Supernatural Religion Volume II Part 2

Jesus answered: The first is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our G.o.d is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord thy G.o.d," &c. &c. 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 circ.u.mstances under which the pa.s.sage 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 G.o.ds as the Scriptures say, he said: Hear, O Israel," &c, &c.(5) There is no hint of the a.s.sertion of many G.o.ds 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 G.o.d."6 The quotation,

{26}

therefore, beyond doubt, cannot be legitimately appropriated by the second Synoptic, but may with much greater probability be a.s.signed to a different Gospel.

We may here refer to the pa.s.sage, the only one pointed out by him in connection with the Synoptics, the discovery of which Canon Westcott affirms, "has removed the doubts which had long been raised about those (allusions) to St. Mark."(1) The discovery referred to is that of the Codex Ottobonia.n.u.s by Dressel, which contains the concluding part of the Homilies, and which was first published by him in 1853. Canon Westcott says: "Though St Mark has few peculiar phrases, one of these is repeated verbally in the concluding part of the 19th Homily."(2) The pa.s.sage is as follows: Hom. xix. 20: "Wherefore also he explained to his disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens." This is compared with Mark iv. 34.... "and privately to his own disciples, he explained all things."

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 [------] occurs in the Gospels."(4) 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

{27}

Canon Westcott rests his argument that this pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage in Mark. The "all things" [------] of the Gospel, reads: "The mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens" [------] in the Homily. The pa.s.sage in Mark iv. 11, to which Dr. Westcott does not refer, reads [------]. 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," &c.:(l) and then comes our pa.s.sage. 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 at all, 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 pa.s.sages in our Gospels. s.p.a.ce forbids our giving ill.u.s.trations of the vast number which so much more widely differ from parallel texts in the Synoptics. We shall confine

{28}

ourselves to pointing out in the briefest possible manner some of the pa.s.sages which are persistent in their variations or recall similar pa.s.sages in the Memoirs of Justin. The first of these is the injunction in Hom. iii. 55: "Let your yea be yea, your nay nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of the evil one." The same saying is repeated in Hom. 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.

As we have already discussed this pa.s.sage(1) we need not repeat our remarks here. That this pa.s.sage comes from a source different from our Gospels is rendered still more probable by the quotation in Hom. xix. 2 being preceded by another which has no parallel at all in our Gospels.

"And elsewhere he said, 'He who sowed the bad seed is the devil'

[------](2): and again: 'Give no pretext to the evil one.'(2) [------].

But in exhorting he prescribes: 'Let your yea be yea.'" &c. 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.(3) In the same Homily, xix. 2, there occurs also the pa.s.sage which exhibits variations likewise found in Justin, which we have already examined,(4) and now

{29}

merely point out: "Begone into the darkness without, which the Father hath prepared for the devil and his angels."(1) The quotation in Justin (Dial. 76) agrees exactly with this, with the exception that Justin has [------] instead of [------], 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.(2)

We have also already(3) referred to the pa.s.sage in Hom. xvii. 4. "No one knew [------] 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 Gospels used by Gnostics and other parties in the early Church, and the pa.s.sage with these variations was regarded by them as the basis of some of their leading doctrines.(4) That the variation is not accidental, but a deliberate quotation from a written source, is proved by this, and by the circ.u.mstance that the author of the Homilies repeatedly quotes it elsewhere in the same form.(5) 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 circ.u.mstances, the

{30}

only natural conclusion is that they are derived from a source different from our Gospels.(1)

Another pa.s.sage occurs in Hom. 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 G.o.d." This is compared with Mark xii. 24:(2) "Do ye not therefore err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of G.o.d?"

The very same quotation is made both in Hom. ii. 51 and xviii. 20, and in each case in which the pa.s.sage is introduced it is in connection with the a.s.sertion that there are true and false Scriptures, and that as there are in the Scriptures some true sayings and some false, Jesus by this saying 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 pa.s.sage from a Gospel different from ours, and this is demonstrated both by the important variation from our text and also by its consistent repet.i.tion, and by the context in which it stands.(3)

Upon each occasion, also, that the author of the Homilies quotes the foregoing pa.s.sage he likewise quotes another saying of Jesus which is foreign to our Gospels: "Be ye approved money-changers," [------].(4)4

The saying is thrice quoted without

{31}

variation, and each time, together with the preceding pa.s.sage, 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."(1) This is one of the best known of the apocryphal sayings of Jesus, and it is quoted by nearly all the Fathers,(2) by 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.(3)

There is, in immediate connection with both the preceding pa.s.sages, another saying of Jesus quoted which is not found in our Gospels: "Why do ye not discern the good reason of the Scriptures?" "[------]; "(4)

This pa.s.sage also comes from a Gospel different from ours,(5) and the connection and sequence of these quotations is very significant.

One further ill.u.s.tration, and we have done. We find the following in Hom. iii. 55: "And to those who

(32)

think that G.o.d tempts, as the Scriptures say, he said: 'The evil one is the tempter,' who also tempted himself. "l 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,(2) also knew this saying.(3) We are here again directed to the Ebionite Gospel. Certainly the quotation is derived from a source different from our Gospels.(4)

These ill.u.s.trations of the evangelical quotations in the Clementine Homilies give but an imperfect impression of the character of the extremely numerous pa.s.sages 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. s.p.a.ce 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, we have shown, 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 systematically vary more or less from our Gospels, and many in their variations agree with similar quotations in other writers,

{33}

or on repeated quotation always present the same peculiarities, whilst others, professed to be direct quotations of 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 pa.s.sages with parallels in our Gospels cannot prove anything. The only extraordinary circ.u.mstance 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 quotations 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 a century and a half after the establishment 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 whatever 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

{34}

Homilies to any of the Epistles of the New Testament.(1)

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" a.s.sumes 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,(2) whom Peter follows everywhere for the purpose of unmasking and confuting him. He is robbed of his t.i.tle of "Apostle of the Gentiles," which, together with the honour of founding the Church of Antioch, of Laodicaae, and of Rome, is ascribed to Peter. All that opposition to Paul which is implied in the Epistle to the Galatians and elsewhere(3) is here realized and exaggerated, and

{35}

the personal difference with Peter to which Paul refers(1) is widened 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."(2) First expounding a doctrine of duality, as heaven and earth, day and night, life and death,(3) Peter a.s.serts 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.(4) He then says to Clement that it is easy according to this order to discern to what cla.s.s 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."(5) 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 though 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."(6) There is much more of this acrimonious abuse put into the mouth of Peter.(7) The indications that it is Paul who is really attacked under the name of Simon are much too clear to admit of doubt.

In Hom. xi. 35, Peter, warning the Church against false

{36}

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(1) 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," &c., 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."(2) 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 received his inspiration by supernatural vision, and not merely by the common experience of the senses,(3) 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 angry with an adversary.... But can any one 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:(4) preach his words, interpret his sayings, love his

{37}

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 not 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 G.o.d who revealed Christ to me,'"(1) &c. This last phrase: "If thou callest me condemned" [------]

is an evident allusion to Galat. ii. II: "I withstood him to the face, because he was condemned" [------].

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 perhaps about 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 pa.s.sages 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.

{38}

2.

Among the writings which used formerly 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 [------] which, from its connection, was referred to Justin.(1) The style and contents of the work, however, soon convinced critics that it could not possibly be written by Justin,(2) 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.