Supernatural Religion Volume II Part 24

We have already discussed the third pa.s.sage regarding the new birth in connection with Justin,(3) and may therefore pa.s.s on to the last and most important pa.s.sage, to which we have referred as contained in the concluding portion of the Homilies first published by Dressel in

{339}

1853. We subjoin it in contrast with the parallel in the fourth Gospel [------]

It is necessary that we should consider the context of this pa.s.sage 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 represented 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 distinguis.h.i.+ng between the true and the false, Jesus taught his disciples, "Be ye approved money changers,"(1) 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."(2) At the part we are

{340}

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 a.s.serts 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 pa.s.sions also must be cla.s.sed 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 G.o.d. The man who gives them unbridled course ensures his own punishment.(2) Simon inquires why men die prematurely and periodical diseases 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 mult.i.tude of evils for their children, and this either through

{341}

carelessness or ignorance.(1) And then follows the pa.s.sage we are discussing: "Wherefore also our Teacher," &c., and at the end of the quotation, he continues: "and truly such sufferings ensue in consequence of ignorance," and giving an instance,(2) 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,"(3) &c. Now 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 G.o.d 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; but "the power of G.o.d" 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 in the Gospel, presenting evidently a distinctly different version of the episode. The subst.i.tution of [------] for [------] in the opening is also significant, more especially as Justin likewise in his general remark, which we have discussed, uses the same word. a.s.suming the pa.s.sage 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

{342}

incident in the life of Jesus, which may have been, and probably was, reported in many early gospels in language which, though a.n.a.logous 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 whatever 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 perfectly unreasonable to a.s.sert 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 ill.u.s.trated 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" [------], apologists would certainly a.s.sert, according to the principle upon which they act in

{343}

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 G.o.d."

[------], more especially as a few codices actually insert [------], 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.(1) 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, including 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, therefore, present a.n.a.logies with the other whilst still perfectly independent of it.(2) 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

{344}

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 establis.h.i.+ng its historical character and apostolic origin.

Leaving, however, the few and feeble a.n.a.logies by which apologists 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 doctrines 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 authoritative doc.u.ment. s.p.a.ce will not permit our entering adequately into this argument, and we must refer our readers to works more immediately devoted to the examination of the Homilies for a close a.n.a.lysis of their dogmatic teaching,(1) but we may in the briefest manner point out some of their more prominent doctrines in contrast with those of the Johannine Gospel.

{345}

One of the leading and most characteristic ideas of the Clementine Homilies is the essential ident.i.ty of Judaism and Christianity. Christ revealed nothing new with regard to G.o.d, but promulgated the very same truth concerning him as Adam, Moses, and the Patriarchs, and in fact 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.(2) In the preliminary Epistle of the Apostle Peter to the Apostle James, when sending the book, Peter entreats that James will not give it to any of the Gentiles,(3) and James says: "Necessarily and rightly our Peter reminded us to take precautions for the security of the truth, that we should not communicate 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 _circ.u.mcised_,(4) being faithful."(5) &c. Clement also is represented as describing his conversion to Christianity in the following terms: "For this cause I fled for refuge to the Holy G.o.d and Law of the Jews, with faith in the certain conclusion that, by the righteous judgment of G.o.d, both the Law is prescribed, and the soul beyond doubt everywhere receives

{346}

the desert of its actions."(1) Peter recommends the inhabitants of Tyre to follow what are really Jewish rites, and to hear "as the G.o.d-fearing Jews have heard "(2) The Jew has the same truth as the Christian: "For as there is one teaching by both (Moses and Jesus), G.o.d accepts him who believes either of these."(3) 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.(4) 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.(5) On the other hand the author of the fourth Gospel represents Christianity in strong contrast and antagonism to Judaism.(6) In his ant.i.thetical system, the religion of Jesus is opposed to Judaism as well as all other belief, as Light to Darkness and Life to Death.(7) The Law which Moses gave is treated as merely national, and neither of

{347}

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 shew his indifference to the other.(1) The very name of "the Jews" indeed is used as an equivalent for the enemies of Christ.(2) The religion of Jesus is not only absolute, but it communicates knowledge of the Father which the Jews did not previously possess.(3) The inferiority of Mosaism is everywhere represented: "and out of his fulness all we received, and grace for grace. Because the Law was given through Moses; _grace and truth_ came through Jesus Christ."(4) "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."(6) The fundamental difference of Christianity from Judaism will further appear as we proceed.

The most essential principle of the Clementines, again, is Monotheism,--the absolute oneness of G.o.d,--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 G.o.d.(6) Christ not only is not G.o.d,

{348}

but he never a.s.serted himself to be so.(1) He wholly ignores the doctrine of the Logos, and his speculation is confined to the [------], the Wisdom of Proverbs viii., &c., and is, as we shall see, at the same time a less developed and very different doctrine from that of the fourth Gospel.(2) 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,(3) as the doctrine of the Logos is its most characteristic feature. In the beginning the "Word not only was with G.o.d, but "the Word was G.o.d" [------].(4)

He is the "only begotten G.o.d" [------],(5) equivalent to the "Second G.o.d" [------] of Philo, and, throughout, his absolutely divine nature is a.s.serted both by the Evangelist, and in express terms in the discourses of Jesus.(6) Nothing could be more opposed to the principles of the Clementines.

{349}

According to the Homilies, the same Spirit, the [------], 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 [------] of the world.(1) These seven(2) persons, therefore, are identical, the same true Prophet and Spirit" who from the beginning of the world, changing names and forms, pa.s.ses through Time,"(3) and these men were thus essentially the same as Jesus.(4) 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."(5) We need not point out how different these views are from the Logos doctrine of the fourth Gospel.(6) 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

6 It is very uncertain by what means the author of the Homilies considered this periodical reappearance to be effected, whether by a kind of transmigration or otherwise.

Critics consider it very doubtful whether he admitted the supernatural birth of Jesus (though some hold it to be probable), but at any rate he does not explain the matter: Uhlhorn, Die Homilien, p. 209 f.; Neander, K. G., ii. p.

618, anm. 1; Credner thought that he did not admit it, 1. c.

p. 253; Schliemann, whilst thinking that he did admit it, considers that in that case he equally attributed a supernatural birth to the other seven prophets: Die Clementinen, p. 207 ff.

{350}

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 G.o.d. No dogmatic importance whatever is attached to faith in Christ or to his sufferings, death, and resurrection, and of the doctrines of Atonement and Redemption there is nothing in the Homilies,(1)--everyone must make his own reconciliation with G.o.d, and bear the punishment of his own sins.(2) On the other hand, the representation of Jesus as the Lamb of G.o.d taking away the sins of the world,(3) is the very basis of the fourth Gospel. The pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d abideth on him "(4)...."for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."(5) In fact, the "whole of Christianity according to the author of the fourth Gospel is concentrated in the possession of faith in Christ.(6) Belief in G.o.d 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 G.o.d can be secured.(7) The same discrepancy is apparent in smaller details. In the Clementines the Apostle Peter

{351}

is the princ.i.p.al 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 p.r.o.nounced 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," &C.(1) He is here represented as the Apostle to the Heathen, the hated Apostle Paul being robbed of that honourable t.i.tle, and he is, in the spirit of this introduction, made to play, throughout, the first part amongst the Apostles.(2) In the fourth Gospel, however, he is a.s.signed a place quite secondary to John,(3) who is the disciple whom Jesus loved and who leans on his bosom.(4) We shall only mention one "other point The Homilist, when attacking the Apostle Paul, under the

{352}

name of Simon the Magician, for his boast that he had not been taught by man, but by a revelation of Jesus Christ,(1) 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?(2) As Neander aptly remarks: "But 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_."(3) It is obvious that an author with so vehement an animosity against Paul would a.s.suredly 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 composition, known as the "Epistle to Diognetus," general particulars regarding which we have elsewhere given.(4) 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 contains repeated references to evangelical, and particularly to Johannine, pa.s.sages. For when the author writes, ch. 6: 'Christians dwell in the world, but they are not of the world;' and in

{353}

ch. 10: 'For G.o.d has loved men, for whose sakes he made the world....

to whom he sent his only begotten Son,' the reference to John xvii. 11 ('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. 16 ('G.o.d so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son'), is hardly to be mistaken."(1)

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 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 Canon 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. Canon Westcott says: "In one respect the two parts of the book are united,(2) inasmuch as they both exhibit a combination of the teaching of St. Paul and St. John. The love of G.o.d, it is said in the letter to Diognetus, is the source of love in the Christian, who must needs 'love G.o.d who thus first loved him' [------], and find an expression for this love by loving his neighbour,

{354}

whereby he will be '_an imitator of G.o.d!_' For G.o.d loved men, for whose sakes He made the world, to whom He subjected all things that are in the earth.... unto whom [------] He sent His only begotten Son, to whom He promised the kingdom in heaven [------], _and will give it to those who love Him._' G.o.d's will is mercy; '_He sent His Son as wis.h.i.+ng to save [------].... and not to condemn'_ and as witnesses of this, '_Christians dwell in the world, though they are not of the world!_(1) 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."(2)

It is clear that as there is no direct reference to any Gospel in the Epistle to Diognetus, even if it were ascertained to be a composition dating from the middle of the second century, which it is not, and even if the indirect allusions were ten times more probable than they are, this anonymous work could do nothing towards establis.h.i.+ng the apostolic origin and historical character

{355}

of the fourth Gospel. Written, however, as we believe it to have been, at a much later period, it scarcely requires any consideration here.

We shall, however, for those who may be interested in more minutely discussing the point, at once proceed to examine whether the composition even indicates the existence of the Gospel, and for this purpose we shall take each of the pa.s.sages in question and place them with their context before the reader; and we only regret that the examination of a doc.u.ment which, neither from its date nor evidence can be of any real weight, should detain us so long. The first pa.s.sage is: "Christians dwell in the world but are not of the world" [------]. Dr. Westcott, who reverses the order of all the pa.s.sages indicated, introduces this sentence (which occurs in chapter vi.) as the consequence of a pa.s.sage following it in chapter vii. by the words "and as witnesses of this: Christians," &c.... The first parallel which is pointed out in the Gospel reads, John xvii. 11: "And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world [------], and I come to thee, Holy Father keep them,"&c. Now it must be evident that in mere direct point of language and sense there is no parallel here at all. In the Gospel, the disciples are referred to as being left behind in the world by Jesus who goes to the Father, whilst, in the Epistle, the object is the ant.i.thesis that while Christians _dwell_ in the world they are not of the world. In the second parallel, which is supposed to complete the a.n.a.logy, the Gospel reads: v. 14, "I have given them thy word: and the world hated them because they are not of the world, [------] even as I am not of the world." Here, again, the parallel words are merely introduced as a reason why the world hated them, and not ant.i.thetically, and from this very connection we shall see that the resemblance between the Epistle and the Gospel is merely superficial.

In order to form a correct judgment regarding the nature of the pa.s.sage in the Epistle, we must carefully examine the context. In chapter v. the author is speaking of the manners of Christians, and he says that they are not distinguished from others either