Supernatural Religion Volume I Part 28

excludes it, and his Gospel could not have contained it.(1) Luke is specially marked in generalizing the resistance of those about Jesus to his capture: "When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him: Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear."(2) As this episode follows immediately after the incident of the b.l.o.o.d.y sweat and prayer in the Garden, and the statement of Justin occurs in the very same chapter in which he refers to them, this contradiction further tends to confirm the conclusion that Justin employed a different Gospel.

It is quite in harmony with the same peculiar account that Justin states that, "after he (Jesus) was crucified, all his friends (the Apostles) stood aloof from him, having denied him(3).... (who, after he rose from the dead, and after they were convinced by himself that before his pa.s.sion he had told them that he must suffer these things, and that they were foretold by the prophets, repented of their flight from him when he was crucified), and while remaining among them he sang praises to G.o.d, as is made evident in the Memoirs of the Apostles."(4) Justin, therefore, repeatedly a.s.serts that _after_ the crucifixion all the Apostles forsook him, and he extends the denial of Peter

{331}

to the whole of the twelve. It is impossible to consider this distinct and reiterated affirmation a mere extension of the pa.s.sage: "they all forsook him and fled "[--Greek--],(1) when Jesus was arrested, which proceeded mainly from momentary fear.(2) Justin seems to indicate that the disciples withdrew from and denied Jesus when they saw him crucified, from doubts which consequently arose as to his Messianic character. Now, on the contrary, the Canonical Gospels represent the disciples as being together after the Crucifixion.(3) Justin does not exhibit any knowledge of the explanation given by the angels at the sepulchre as to Christ's having foretold all that had happened,(4) but makes this proceed from Jesus himself. Indeed, he makes no mention of these angels at all.

There are some traces elsewhere of the view that the disciples were offended after the Crucifixion.(5) Hilgenfeld points out the appearance of special Petrine tendency in this pa.s.sage, in the fact that it is not Peter alone, but all the Apostles, who are said to deny their master; and he suggests that an indication of the source from which Justin quoted may be obtained from the kindred quotation in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (iii.) by pseudo-Ignatius:

"For I know that also after his resurrection he was in the flesh, and I believe that he is so now. And when he came to those that were with Peter, he said to them: Lay hold, handle me, and see that I am

{332}

not an incorporeal spirit. And immediately they touched him and believed, being convinced by his flesh and spirit." Jerome, it will be remembered, found this in the Gospel according to the Hebrews used by the Nazarenes, which he translated,(1) from which we have seen that Justin in all probability derived other particulars differing from the Canonical Gospels, and with which we shall constantly meet, in a similar way, in examining Justin's quotations. Origen also found it in a work called the "Doctrine of Peter" [--Greek--],(2) which must have been akin to the "Preaching of Peter" [--Greek--].(3) Hilgenfeld suggests that, in the absence of more certain information, there is no more probable source from which Justin may have derived his statement than the Gospel according to Peter, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is known to have contained so much in the same spirit.(4)

It may well be expected that, at least in touching such serious matters as the Crucifixion and last words of Jesus, Justin must adhere with care to authentic records, and not fall into the faults of loose quotation from memory, free handling of texts, and careless omissions and additions, by which those who maintain the ident.i.ty of the Memoirs with the Canonical Gospels seek to explain the systematic variations of Justin's quotations from the text of the latter. It will, however, be found that here also marked discrepancies occur. Justin says, after referring to numerous prophecies regarding the treatment of Christ: "And again, when he says: 'They spake with their lips, they wagged the head, saying: Let him

{333}

deliver himself.' That all these things happened to the Christ from the Jews, you can ascertain. For when he was being crucified they shot out the lips, and wagged their heads, saying: 'Let him who raised the dead deliver himself.'"(1) And in another place, referring to the same Psalm (xxii.) as a prediction of what was to happen to Jesus, Justin says: "For they who saw him crucified also wagged their heads, each one of them, and distorted [--Greek--] their lips, and sneeringly and in scornful irony repeated among themselves those words which are also written in the Memoirs of his Apostles: He declared himself the Son of G.o.d; (let him) come down, let him walk about; let G.o.d save him."(2) In both of these pa.s.sages Justin directly appeals to written authority. The [--Greek--] may leave the source of the first uncertain,(3) but the second is distinctly stated to contain the actual words "written in the Memoirs of his Apostles," and it seems reasonable to suppose that the former pa.s.sage is also derived from them. It is scarcely necessary to add that both differ very materially from the Canonical Gospels.(4) The taunt

4 Canon Westcott admits that in the latter pa.s.sage Justin does profess to give the exact words which were recorded in the Memoirs, and that they are not to be found in our Gospels; "but," he apologetically adds, "we do find these others so closely connected with them that few readers would feel the difference"! This is a specimen of apologetic criticism. Dr. Westcott goes on to say that as no MS. or Father known to him has preserved any reading more closely resembling Justin's, "if it appear not to be deducible from our Gospels, due allowance being made for the object which he had in view, its source) must remain concealed." On the Canon, p. 114 f. Cf. Matt, xxvii. 39--43; Mark xv. 29--32; Luke xxiii. 34--37.

{334}

contained in the first of these pa.s.sages is altogether peculiar to Justin: "Let him who raised the dead deliver himself" [--Greek--];(1) and even if Justin did not himself indicate a written source, it would not be reasonable to suppose that he should himself for the first time record words to which he refers as the fulfilment of prophecy.(2) It would be still more ineffectual to endeavour to remove the difficulty presented by such a variation by attributing the words to tradition, at the same time that it is a.s.serted that Justin's Memoirs were actually identical with the Gospels. No aberration of memory could account for such a variation, and it is impossible that Justin should prefer tradition regarding a form of words, so liable to error and alteration, with written Gospels within his reach. Besides, to argue that Justin affirmed that the truth of his statement could be ascertained [--Greek--], whilst the words which he states to have been spoken were not actually recorded, would be against all reason.

The second of the mocking speeches (3) of the lookers-on is referred distinctly to the Memoirs of the Apostles, but is also, with the accompanying description, foreign

1 The nearest parallel in our Gospels is in Luke xxiii. 35.

"He saved others, let him save himself if this man be the Christ of G.o.d, his chosen." [--Greek--]

3 Semisch argues that both forms are quotations of the same sentence, and that there is consequently a contradiction in the very quotations themselves; but there can be no doubt whatever that the two phrases are distinct parts of the mockery, and the very same separation and variation occur in each of the Canonical Gospels. Die ap. Denkw. Mart. Just., p. 282; cf. Hilgenfeld, Die Ew. Justin's, p. 244.

{335}

to our Gospels. The nearest approach to it occurs in our first Gospel, and we subjoin both pa.s.sages for comparison:

[--Greek--]

It is evident that Justin's version is quite distinct from this, and cannot have been taken from our Gospels,(2) although professedly derived from the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin likewise mentions the cry of Jesus on the Cross, "O G.o.d, my G.o.d, why hast thou forsaken me?" [--Greek--];(3) as a fulfilment of the words of the Psalm, which he quotes here, and elsewhere,(4) with the peculiar addition of the Septuagint version, "attend to me" [--Greek--], which, however, he omits when giving the cry of Jesus, thereby showing that he follows a written source which did not contain it, for the quotation of the Psalm, and of

{336}

the cry which is cited to show that it refers to Christ, immediately follow each other. He apparently knows nothing whatever of the Chaldaic cry, "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" of the Gospels.(1) The first and second Gospels give the words of the cry from the Chaldaic differently from Justin, from the version of the LXX., and from each other. Matthew xxvii. 46, [--Greek--] the third Gospel makes no mention at all of this cry, but instead has one altogether foreign to the other Gospels: "And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he expired."(2) Justin has this cry also, and in the same form as the third Gospel. He says: "For when he (Jesus) was giving up his spirit on the cross, he said: 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,' as I have also learned from the Memoirs."(3) Justin's Gospel, therefore, contained both cries, and as even the first two Synoptics mention a second cry of Jesus(4) without, however, giving the words, it is not surprising that other Gospels should have existed which included both. Even if we had no trace of this cry in any other ancient work, there would be no ground for a.s.serting that Justin must have derived it from the third Gospel, for if there be any historical truth in the statement that these words were actually spoken by Jesus, it follows of course that they may have been, and probably were, reported in a dozen Christian writings now

{337}

no longer extent, and in all probability they existed in some of the many works referred to in the prologue to the third Gospel. Both cries, however, are given in the Gospel of Nieodemus, or Gesta Pilati, to which reference has already so frequently been made. In the Greek versions edited by Teschendorf we find only the form contained in Luke. In the Codex A, the pa.s.sage reads: "And crying with a loud voice, Jesus said: Father, Baddach ephkid rouchi, that is, interpreted: 'into thy hands I commend my spirit;' and having said this he gave up the ghost."(l) In the Codex B, the text is: "Then Jesus having called out with a loud voice: 'Father, into thy hands will I commend my spirit,' expired."(2) In the ancient Latin version, however, both cries are given: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Hely, Hely, lama zabacthani, which interpreted is: 'My G.o.d, my G.o.d, why hast thou forsaken me.' And after this, Jesus said: 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit': and saying this, he gave up the ghost."(3)

One of the Codices of the same apocryphal work likewise gives the taunting speeches of the Jews in a form more nearly approaching that of Justin's Memoirs

{338}

than any found in our Gospels. "And the Jews that stood and looked ridiculed him, and said: If thou saidst truly that thou art the Son of G.o.d, come down from the cross, and at once, that we may believe in thee.

Others ridiculing, said: He saved others, he healed others, and restored the sick, the paralytic, lepers, demoniacs, the blind, the lame, the dead, and himself he cannot heal."(1) The fact that Justin actually refers to certain Acta Pilati in connection with the Crucifixion renders this coincidence all the more important. Other texts of this Gospel read: "And the Chief Priests, and the rulers with them, derided him, saying: He saved others, let him save himself; if he is the Son of G.o.d, let him come down from the cross."(2)

It is clear from the whole of Justin's treatment of the narrative, that he followed a Gospel adhering more closely than the Canonical to the Psalm xxii., but yet with peculiar variations from it. Our Gospels differ very much from each other; Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles in like manner differed from them. It had its characteristic features clearly and sharply defined. In this way his systematic variations are natural and perfectly intelligible, but they become totally inexplicable if it be supposed that, having our Gospels for his source, he thus

2 Ev. Niood., Pars. I. A. x.; Tischendorf Ev. Apocr., p.

232; cf. Thilo. Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 584; Fabricius, Cod.

Apocr. N. T., i. p. 259; Tiachendorf ib., p. 340. There are differences between all these texts--indeed there are scarcely two MSS. which agree--clearly indicating that wo have now nothing but corrupt versions of a more ancient text.

{339}

persistently and in so arbitrary a way ignored, modified, or contradicted their statements.

Upon two occasions Justin distinctly states that the Jews sent persons throughout the world to spread calumnies against Christians. "When you knew that he had risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, as the prophets had foretold, not only did you (the Jews) not repent of the wickedness which you had committed, but at that time you selected and sent forth from Jerusalem throughout the land chosen men, saying that the atheistic heresy of the Christians had arisen/' &c.(1).... "from a certain Jesus, a Galilrean impostor, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb where he had been laid when he was unloosed from the cross, and they now deceive men, saying that he has risen from the dead and ascended into heaven."(2) This circ.u.mstance is not mentioned by our Gospels, but, reiterated twice by Justin in almost the same words, it was in all probability contained in the Memoirs. Eusebius quotes the pa.s.sage from Justin, without comment, evidently on account of the information which it conveyed.

These instances, which, although far from complete, have already occupied too much of our s.p.a.ce, show that Justin quotes from the Memoirs of the Apostles many statements and facts of Gospel history which are not only foreign to our Gospels, but in some cases contradictory to them, whilst the narrative of the most solemn events in the life of Jesus presents distinct and systematic variations from parallel pa.s.sages in the Synoptic records.

{340}

It will now be necessary to compare his general quotations from the same Memoirs with the Canonical Gospels, and here a very wide field opens before us. As we have already stated, Justin's works teem with these quotations, and to take them all in detail would be impossible within the limits of this work. Such a course, moreover, is unnecessary. It may be broadly stated that even those who maintain the use of the Canonical Gospels can only point out two or three pa.s.sages out of this vast array which verbally agree with them.(1) This extraordinary anomaly--on the supposition that Justin's Memoirs were in fact our Gospels--is, as we have mentioned, explained by the convenient hypothesis that Justin quotes imperfectly from memory, interweaves and modifies texts, and in short freely manipulates these Gospels according to his argument.

Even strained to the uttermost, however, could this be accepted as a reasonable explanation of such systematic variation, that only twice or thrice out of the vast number of his quotations does he literally agree with pa.s.sages in them? In order to ill.u.s.trate the case with absolute impartiality we shall first take the instances brought forward as showing agreement with our Synoptic Gospels.

Teschendorf only cites two pa.s.sages in support of his affirmation that Justin makes use of our first Gospel.(2) It might be supposed that, in selecting these, at least two might have been produced literally agreeing, but this is

{341}

not the case, and this may be taken as an ill.u.s.tration of the almost universal variation of Justin's quotations. The first of Teschendorf s examples is the supposed use of Matthew viii. 11, 12: "Many shall come from the east and from the west, and shall sit down," &c. [--Greek--]. Now this pa.s.sage is repeated by Justin no less than three times in three very distinct parts of his Dialogue with Trypho,(1) with a uniform variation from the text of Matthew--_They_ shall come from the _west_ and from the east," &c. &c. [--Greek--](2) That a historical saying of Jesus

should be reproduced in many Gospels, and that no particular work can have any prescriptive right to it, must be admitted, so that even if the pa.s.sage in Justin agreed literally with our first Synoptic, it would not afford any proof of the actual use of that Gospel; but when on the contrary Justin upon three several occasions, and at distinct intervals of time, repeats the pa.s.sage with the same persistent variation from the reading in Matthew, not only can it not be ascribed to that Gospel, but there is reason to conclude that Justin derived it from another source.

It may be added that [--Greek--] is anything but a word uncommon in the vocabulary of Justin, and that elsewhere, for instance, he twice quotes a pa.s.sage similar to one in Matthew, in which, amongst other variations, he reads "_Many_ shall come [--Greek--]," instead of the phrase found in that Gospel.(3)

The second example adduced by Tischendorf is the supposed quotation of Matthew xii. 39; but in order fully

{342}

to comprehend the nature of the affirmation, we quote the context of the Gospel and of Justin in parallel columns:--

[--Greek--]

Now it is clear that Justin here directly professes to quote from the Memoirs, and consequently that accuracy may be expected; but pa.s.sing over the preliminary subst.i.tution of "some of your nation," for "certain of the scribes and Pharisees," although it recalls the "some of them,"

and "others," by which the parallel pa.s.sage, otherwise so different, is introduced in Luke xi. 15, 16, 29 ff.,(1) the question of the Jews, which should be literal, is quite different from that of the first Gospel, whilst there are variations in the reply of Jesus, which, if not so important, are still undeniable. We cannot compare with the first Gospel the parallel pa.s.sages in the second and third Gospels without recognizing that other works may have narrated the

{343}