Supernatural Religion Volume II Part 22

is of great significance. Tischendorf wishes to translate [------]

"anew" (or again), as the version of Luther and the authorised English translation read, and thus render the [------] 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 pa.s.sage. The word [------], however, certainly cannot here be taken to signify anything but "from above"(l)--from G.o.d, 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 in this place. On the contrary, the same signification is manifestly indicated by the context, and forms the point of the whole lesson. "Except a man be born of water and _of Spirit_(3) he cannot enter into the kingdom of G.o.d. 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" [------].

The explanation of [------] is given in verse 6. The birth "of the Spirit" is the birth "from above," which is essential to entrance into the kingdom of G.o.d.(4)

{308}

The sense of the pa.s.sage in Justin is different and much more simple.

He is speaking of regeneration through baptism, and the manner in which converts are consecrated to G.o.d when they are made new [------] 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 regenerated ("born again," [------]), by the same manner of regeneration (being born again, [------]) by which we also were regenerated (born again, [------]. For in the name of the Father of the Universe the Lord G.o.d, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit they then make the was.h.i.+ng with the water. For the Christ also said, 'unless ye be born again [------], ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven., 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, &c.," and then proceeds: "And regarding this (Baptism) we have been taught this reason. Since at our first birth we were born without our knowledge, and perforce, &c., 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 G.o.d is p.r.o.nounced over him who desires to be born again [------], and has repented of his sins, &c."(1) Now it is clear that whereas Justin speaks simply of regeneration by baptism, the fourth Gospel indicates a later development of the doctrine by spiritualizing the idea,

{309}

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 [------], but [------]. 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.(1)

The idea of regeneration or being born again, as essential to conversion, was quite familiar to the Jews themselves, and Lightfoot 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."(2) 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:(3) "For Christ also said: Unless ye be born again, &c." 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 circ.u.mstances, 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.

{310}

To argue otherwise would be to a.s.sume the utterly untenable premiss that sayings of Jesus which are maintained to be historical were not recorded in 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 a.s.serted 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 circ.u.mstance, simply because that Gospel happens to be the only one now surviving which contains particulars somewhat similar. The express quotation fundamentally 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 pa.s.sage 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,

{311}

and gives his expression, "kingdom of heaven," so characteristic of his Gospel, and so foreign to the Johannine. We meet with a similar quotation 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 [------] by living water in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."(1) Here again we have both the [------], and the [------] as well as the reference only to water in the baptism, and this is strong confirmation of the existence of a version of the pa.s.sage, 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 pa.s.sage we are discussing was probably derived from that Gospel; at any rate it cannot be maintained as a quotation from our fourth Gospel,(2) and it is, therefore, of no value as evidence even

{312}

for its existence. "Were it successfully traced to that work, however, the pa.s.sage would throw no light on the authors.h.i.+p 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 circ.u.mstances 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 not an allusion made to any one 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 point out that Justin makes no reference whatever 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 representations of the birth, life, and death of Jesus, which are ignored by the Johannine Gospel, and are indeed opposed to its whole conception of Jesus as the Logos; and when he refers to circ.u.mstances which are also narrated in that Gospel, his account is different from that which it gives. Justin perpetually refers to the birth of Jesus by the Virgin of the race of David and the Patriarchs; his Logos thus becomes man,(1) (not "flesh"--[------],not [------]); 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

{ 313}

the son of Joseph the carpenter and Mary: he himself works as a carpenter, and makes ploughs and yokes.(1) When Jesus is baptized 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 G.o.d.(2) Justin refers to the change of name of Simon in connection with his recognition of the Master as "Christ the Son of G.o.d,"(3) which is narrated quite differently in the fourth Gospel (i.

40--42), where, indeed, 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,(4) which the fourth Gospel excludes, as well as the cries on the cross, which that Gospel ignores.

Then, according to Justin, the last supper takes place on the 14th Nisan,(5) whilst the fourth Gospel, ignoring the Pa.s.sover and last supper, represents the last meal as eaten on the 13th Nisan (John xiii.

1 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.

5 "And it is written that on the day of the Pa.s.sover you seized him, and likewise during the Pa.s.sover you crucified him." Dial., Ill; cf. Dial. 70; Matt, xxvi. 2, 17 ff., 30, 57.

{314}

We may add that, as Justin so distinctly and directly refers to the Apostle John as the author of the Apocalypse,(1) there is confirmation 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 teaching 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 G.o.d."(2) No one could for a moment a.s.sert 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, so 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 Apostolical origin.

Tischendorf only devotes a short note to Hegesippus,(3) 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 Canon 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

{315}

doubt that he alludes to the language of our Lord recorded by St.

John."(1) The pa.s.sage to which Canon 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 ([------]--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, however, did so, through James." The rulers fearing that the people would cause a tumult, from considering Jesus to be the Messiah [------], entreat James to persuade them concerning Jesus, and prevent their being deceived by him; and in order that he may be heard by the mult.i.tude, 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."(2) 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

{316}

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 [------] is used in an idiomatic sense. The word is very frequently employed in such a manner, or symbolically, in the New Testament,(1) 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 Sept.). 19," Open to me the gates [------] of righteousness; entering into them, I will give praise to the Lord;" 20, "This is the gate [------] of the Lord, the righteous shall enter into it"(2) Quoting this pa.s.sage, Clement of Alexandria remarks: "But explaining the saying of the prophet, Barnabas adds: Many gates [------] being open, that which is in righteousness is in Christ, in which all those who enter are blessed."(3) Grabe explains the pa.s.sage of Hegesippus, by a reference 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. viL 13 ff. He, therefore, explains the question of the rulers: "What is the door of Jesus?" as an inquiry into the judgment of James concerning him:

{317}

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 ill.u.s.tration 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."(2) The Epistle, under the symbol of the two ways, cla.s.sifies the whole of the moral law.(3) In the Clementine Homilies, xviii. 17, there is a version of the saying, Matt. vii. 13f, 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 [------] through which ye shall enter into life." Eusebius himself, who has preserved the fragment, evidently understood it distinctly in the same sense, and he gave its true meaning in another of his works, where he paraphrases the question into an enquiry, as to the opinion which Jamas held concerning Jesus [------].(4)

This view is supported by many learned men, and Routh has pointed out that Ernesti considered he would have been right in making [------], doctrine, teaching, the equivalent of [------], although he admits that Eusebius does not once use it in his history, in connection with Christian doctrine.(5)

{318}

He might, however, have instanced this pa.s.sage, in which it is clearly used in this sense, and so explained by Eusebius. In any other sense the question is simple nonsense. There is evidently no intention on the part of the Scribes and Pharisees here to ridicule, in asking: "What is the door of Jesus?" but they desire James to declare plainly to the people, what is 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 mult.i.tude, 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, surpa.s.ses all that we could have imagined even of apologetic zeal.

We have already(1) 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 said anything interesting about our Gospels and, we may say, particularly about the fourth, the fact would have been recorded by Eusebius.

Nor need we add much to our remarks regarding Papias of Hierapolis.(2) It is perfectly clear that the works of Matthew and Mark,(3) regarding which he records

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.

{319}

such important particulars, are not the Gospels in our Canon, which pa.s.s 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 doc.u.ments. Had he said anything regarding the composition or authors.h.i.+p of the fourth Gospel, Eusebius would certainly have mentioned the fact, and this silence of Papias is strong presumptive evidence against the Johannine Gospel.(1) Tischendorfs 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.(2) 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

{320}

the Antilegomena (or disputed writings), and which of them, and what has been stated by these as well regarding the collected [------] and h.o.m.ologumena (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 h.o.m.ologumena, 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 ill.u.s.trative 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

{321}

made use of the 1st Epistle of John, and 1st 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 circ.u.mstance 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 mere tradition: "they say" [------].

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 testimony 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."(l) On the supposed ident.i.ty of the authors.h.i.+p 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 pa.s.sages upon which he bases this statement, and knowing his inaccuracy and the hasty and uncritical manner in which he and the Fathers generally jump at such conclusions, we must reject this as sufficient evidence that Papias really did use the Epistle, and that Eusebius did not adopt his opinion from a mere superficial a.n.a.logy of pa.s.sages.(2) But if it were certain that Papias actually quoted from the Epistle, it does not in the least follow that he

{322}

ascribed it to the Apostle John, and the use of the Epistle would scarcely affect the question as to the character and authors.h.i.+p 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 a.s.signs to 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 datum est ecclesiis ab iohannc ad hue in corpore const.i.tuto, sicut papias nomine hic.r.a.polita.n.u.s discipulus iohannis carus 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 pa.s.sage proceeds: "Disscripsit vero evangelium dictante iohanne recte." "He (Papias) indeed wrote out the Gospel, John duly dictating;" then follows another pa.s.sage 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