CHAPTER VII.NO OTHERS PROVED.

The latest work in this country which denies the genuineness of our Gospels, is “The History of the Christian religion to the year two hundred.” (Chicago, 1881.) The author says it is the result of an investigation extending through several years, two of which were spent in the library of congress, “which is peculiarly rich in the department of biblical literature.” He claims that his volume “will be found to be the most complete record of the events connected with the Christian religion during the first two centuries, which has ever been presented to the public.” He shows no lack of ability or disposition to make as strong a case as possible against our Gospels. And he understands the issue. For, he says, the question what Gospels were used by Justin, “is of the highest importance.” In this work, then, if anywhere, should there be proof ofotherwritings than our Gospels, that will meet the requirements of the case. But what do we find? It gives a list of “forty Gospels,” before the decree of Pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. The only marvel is that the list is not longer. The greater portion are the now extant Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, which may be found in Vol. XVI., of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Much confusion, says[1]Dr. Ezra Abbot, has arisen from the fact that the term “Gospel” was in ancient times applied to speculative works which gave the writer’s view of the Gospel,i. e., of the doctrine of Christ, or among the Gnostics, which set forth theirgnosis;e. g., among the followers of Basilides, Hippolytus tells us, “The Gospel is the knowledge of supermundane things.” Of all the Apocryphal Gospels, Samuel Ives Curtiss, the well-known German professor in the Chicago Theological Seminary, writes:[2]—

“I shall not waste any ink or paper to prove that the Protevangelium, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Acts of Pilate, etc., in their present forms as known to us and as quoted by Judge Waite, arose at a later period than our canonical Gospels.” ... “A knowledge of the original sources and the literature of the subject would have saved him from this pitiful blunder. I simply refer to Professor Lipsius’ article on the Apocryphal Gospels, in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, London, 1880, Vol. II., pp. 700,seq.; and Holtzmann’s Apocryphon des Neuen Testaments, in Schenkel’s Bible Lexicon, Leipzig, 1869, Vol. I., pp. 170seq.As neither of these articles are by orthodox men, or by those who have the slightest bias toward orthodoxy, they are calculated to inspire confidence in persons of every shade of belief or disbelief. Both are authorities; Meyer’s Conversations-Lexikon says of Professor Lipsius, of Jena, that he is one of the most eminent scholars in Germany.” (Seenote 2.)

With this concurring judgment of the most eminent scholars, not much time should be spent upon these Apocryphal books. But a single quotation is given by Judge Waite that is claimed by him to have been made by Justin from either of them. And this (although not to be found in anysinglepassage in our Gospels) may be gathered from different passages, which would be in keeping with Justin’s mode. It corresponds quite nearly, though not precisely, with apart[3]of the description in the Protevangelium of the announcement to Mary. But this no more proves the use of the Protevangelium by Justin than it proves the use of Justin’s Apology by the writer of the Protevangelium. Aside from this quotation, there are a few facts stated by Justin that are claimed, by some persons, to have been taken from the Apocryphal Gospels.Oneis, that Jesus made ploughs and yokes, which Justin of course would infer, from the fact that it was a part of the business of a carpenter to make ploughs and yokes.Anotheris, that Jesus was born in a cave. Dr. Thompson, says[4], “It is not impossible, to say the least, but that the apartment in which our Saviour was bornwas in part a cave. I have seen many such, consisting of one or more rooms in front of and including a cavern, where the cattle were kept.” Justin, who was a native of Judea, added a circumstance well known from tradition, which Luke did not think it of consequence to mention, that the manger was in a cave,i. e., that the stable in which was the manger was in a cave. He had no occasion to resort to books for such a fact.Anotheris, that Justin refers the Roman Emperor to “Acts of Pilate” as affording evidence of what he had stated concerning Christ’s crucifixion, and the miracles which he had performed. According to the usual course, Pilate should have made a report of the crucifixion. It is supposed that he did, and that it was lost or destroyed. Justin appeals to it, as if then in the archives of the government. Whether he was well or ill informed upon the subject, the document to which he appeals, clearly was not understood by him to be one of the “Memoirs” of Christ, “drawn up” by an Apostle, or a “companion” of an Apostle. Nothing purporting to be Pilate’s report is extant. The Apocryphal book, known as the Gospel of Nicodemus or Acts of Pilate, does not purport to contain[5]any such report.Anotheris, that Justin says that Christ was of the House of David; a fact which Jesus himself had declared[6]and which is also referred to, in Acts. The only remaining fact, in respect to the alleged use of the Protevangelium, is in relation to thecensus. It is claimed that Justin and the Protevangelium agree that it was only to be taken in Judea.[7]But Justin does not so state. It also happens, that while Justin makes mention of Cyrenius, the Protevangelium only says, “And there was an order from the Emperor Augustus that all in Bethlehem of Judea should be enrolled,” saying nothing of Cyrenius. This is followed by an absurd and worthless story of occurrences, by the way. Justin has two references to the census, which will be found in the note.[8]Justin, in stating that there was a census in Judea, does not exclude the idea that it was more general.

Judge Waite, following the anonymous author of “The Supernatural,” and others, also claims that Justin’s statement that at the baptism of Jesus “afirewas kindled in the Jordan,” must have been taken either from the “Gospel of the Hebrews,” or the “Preaching of Paul.” As to the former (as he gives the translation from a fragment from Jerome) it is, that, “certainly there shone around the place a greatlight,” which is not what Justin said. There is no evidence from any quarter that this “Gospel of the Hebrews” was in existence (other than as Matthew’s Gospel was in existence), when Justin wrote. Nor is there any evidence that it was in use, atanyperiod, except among the Nazarenes (a small Judaizing sect of Christians), and the Cerinthians, and Ebionites, two heretical sects. The very authorities quoted to prove its existence, clearly show that it was never ingeneraluse, or accepted by the churches generally. Neither the work itself, nor Jerome’s translation of it, has been in existencefor centuries. From what is known of it, it seems to have been[9]the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, “not entire and perfect, but corrupted and curtailed.” It omitted the first two chapters. Some of the corruptions show its true character[10]so far as it varied from Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel; for as Papias wrote, and the Fathers generally believed, Matthew first composed his Gospel in the Hebrew dialect.

“The Preaching of Paul” was less known, and even of less account, than the other. Judge Waite says (p. 229) that it “was referred to by Lactantius and others, and was generally known in the second century.” But he furnishes no evidence of it, and Lactantius died about A.D. 325. As to its contents, Judge Waite only says that “It contained references to the Sybilline writings; also to the fire in Jordan at the time of the baptism of Jesus.” There is no good reason to suppose that it wasextantwhen Justin wrote; and most certainly, it was never received by the churches generally. Eusebius does not seem to have known anything of it, unless to reject it as spurious. He says (Book III., c. 25): “Amongthe spurious, must be numbered both the books called ‘The Acts of Paul,’ and that called ‘Pastor,’ and ‘The Revelation of Peter.’”

Eusebius also is equally pronounced against the production called the “Gospel according to Peter.” That this “Gospel” was referred to by Justin in the passage before considered (videc. 4), is the factto be proved. The firstmentionof it, was by Serapion[11], who became Bishop of Antioch A.D. 191, fifty years after Justin wrote. He found a few copies of it among his flock, which he replaced, substituting Mark’s Gospel for it, for the reason that he found in it “many things superadded to the sound faith of our Saviour; and some also attached, that are foreign to it.” Thisbishopseems to have had no knowledge of its existence till that time. It favored the Docetæ, from some of whom it had come into his parish. The pretence that Tertullian referred to it, and intended to assert that in his day the Gospel of Mark was understood to have this Gospel of Peter for its original, has nothing to rest upon but another perversion of Tertullian’s meaning. The passage relied upon is here given with such words in italics as must besuppliedto warrant the use which has been attempted to be made of it: “The Gospel which Mark published is affirmed to be”what is known as“Peter’s”Gospel, “whose interpreter Mark was.” This forced construction, would make Mark the interpreter,notof Peter, but of the heretical work at some time known by some asPeter’s Gospel. Not Strauss himself, nor even the author of “The Supernatural,” so interpreted Tertullian. What Tertullian wrote was, that “The Gospel which Mark published is affirmed to be Peter’s; whose interpreter Mark was.” Marcion mutilated Luke’s Gospel, and Judge Waite says, “Tertullian called hima hound.” If any one in his day had perverted his language as to Mark’s Gospel, so as to make it endorse the work which Serapion (who was a cotemporary of Tertullian) suppressed as heretical, Tertullian would not have been likely to have used alessexpressive word than that which he applied toMarcion. Tertullian simply meant, as Papias had written, and the church believed, that Mark was Peter’sinterpreter, and inthatsense Mark’s Gospel was Peter’s Gospel.

The next writer referred to for “Peter’s Gospel” is Origen, A.D. 230. Origen says: “There are some who say the brethren of Christ were the children of Joseph by a former wife, who lived with him before Mary; and they are induced to this opinion by some passages in thatwhich is entitled(the italics are ours) ‘The Gospel of Peter, or the Book of James.’” When it is considered that Origen, in most explicit terms, declares that our four Gospels “are the only undisputed ones in the whole Church of God throughout the world,” and that of these, “the second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained it to him, whom he also acknowledges as his son in his General Epistle,” the perversion of his language is apparent. Mr. Norton, whose opinion, it is conceded, “is entitled to great weight,” upon a careful examination of the subject, believes that this “Gospel” was not a history or biography of Christ’s ministry at all, but only adoctrinal[12]treatise.Not a single fragment of it has come down to us.There is no evidence from any quarter that it wasgenerallyreceived in the churchesat anyperiod; on the contrary, the evidence, so far as it goes, proves that it was not so received. It was the Gospel exclusively used by the Ebionites,[13]and neither Justin nor the majority of Christians in his time were Ebionites. Its very suppression by Serapion is conclusive; and there is nothing to impeach Eusebius’ judgment against it. There is no evidence that it was even in existence when Justin wrote, for the mere fact of its being found by Serapion forty or fifty years after is too remote.Hence, if Justin, in the paragraph before quoted in chapter four, by “him” meant Peter, instead of Christ (which we do not accept),[14]the Gospel of Mark, which in a sense was understood to be Peter’s, was the one intended; and the true construction of the words in question is of minor importance.

Judge Waite has succeeded as well as any one, in his attempt to findotherwritings than our Gospels, that will meet the necessities of the case. Professor Lipsius, one of the most eminent scholars in Germany, says,[15]“The attempt to prove that Justin Martyr and the Clementine Homilies had one extra-canonical authority common to them both, either in the Gospel to the Hebrews or in the Gospel of St. Peter, has altogether failed.” Of recent writers this side of the ocean, Dr. Ezra Abbot of Harvard College (who has already “a distinguished Continental reputation”), states,[16]after a thorough examination of the whole subject, as some of the results: “We have seen that there is nodirectevidence of any weight that Justin used either the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’ (so far as this was distinguished from the Gospel according to Matthew) or the ‘Gospel according to Peter.’ That he should have taken either of these as the source of his quotations, or that either of these constituted the ‘Memoirs’ read generally at public worship in the Christian churches of his time, is in the highest degree improbable.”... “Still less can be said in behalf of the hypothesis that any other Apocryphal ‘Gospel’ of which we know anything, constituted the ‘Memoirs,’ which he cites, if they were one book, or was included among them, if they were several.”

Mr. Rowe’s[17]judgment is, that the facts referred to by Justin, but not recorded in the Gospels, stand to those whicharerecorded, in the proportion of only four, to one hundred and ninety-six. In other words, that all but four out of about two hundred references, appear in the Gospels. “It is marvellous,” he says, “when we consider the nearness of the time when Justin lived to our Lord’s ministry, that he should have preserved so few incidents respecting it which vary from those in our Gospels, rather than that those to which he has referred should present the slight variations they do; for it is an interval within which traditionary reminiscences must have possessed all their freshness.”

[1]P. 16 of “Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,” etc. (1880).[2]TheDaily Inter-Oceanof Feb. 12, 1881. To the same effect, “The Authorship,” p. 98, note 6; The Supernatural Origin of Christianity, by George P. Fisher, D.D., Professor of Christian History in Yale College (1870), p. 191-2; Origin, etc., by Prof. C. E. Stowe (1867), p. 185, c. 7.[3]“And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time, brought her the good news, saying, ‘Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost and shalt bear a son, and he shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’” After a dozen lines, the last clause is repeated as follows: “Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, ‘Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’” The last clause seems to have been transferred from Matthew by Justin. The Protevangelium (c. 11) reads as follows: “And she hearing, reasoned with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? And shall I bring forth, as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow thee; wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of the Most High. And thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold the servant of the Lord before his face; let it be unto me according to thy word. And she made the purple and the scarlet and took them to the priest,” etc. The account is preceded by the story that it had fallen to her lot to spin purple and scarlet for the veil of the temple, and that when the angel spake to her she was going with a pitcher to fill it with water. It is not easy to believe that Justin’s simple narrative came from such a source.[4]The Land and the Book, by W. M. Thompson, D.D., twenty-five years a missionary of the A. B. C. F. M., in Syria and Palestine, Vol. II, p. 503.[5]The first part contains a graphic account of the trial and crucifixion. At the trial witnesses are represented as appearing before Pilate and narrating different miracles which had been performed. Judge Waite devotes considerable space in comparing these accounts with the Gospel narratives. He argues that the Apocryphal account must have been the earlier one,becauseof its brevity, and because it does not includeallthe miracles. This is as if one should infer that the plea of the advocate, or the charge of the judge, preceded the testimony, or the compendium, the history.[6]Matt. ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; Mark x. 47; xii. 35-7; Luke xx. 30-1; xl. 6; xviii. 38-9; John vii. 42; Acts xiii. 23; Ro. i. 3.[7]Protevangelium, p. 17; vol. 16, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, pp. 18-19.[8]Apology, c. 34. “Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea.” Dial. c. 78. “Then he was afraid and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judea under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth where he lived to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region.” Joseph was both of the tribe of Judah, and of the house and lineage of David, and there is no contradiction. It is to be noticed that the census is spoken of as thefirstcensus that was taken. Cyrenius, called then procurator, was afterward governor.[9]See authorities inNote 2.[10]“Now my mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my hairs, and brought me to the great mountain even Tabor.” “Jesus said unto him, go sell all which thou possessest and divide among the poor, and come follow me. But the rich manbegan to scratch his head, and it did not please him.” Origin,etc., by Professor Stowe, p. 22.[11]Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, p. 78; Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12; b. 3, c. 25.[12]Abbott, etc., p. 79; Waite’s History, p. 11.[13]Abbott, etc., p. 104, Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12.[14]The entire passage is as follows: “And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the Apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the Memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was he by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua) under whose name the people who survived of those who came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.” The controversy is, whether the personal pronouns “He” and “Him” refer to Jesus, or whether “Him” refers to Peter. Judge Waite says that Justin has ten times “Memoirs of the Apostles,” and five times, “Memoirs,” and not once, “Memoirs of Christ.” It is true we do not find “Memoirs of Christ.” But confessedly the Memoirs intended were of or concerning Christ, and not of or concerning the Apostles, or either of them. Justin used the expression Memoirs of the Apostles just as we say the Gospel of John. They were concerning Christ; he is the grand subject of discourse in all Justin’s writings. And in Ap. c. 33, Justin speaks of those “who have written Memoirs of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ.” In the proper and highest sense they should only be spoken of as “Memoirs of Christ.”Judge Waite, after the author of “The Supernatural” (p. 337), says, to refer to the more distant antecedent is contrary to the rule. The rule is of but slight importance as compared to the whole scope. And to apply the rule here, Peter would be the one who changed the names of the sons of Zebedee; for Peter, and not Christ, would be the last antecedent.[15]As quoted by Dr. Ezra Abbot, pp. 98, 99; see, also,Inter-Oceanof February 12, 1881.[16]Abbot, etc., p. 103, 104;Inter-Oceanof February 12.[17]Bampton Lectures for 1877, pp. 279, 281.

[1]P. 16 of “Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,” etc. (1880).

[2]TheDaily Inter-Oceanof Feb. 12, 1881. To the same effect, “The Authorship,” p. 98, note 6; The Supernatural Origin of Christianity, by George P. Fisher, D.D., Professor of Christian History in Yale College (1870), p. 191-2; Origin, etc., by Prof. C. E. Stowe (1867), p. 185, c. 7.

[3]“And the angel of God who was sent to the same virgin at that time, brought her the good news, saying, ‘Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy Ghost and shalt bear a son, and he shall be called the Son of the Highest, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’” After a dozen lines, the last clause is repeated as follows: “Wherefore, too, the angel said to the virgin, ‘Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.’” The last clause seems to have been transferred from Matthew by Justin. The Protevangelium (c. 11) reads as follows: “And she hearing, reasoned with herself, saying: Shall I conceive by the Lord, the living God? And shall I bring forth, as every woman brings forth? And the angel of the Lord said: Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow thee; wherefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of the Most High. And thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins. And Mary said: Behold the servant of the Lord before his face; let it be unto me according to thy word. And she made the purple and the scarlet and took them to the priest,” etc. The account is preceded by the story that it had fallen to her lot to spin purple and scarlet for the veil of the temple, and that when the angel spake to her she was going with a pitcher to fill it with water. It is not easy to believe that Justin’s simple narrative came from such a source.

[4]The Land and the Book, by W. M. Thompson, D.D., twenty-five years a missionary of the A. B. C. F. M., in Syria and Palestine, Vol. II, p. 503.

[5]The first part contains a graphic account of the trial and crucifixion. At the trial witnesses are represented as appearing before Pilate and narrating different miracles which had been performed. Judge Waite devotes considerable space in comparing these accounts with the Gospel narratives. He argues that the Apocryphal account must have been the earlier one,becauseof its brevity, and because it does not includeallthe miracles. This is as if one should infer that the plea of the advocate, or the charge of the judge, preceded the testimony, or the compendium, the history.

[6]Matt. ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; Mark x. 47; xii. 35-7; Luke xx. 30-1; xl. 6; xviii. 38-9; John vii. 42; Acts xiii. 23; Ro. i. 3.

[7]Protevangelium, p. 17; vol. 16, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, pp. 18-19.

[8]Apology, c. 34. “Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judea.” Dial. c. 78. “Then he was afraid and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Judea under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth where he lived to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region.” Joseph was both of the tribe of Judah, and of the house and lineage of David, and there is no contradiction. It is to be noticed that the census is spoken of as thefirstcensus that was taken. Cyrenius, called then procurator, was afterward governor.

[9]See authorities inNote 2.

[10]“Now my mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my hairs, and brought me to the great mountain even Tabor.” “Jesus said unto him, go sell all which thou possessest and divide among the poor, and come follow me. But the rich manbegan to scratch his head, and it did not please him.” Origin,etc., by Professor Stowe, p. 22.

[11]Abbott’s Fourth Gospel, p. 78; Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12; b. 3, c. 25.

[12]Abbott, etc., p. 79; Waite’s History, p. 11.

[13]Abbott, etc., p. 104, Eusebius, b. 6, c. 12.

[14]The entire passage is as follows: “And when it is said that he changed the name of one of the Apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the Memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that he changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was he by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua) under whose name the people who survived of those who came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.” The controversy is, whether the personal pronouns “He” and “Him” refer to Jesus, or whether “Him” refers to Peter. Judge Waite says that Justin has ten times “Memoirs of the Apostles,” and five times, “Memoirs,” and not once, “Memoirs of Christ.” It is true we do not find “Memoirs of Christ.” But confessedly the Memoirs intended were of or concerning Christ, and not of or concerning the Apostles, or either of them. Justin used the expression Memoirs of the Apostles just as we say the Gospel of John. They were concerning Christ; he is the grand subject of discourse in all Justin’s writings. And in Ap. c. 33, Justin speaks of those “who have written Memoirs of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ.” In the proper and highest sense they should only be spoken of as “Memoirs of Christ.”Judge Waite, after the author of “The Supernatural” (p. 337), says, to refer to the more distant antecedent is contrary to the rule. The rule is of but slight importance as compared to the whole scope. And to apply the rule here, Peter would be the one who changed the names of the sons of Zebedee; for Peter, and not Christ, would be the last antecedent.

Judge Waite, after the author of “The Supernatural” (p. 337), says, to refer to the more distant antecedent is contrary to the rule. The rule is of but slight importance as compared to the whole scope. And to apply the rule here, Peter would be the one who changed the names of the sons of Zebedee; for Peter, and not Christ, would be the last antecedent.

[15]As quoted by Dr. Ezra Abbot, pp. 98, 99; see, also,Inter-Oceanof February 12, 1881.

[16]Abbot, etc., p. 103, 104;Inter-Oceanof February 12.

[17]Bampton Lectures for 1877, pp. 279, 281.

Back to Index Next