The Wave of Scepticism and the Rock of Truth

by M. H. Habershon

I remark that it is far from clear that he attached no value to our Gospels from anything he says in the fragments extant, and of course we know nothing of those portions that are lost. We know that he was making a book, consisting of what he could gather from tradition about "the truth," "to set beside his interpretations" about the "commandments delivered by the Lord to faith." There were Gospel writings in circulation, and he was supplementing what they recorded. There is positively no evidence to make us think that our present Gospels were unknown to him. He does not, in the fragments we have, mention Paul's writings, nor the Gospel of Luke, nor the Fourth Gospel, but he does allude to a book by Matthew and another by Mark, and Eusebius tells us that Papias makes use of passages taken from Peter's first epistle and John's first epistle. So, on the whole, the testimony of Papias, instead of being against is in favour of the Synoptics, and also of the Fourth Gospel; for the silence inference applies no more to it than it does to Paul and Luke's writings, and the statement of Eusebius about John's Epistle is not to be set aside, for if John wrote it, it will be allowed he wrote the Gospel. His evidence respecting Mark is important, for the fragments contain a statement that "Mark recorded what fell from Peter, writing accurately, and taking especial care neither to omit nor to misrepresent anything;" and Papias says that "Peter preached with a view to the benefit of his hearers, and not to give a history of Christ's discourses." Our author's inference is that it is some other person of the name of Mark that is connected with the Second Gospel, and not the Mark that Papias refers to. This is very far-fetched and improbable, for the description tallies well with our Second Gospel, and quite admits of the supposition that Mark had every opportunity of obtaining from eye-witnesses the historical materials of his Gospel. No one supposes that every statement in the book emanated from Peter's discourses.

Papias is the only early writer that our author acknowledges furnishes any evidence in favour of the Synoptic Gospels. He cannot deny that he records that Matthew composed discourses of the Lord in the Hebrew tongue, but he says "that totally excludes the claim of our Greek Gospel to apostolic origin." The boldness of this assertion can only be properly met by an equally explicit denial that it does anything of the kind. If the translation be a faithful one from a Hebrew version, it is of course entitled to the epithet apostolic if the original possessed it. Our author must have some peculiar notions about verbal inspiration if this be the rule he lays down. But he altogether overlooks the supposition that Matthew's Gospel was not originally written in Hebrew, notwithstanding this statement of Papias.

Tischendorf, in his book issued by the Tract Society, entitled, "When were our Gospels Written?" maintains that the assertion of Papias "rests on a misunderstanding," and he briefly states his reasons for this view. He says: "This Hebrew text must have been lost very early, for not one even of the very oldest Church fathers had ever seen or used it." "There were two parties among the Judaisers—the one the Nazarenes and the other the Ebionites. Each of these parties used a gospel according to Matthew, the one party using a Greek and the other party a Hebrew text. That they did not scruple to tamper with the text, to suit their creed, is probable from their very sectarian spirit. The text, as we have certain means of proving, rested upon our received text of Matthew, with, however, occasional departures, to suit their arbitrary views. When then it was reported, in later times, that these Nazarenes, who were one of the earliest Christian sects, possessed a Hebrew version of Matthew, what was more natural than that some person or other, thus falling in with the pretensions of this sect, should say that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and that the Greek was only a version from it? How far these two texts differed from each other no one cared to inquire; and with such separatists who withdrew themselves to the shores of the Dead Sea, it would not have been easy to have attempted it."

"Jerome, who knew Hebrew, as other Latin and Greek fathers did not, obtained in the fourth century a copy of this Hebrew Gospel of the Nazarenes, and at once asserted that he had found the original. But when he looked more closely into the matter, he confined himself to the statement that many supposed this Hebrew text was the original of Matthew's Gospel. He translated it into Latin and Greek, and added a few observations of his own on it. From these observations of Jerome, as well as from other fragments, we must conclude that this notion of Papias cannot be substantiated; but, on the contrary, this Hebrew has been drawn from the Greek text, and disfigured moreover here and there with certain arbitrary changes. The same is applicable to a Greek text of the Hebrew Gospel in use among the Ebionites. This text, from the fact that it was in Greek, was better known to the Church than the Hebrew version of the Nazarenes; but it was always regarded, from the earliest times, as only another text of Matthew's Gospel."

The references to Justin Martyr occupy nearly one hundred and fifty pages of the work. He was one of the most learned and one of the earliest writers of the Church not long after the apostles. His conversion took place about the year 132, and his martyrdom, A.D. 165.

In his second "Apology," A.D. 139, and in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, are many quotations of passages found in the Gospels. He quotes from all the four Evangelists, and our author's elaborate attempt to prove the contrary is certainly not successful. His objection, based on slight discrepancies in the words while the sense is identical, is frivolous in the extreme. Supposing there were in Justin's hands a primitive work which supplied the passages, and that work was embodied in the canonical compilation, they can be truthfully said to be quotations from the latter. The objection to his quotations on the grounds that they are not verbatim, is neutralized by the fact that neither are his quotations from the Old Testament always exact.

It has been shown that "if Justin did not quote from our Gospels, there must have been in his hands, in the second century, a variety of accounts of Christ's life, to which he, a leading Christian apologist, attached the greatest importance; and yet, in the course of the few following years, those accounts must have disappeared, and four others, of which this eminent Christian apologist knew nothing, must have taken their place. This would have been what Canon Westcott justly calls a 'revolution,' for it would have, in a single generation, entirely changed the records of the life of Christ publicly used by the Christians."[32]

Justin quotes from a book entitled the "Memoirs," which he says "are called Gospels," and our author tries to make out that the passage quoted is an interpolation. It is not the only instance where the "wish," and not the proof, "is father to the thought."

In Justin's work, the "Apology," occur the words, "And thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins;" which are found in the apocryphal Gospel of James, as said to the Virgin Mary, while in Matthew's Gospel they are spoken to Joseph. It is urged that Justin must, therefore, have quoted them from a lost Gospel; but why should it be supposed so when they are in the apocryphal Gospel of James, which, Origen says, was everywhere known about the end of the second century, and which, there is good ground for believing, was written in the early part of that century?

A few other passages in Justin's work, which are not found in our Gospels, may be accounted for by supposing them to be quotations either from lost Gospels, genuine or apocryphal, or tradition may have supplied them. There is no certain inference to be arrived at.