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 Cynic(3) 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,(4) and became the leading exponent of their austere and ascetic doctrines.(5)
The only one of his writings which is still extant is his "Oration to the Greeks"[———]. This work was written after the death of Justin, for in it he refers to that event,(6) and it is generally dated between
a. d. 170-175. (l) Teschendorf does not assert that there is any quotation in this address taken from the Synoptic Gospels;(2) and Canon 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."(3) This remark is without foundation, 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 [———] 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."(4) This is claimed as a reference to Matt. xiii. 44: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hidden [———] 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. Were the probability fifty times greater
than it is that Tatian had in his mind the parable, which is reported in our first Gospel, nothing could be more unwarrantable than the deduction that he 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) As evidence even for the existence of our first canonical Gospel, no such anonymous allusion could have the slightest value.
Although neither Tischendorf nor Canon Westcott think it worth while to refer to it, some apologists claim another passage in the Oration as a reference to our third Synoptic. "Laugh ye: nevertheless 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 impossible to trace a reference in the words of Tatian specially to our third Gospel, and manifestly nothing could be more foolish than to build upon such vague similarity any hypothesis of Tatian's acquaintance with Luke. 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,4 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, Canon 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."(1) The allusion here is to a passage in the Stromata of Clement, in which reference is supposed by the apologist to be made to Tatian. No writer, however, is named, and Clement merely introduces his remark by the words: "a certain person," [———] and then proceeds to give his application of the Saviour's words "not to treasure upon earth where moth and rust corrupt" [———].(2) The parallel passage in Matthew vi. 19, reads: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt," [———]. Canon Westcott, it is true, merely suggests that "probably" this may be ascribed to Tatian, but it is almost absolutely certain that it was not attributed to him by Clement. Tatian is several times referred to in the course of the same chapter, and his words are continued by the use of [———] 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" [———]. On the other hand reference is made in the chapter to
1 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 added: "These two last references are from
an anonymous citation [———] which has been commonly
assigned to Tatian." P. 318, n. 1.]
other writers and sects, to one of whom with infinitely 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 much more probably have been derived from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(1) It will be remembered that Justin Martyr quotes the same passage, with the same omission of "[———]," from a Gospel different from our Synoptics.(2)
Tatian, however, is claimed by apologists as a witness for the existence of our Gospels—more than this he could not possibly be—principally on the ground that his Gospel was called by some Diatessaron [———] or "by four," and it is assumed to have been a harmony of four Gospels. The work is no longer extant and, as we shall see, our information regarding it is of the scantiest and most unsatisfactory description. Critics have arrived at very various conclusions with regard to the composition of the work. Some of course affirm, with more or less of hesitation nevertheless, that it was nothing else than a harmony of our four canonical Gospels;(3) many of these, however, are constrained to admit that it was also partly based upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(4) Some maintain that it was
a harmony of our three Synoptics together with the Gospel according to the Hebrews;(1) whilst many deny that it was composed of our Gospels at all,(2) 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,(3) by which name, as Epiphanius states, it was called by some in his day.(4)
Tatian's Gospel, however, was not only called Diatessaron, but, according to Victor of Capua, it was also called Diapente [———] "by five,"(5) a complication which shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory of its composition.
Tischendorf, anxious to date Tatian's Gospel as early as possible, says that in all probability it was composed earlier than the address to the Greeks.(6) Of this, however, he does not offer any evidence, and upon
examination it is very evident that the work was, on the contrary, composed or adopted after the Oration and his avowal of heretical opinions. Theodoret states that Tatian had in it omitted the genealogies and all other passages showing that Christ was born of David according to the flesh, and he condemned the work, and caused it to be abandoned, on account of its evil design.(1) If the assumption be correct, therefore, as Tischendorf maintains, that Tatian altered our Gospels, and did not merely from the first, like his master Justin, make use of Gospels different from those which afterwards became canonical, he must have composed the work after the death of Justin, up to which time he is stated to have remained quite orthodox.(2) The date may with much greater probability be set between a.d. 170—180.(3)
The earliest writer who mentions Tatian's Gospel is Eusebius,(4) who wrote some century and a half after its supposed composition, without, however, having himself seen the work at all, or being really acquainted with its nature and contents.(5) Eusebius says: "Tatian, however, their former chief, having put together a certain amalgamation and collection, I know not how, of the Gospels, named this the Diatessaron, which even now is current with some."(6)
It is clear that such hearsay information is not to be relied on.
Neither Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, nor Jerome, who refer to other works of Tatian, make any mention of this one. Epiphanius, however, does so, but, like Eusebius, evidently without having himself seen it.(1) This second reference to Tatian's Gospel is made upwards of two centuries after its supposed composition. Epiphanius says: "It is said that he (Tatian) composed the Diatessaron, which is called by some the Gospel according to the Hebrews."(2) It must be observed that it is not said that Tatian himself gave this Gospel the name of Diates-saron,(3) but on the contrary the expression of Epiphanius implies that he did not do so,(4) and the fact that it was also called by some the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and Diapente, shows that the work had no superscription from Tatian of a contradictory character. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (+457), is the next writer who mentions Tatian's Gospel, and he is the only one who had personally seen it He says: "He (Tatian) also composed the Gospel which is called Diatessaron, excising the genealogies and all the other parts which declare that the Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. This was used not only by those of his own sect, but also by those who held the apostolic doctrines, who did not perceive the evil of the composition, but made use of the book in simplicity on account of its conciseness. I myself found upwards of two hundred such
books held in honour among our churches, and collecting them all together, I had them put aside and, instead, introduced the Gospels of the four Evangelists." Again it must be observed that Theodoret does not say that the Gospel of Tatian was a Diatessaron, but merely that it was called so [———].(1)
After quoting this passage, and that from Epiphanius, Canon Westcott says with an assurance which, considering the nature of the evidence, is singular:—"Not only then was the Diatessaron grounded on the four canonical Gospels, but in its general form it was so orthodox as to enjoy a wide ecclesiastical popularity. The heretical character of the book was not evident upon the surface of it, and consisted rather in faults of defect than in erroneous teaching. Theodoret had certainly examined it, and he, like earlier writers, regarded it as a compilation from the four Gospels. He speaks of omissions which were at least in part natural in a Harmony, but notices no such apocryphal additions as would have found place in any Gospel not derived from canonical sources."(2) Now it must be remembered that the evidence regarding Tatian's Gospel is of the very vaguest description. It is not mentioned by any writer until a century and a half after the date of its supposed
2 On the Canon, p. 281. [In the 4th edition, the first
sentence in the above passage is altered to: "From this
statement it is clear that the Diatessaron was so orthodox
as to enjoy a wide ecclesiastical popularity." P. 320.]
composition, and then only referred to by Eusebius, who had not seen the work, and candidly confesses his ignorance with regard to it, so that a critic who is almost as orthodox as Canon Westcott himself acknowledges: "For the truth is that we know no more about Tatian's work than what Eusebius, who never saw it, knew."(1) The only other writer who refers to it, Epiphanius, had not seen it either, and while showing that the title of Diatessaron had not been given to it by Tatian himself, he states the important fact that some called it the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Theodoret, the last writer who mentions it, and of whom Dr. Donaldson also says: "Theodoret's information cannot be depended upon,"(2) not only does not say that it is based upon our four Gospels, but, on the contrary, points out that Tatian's Gospel did not contain the genealogies and passages tracing the descent of Jesus through the race of David, which our Synoptics possess, and he so much condemned the mischievous design of the work that he confiscated the copies in circulation in his diocese as heretical. Canon Westcott's assertion that Theodoret regarded it as a compilation of our four Gospels is most arbitrary. Omissions, as he himself points out, are natural to a Harmony, and conciseness certainly would be the last quality for which it could have been so highly prized, if every part of the four Gospels had been retained. The omission of the parts referred to, which are equally omitted from the canonical fourth Gospel, could not have been sufficient to merit the condemnation of the work as heretical, and had Tatian's Gospel not been different in various respects from our four Gospels, such summary treatment would have been totally
unwarrantable. The statement, moreover, that in place of Tatian's Gospel, Theodoret "introduced the Gospels of the four Evangelists," seems to indicate that the displaced Gospel was not a compilation from them, but a substantially different work. Had this not been the case, Theodoret would naturally have qualified such an expression.
Speaking of the difficulty of distinguishing Tatian's Harmony from others which must, the writer supposes, have been composed in his time, Dr. Donaldson points out: "And then we must remember that the Harmony of Tatian was confounded with the Gospel according to the Hebrews; and it is not beyond the reach of possibility that Theodoret should have made some such mistake."(1) That is to say, that the only writer who refers to Tatian's Gospel who professes to have seen the work is not only "not to be depended on," but may actually have mistaken for it the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is, therefore, no authority for saying that Tatian's Gospel was a harmony of four Gospels at all, and the name Diatessaron was not only not given by Tatian himself to the work, but was probably the usual foregone conclusion of the Christians of the third and fourth centuries, that everything in the shape of evangelical literature must be dependent on the Gospels adopted by the Church. Those, however, who called the Gospel used by Tatian the Gospel according to the Hebrews must apparently have read the work, and all that we know confirms their conclusion. The Gospel was, in point of fact, found in wide circulation precisely in the places in which, earlier, the Gospel according to the Hebrews was more particularly current.(2) The singular
fact that the earliest reference to Tatian's "Harmony," is made a century and a half after its supposed composition, and that no writer before the fifth century had seen the work itself, indeed that only two writers before that period mention it at all, receives its natural explanation in the conclusion that Tatian did not compose any Harmony at all, but simply made use of the same Gospel as his master Justin Martyr, namely, the Gospel according to the Hebrews,(1) by which name his Gospel had been actually called by those best informed.
Although Theodoret, writing in the fifth century, says in the usual arbitrary manner of early Christian writers, that Tatian "excised" from his Gospel the genealogies and certain passages found in the Synoptics, he offers no explanation or proof of his assertion, and the utmost that can be received is that Tatian's Gospel did not contain them.(3) Did he omit them or merely use a Gospel which never included them? The latter is the more probable conclusion. Neither Justin's Gospel nor the Gospel according to the Hebrews contained the genealogies or references to the Son of David, and why, as Credner suggests, should Tatian have taken the trouble to prepare a Harmony with these omissions when he already found one such as he desired in Justin's Gospel? Tatian's Gospel, like that of his master Justin, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews, was different from, yet nearly related to, our canonical Gospels, and as we have already seen, Justin's Gospel, like Tatian's, was considered by many to be a harmony of our Gospels.(3) No
one seems to have seen Tatian's "Harmony," probably for the very simple reason that there was no such work, and the real Gospel used by him was that according to the Hebrews, as some distinctly and correctly called it. The name Diatessaron is first heard of in a work of the fourth century, when it is naturally given by people accustomed to trace every such work to our four Gospels, but as we have clearly seen, there is not up to the time of Tatian any evidence even of the existence of three of our Gospels, and much less of the four in a collected form. Here is an attempt to identify a supposed, but not demonstrated, harmony of Gospels whose separate existence has not been heard of. Even Dr. Westcott states that Tatian's Diatessaron "is apparently the first recognition of a fourfold Gospel,"(1) but, as we have seen, that recognition emanates only from a writer of the fourth century who had not seen the work of which he speaks. No such modern ideas, based upon mere foregone conclusions, can be allowed to enter into a discussion regarding a work dating from the time of Tatian.(2)
The fact that the work found by Theodoret in his diocese was used by orthodox Christians without
2 Dr. Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., 1876-77, p. 1137) refers to
an apocryphal work, "The Doctrine of Addai," recently edited
and published by Dr. Phillips, in which it is stated that a
large multitude assembled daily at Edessa for prayer and the
reading of the Old Testament, "and the new of the
Diatessaron." Dr. Lightfoot assumes that this is Tatian's
Gospel. Even if it were so, however, we cannot discover in
this any addition to our information regarding the
composition of the work. We have already the fuller
statement of Theodoret respecting the use of Tatian's work
in the churches of his diocese, so that beyond an
interesting reference, no fresh light is thrown upon the
question by the phrase quoted. But we cannot see any ground
for asserting that the Diatessaron here spoken of was
Tatian's Gospel. On the contrary, it seems perfectly clear
that the writer speaks only of the four Gospels of the New
Testament.
consciousness of its supposed heterodoxy, is quite consistent with the fact that it was the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which at one time was in very general use, but later gradually became an object of suspicion and jealousy in the Church as our canonical Gospels took its place. The manner in which Theodoret dealt with Tatian's Gospel, or that "according to the Hebrews," recalls the treatment by Serapion of another form of the same work: the Gospel according to Peter. He found that work in circulation and greatly valued amongst the Christians of Rhossus, and allowed them peaceably to retain it for a time, until, alarmed at the Docetic heresy, he more closely examined the Gospel, and discovered in it what he considered heretical matter.(1) The Gospel according to the Hebrews, which narrowly missed a permanent place in the Canon of the Church, might well seem orthodox to the simple Christians of Cyrus, yet as different from, though closely related to, the Canonical Gospels, it would seem heretical to their Bishop. As different from the Gospels of the four evangelists, it was doubtless suppressed by Theodoret with perfect indifference as to whether it were called Tatian's Gospel or the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is obvious that there is no evidence of any value connecting Tatian's Gospel with those in our Canon. We know so little about the work in question, indeed, that as Dr. Donaldson frankly admits, "we should not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it told us something reliable about itself."(2) Its earlier history is enveloped in obscurity, and as Canon Westcott observes: "The later history of the Diatessaron is
involved in confusion."(1) We have seen that in the sixth century it was described by Victor of Capua as Diapente, "by five," instead of "by four." It was also confounded with another Harmony written, not long after Tatian's day, by Ammonius of Alexandria (+243). Dionysius Bar-Salibi,(2) a writer of the latter half of the twelfth century, mentions that the Syrian Ephrem, about the middle of the fourth century, wrote a commentary on the Diatessaron of Tatian, which Diatessaron commenced with the opening words of the fourth Gospel: "In the beginning was the word." The statement of Bar-Salibi, however, is contradicted by Gregory Bar-Hebraeus,
Bishop of Tagrit, who says that Ephrem Syrus wrote his Commentary on the Diatessaron of Ammonius, and that this Diatessaron commenced with the words of the fourth Gospel: "In the beginning was the word."(3) The Syrian Ebed-Jesu (+l308) held Tatian and Ammonius to be one and the same person; and it is probable that Dionysius mistook the Harmony of Ammonius for that of Tatian. It is not necessary further to follow this discussion, for it in no way affects our question, and no important deduction can be derived from it.(4) We allude to the point for the mere sake of showing that, up to the last, we have no certain information throwing light on the composition of Tatian's Gospel. All that we do know of it,—what it did not contain—the places where it largely circulated, and the name by which it was
called, tends to identify it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
For the rest, Tatian had no idea of a New Testament Canon, and evidently did not recognize as inspired, any Scriptures except those of the Old Testament.(1) It is well known that the sect of the Encratites made use of apocryphal Gospels until a much later period, and rejected the authority of the Apostle Paul, and Tatian himself is accused of repudiating some of the Pauline Epistles, and of altering and mutilating others.(2)
2.
Dionysius of Corinth need not detain us long. Eusebius informs 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 characterizes each, but with the exception of a few short fragments preserved by him, none of these fruits of the "inspired industry" [———] of Dionysius are now extant.(3) 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,(4) during which years the Epistle must have been composed. It could not have
been written, however, until after Dionysius became Bishop of Corinth in a.d. 170,(1) and it was probably written some years after.(2)
No quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the New Testament occurs in any of the fragments of the Epistles still 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. Eusebius says that Dionysius adds some "expositions of Divine Scriptures" [———].(3) There can be no doubt, we think, that this refers to the Old Testament only, and Tischendorf himself does not deny it.(4)
The second passage which Tischendorf(5) 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 [———] when they have formed designs against these which are not of such importance."(1) Regarding this passage, Canon Westcott, 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."(2) We have seen, however, that there has not been a trace of any New Testament Canon in the 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
2 On the Canon, p. 166. Dr. Westcott, in the first instance,
translates the expression: [———] "the Scriptures of the
New Testament." In a note to his fourth edition, however, he
is kind enough to explain: "Of course it is not affirmed
that the collection here called [———] 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 necessarily imply a "collection" of
writings as they do a "collection" of the Epistles of
Dionyaius.
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 untenable, 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 arguments 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, and may with perfect propriety have indicated the Scriptures of the Old Testament. We find Justin Martyr complaining 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 throughout 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.(1) The expression of Eusebius regarding "expositions of Divine Scriptures" [———] 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 undiminished. We have no indication of the particular evangelical works 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,(2) by pseudo-Ignatius,(3) Polycarp,(4) Papias,(5) Hegesippus,(6) Justin Martyr,(7) and at least employed along with our Gospels by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome.(8) The fact that Serapion, in the third century allowed the Gospel of Peter to be used in the church of Rhossus(9) shows at the same time the consideration in which it was held, and the incompleteness of the Canonical position of the New Testament writings. So does the circumstance
1 This charge is made with insistance throughout the
Clementine Homilies.
that in the fifth century Theodoret found the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or Tatians Gospel, widely circulated and held in honour amongst orthodox churches in his diocese.(1) The Pastor of Hermas, which was read in the Churches and nearly secured a permanent place in the Canon, was quoted as inspired by Irenæus.(2) The Epistle of Barnabas was held in similar honour, and quoted as inspired by Clement of Alexandria(3) and by Origen,(4) 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,(5) 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.(6) Tischendorf indeed conjectures that a blank in the Codex Sinaiticus 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.(7) 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.(8) It is unnecessary to multiply, as
7 Justin, Apol., i. 20, 44; Clem. Al., Strom., vi. 5, §§ 42,
43; Ladantius, Instit. 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.
might so easily be done, these illustrations; it is too well known that a vast number of Gospels and similar works, which have been excluded from the Canon, were held in the 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.
Canon 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 carefully guarded as he supposes, but it is well known that this was not the case, and that numerous interpolations have been introduced 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 vast 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 Theclæ 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, 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, Canon 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."(3) The words: "the Apostles of the devil have filled these with tares," are, he supposes,
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 Cultu fem., i.
3) will not be forgotten.
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 permissible 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, Canon 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 '" [———].(1) Tischendorf, who is ready enough to strain every expression into evidence, recognizes 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.(2) 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 "(3) [———].
There is only one other point to mention. Canon 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. "Today," 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."(4) 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,"(1) of the Pastor of Hermas,(2) of the Apocalypse of Peter,(3) and other apocryphal works, we do not at the same time hear of the public reading of our Gospels.
CHAPTER IX. MELITO OF SARDIS—CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS—ATHENAGORAS—THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS.
We might here 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 Canon 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(l) [———] indicating that Commodus had already been admitted to a share of the Government.(3)
Canon 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 mistaken. 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 [———] 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."(1) 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 Canon 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 a single Epistle of Paul, or from any of the [———] 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 assertion is calculated to mislead a large class of readers.(2)
The fragment of Melito is as follows: "Melito to his
1 On the Canon, p. 193. [In the fourth edition Dr. Westcott
omits the last phrase, making a full stop at "Old." p. 218.]
2 It must be said, however, that Canon 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, &c., Works, ii. p. 148.
brother Onesimus, greeting. As thou hast frequently desired in thy zeal for the word [———] 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 statement of the old books [———], how many they are and what is their order, I have earnestly endeavoured to accomplish this, knowing thy zeal concerning the faith, and thy desire to be informed concerning the word [———], 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 [———], 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."(1)
Canon 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,(2) in the Septuagint version, by the Greek word [———], which in a legal sense also means a will or Testament,(3) and that word is adopted throughout the New
2 The legal sense of [———] as a Will or Testament is
distinctly intended in Heb. ix. 16. "For where a Testament
[———] is, there must also of necessity be the death of
the testator" [———]. The same word [———] is employed
throughout the whole passage. Heb. ix. 15—20.
Testament.(l) The Vulgate translation, instead of retaining the original Hebrew signification, translated the word in the Gospels and Epistles, "Testamentum" and [———] became "Vetus Testamentum" instead of "Vetus Foedus" 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," [———], frequently occurs in the LXX version of the Old Testament and its Apocrypha,(2) and in Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34,(3) the prophet speaks of making a "new covenant" [———] with the house of Israel, which is indeed quoted in Hebrews viii. 8. It is the doctrinal idea of the new covenant, through Christ confirming 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" [———], "Holy Scriptures" [———],(5) or "The Scriptures" [———,(6) but the preparation for the distinction of "Old Testament" began very early in the development of the doctrinal 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 [———].(1) 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" [———];(2) and in Luke he says: "This cup is the New Testament [———] in my blood."(3) 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 antithetical implication whatever 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 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 [———], 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 [———] not of the letter, but of the spirit" [———]. Why does not Canon 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" [———];(l ) 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 [———] 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 Canon 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, Canon Westcott should know very well that the first general designation for the New Testament collection was "The Gospel" [———] and "The Apostle" [———], for the two portions of the collection, in contrast with the divisions of the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets [———]
[———],(1) and the name New Testament occurs for the very first time in the third century, when Tertullian called the collection of Christian Scriptures Novum Instrumentum and Novum Testamentum.(2) The term [———] is not, so far as we are aware, applied in the Greek to the "New Testament" collection in any earlier work than Origen's De Principiis, iv. 1. It was only in the second half of the third century that the double designation [———] was generally abandoned.(3)
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 included in the new collection."(4) Little evidence? There is none at all.
There is, however, one singular and instructive point in this fragment to which Canon 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 concerning 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 Fathers 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 canonization 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 ignorance of the Bishop of Sardis as to the Canon even of the Old Testament.
We have not yet finished with Melito in connection with Canon 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 Caesar," together with five other fragments attributed to Melito.(2) With regard to this Syriac Oration, Canon 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, however, clear from the substance of the composition that it cannot have been spoken before the Emperor,(4) 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.(1) There is no ground whatever 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 Canon 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."(2) It would have been more correct to have said that there are no allusions in it to the Gospels at all.
Canon 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 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."(3) As usual, we shall give the entire fragment: "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 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."(l)
Canon 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."(1) 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 another apocryphal Gospel, or the oral teaching of the Church. It is singular, however, that the only hint which Canon Westcott gives of the more than doubtful authenticity of this fragment consists of the introductory remark, after 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."(2)
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."(3) It is well known that there were other writers in the early Church bearing the names of Melito and Miletius or Meletius,(4)
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.(1) 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.(2) 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 fragments, besides coming in such suspicious company, must for other reasons be pronounced spurious.(3) They have in fact no attestation 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.(4) 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 Irenæus.(5) Besides the Oration and the five Syriac fragments, we have other two works extant falsely attributed to Melito, one, "De Transitu Virginis Mariæ," describing the miraculous presence of the Apostles at the
death of Mary;(1) and the other, "De Actibus Joannis Apostoli," relates the history of miracles performed by the Apostle John. Both are universally admitted to be spurious,(2) as are a few other fragments also bearing 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.
2.
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,(3) 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."(4) Tischendorf, without any precise date, sets him down as contemporary with Tatian and Theophilus (the latter of whom, he thinks, wrote his work addressed to Autolycus about A.D. 180—181 ).(5) Eusebius(6) 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(7) by stating that Claudius Apollinaris, probably in his Apology, refers to
1 It is worthy of remark that the Virgin is introduced into
all these fragments in a manner quite foreign to the period
at which Melito lived.
7 Eusebius himself sets him down in his Chronicle as
flourishing in the eleventh year of Marcus, or a.d. 171, a
year later than he dates Melito.
the miracle of the "Thundering Legion," which is said to have occurred during the war of Marcus Antoninus against the Marcomanni in a.d. 174.(1) The date of his writings may, therefore, with moderation be fixed between a.d. 177—180.(2)
Eusebius and others mention various works composed by him,(3) none of which, however, are extant; and we have only to deal with two brief fragments in connection with the Paschal controversy, which are ascribed to Apollinaris 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.(4) 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 Hiera-polis, in Asia, who lived near apostolic times, taught the like things in his work on the Passover, saying thus: 'There are some, however, who through ignorance raise contentions regarding these matters in a way which
1 Eusebius, H. E., v. 5; Mosheim, Inst. Hist. Ecclee., 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; Scaliyer, Animadv. in Euseb., p. 223 f.;
cf. Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 241 f.
should be pardoned, for ignorance does not admit of accusation, but requires instruction. And they say that the Lord, together with his disciples, ate the sheep [———] on the 14th Nisan, but himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread. And they state [———] 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.'"(1) 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 Teschendorf(2) and others as evidence of the general acceptance at that time both of the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel. Canon Westcott, with obvious exaggeration, says: "The Gospels are evidently quoted as books certainly known and recognized; 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, on the whole, 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.(1) Eusebius, who gives a catalogue of the works of Apol-linaris which had reached him,(2) 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 Easter,' in the fact that Eusebius mentions no such book by Apollinaris."(3) 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.(4) At the same time, entering with great interest, as he does, into the Paschal Controversy, and acquainted with the principal writings on the subject,(5) it would indeed have been strange had he not met with the work 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,(6) and it is extremely improbable that he could have been ignorant of a treatise by his distinguished contemporary
3 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 198, note 3; cf. Baur,
Unters. kan. Evv., 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.
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,(1) Jerome,(2) nor Photius,(3) who refer to his writings, mention it; and we cannot suppose that it was referred to in the lost works of Irenæus or Clement of Alexandria on the Passover. Eusebius, who quotes from them,(4) 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"(5) kept the 14th 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(1) when he names so many less distinguished men of Asia, then passed away, who kept the 14th 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?(2)
There has been much discussion as to the view taken by the writer of these fragments, Hilgenfeld and others(3) 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 14th 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 authorized 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 controversy 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."(1) Most certainly many passages preserved by him are inauthentic,
and generally allowed to be so.(2) The two fragments have by some been conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria,(3) 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.
3.
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
2 Dr. Donaldson rightly calls a fragment in the Chronicle
ascribed to Melito, "unquestionably spurious." Hist. Chr.
Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 231.
Dodwell.(1) 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 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(2) and Photius.(3) No reliance can be placed upon this information.(4)
The only works ascribed to Athenagoras are an Apology—called an Embassy, [———]—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(5) and Photius,(6) 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.(7) 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,(1) 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,"(2) without, however, indicating them. In the very few sentences which Canon 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."(3) 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."(4) 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" into the works ascribed to him, and all the "words of the Lord" referred to are introduced simply by the indefinite "he says," [———], and without any indication whatever of a written source.(1) 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 Canon Westcott alludes is the following, which we contrast with the supposed parallel in the Gospel:—
[———]
It is scarcely possible to imagine a greater difference in language conveying a similar idea than that which exists between Athenagoras 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:
[———]
The same idea is continued in the next chapter, in which the following passage occurs:
[———]
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?"
[———]; 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,(1) 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:
[———]
The omission of [———], "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.(4) 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 Canon Westcott does not refer, but which we must point out:
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 [———], 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 variations:
[———]
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 Matthew 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. 11, the reading is nearer that of Athenagoras and confirms this conclusion; and the addition there of [———] "against her" after
[———], 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."(1) This is compared with Mark x. 6: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female":
[———]
Now 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 all his authority from it alone. It is not permissible to claim it as evidence of the use of Mark.
Now 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 [———], 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 might have added that they might also have been derived from the gospel according to the Hebrews or many another collection 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 [———] saying to us." This can only refer to the sayings previously introduced by the indefinite [———]. 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 in Athenagoras, however, is rendered more striking and significant by the marked expression of his belief in the inspiration of the Old Testament.(1) 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:(2) "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."(3) He thus enunciates the theory of the mechanical inspiration of the writers of the Old Testament, in the clearest manner,(4) 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."(5)
5 In the treatise on the Resurrection there are no
arguments derived from Scripture.
4.
In the 17th year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, between the 7th March, 177-178, a fierce persecution was, it is said,(1) 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 Irenæus, 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,(2) relating the events which had 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,(3) and critics generally agree in dating it about a.d. 177,(4) although it was most probably not written until the following year.(5)
No writing of the New Testament is mentioned in this Epistle,(6) but it is asserted that there are "unequivocal coincidences of language"(7) with the Gospel of Luke, and others of its books. 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 [———] borne by the elder [———] 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 [———], the spirit [———], more abundantly than Zacharias," &c.(3) which again is referred to Luke i. 67, "And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying," &c.(4)
A few words must be said regarding the phrase [———], "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: [———] was 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 [———] 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.1 We must add that the Zacharias here spoken of is generally understood to be the father of John the Baptist, and no critic, so far as we can remember, has suggested that the reference in Luke xi. 51, applies to him.(2) 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 likewise 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
2 The great majority of critics consider it a reference to
2 Chron. xxiv., 21, though some apply it to a later
Zacharias.
production by the third Synoptist, but like the rest of his work is merely a composition based upon earlier written narratives.(1) Ewald, for instance, assigns the whole of the first chapters of Luke (i. 5—ii. 40) to what he terms "the eighth recognizable 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 Protevangclium 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 Protevangelium 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 acquaintance 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,(1) which he conjectures to have been the Gospel according to Peter, or the Gnostic work [———],(2) and both he and Tischendorf show that many of the Fathers(3) were either acquainted with 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. PTOLEMÆUS 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 synoptic Gospels, 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 confined 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, Ptolemæus and Heracleon.
Epiphanius has preserved a certain "Epistle to Flora" ascribed to Ptolemseus, in which, it is contended, there are "several quotations 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 produces the evidence for an earlier period to which he assigns it. He says: "He (Ptolemæus) appears in all the oldest sources
1 Tischendorf Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 46. Canon Westcott
with greater caution says: "He quoted words of our Lord
recorded by St. Matthew, the prologue of St. John's Gospel,
&c." On the Canon, p. 267.
as one of the most important, most influential of the disciples of Valentinus. As the period at which the latter himself flourished falls about 140, do we say too much when we represent Ptolemæus as working at the latest about 160? Irenæus (in the 2nd Book) and Hippolytus name him together with Heracleon; likewise pseudo-Tertullian (in the appendix to De Præscriptionibus Hæreticorum) and Philastrius make him appear immediately after Valentinus. Irenæus wrote the first and second books of his great work most probably (hochst warscheinlich) before 180, and in both he occupies himself much with Ptolemæus."(1) Canon Westcott, beyond calling Ptolemæus 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,(2) and states generally, in treating of him, that "the exact chronology of the early heretics is very uncertain."(3)
Let us, however, examine the evidence upon which Tischendorf relies for the date he assigns to Ptolemæus. He states in vague terms that Ptolemæus 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 Ptolemæus 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,(1) and as even Tischendorf himself elsewhere states,(2) 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.(3) 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 160 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 Ptolemæus must be connected with any precise part of the public life of Valentinus, and still less for discriminating the period of the career of Ptolemæus 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. (1) "Irenæus (in the 2nd Book) and Hippolytus name him together with Heracleon; likewise (2) pseudo-Tertullian (in the
appendix to De Præscriptionibus Hæreticorum) and Philastrius make him appear immediately after Valentinus," &c. We must first examine these two points a little more closely in order to ascertain the value of such statements. With regard to the first (1st) of these points, we shall presently see that the mention of the name of Ptolemseus along with that of Heracleon throws no light upon the matter from any point of view, 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 Ptolemseus. 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: "Irenæus and Hippolytus name him (Ptolemæus) together with Heracleon;"(l) there, he reasons: "Irenæus names Heracleon together with Ptolemæus,"(2) &c. 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 Irenæus 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 Æons "of Ptolemseus 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 Ptolemæus and Heracleon had been separated by a century. The only point which can be deduced from this mere coupling of names is that, in using the present tense, Irenæus is speaking of his own contemporaries. We may make the same remark regarding Hippolytus, for, if his mention of Ptolemæus 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 Ptolemæus, say..."(1) &c. 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 Irenæus and Hippolytus,(2) and scarcely, if at all, conveying independent information.(3) 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 the only one which merits serious attention. "Irenæus wrote the first and second book of his great work most probably before 180, and in both he occupies himself much with Ptolemæus." Before proceeding to examine the accuracy of this statement regarding the time at which Irenæus wrote, we may ask what conclusion would be involved if Irenæus really did compose the two books in a.d. 180 in which he mentions
3 Indeed the direct and avowed dependence of Hippolytus
himself upon the work of Irenæus deprives the
Philosophumena, in many parts, of all separate authority.
our Gnostics in the present tense? Nothing more than the simple fact that Ptolemæus 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" Irenæus 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 Irenæus 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 Irenseus wrote part of a work in which he attacks Ptolemæus and mentions Heracleon.
When did Irenæus, however, really write his work against Heresies? Although our sources of credible information regarding him are exceedingly limited, we are not without materials for forming a judgment on the point Irenæus 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).(1) 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 describing their sufferings during the persecution commenced against them in the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (7th March, 177—178).(2) It is very improbable that this journey was undertaken, in any case, before the spring of a.d. 178 at the earliest, 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.(1) There is reason to believe that he remained some time in Rome. Baronius states that Irenæus 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 Irenæus did not write it until he became Bishop.(2) It is not known how long Irenæus 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 [———] 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,"(3) &c. 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 Keltæ.(4) Irenæus no doubt during his stay in Rome came in
contact with the school of Ptolemæus and Heracleon, if not with the Gnostic leaders themselves, and shocked as he describes himself as being 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."(1) Irenæus 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."(2) There is, however, another clue which, taken along with this, leads us to a close approximation to the actual date. In the same Book, Irenæus mentions Theodotion's version of the Old Testament: "But not as some of those say," he writes, "who now [———] 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."(3) Now we are informed by Epiphanius that Theodotion published his translation during the reign of the Emperor Commodus(4) (a.d. 180—192). The Chronicon Paschale adds that it was during the Consulship of Marcellus, or as Massuet(5) proposes to read Marullus, who, jointly with Ælianus, assumed office a.d. 184. These dates decidedly agree with the passage of Irenæus and with the other data, all of which lead
us to about the same period within the episcopate of Eleutherus (+ c. 190).(1) We have here, therefore, a clue to the date at which Irenæus 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 Irenæus 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 (+ 198—199).(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 Ptolemæus, we shall give it entire and then examine it in detail. To the all-important question: "How old is Heracleon?" Tischendorf replies: "Irenæus names Heracleon, together
3 Canon 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. p 2
with Ptolemaeus II. 4, § 1, in a way which makes them appear as well-known representatives of the Valentinian school. This interpretation of his words is all the more authorized because he never again mentions Heracleon. Clement, in the 4th Book of his Stromata, 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 [———] is Clement's expression). Origen, at the beginning of his quotation from Heracleon, says that he was held to be a friend of Valentinus [———]. Hippolytus mentions him, for instance, in the following way: (vi. 29); 'Valentinus, and Heracleon, and Ptolemæus, and the whole school of these, disciples of Pythagoras and Plato....' Epiphanius says (Hser. 41): 'Cerdo (the same who, according to Irenæus III. 4, § 3, was in Rome under Bishop Hyginus with Valentinus) follows these (the Ophites, Kainites, 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 Ptolemæus 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 Irenæus, living and working at the time he wrote. The way in which Irenæus 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 Æons of Ptolemseus himself, and of Heracleon, and all the rest who hold these views."(1) We fail to recognize 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 a distinction is drawn between Valentinus and Ptolemaeus and Heracleon, and that Irenæus 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 Irenæus and subsequent writers represent Ptolemaeus and Heracleon 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 Irenæus, or necessarily assign their period of independent activity to the lifetime of Valentinus, as Tischendorf appears to argue? Most certainly they do 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 affixing an early date by merely considering the quotation which Tischendorf himself makes from Hippolytus: "Valentinus, therefore, and Heracleon and Ptolemæus, and
the whole school of these, disciples of Pythagoras and Plato.... "(l) 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 Teschendorf 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. Teschendorf 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 Irenæus saying that "neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides" possesses certain knowledge,(3) and elsewhere: "of such an one as Valentinus, or Ptolemæus, 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 [———] 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 hearsay, guardedly using the expression "said to be" [———]. But according to the later and patristic use of the word, [———] meant nothing more than a "disciple," and it cannot here be necessarily interpreted into a "contemporary."(1) Under no circumstances 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 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 Irenæus,(2) regarding the sacred Tetrad (Kol-Arbas) of the Valentinian Gnosis, Hippolytus supposes Irenæus 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 Secundud, and Ptolemæus, and Heracleon, he proposes, § 5, to show "what are the opinions held by Marcus and
Kolarbasus."(1) At the end of the same book he declares that Irenæus, 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."(2) At an earlier part of the work he had spoken in a more independent way in reference to certain who had promulgated great heresies: "Of these," he says, "one is Kolarbasus, who endeavours to explain religion by measures and numbers."(3) The same mistake is committed by pseudo-Tertullian,(4) and Philastrius,(5) each of whom devotes a chapter to this supposed heretic. Epiphanius, as might have been expected, fell into the same error, and he proceeds elaborately to refute the heresy of the Kolarbasians, "which is Heresy XV." He states that Kolarbasus follows Marcus and Ptolemæus,(6) 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."(7) This absurd mistake(8) shows how little these writers
knew of the Gnostics of whom they wrote, and how the one 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 here that while pseudo-Tertullian(1) and Philastrius(2) adopt the following order after the Valentinians: Ptolemæus, Secundus, Heracleon, Marcus, and Kolarbasus, Epiphanius(3) places them: Secundus, Ptolemæus, Marcosians, Kolarbasus, and Heracleon; and Hippolytus(4) again: Secundus, Ptolemæus, Heracleon, Marcus, and Kolarbasus. The vagueness of Irenæus had left some latitude here, and his followers were uncertain. The somewhat singular fact that Irenæus only once mentions Heracleon whilst he so constantly refers to Ptolemæus, taken in connection with this order, in which Heracleon is always placed after Ptolemæus,(5) and by Epiphanius after Marcus, may be reasonably explained by the fact that whilst Ptolemæus had already gained considerable notoriety when Irenæus 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 principle.
We have already pointed out that there is not a single passage in Irenæus, or any other early writer, assigning Ptolemæus and Heracleon to a period anterior to the time when Irenæus undertook 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 160,(1) and these dates are most clearly given by Irenæus himself.(2) Why then should Ptolemæus 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? Irenæus himself may be cited as a parallel case, which Tischendorf at least cannot gainsay. He is never tired of telling us that Irenæus was the disciple of Polycarp,(3) whose martyrdom he sets about A.D. 165, and he considers that the intercourse of Irenæus with the aged Father must properly be put about a.d. 150,(4) yet he himself dates the death of Irenæus, a.d. 202,(5) 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 twenty years after his first appearance in Rome in 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 Irenseus is said to have done about the very same period at those 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 Ptolemæus and Heraclcon were not contemporaries with Irenæus, 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 Irenæus principally directs his work against the followers of Valentinus living at the time he wrote, and notably of Ptolemæus 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 [———] teaching heresy, I speak particularly of the disciples of Ptolemæus [———] whose system is an offshoot from the school of Valentinus."(4) Nothing could be more explicit. Irenæus in this passage distinctly represents Ptolemæus 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 Ptolemæus and Heracleon with that of Valentinus; similar testimony of the same writer, fully confirming the above statement of Irenæus, 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 Ptolemæus, say, &c.... They, however, who are of the Oriental party, of whom is Axionicus and Bardesanes, maintain," &c.(1) Now, Ptolemæus and Heracleon are here quite clearly represented as being contemporary with Axionicus and Bardesanes, and without discussing whether Hippolytus does not, in continuation, describe them as all living at the time he wrote,(2) there can be no doubt that some of them were, and that this evidence confirms again the statement of Irenæus. 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 [———] has written a work regarding the heresy in reply to Bardesanes."(3) 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.(4) 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."(1) Although on the whole they may be considered to have flourished somewhat earlier, Ptolemæus and Heracleon are thus shown to have been for a time at least contemporaries of Axionicus and Bardesanes.(2)
Moreover, it is evident that the doctrines of Ptolemæus and Heracleon represent a much later form of Gnosticism than that of Valentinus. It is generally admitted that Ptolemæus reduced the system of Valentinus to consistency,(3) 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 Irenæus and the Fathers who wrote in refutation of heresy. Origen also represents Heracleon as amongst those who held opinions sanctioned by the Church,(4) and both he and Ptolemæus must indubitably be classed amongst the latest Gnostics.(5) It is clear, therefore, that Ptolemæus and Heracleon were contemporaries of Irenæus(6) at the time he composed his work against Heresies (185—195), both, and especially
the latter, flourishing and writing towards the end of the second century.(1)
We mentioned, in first speaking of these Gnostics, that Epiphanius has preserved an Epistle, attributed to Ptolemæus, which is addressed to Flora, one of his disciples.(2) This Epistle is neither mentioned by Irenæus nor by any other writer before Epiphanius. There is nothing in the Epistle itself to show that it was really written by Ptolemæus 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 whatever 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 declared," 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:—
It must not be forgotten that Iræneus makes very explicit statements 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.(5) We know that they professed to have direct traditions from the Apostles through Theodas, a disciple of the Apostle Paul;(6) and in the
Epistle to Flora allusion is made to the succession of doctrine received by direct tradition from the Apostles.(1) Irenæus says that the Valentinians profess to derive their views from unwritten sources,(2) and he accuses them of rejecting the Gospels of the Church,(3) but, on the other hand, he states that they had many Gospels different from what he calls the Gospels of the Apostles.(4)
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, 11, 12, and says: "Expounding this passage, Heracleon, the most distinguished of the School of Valentinus, says as follows," &c.(5) This is immediately interpreted into a quotation from a Commentary on Luke.(6) 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 commented upon was actually from our third Gospel.(7) The Stromata 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, 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 [———], Pesedicatio Petri), a work which, as we have already several times mentioned, was cited by Clement of Alexandria as authentic and inspired Holy Scripture.(2)
The epoch at which Ptolemæus 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.
2.
A similar question of date arises regarding Celsus, who wrote a work, entitled [———], 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 Oligen, writing about the second quarter of the third century, represents Celsus as his contemporary,(1) Tischendorf, referring to the passage, which we shall give in its place, proceeds to assign an earlier date upon the following grounds: "But indeed, even in the first book, at the commencement 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 [———] still [———] live the common life among men, but already and long since [———] 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; 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," &c.(2)
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,(1) is made in the belief that this Celsus was the Epicurean who lived under Hadrian,(2)
which Tischendorf, although he avoids explanation of the reason, rightly recognizes 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, &c.... Remark, therefore, the falseness of his mind," &c.(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 constantly finds evidence that he is of a wholly different school. Beyond this belief, founded avowedly on mere hearsay, Origen absolutely knows nothing whatever as to 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."(1) Elsewhere he says: "... the Epicurean Celsus (if he be the same who composed two other books against Christians)," &c.(2)
Not only is it apparent that Origen knows nothing of the Celsus with whom he is dealing, however, 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(3) he has heard that his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian, but a little further on,(4) 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(5) 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, however, 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," &C.(1) From this passage, and supported by other considerations, Volkmar and others assert that Celsus was really a contemporary of Origen.(2) 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 [———],(3) 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.(1) 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.(2) It is generally admitted by these, with Lardner(3) and Michaelis,(4) 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 Pseudomantis, and who really wrote against magic,(5) as Origen mentions.(6) 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,(7) 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 whatever 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 Pseudo-mantis. It need not be remarked that the references of Celsus to the Marcionites,(1) and to the followers of Marcellina,(2) only so far bear upon the matter as to exclude an early date.(3)
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 [———]. As many critics of all shades of opinion have long since determined, so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus attacked by Origen, as the philosophical opinions which he everywhere expresses clearly show, was a Neo-Platonist.(4) 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 himself an Epicurean,(1) which Celsus evidently does not, but accuses him of expressing views inconsistent with that philosophy,(2) or of so concealing his Epicurean opinions that it might be said that he is an Epicurean only in name.(3) 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,(4) 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 Neo-Platonist, as Mosheim long ago demonstrated, of the School of Ammonius, who founded the sect at the close of the second century.(5) 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, confirms this conclusion, and indicates a new and recent system of philosophy.(6) An Epicurean would not have thought of such a work—it would have been both appropriate and necessary in connection 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. Celsus repeatedly accuses Christians, in it, of teaching their doctrines secretly and against the law, which seeks them out and punishes them with death,(1) and this indicates a period of persecution. Lardner, assuming the writer to be the Epicurean friend of Lucian, from this clue supposes that the persecution referred to must have been that under Marcus Aurelius (f 180), and practically rejecting the data of Origen himself, without advancing sufficient reasons of his own, dates Celsus a.d. 176.(2) As a 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(3) (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 pandlels, 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;(4) and he accuses Christians, not without reason, of interpolating the books of the Sibyl, whose authority, he states, some of them acknowledged.(5)
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. 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,(2) 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 composition 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;(3) whilst
others consider it a mere fragment in itself.(1) It is written in Latin which by some is represented as most corrupt,(2) whilst others uphold it as most correct.(3) 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.(4) 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.(5) Considerable difference of opinion exists as to the original language of the fragment, the greater number of critics maintaining that the composition is a translation from the Greek,(6) whilst others assert it to
have been originally written in Latin.(1) Its composition is variously attributed to the Church of Africa(2) and to a member of the Church in Rome.(3)
The fragment commences with the concluding portion of 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 Lucan Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi cum eo Paulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum adsumsisset numeni suo ex opinione concribset dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne et idem prout asequi potuit 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 Alexandrians is generally identified with the Epistle to the Hebrews,(2) although some critics think this doubtful, or deny the fact, and consider both Epistles referred to pseudographs
attributed to the Apostle Paul.1 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 indicated as 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 refer. Special reference is made to the Pastor of Hermas, which we shall presently discuss, regarding which the writer expresses his opinion that it should be read privately but not publicly in church, as it can neither be classed amongst the books of the prophets nor of the apostles. The fragment concludes with the rejection of the writings of several heretics.(2)
It is inferred that, in the missing commencement of the fragment, the first two Synoptics must have been mentioned. This, however, though of course most probable, cannot actually be ascertained, 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, but beyond this fact the information given anything but tends to establish the unusual credibility claimed for the Gospels. It is declared by the fragment, as we have seen, 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 either, 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 from them 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 incidentally 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 Pastor of Hennas. He says: "Hermas in
truth composed the Pastor 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 among the prophets, whose number is complete, nor amongst the apostles in the latter days."
"Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Herma conscripsit sedente cathedra urbis Romæ ecclesiæ Pio episcopus fratre ejus et ideo legi eum quidem oportet se publicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas completum numero neque inter apostolos in fine temporum potest."(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.(1)
The mass of critics, with very little independent consideration, have taken literally the statement of the author regarding the composition of the Pastor "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.(2) 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 the fourth century.(1)
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 Pastor, 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 at least towards the end of the second century, at a period when the statement in the composition may agree with the actual opinions in the Church, and yet in a sufficient degree 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 licence 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 distinguish the Pastor 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 is an accurate interpretation of the expression,(1) 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 any of the Fathers whom we have examined, and that the Old Testament has been the only Holy Scripture they have acknowledged; and it is therefore unsafe, upon the mere interpretation of a phrase which would be applicable even a century later, to date this anonymous fragment, regarding which we know nothing, 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.(2) 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 serving as proof that the Pastor of Hennas was not inspired. The paragraph itself bears unquestionable mark of tampering,"(1) &c. 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 very far from free from 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 prout assequi potuit).(1) If the fragment of Muratori, therefore, even came within our limits as to date, its evidence would be of no value, for, instead of establishing the trustworthiness 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, long after, as best he could.(2)
4.
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
1 The passage is freely rendered thus by Canon 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 tho birth of
John." On the Canon, p. 187.
2 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 Hippolytus,
is of no value for the Gospels.
the second century, on the occasion to which 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 upou 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. 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 confirmed this conclusion, but this is not at present
necessary, and we must hasten on.
