As regards Justin Martyr, with all his details the author seems very weak; and here also all is either borrowed or is only on the surface. That there were a multitude of accounts of Jesus current, written and unwritten, is notorious, and it is stated in Luke's Gospel; that Justin, who was of Palestine, had heard and refers to such is most probable. But these accounts never stood on the ground the four Gospels did. Origen notices (be his remark solid or not is alike as to this) that the others “had taken in hand,” which was merely human, not as Luke. Irenaeus insists that there could not be more than four Gospels, of which I will speak further on, and Tatian made a harmony of these four—plain proof that in the very earliest ages these four were distinctly recognized. That Justin, who was of Palestine, was familiar with the accounts current as published there, and reproduces them, is most probable; but no one can read even what is cited by the author of Supernatural Religion without seeing that Justin was fully acquainted with and recalls what he had read in the canonical Gospels. He does not take the roll down to copy it; but we could not have what Justin gives without our Gospels.
As to the Gospel to the Hebrews, it can hardly be doubted that Matthew wrote some account of Christ in Hebrew: at any rate early Fathers so state. But, after all, their statements are very vague as to what it was. And Epiphanius says it was corrupted, Jerome that he translated it, but this would prove it was not the canonical Matthew. What did he translate? It does not affect our Gospel, which is clearly original, as even the language proves. Jerome says he saw it at Caesarea and translated it, so that there was such in the fourth century. Still the statements of Jerome are so inconsistent that it is hard to draw any clear conclusion from what he says. He says he translated it, and that it was practically the same as Matthew. This it certainly was not by his own testimony elsewhere. The writers of Introductions, Bleek, DeWette, etc., say he gave up afterward this thought, and I suppose did not like saying plainly he had been wrong; but it seems to me the dates do not bear this out. I do not think he is much to be trusted in the matter.
Papias—a man “σφοδρὰ μικρὸς νοῦν” —assumes there was such a Hebrew Gospel by Matthew; but there were afterward seemingly two differing editions. A few of the “Fathers” accepted it; but Origen, disposed to receive everything, says every one was free to use it if he thought it genuine, only not as authority. But it was in Aramean, and there is no proof that Justin, a Greek, understood the tongue. He was a Greek, and, though living in Palestine, it was in the Roman town Flavia Neapolis. Further, though he preferred being put to death rather than deny Christ, when, as is said, brought to martyrdom through a jealous philosopher, Crescens, yet he never gave up his philosopher's cloak, was a Platonist, and unsound in fundamental doctrines; and, though we cannot doubt his sincerity, was on the surface of Christianity. At any rate, the gospel to the Hebrews is surrounded critically with the greatest obscurity, with no proof that Justin understood it, or was one of Papias's “every one interpreted as best he could.” All this part of the book comes to nothing.
The inspiration of scripture is known by divine teaching; it asserts its own inspiration formally, more formally, if possible, than the spoken word; but its authority is demonstrated by evidence of every kind, such as no other book in the world possesses. The author quotes the writers of the Banr or Tiibingen school in numbers; which is merely part of a progressive effort, not simply to undermine the authority of the New Testament history, but to do so by the invention of a system already seen through and refuted as alike historically unfounded and absurd, and which has now not merely lost its weight outside a few partisans, but has demonstrated the animus of the inventors and their untrustworthiness in every respect. It is this school that the author of Supernatural Religion relies on. We have seen that his quotations from others, themselves rationalist enough, cannot in fact be trusted. There has been little real research into the character of the Gospels.
The Fathers say Matthew wrote in order—chronologically in fact. Mark, on the contrary, no one knew how (supposed as if he heard from Peter! this from the foolish notion that an apostle must be the author, from not really believing in inspiration). Now it is exactly the contrary; Matthew's Gospel brings forth Christ as Messiah, Immanuel sent to the Jews, but rejected of them (the kingdom of heaven and the church and the kingdom in glory being substituted for the present establishment of Messiah's glory); and gives a perfect moral order of subjects with this view. Hence, too, you have in fact no proper history with chronological sequence. This is given in one single verse (iv. 23); and we have His service in Galilee, and at the very end no ascension, but the whole closed with the remnant in Galilee and their mission to the Gentiles. In all the three Gospels blind Bartimaeus at Jericho begins the last events. There Christ is Son of David. Mark and Luke are chronological, and relate events in the same order, as far as they are the same, up to the middle of Luke 9, which terminates the history of Luke (save always the last events). See Luke 9:5151And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, (Luke 9:51). From that verse to 18:34, it is in general His last journey up to Jerusalem, introducing various discourses by the way, and adding others to the same purpose, without note of time. In general, Luke will give a quantity of events together, and develop facts which have a strong moral bearing.
The difference of the Gospel of John is essentially this: it gives not a history at all, but Christ as God the word made flesh, the Jews being rejected altogether early in the first chapter, and so treated all through. The three first chapters are preface before His public ministry, John being not yet cast into prison—the two first going together, and the third, the foundation principles of the new thing, being born again, and the cross. The fourth is Judaea left, and the transition to the worship of the Father; the fifth, life-giving power, and exclusive judicial authority of the Son of God as Son of Man; the sixth, self-emptied and suffering Son of man; the seventh, glorified Son of man giving the Holy Ghost instead of appearing to the world; the eighth, His word rejected; the ninth, His work; the tenth, He has His sheep at any rate (for John all through goes on the ground of electing grace), also the Gentile ones; the eleventh and twelfth, He is testified to of God as thus rejected, as Son of God, Son of David, and Son of Man. But to take up this He must die—episode of Bethany. In the thirteenth, He begins with what refers to His departure out of this world. These rationalists find the resurrection of Lazarus out of place, not having the most distant thought of the mind of God in scripture, nor any idea, of course, that there is such a thing in Scripture.
To return to Justin Martyr, the author's account of his quotations is not at all trustworthy, and all that really bears on the true character of Justin's citation is left out. In the first place, Justin's manner of quoting is practically that of all the Fathers. They habitually quote not verbally, and put two passages together if it meets their point, just as Justin does constantly. Secondly, Justin also quotes very largely indeed from the Old Testament, which there is no question he received as proper scripture, exactly in the same way as he does from the New. He writes as a philosopher to the Gentiles, and habitually quotes the Christian writings, as authority would have been useless. He calls the Gospels “memoirs” (a term borrowed probably from Xenophon's account of Socrates, showing the tone of his mind), the Gospels written by the apostles and their companions, and says they were read in the Christian assemblies. He quotes them as such expressly—seven times, we are told by those who have exactly examined the details. Five agree with our Gospels; the others have variations; one a transposition of words, probably right; the rest inaccurately recorded with the same sense, and two words added— “and walk” —found nowhere else. He gives the substance as it stood in his mind, the common way of patristic quotation as of our own.
As to the other professed quotation, we find it in others of the earliest Fathers in different words and order; and, just as in Justin, by Fathers who beyond all question recognized the four Gospels and nothing else. That Justin used other traditional accounts, and perhaps the Gospel of the Hebrews, is very likely. There is no question that the four Gospels were held to be of paramount authority at that date. Tatian's harmony of the four was made only some twenty years after; and Jerome recounts the same of Theophilus a few years still earlier. When the author of Sup. Rel. says that competent critics agree, it only means that the infidel Tubingen school do so. Take not only Westcott, who may be thought a prejudiced churchman, but Bleek's Introduction (a theologian sober-minded and candid but as freethinking as any rationalist could desire), and the statements, alleged in Supernatural Religion to be quite certain, are treated as certainly false. The system followed by the author is a mere and evident effort to get rid of the large and developed testimony given with so much fullness in Justin to the Christian Gospels. Citations, says Bleek, are for the greater part unquestionably taken from our present Gospels.
Few, as I have said, in words say that it is written in the memoirs, but he quotes them as they were in his mind with a reference to other current statements, as to those found in other writings of the Fathers. The allegation which refers them to one given writing or to heretical sources has no foundation, though the doctrines and position of Justin would give no guarantee for his own soundness. He was doubtless a Christian, but still a Platonist philosopher. It seems another philosopher got him put to death through jealousy. This statement, accompanied by a reference to Bleek in p. 289, contradicts all Bleek's teaching (as does 293), and is as careless as it is unfounded. As to inspiration, indeed none of them believe it; but as to the repute and esteem in which our four Gospels were held in Justin's days, Bleek is as clear and decided as possible, and as to the use of them by Justin Martyr, among others. See with other places section 261-2. That infidel Germans have disputed over it, as in p. 288, is perfectly true, seeking by all means to undermine the scriptures and contradict the testimonies which support their authenticity.
The whole of this part of the book is full of statements which are unfounded. It is not my part to go into it in detail here. When he says (215) that the first and second Epistles of Clement have a canonical position, it is merely trifling with the fact of their being in God. Alex. There are three hymns there also. He himself says the second Epistle was rejected, as every one who has inquired knows. In Justin's reference to the Lord's baptism, instead of all being referred to the apostle's memoirs, he carefully distinguishes what is in them, which is found in fact in our Gospels, the Holy Ghost coming down like a dove, from other things which are not there, but stated by other Fathers. And this is also the case in his second reference to Christ's baptism (Supernatural Religion, p. 317); what follows is special pleading.
I have no interest whatever in defending the “Fathers:” one has only to read them, and specially the Apostolic Fathers, to see the difference of inspiration and the unsound and immoral stuff they write. You fall down a precipice from God to man. It is treated as an extraordinary anomaly that Justin could quote as he did if he received the four Gospels. It is a common thing with Fathers. Thus Bleek speaks of this when insisting on Justin's use of the four Gospels (section 87). These variations are of little moment when we remember that the Fathers seldom quoted scripture verbatim or word for word. It is in this place Bleek gives the true account of what the author makes so much about (in 288). He assumes (367) that there were a number of Gospels current— “In how many more” Gospels; but this is falsifying the facts. That there was probably a Gospel according to the Hebrews is not denied; but if there was, it was in Aramean, which, as a rule, not one of the Fathers whose works are in question understood. A mass of apocryphal Gospels we have—one has only to read them to judge of them. Traditions no doubt there were and referred to, but gradually lost. My business is in no way to justify the accuracy of Justin; but the attempt in i. 370 to prove his altering the text is the weakest absurdity.
Such passages are justly quoted by writers on the canon to prove that Justin was acquainted with the Gospels; but to look for the words and to insist that these must be found, and it must be a quotation from some other, is trifling with scripture. If I were to say Jesus condemns a person looking on a woman to lust after her, as much as adultery, people would justly conclude I had read the Gospels; but who, that it was some other apocryphal one? It is just folly.
(Continued from page 5.)