The Gospels in the Second Century Part 8

Christ, but that One stronger [Matt. 3.11, 12.] than he was coming after him [Luke 3. 16, 17.]

whose shoes he was not worthy to bear, &c. The later history of John Justin also mentions, [Matt. 14.3.] how, having been put in prison, [Luke 3.20.]

at a feast on Herod's birthday [Matt. 14.6 ff.] he was beheaded at the instance of his sister's daughter. This [Matt. 17.11-13.] John was Elias who was to come before the Christ.

At the baptism of Jesus _a fire was kindled on the Jordan_, and, as He went up out of the water, [Matt. 3.16.] the Holy Ghost alighted upon [Luke 3.21, 22.]

Him, and a voice was heard from heaven _saying in the words of David_, 'Thou art My Son, _this day have I begotten Thee_.' After [Matt. 4.1, 9.] His baptism He was tempted by the devil, who ended by claiming homage from Him. To this Christ replied, 'Get thee behind [Matt 4.11.] Me, Satan,' &c. So the devil [Luke 4.13.]

departed from Him at that time worsted and convicted.

Justin knew that the words of Jesus were short and concise, not like those of a Sophist. That He wrought miracles _might be learnt from the Acts of Pontius Pilate, fulfilling Is. x.x.xv. 4-6._ [Matt. 9.29-31, Those who from their _birth_ were [Luke 18.35-43.]

32, 33. 1-8.] blind, dumb, lame, He healed-- [Luke 11.14 ff.]

[Matt. 4.23.] indeed He healed all sickness and [Luke 5.17-26.]

[Matt 9.18 ff.] disease--and He raised the dead. [Luke 8.41 ff.]

_The Jews ascribed these miracles [Luke 7. 11-18.]

to magic_.

Jesus, too (like John, _whose mission ceased when He appeared in public_), began His ministry [Matt 4.17.] by proclaiming that the kingdom of heaven was at hand.

Many precepts of the Sermon on the Mount Justin has preserved, [Matt 5.20.] the righteousness of the [Matt 5.28.] Scribes and Pharisees, the [Matt 5.29-32.] adultery of the heart, the offending [Matt 5.34, 37, eye, divorce, oaths, returning 39]

[Matt 5.44.] good for evil, loving and praying [Matt 5.42.] for enemies, giving to those that [Luke 6.30.]

[Matt 6.19, 20.] need, placing the treasure in [Matt 6.25-27.] heaven, not caring for bodily [Luke 12.22-24.]

[Matt 5.45.] wants, but copying the mercy [Matt 6.21, &c.] and goodness of G.o.d, not acting from worldly motives--above all, [Matt 7.22, 23.] deeds not words. [Luke 13.26, 27.]

Justin quotes sayings from [Matt. 8.11, 12.] the narrative of the centurion [Luke 13.28, 29.]

[Matt. 9.13.] of Capernaum and of the feast [Luke 5.32.]

in the house of Matthew. He [Matt. 10.1 ff.] has, the choosing of the twelve [Luke 6.13.]

Apostles, with the name given [Mark 3.17.] to the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges or 'sons of thunder,' the com- mission of the Apostles, the [Luke 10.19.]

[Matt. 11.12-15.] discourse after the departure of [Luke 16.16.]

the messengers of John, the [Matt. 16.4.] sign of the prophet Jonas, the [Matt. 13.3 ff.] parable of the sower, Peter's [Luke 8.5 ff.]

[Matt. 16.15-18.] confession, the announcement of [Luke 9.22.]

[Matt. 16.21.] the Pa.s.sion.

From the account of the last journey and the closing scenes of our Lord's life, Justin has, [Matt. 19.16,17.] the history of the rich young [Luke 18.18,19.]

[Matt. 21.1 ff.] man, the entry into Jerusalem, [Luke 19.29 ff.]

the cleansing of the Temple, the [Luke 19.46.]

[Matt. 22.11.] wedding garment, the controversial discourses about the [Luke 20.22-25.]

[Matt. 22.21.] tribute money, the resurrection, [Luke 20.35,36.]

[Matt. 22.37,38.] and the greatest commandment, [Matt. 23.2 ff.] those directed against the Pha- [Luke 11.42,52.]

[Matt. 25.34,41.] risees and the eschatological [Matt. 25.14-30.] discourse, the parable of the talents. Justin's account of the inst.i.tution of the Lord's Supper [Luke 22.19,20.]

agrees with that of Luke. After [Matt. 26.30.] it Jesus sang a hymn, and taking [Matt. 26.36,37.] with Him three of His disciples to the Mount of Olives He was in an agony, His sweat falling in [Luke 22.42-44.]

_drops_ (not necessarily of blood) to the ground. His captors surrounded Him _like the 'horned bulls' of Ps. xxii._ 11-14; there [Matt. 26.56.] was none to help, for His followers _to a man_ forsook Him.

[Matt. 26.57 ff.] He was led both before the [Luke 22.66 ff.]

Scribes and Pharisees and before [Matt. 27.11 ff.] Pilate. In the trial before Pilate [Luke 23.1 ff.]

[Matt. 27.14] He kept silence, _as Ps. xxii._ 15.

Pilate sent Him bound to Herod. [Luke 23.7.]

Justin relates most of the incidents of the Crucifixion in detail, for confirmation of which he refers to the _Acts of Pilate_. He marks especially the fulfilment in various places of Ps. xxii. He has the piercing with nails, the casting of [Luke 24.40.]

[Matt. 27.35.] lots and dividing of the garments, [Luke 23.34.]

[Matt. 27.39 ff.] the _sneers_ of the crowd [Luke 23.35.]

(somewhat expanded from the [Matt. 27.42.] Synoptics), and their taunt, _He who raised the dead_ let Him save [Matt. 27.46.] Himself; also the cry of despair, 'My G.o.d, My G.o.d, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' and the last words, 'Father, into Thy hands [Luke 23.46.]

I commend My Spirit.'

[Matt. 27.57-60.] The burial took place in the evening, the disciples being all [Matt. 26.31,56.] scattered in accordance with Zech. xiii. 7. On the third day, [Luke 24.21.]

[Matt. 28.1 ff.] the day of the sun or the first [Luke 24.1 ff.]

(or eighth) day of the week, Jesus rose from the dead. He then convinced His disciples that His sufferings had been prophe- [Luke 24.26, 46.]

tically foretold and they repented [Luke 24.32.]

of having deserted Him. Having given them His last commission they saw Him ascend up into [Luke 24.50.]

heaven. Thus believing and having first waited to receive power from Him they went forth into all the world and preached the word of G.o.d. To this day [Matt. 28.19] Christians baptize in the name of the Father of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost.

[Matt. 28.12-15.] The Jews spread a story that the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the grave and so deceived men by a.s.serting that He was risen from the dead and ascended into heaven.

There is nothing in Justin (as in Luke xxiv, but cp. Acts i. 3) to show that the Ascension did not take place _on the same day_ as the Resurrection.

I have taken especial pains in the above summary to bring out the points in which Justin way seem to differ from or add to the canonical narratives. But, without stopping at present to consider the bearing of these upon Justin's relation to the Gospels, I will at once proceed to make some general remarks which the summary seems to suggest.

(1) If such is the outline of Justin's Gospel, it appears to be really a question of comparatively small importance whether or not he made use of our present Gospels in their present form. If he did not use these Gospels he used other doc.u.ments which contained substantially the same matter. The question of the reality of miracles clearly is not affected. Justin's doc.u.ments, whatever they were, not only contained repeated notices of the miracles in general, the healing of the lame and the paralytic, of the maimed and the dumb, and the raising of the dead--not only did they include several discourses, such as the reply to the messengers of John and the saying to the Centurion whose servant was healed, which have direct reference to miracles, but they also give marked prominence to the chief and cardinal miracles of the Gospel history, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. It is antecedently quite possible that the narrative of these events may have been derived from a doc.u.ment other than our Gospels; but, if so, that is only proof of the existence of further and independent evidence to the truth of the history. This doc.u.ment, supposing it to exist, is a surprising instance of the h.o.m.ogeneity of the evangelical tradition; it differs from the three Synoptic Gospels, nay, we may say even from the four Gospels, _less_ than they differ from each other.

(2) But we may go further than this. If Justin really used a separate substantive doc.u.ment now lost, that doc.u.ment, to judge from its contents, must have represented a secondary, or rather a tertiary, stage of the evangelical literature; it must have implied the previous existence of our present Gospels. I do not now allude to the presence in it of added traits, such as the cave of the Nativity and the fire on Jordan, which are of the nature of those mythical details that we find more fully developed in the Apocryphal Gospels. I do not so much refer to these--though, for instance, in the case of the fire on Jordan it is highly probable that Justin's statement is a translation into literal fact of the canonical (and Justinian) saying, 'He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire'--but, on general grounds, the relation which this supposed doc.u.ment bears to the extant Gospels shows that it must have been in point of time posterior to them.

The earlier stages of evangelical composition present a nucleus, with a more or less defined circ.u.mference, of unity, and outside of this a margin of variety. There was a certain body of narrative, which, in whatever form it was handed down--whether as oral or written--at a very early date obtained a sort of general recognition, and seems to have been as a matter of course incorporated in the evangelical works as they appeared.

Besides this there was also other matter which, without such general recognition, had yet a considerable circulation, and, though not found in all, was embodied in more than one of the current compilations. But, as we should naturally expect, these two cla.s.ses did not exhaust the whole of the evangelical matter.

Each successive historian found himself able by special researches to add something new and as yet unpublished to the common stock.

Thus, the first of our present Evangelists has thirty-five sections or incidents besides the whole of the first two chapters peculiar to himself. The third Evangelist has also two long chapters of preliminary history, and as many as fifty-six sections or incidents which have no parallel in the other Gospels. Much of this peculiar matter in each case bears an individual and characteristic stamp. The opening chapters of the first and third Synoptics evidently contain two distinct and independent traditions. So independent indeed are they, that the negative school of critics maintain them to be irreconcilable, and the attempts to harmonise them have certainly not been completely successful [Endnote 101:1]. These differences, however, show what rich quarries of tradition were open to the enquirer in the first age of Christianity, and how readily he might add to the stores already acc.u.mulated by his predecessors. But this state of things did not last long. As in most cases of the kind, the productive period soon ceased, and the later writers had a choice of two things, either to harmonise the conflicting records of previous historians, or to develope their details in the manner that we find in the Apocryphal Gospels.

But if Justin used a single and separate doc.u.ment or any set of doc.u.ments independent of the canonical, then we may say with confidence that that doc.u.ment or set of doc.u.ments belonged entirely to this secondary stage. It possesses both the marks of secondary formation. Such details as are added to the previous evangelical tradition are just of that character which we find in the Apocryphal Gospels. But these details are comparatively slight and insignificant; the main tendency of Justin's Gospel (supposing it to be a separate composition) was harmonistic. The writer can hardly have been ignorant of our Canonical Gospels; he certainly had access, if not to them, yet to the sources, both general and special, from which they are taken.

He not only drew from the main body of the evangelical tradition, but also from those particular and individual strains which appear in the first and third Synoptics. He has done this in the spirit of a true _desultor_, pa.s.sing backwards and forwards first to one and then to the other, inventing no middle links, but merely piecing together the two accounts as best he could. Indeed the preliminary portions of Justin's Gospel read very much like the sort of rough _prima facie_ harmony which, without any more profound study, most people make for themselves. But the harmonising process necessarily implies matter to harmonise, and that matter must have had the closest possible resemblance to the contents of our Gospels.

If, then, Justin made use either of a single doc.u.ment or set of doc.u.ments distinct from those which have become canonical, we conclude that it or they belonged to a later and more advanced stage of formation. But it should be remembered that the case is a hypothetical one. The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems inclined to maintain that Justin did use such a doc.u.ment or doc.u.ments, and not our Gospels. If he did, then the consequence above stated seems to follow. But I do not at all care to press this inference; it is no more secure than the premiss upon which it is founded. Only it seems to me that the choice lies between two alternatives and no more; either Justin used our Gospels, or else he used a doc.u.ment later than our Gospels and presupposing them. The reader may take which side of the alternative he pleases.

The question is, which hypothesis best covers and explains the facts. It is not impossible that Justin may have had a special Gospel such as has just been described. There is a tendency among those critics who a.s.sign Justin's quotations to an uncanonical source to find that source in the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews or some of its allied forms. But a large majority of critics regard the Gospel according to the Hebrews as holding precisely this secondary relation to the canonical Matthew.

Justin's doc.u.ment can hardly have been the Gospel according to the Hebrews, at least alone, as that Gospel omitted the section Matt.

i. 18-ii. 23 [Endnote 103:1], which Justin certainly retained. But it is within the bounds of possibility--it would be hazardous to say more--that he may have had another Gospel so modified and compiled as to meet all the conditions of the case. For my own part, I think it decidedly the more probable hypothesis that he used our present Gospels with some peculiar doc.u.ment, such as this Gospel according to the Hebrews, or perhaps, as Dr. Hilgenfeld thinks, the ground doc.u.ment of the Gospel according to Peter (a work of which we know next to nothing except that it favoured Docetism and was not very unlike the Canonical Gospels) and the Protevangelium of James (or some older doc.u.ment on which that work was founded) in addition.

It will be well to try to establish this position a little more in detail; and therefore I will proceed to collect first, the evidence for the use, either mediate or direct, of the Synoptic Gospels, and secondly, that for the use of one or more Apocryphal Gospels. We still keep to the substance of Justin's Gospel, and reserve the question of its form.

Of those portions of the first Synoptic which appear to be derived from a peculiar source, and for the presence of which we have no evidence in any other Gospel of the same degree of originality, Justin has the following: Joseph's suspicions of his wife, the special statement of the significance of the name Jesus ('for He shall save His people from their sins,' Matt. i. 21, verbally identical), the note upon the fulfilment of the prophecy Is. vii.

14 ('Behold a virgin,' &c.), the visit of the Magi guided by a star, their peculiar gifts, their consultation of Herod and the warning given them not to return to him, the ma.s.sacre of the children at Bethlehem, fulfilling Jer. x.x.xi. 15, the descent into Egypt, the return of the Holy Family at the succession of Archelaus. The Temptations Justin gives in the order of Matthew.

From the Sermon on the Mount he has the verses v. 14, 20, 28, vi.

1, vii. 15, 21, and from the controversial discourse against the Pharisees, xxiii. 15, 24, which are without parallels. The prophecy, Is. xlii. 1-4, is applied as by Matthew alone. There is an apparent allusion to the parable of the wedding garment. The comment of the disciples upon the identification of the Baptist with Elias (Matt. xvii. 13), the sign of the prophet Jonas (Matt. xvi. 1, 4), and the triumphal entry (the a.s.s _with the colt_), show a special affinity to St. Matthew. And, lastly, in concert with the same Evangelist, Justin has the calumnious report of the Jews (Matt. xxviii. 12 15) and the baptismal formula (Matt.

xxviii. 19).

Of the very few details that are peculiar to St. Mark, Justin has the somewhat remarkable one of the bestowing of the surname Boanerges on the sons of Zebedee. Mark also appears to approach most nearly to Justin in the statements that Jesus practised the trade of a carpenter (cf. Mark vi. 3) and that He healed those who were diseased _from their birth_ (cf. Mark ix. 21), and perhaps in the emphasis upon the oneness of G.o.d in the reply respecting the greatest commandment.

In common with St. Luke, Justin has the mission of the angel Gabriel to Mary, the statement that Elizabeth was the mother of John, that the census was taken under Cyrenius, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem [Greek: hothen aen], that no room was found in the inn, that Jesus was thirty years old when He began His ministry, that He was sent from Pilate to Herod, with the account of His last words. There are also special affinities in the phrase quoted from the charge to the Seventy (Luke x. 19), in the verse Luke xi. 52, in the account of the answer to the rich young man, of the inst.i.tution of the Lord's Supper, of the Agony in the Garden, and of the Resurrection and Ascension.

These coincidences are of various force. Some of the single verses quoted, though possessing salient features in common, have also, as we shall see, more or less marked differences. Too much stress should not be laid on the allegation of the same prophecies, because there may have been a certain understanding among the Christians as to the prophecies to be quoted as well as the versions in which they were to be quoted. But there are other points of high importance. Just in proportion as an event is from a historical point of view suspicious, it is significant as a proof of the use of the Gospel in which it is contained; such would be the adoration of the Magi, the slaughter of the innocents, the flight into Egypt, the conjunction of the foal with the a.s.s in the entry into Jerusalem. All these are strong evidence for the use of the first Gospel, which is confirmed in the highest degree by the occurrence of a reflection peculiar to the Evangelist, 'Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist' (Matt. xvii. 13, compare Dial. 49). Of the same nature are the allusions to the census of Cyrenius (there is no material discrepancy between Luke and Justin), and the statement of the age at which the ministry of Jesus began. These are almost certainly remarks by the third Evangelist himself, and not found in any previously existing source. The remand to Herod in all probability belonged to a source that was quite peculiar to him. The same may be said with only a little less confidence of the sections of the preliminary history.

Taking these salient points together with the ma.s.s of the coincidences each in its place, and with the due weight a.s.signed to it, the conviction seems forced upon us that Justin did either mediately or immediately, and most probably immediately and directly, make use of our Canonical Gospels.

On the other hand, the argument that he used, whether in addition to these or exclusively, a Gospel now lost, rests upon the following data. Justin apparently differs from the Synoptics in giving the genealogy of Mary, not of Joseph. In Apol. i. 34 he says that Cyrenius was the first governor (procurator) of Judaea, instead of saying that the census first took place under Cyrenius.

[It should be remarked, however, that in another place, Dial. 78, he speaks of 'the census which then took place for the first time ([Greek: ousaes tote protaes]) under Cyrenius.'] He states that Mary brought forth her Son in a cave near the village of Bethlehem. He ten times over speaks of the Magi as coming from Arabia, and not merely from the East. He says emphatically that all the children ([Greek: pantas haplos tous paidas]) in Bethlehem were slain without mentioning the limitation of age given in St.