis, 877 f.; effects of time
on memory, 883 f. ; mental prepara-
tion of the Twelve and Paul for
belief in, 886 f. ; on the third day,
889 f.; effect of Prophetic Gnosis,
890 f. ; Jesus only appeared to be-
lievers, 891 f.; argument that they
were proclaimed without refutation,
898 f. ; disbelieved at the time,
899 f-
SANDAY, Dr., on Marcion's Gospel,
361 f.; on evidence of Paul for
miracles, 756 f., 801 f.
Scott, Sir Walter, on vision of Byron,
879 f.
Shepherd of Hennas, 148"; has no
quotations, 148 f. ; statements re-
garding it in Canon of Muratori,
430 f. ; alleged references to fourth
Gospel, 436 f.
Stanley, Dean, on state of things in
Apostolic age, 775, n. I ; on state
of Corinth, 779, n. I.
Stephen, Martyrdom of, in Acts,659f. ;
no evidence elsewhere of his exist-
ence, 66 1 f. ; his trial, 662 f. ; based
on that of Jesus, 663 f. ; speech
examined, 665 f. ; speech composed
by author of Acts, 670 f.
TATIAN, cosmical theories of, 72 ;
account of him, 366 f.; alleged
references to the Synoptics, 366 f. ;
date of his literary career, 368 f. ;
his Diatessaron, 370 f. ; statements
of Eusebius, 370 f. ; of Epiphanius,
371 f. ; called by some Gospel of
the Hebrews, 371 f.; Harmony of
Gospels by Ammonius, 371, 373 f.;
Theodoret confiscates Diatessaron,
372 f.; statements in Doctrine of
Addai, 372 f.; reference of Victor
of Capua to it, 373 f.; he calls it
Diapente, 374 ; reference by Bar-
Ali, 374 ; by Bar-Salibi, 375 ;
Rendel Harris on fragment of Bar-
Hebrseus, 375 ; Commentary on
Diatessaron by Mar Ephrem, 375 f. ;
language of Diatessaron, 376 ;
Ephrem's Commentary published,
376 ; was it on Tatian's Diatessaron,
92O
INDEX
376 f. ; Victor of Capua's Latin
Harmony, 376 f.; Hemphill on
Victor of Capua, 377 ; was it
Tatian's Diatessaron, 377 f.; Arabic
MSS. purporting to be Diatessaron,
377 f. ; discrepancies, 378 f. ; Rendel
Harris on Arabic Diatessaron, 380 ;
Zahn's opinion, 380 f. ; Harnack's,
380 ; Resch's, 380 ; value of Dia-
tessaron as evidence, 381 ; alleged
references to fourth Gospel in
Address to the Greeks, 500 f. ;
his Logos doctrine not that of
fourth Gospel, 501 f. ; value of evi-
dence of Diatessaron for fourth
Gospel, 504 f.
Taylor, Dr., on Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles, 149, 151, 441.
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
149 f. ; supposed early references to,
149 f.; dissertation on the "Two
Ways," 150 f.; date, 151 f., 153 f.;
Dr. Lightfoot on, 151 ; its relation
to Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd
of Hermas, 151 f. ; relation toother
works, 152 f. ; was it quoted by
Clement as Scripture, I52f. ; alleged
references to Synoptics examined,
1 54 f. ; alleged references to fourth
Gospel, 440 f. ; Hebraisms of Eucha-
ristic prayers pointed out by Dr.
Taylor and Rendel Harris, 441.
Tertullian, evidential value of miracles,
9, n. i; cosmical theories, 73 f.;
on change of sex of animals, 82 ; on
Marcion's Antitheses, 346 f.; his
Epistle to Romans did not contain
passage giving precedence to Jews,
734-
Theodoret on Tatian's Diatessaron,
372 f.
Trench, Archbishop, evidential value
of miracles, IO f.; analysis of
miracles, 19 f. ; exemption from law
of gravitation a lost prerogative of
men, 32, n. I ; on demoniacal
possession at present day, 85 f. ;
miraculous power in Church, when
withdrawn, 93 f.
Tuke, Dr. , instances of ideational im-
pression on Sensorium, 879 f., 881.
VALENTINUS, alleged references to
Synoptics, 330 f. ; unwarrantable
statements of Tischendorf, 330 f. ;
system of reference of Hippolytus,
330 f. ; references of Irenaeus, 332 f. ;
references not to, but to school, 332
f. ; unwarrantable statements of Dr.
Westcott, 333 f. ; alleged references
examined, 334 f. ; who made alleged
references, 337 f. ; alleged refer-
ences to fourth Gospel, 498 f.
Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of, 404 f. ;
alleged references to Synoptics,
405 f. ; alleged references to fourth
Gospel, 506.
WESTCOTT, Dr., on a Personal God,
41, n. 2 ; on uncritical character of
first two centuries, 286, n. i ; on
seven doubtful books of the Canon,
753; his Gospel of the Resurrection,
803, n. 2 ; on inscriptions on the
Cross, 810; on various narratives of
the Resurrection, 847, n. 2 ; exist-
ence of a Christian society the
strongest evidence for the Resurrec-
tion, 873 f.
Wette, de, on authorship of fourth
Gospel and Apocalypse, 512.
Witchcraft, belief in, 86 f. ; proscribed
by Church and State, 87 f. ; belief
now dispelled, 89 f.
Wordsworth, Dr., on the Acts of the
Apostles, 587, n. 6.
XENOPHANES OF COLOPHON, on God,
44-
ZELLER, on the Gift of Tongues, 783 f.
WATTS & CO., PRINTERS, 17, JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STREET, LONDON.
THE RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION,
LIMITED.
Registered Office 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.G. \
Chairman :
GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE.
Honorary Associates :
LESLIE STEPHEN-
EDWARD CLODD
J. M. ROBERTSON
STANTON COIT
EMILE ZOLA
ERNST HAECKEL
W. C. COUPLAND
W.R.W. SULLIVAN
ED. WESTERMARCK
PAUL CARUS
F. J. GOULD
J. G. R. FORLONG
THE Association is a Company limited by Guarantee, and not having
a Capital divided into Shares. It was formally incorporated in 1899
under the Companies' Acts in order to give the fullest security that
money subscribed or bequeathed to its funds shall be used for certain
specified purposes, the chief of these being the encouragement and
dissemination of literature of a scientific, critical, or philosophical
character.
For full particulars apply to the Secretary at above address.
ADVERTISEMENTS
A SHORT HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY.
By JOHN M. ROBERTSON.
Cloth, 6s. net, by post 6?. 4d.
Part I. Primitive Christianity.
CHAPTER I.: THE BEGINNINGS.
Documentary Clues The Earliest
Christian Sects Personality of the
Nominal Founder Myth of the
Twelve Apostles Primary Forms
of the Cult Rise of Gentile Chris-
tism Growth of the Christ Myth.
CHAPTER II. : THE ENVIRONMENT.
Social and Mental Conditions in
the Roman Empire Jewish Ortho-
doxy Jewish Sects : the Essenes
Gentile Cults Ethics: Popular and
Philosophic.
CHAPTER III. : CONDITIONS OF
SURVIVAL. Popular Appeal
Economic Causation Organisation
and Sacred Books Concession and
Fixation Cosmic Philosophy.
Part II. Christianity from the
Second Century to the Rise
of Mohammedanism.
CHAPTER I.: SCOPE AND CHARAC-
TER OF THE UNESTABLISHED
CHURCH. Numbers and Inner
Life Growth of the Priesthood
The Gnostic Movement in the
Second Century Marcionism and
Montanism Rites and Ceremonies
Strifes over Primary Dogma.
CHAPTER II. : RELATIONS OF
CHURCH AND STATE. Persecu-
Part III. Medieval Christian-
ity.
CHAPTER I.: EXPANSION AND OR-
GANISATION. Position in the
Seventh Century Methods of Ex-
pansion Growth of the Papacy.
CHAPTER II. : RELIGIOUS EVOLU-
TION AND STRIFE. Growth of Ido-
latry and Polytheism Doctrines of
the Eucharist, Purgatory, and Con-
fession Rationalistic Heresies
Anti-clerical Heresies.
CHAPTER III.: THE SOCIAL LIFE
AND STRUCTURE. The Clergy,
Regular and Secular The Higher
Theology and its Effects Chris-
tianity and Feudalism Influence of
the Crusades.
CHAPTER IV.: THE INTELLECTUAL
LIFE. Superstition and Intoler-
ance The Inquisition Classic Sur-
vivals and Saracen Contacts Reli-
gion and Art.
CHAPTER V. : BYZANTINE CHRIS-
Part IV. Modern Christianity.
CHAPTER I.: THE REFORMATION.
Moral and Intellectual Forces Poli-
tical and Economic Forces Social
and Political Results Intellectual
Results.
CHAPTER II.: PROGRESS OF ANTI-
CHRISTIAN THOUGHT. The Phy-
sical Sciences Philosophy, Cosmic
and Moral Biblical and Historical
Criticism.
tions Establishment and Creed- \ CHAPTER III.: POPULAR ACCEP-
Making Reaction under Julian
Re-establishment : Disestablishment
of Paganism.
CHAPTER III.: FAILURE WITH SUR-
VIVAL. The Overthrow of Arian-
ism The Cost of Orthodoxy
Moral and Intellectual Stagnation
The Social Failure.
TANCE. Catholic Christianity
Protestant Christianity Greek
Christianity.
CHAPTER IV. THE RELATION TO
PROGRESS. Moral Influence In-
tellectual Influence Conclusion and
Prognosis.
SYNOPSIS OF LITERATURE. INDEX.
Agents for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited:
WATTS &, Co., 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E-C,
ADVERTISEMENTS
LATEST WORK BY JOHN M. ROBERTSON.
Letters on Reasoning.
35. 6d. net, by post 33. lod.
The aim of these " Letters " is to elicit and stimulate the reasoning
power by exercising it on actual subjects, without resort to the
traditional machinery of logic.
Other Works by John M. Robertson.
CHRISTIANITY AND MYTHOLOGY.
Demy 8vo, cloth, xviii.-484 pp.; 8s. 6d. net, by post 95.
PART I. The Progress of Mythology.
PART II. Christ and Krishna.
PART III. -The Gospel Myths.
"Has been executed with great thoroughness, and evinces not only
learning and ingenuity, but a determination to get, if possible, at the truth of
things. " Literature.
" Mr. Robertson here presents us with a volume of nearly 500 pages, all
of them marked with evidences of wide reading, acute insight, and an
incisive use of language Of Mr. Robertson's competence and honesty
in this work, as a whole, we have formed a high opinion." Daily Chronicle.
STUDIES IN RELIGIOUS FALLACY.
Cloth, 35. 6d.
Contents: i. Dogma in Masquerade 2. Mr. Lang on Origin of Christianity 3. Appendix
Thereto 4. Mr. Lang on Miracles 5. The Tory Religion 6. Mr. Gladstone on the Atone-
ment 7. Mr. Gladstone on Butler 8. The Jesus Legend and the Myth of the Twelve
Apostles 9. The Myth of Judas Iscariot 10. Freeman on Christianity n. The Feeling for
Religion.
By the same author, in preparation at the time of going to press :
PAGAN CHRISTS.
Agents for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited:
WATTS & Co., 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C,
ADVERTISEMENTS
PROFESSOR BUCHNER'S LAST WORK.
LAST WORDS ON MATERIALISM
AND KINDRED SUBJECTS.
By PROFESSOR LUDWIG BUCHNER.
With Portrait of the Author and Biographical Sketch by his
brother, PROFESSOR ALEX BUCHNER.
Popular edition, xxxiv.-299 pp.; zs. 6d. net, by post 2s. lod.
Immediately before his death in 1899 PROFESSOR BUCHNER gathered
together the many essays in which he had defended and developed his views,
and left them for publication under the title of Im Dienste der Wahrheit. The
essays are now translated into English by Mr. JOSEPH McCABE, under the title
of Last Words on Materialism. Many of these papers deal, as the title indi-
cates, with the absorbing question of Materialism ; but light is thrown upon it
from all sides of science and philosophy, and a number of ethical and historical
questions are included.
THE FAITH OF AN AGNOSTIC;
Or, FIRST ESSAYS IN RATIONALISM.
By GEORGE FORESTER.
Cloth, 55.
CONTENTS :
Introductory
The Old Enigma
The Conflict between Scieace and Religion
An Object Lesson
The Persistence of Dogmatic Theology
A Man-made Marvel
An After Life
The Possible Behind the Veil
Not what is Satisfying, but what is True
Thoughts in a Meat-market
The Immaterial
Social Evolution : A Study in Pseudo-
Science
Some Old Riddles
" The author's position is well and cleverly defended, and he writes with an
evident sincerity that commands respect." Liverpool Mercury.
" Ably reasoned, and stated with an engaging liveliness." Scotsman.
" The author has a delightfully lucid style." Reytwlds's Newspaper.
" It is impossible to read a great part of the book without a very lively
interest and appreciation." Brighton Herald.
Agents for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited:
WATTS & Co., 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.G.
ADVERTISEMENTS
On the Progress of Liberty of Thought
During Queen Victoria's Reign.
By CONSTANCE E. PLUMPTRE.
Cloth as., by post 25. 3d.; paper is., by post is. ad.
A Comparison between the Religious Toleration of the Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Centuries Rationalising Influences within the Churches during
Queen Victoria's Reign Digression on the Passing Wave of Religious
Reaction On the Full Development of Rationalism beyond the Churches
during Queen Victoria's Reign.
The Children's Book of Moral Lessons.
By F. J. GOULD.
205 pp.; cloth, 2S., by post 25. 3d.
While theology is strictly excluded from the lessons here reproduced, they
are constructed on such a humanitarian basis as to fit them for use in homes
and schools of all classes and creeds. The book has been translated into
German by Dr. Penzig, of Berlin.
The Bible in School : A Question of Ethics.
By J. ALLANSON PICTON
(Formerly M.P. for Leicester, and one of the first members of the London
School Board).
Cloth 2S., by post 25. 3d.; paper is., by post is. 2d.
This is a stirring appeal on a question of vast political and social importance
to Englishmen. Mr. Picton maintains that the present Bible teaching in
Board schools practically amounts to the teaching of dogmas common to the
Evangelical party. It is unfair to such ratepayers as disbelieve those dogmas ;
demoralising to such teachers as, secretly doubting the evangelical view, are
constrained to hide their doubts ; and injurious to the children themselves in
many ways.
The Religion of the First Christians.
By F. T- GOULD.
Cloth, 2S. 6d.
" Regards Christianity as the natural product of a puritan and uncultured
proletariat seeking fellowship and hope." Literature.
" Mr. F. J. Gould's maturer tone is so broad and sympathetic that even
professed teachers of the Christian religion may be willing to learn from him."
Daily News.
Agents for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited:
WATTS & Co., 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.G.
ADVERTISEMENTS
CHEAP RATIONALIST REPRINTS.
THE RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION, LIMITED, is issuing a
Series of Reprints of LEADING RATIONALIST WORKS at the
Popular Price of SIXPENCE (by post 8d.). Each number
consists of not less than 128 large pages, printed in bold,
clear type, and on good paper. The following are already
included in the Series :
Lectures and Essays. out of print.
By THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY.
(WITH PORTRAIT OF THE AUTHOR.)
A Selection including: Autobiography Three Lectures on Evolution
The Physical Basis of Life Naturalism and Supernaturalism The Value of
Witness to the Miraculous Agnosticism The Christian Tradition in Relation
to Judaic Christianity Agnosticism and Christianity.
The Pioneers of Evolution.
From Thales to Huxley.
With an Intermediate Chapter on the Causes of Arrest of the Movement.
By EDWARD CLODD,
Author of The Childhood of the World, The Story of Creation, etc.
Modern Science and Modern Thought
By the late SAMUEL LAING,
Author of A Modern Zoroastrian, Human Origins, Problems of the Future, etc.
Revised and brought up to date, with a Biographical Intro-
duction, by EDWARD CLODD.
Literature and Dogma:
An Essay Towards a Better Apprehension of the
Bible.
By MATTHEW ARNOLD.
In preparation at time of going to press :
The Riddle of the Universe. (UNABRIDGED.)
By PROFESSOR ERNST HAECKEL. Translated by JOSEPH McCABE.
Agents for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited:
WATTS & Co., 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.G.
ADVERTISEMENTS
A New Catechism.
By M. M. MANGASARIAN.
80 large pp., with wrapper, price 6d., by post 8d.
This work has already attained wide popularity in America,
several editions having been disposed of in a remarkably short
space of time. The author is an ex-Presbyterian pastor, who is
now the lecturer of the Independent Religious Society of Chicago,
and addresses each Sunday an audience of over a thousand people.
The present edition of the book has been specially revised and
prepared for the English public, and, in order to ensure a large
circulation, is being issued in good style at the very low price of
sixpence. In America the published price, in cloth, is 75c. (three
shillings), in paper 5oc. (two shillings). The following are a few
American opinions concerning this striking work :
"M. M. Mangasarian's New Catechism contains in succinct form the very
essence of advanced thought in religious matters. The platform of the book
is one with which persons of common sense will hardly dare to disagree."
Chicago American.
" In my opinion the New Catechism embodies the best thought of the age,
and is destined to contribute powerfully to the change in public sentiment
which is now going on." JUDGE C. B. WAITE.
"I have not a moment's hesitation in saying the New Catechism is the
greatest of all great books written for the promotion of rational thought. It is
the one book that will pass unchallenged." C. E. ELDRIDGE, The Philosopher.
" The New Catechism comes nearer being the true Catechism than any book
of this kind which we have ever read. It covers the ground completely.
There is hardly a word that could be changed for the better." L. K. WASH-
BURN (Boston).
" Mr. Mangasarian's Catechism ought to be very instructive and interesting
to thoughtful people. He tells the unvarnished truth about things generally
regarded as too sacred to discuss." The Ethical Kecord.
In preparation at time of going to press :
A Handbook to the Study of Evolution.
By DENNIS HIRD
(Warden of Ruskin Hall, Oxford).
Written in the simplest possible language and referring to the latest researches,
this work is intended to aid the busy general reader to grasp the arguments
in favour of Evolution as they now stand.
Agents for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited:
WATTS & Co., 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.G.
ADVERTISEMENTS
In preparation at time of going to press :
Mr. Balfour's Philosophy of Religion
Critically Examined.
By W. B. COLUMBINE.
2S. 6d. net, by post 2s. lod.
Agents for the Rationalist Press Association, Limited:
WATTS & Co., 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, B.C.
Price 6d., by post 7d.
The Agnostic Annual
FOR 1903.
Containing articles by George Jacob Holyoake ( " The Story of My Reli-
gious Days"), Lady Florence Dixie ("The Old Religion and the New"),
Geoffrey Mortimer (" Humanity and Rationalism "), F. J. Gould ("The New
Secularism "), Joseph McCabe (" The Abiding Element in Religion "), J. M.
Robertson, Charles Watts (" The Philosophy of Rationalism "), Miss Plumptre
("On Professor Tyndall's Comparative Eclipse of Fame"), George Forester
" Determinism and ' Moral Responsibility' "), and others.
WATTS & Co., 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.G.
Monthly, 2d., by post 2j^d., or with Supplement (January, April, July, and
October) 3d. Annual Subscription, 2s. 8d. post free.
The Literary Guide
AND RATIONALIST REVIEW.
In addition to reviews of the best books on Religion, Ethics, Science, and
Philosophy, each number of the Literary Guide contains articles expository of
Rationalism, frequently from the pens of prominent writers.
The whole of the numbers for the past year may be obtained, handsomely
bound in cloth, price 45. 6d., carriage paid.
Specimen Copy pos,t free.
WATTS & Co., 17, Johnson's Court, Fleet Street, London, E.G.
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 Box 951388
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388
Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed.
on
A 000049142 3