Constantin von Tischendorf · 6 of 10

Origin of the Four Gospels · Part 4

All three of these positions we hold to be utterly untenable. The first of them, which gives to Marcion the priority in making a collection of New Testament Scriptures for the use of the church, rests upon a complete ignoring of the development of the canon; the elements of this development, as my own researches reveal them, I shall take occasion to sum up and present on a future page. It also rests upon an ignoring of the point of view which Marcion took in relation to the church. Taking his stand upon the ground of Paul's expressions in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians respecting those departures from the purity of the faith which were beginning to be manifested among the apostles themselves, he believed himself called, in the Pauline sense of the word, to the task of purging the Christian faith of Jewish elements. In executing this undertaking nothing was more effective than the laying of a correcting hand, upon those writings which even then were accepted as the valid standards of belief among the adherents of Christianity. The correctness of this mode of procedure, employed even by the oldest fathers of the church, was confirmed in a striking manner in his dealing with the Pauline Gospels. It is confirmed, moreover, by his treatment of Luke's Gospel, of which I shall have occasion to speak further on. And does it not harmonize entirely with his purpose, that he excluded other New Testament writings from his canon? It is possible that in one or another of the excluded documents the same anti-judaical spirit would have led to like results; yet it is perfectly conceivable, and is not open to our criticism, that in his devotion to Paul he contented himself with accepting ten of his Epistles and that Gospel, whose author, owing to his being a companion and helper of Paul, owed a great deal to the influence exerted upon him by Paul, so that his work might almost be called the Gospel according to Paul.

Very recently the statement has been made with consummate naïveté, that Marcion, sojourning in a remote province like Pontus, enjoyed a limited accessibility to Christian books, and that in making his collection he accumulated the greatest amount of materials that his scanty advantages allowed. The distance of that province, which at the time of Pliny comprised a very large population of Jews as well as of Christians, from the two centers of Christian Asia Minor, Ephesus and Antioch, is not greater than from Naples to Milan; and who in all the world, except a short-sighted professor, would draw the inference that a scholar, living in Pontus, during the fourth decade of the second century, making a collection of the Christian sacred books, was not acquainted with all our Gospels? The Epistles to the Corinthians and to the Romans were diffused and accepted; and yet we are to believe that the Gospel of John had not found its way from Ephesus to Sinope! Finally, the theory which rests on the remoteness of Pontus loses all its force in helping us solve the question under discussion, from the fact that after Marcion went to Rome, and took a high position there, he did not modify at all what he had done in forming his collection of sacred writings. At Rome he would assuredly have been able to supply the lack of materials from which he is alleged to have suffered at Pontus; but we do not learn that he made any addition to his canon after coming to Rome.

The second of the positions mentioned above, that the gospel of Marcion served as a model for that which we now accept as Luke's—a position which bears the clearest evidence from the outset of being the result of reckless ignorance—has been surrendered in our own time by its own defenders. Still it is asserted by some scholars that our Gospel according to Luke, like that of Marcion, is a modified form of one still older but subsequently lost; that that of Marcion consequently did not spring from Luke's, but that they both originated in a common source, to which Marcion remained true. Going in this direction one step further, they succeeded in finding in Marcion the oldest of all the Gospel Codices. This view, entirely apart from the last mentioned bold act of an intoxicated fancy, is in opposition to what Irenæus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius say regarding Marcion's gospel, which they possessed; in consequence, however, of the ignorance prevailing respecting Marcion's labors, and in consequence also of some indemonstrable hypotheses, it has gained a certain appearance of truth and consequent acceptance. The efforts to strike out the subsequent additions from our Gospel of Luke for the purpose of restoring the supposed older original, suffer from that arbitrariness which modern hypercriticism has assumed in all discussion of the origin of the Gospels. The fact that Marcion gave no name to his Gospel is made to give support to the claim that it is the only true Gospel, and is entitled to no influence in directing our researches respecting this Gospel.

We come to the third position, a refutation of which will throw light upon both of the others. Marcion is asserted to have not possessed the other Gospels, including that of John. If Marcion found the other Gospels in their main form, just as we possess them now, in the possession of the church of his time, the view of the priority of his collection over the primitive canon of the church falls to the ground; and equally frail is the hypothesis respecting the parallelism between the Gospel according to Marcion and our Luke, together with the consequences drawn therefrom respecting the authority of our canon in its present form; and so there is gained no insignificant proof of the high antiquity and the genuineness of the Gospel according to John.

What grounds have we for believing that Marcion was acquainted with our Gospels? All that Irenæus and Tertullian still more explicitly have told us in reference to this matter makes it certain. For where Irenæus (i. 27, 2) writes concerning Marcion, that in opposition to his pupils he held his trustworthiness greater than that of the apostles, who transmitted the Gospel (qui evangelium tradiderunt), inasmuch as he did not give the (whole) Gospel, but a part of the Gospel (non evangelium, sed particulam evangelii), the meaning is, according to Irenæus's use of language else. where (i. 27, 2), that Marcion gave his disciples only one of the Gospels, namely, that of Luke. That by the expressions "evangelium" and "particulam evangelii" we are to understand the Gospels, and not the Sermon on the Mount, is shown by another passage of his work (iii. 12, 12), where, in reference to Marcion and other heresiarchs, we read, "The apostles have spread the Gospel abroad filled with Jewish prejudices (adhuc quæ sunt Judæorum sentientes): and these are even more fair and wise than the apostles." Irenæus then goes on to say, "On this account Marcion and his adherents have made it their aim to diminish the extent of the sacred books (ad intercidendas scripturas conversi sunt), some of which they lave entirely rejected, while they have reduced the size of Luke's Gospel and Paul's Epistles, insisting that the scriptures which they have retained and revised are the only ones which are to be accepted." These statements of Irenæus have no twofold meaning, and are not susceptible of two interpretations. He evidently presupposes a familiar knowledge on the part of the reader of what he means by the "reducing of the sacred books," and by a "non-recognition" of some of them: and in order to understand what he means we have only to take his own point of view.

Tertullian's admissions are much more to the purpose, although in his case we have to bear in mind that he is not writing for critical scholars, who are accustomed to avail themselves of every lack in a complete chain of evidence to help support their own views. After citing (adv. Marc. iv. 3) Marcion's misuse of the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians (see a previous page), he says: "Connititur ad destruendum statum eorum evangeliorum quæ propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur vel etiam apostolicorum, ut scilicet fidem quam illis adimit suo conferat." Among the Gospels which he designates as those "which bear the name of apostles, or men of apostolic character," are to be understood the four which we possess, unless we purposely misinterpret Tertullian's words. Shortly before (iv. 2), he had in the most definite language designated the Gospels as books which had been written by actual apostles, such as Matthew and John, as well as by men of apostolic dignity, such as Mark and Luke. In order to escape the force of this striking testimony of Tertullian, without accusing him of ignorance or falsification, an unfortunate attempt has been made to get rid of the difficulty by asserting that apocryphal Gospels are here meant, bearing unauthenticated names of apostles. Whoever listens for an instant to such a plea—and how one can is hardly to be imagined—must hold as not genuine the closing words of Tertullian, "and expressly to ascribe to his own testimony the credibility which he denies to theirs [the apostolic evangelists]." Tertullian repeats, moreover, respecting the passages from Matthew's Gospel, "Marcion has stricken this from the Gospel." Comp. adv. Marc. ii. 17; iv. 7. In the passage quoted on a previous page, de carne Chr. 2, the words, "tot originalia instrumenta Christi, Marcion, delere ausus es," are used in direct relation to the first chapters of Matthew and Luke. Adv. Marcion iv. 5 he complains of Marcion on the ground that instead of availing himself of Luke (a Gospel at second hand), he did not at once take up those whose authority (as the work of actual apostles) he knew to be higher. De carn. Christ. 3, he says, "If thou hadst not purposely rejected or changed the reading of the writings which are opposed to thy system, the Gospel of John would surely have convinced thee in this matter." We find attention called finally to an epistle of Marcion, from the contents of which Tertullian establishes conclusively the fact that Marcion once accepted what he subsequently rejected.

From all this it is established with the utmost certainty that Tertullian subjected Marcion to weighty reproaches for rejecting the Gospels (including John, once expressly named) which he had once accepted, and which Tertullian, in common with the church, continued to hold. Au epistle of Marcion which he thought might possibly be disavowed by the followers of Marcion served to show him what was the character of the man. The question naturally comes up, Is Tertullian entitled to credibility in this affair?

It is now difficult to set aside the claims of those who have enacted the history of the primitive Christian church, on a basis of anti-ecclesiastical prejudices and fancies. Polemical zeal, united with a certain passionate force of conviction, sometimes carried the great African polemic too far, and made him unjust to the heretical opponents whom he had to confute. But is this general fact enough to warrant us in crying out that here he is making false inferences? Men have even the hardihood to say—for shamelessness is now an extinct idea—that what Tertullian states with all correctness must be set to the account of "malicious persecution." That what Tertullian advances finds powerful support in Irenæus is plain; but when the clearest and most evident matters are made to assume an obscure appearance, how much easier to bring under suspicion the passages from Irenæus, which hint at more than they openly express. Is anything plainer than that the reform which Marcion endeavored to carry into the Gospels aimed specifically at correcting the canonical writings of the New Testament? Did Tertullian need the help of schoolmasters more than we do, to know that "evangelium" has other meanings than a written record? And is the accusation brought against Marcion, that he rejected the apostolic records, which were well known to him, and which even bore the authenticated names of apostles, and that he made arbitrary changes in Luke as well as in the Pauline Epistles, anything else than empty inference? And why is this attempt made? Is not the object to get rid of the truth, to undermine and destroy the force of one of the most important means of substantiating the primitive authority of our Gospels, more especially that of John? Those readers who are not specially engaged in prosecuting learned researches need nothing more than what has already been given to qualify them for passing judgment on this matter. Such readers ought to use every occasion to ascertain what the character of the learning is, which those professors sustain who make it their task to decry the authenticity of the Gospels.

One of the most interesting phenomena in the church, and one of lasting influence, was Montanism. Its aim was to stem the violent tide of Gnosticism, which was swamping the simple older faith with philosophic speculation, and sought to benefit men by giving them a deep inward and direct apprehension of divine truth. Taking a stand not only against foreign speculations but equally against the traditional deadness of an external ecclesiasticism, it, like Gnosticism, at length shot above the church through its exaltation of a fanatical spirit of prophecy, above the tranquil and orderly development of Christianity through doctrines of the new birth and spiritual illumination.

If, following the object which I have in view, we ask what place Montanism took in relation to the writings of the New Testament, the greatest difficulty in the way of finding an answer lies in the fact that we are scarcely in a position to make a general discrimination between the form which had been given at the end of the second century by means of Tertullian's reformatory character, to the theological system then existing, and that which it had assumed at the outset ill Syria. The account given by Eusebius, although drawn from fragments dating from the comparatively recent time of Marcus Aurelius (161 to 180), and that of Epiphanius, which aimed more distinctively at a confutation of opponents, are of a very incomplete character. The little which Irenæus has respecting this matter is hinted at in such various fashion that one hint only darkens the meaning of another. The scanty allusions in the Philosophumena of Hippolytus give rise to the suspicion that they relate rather to Tertullian's epoch than to the beginning of Montanism in the year 150.

The distinctive question which meets us here is this: Has Montanism from the very first appropriated to itself, independently of John's Gospel, that prophetic spirit which was poured out, as is averred, on Montanus, his female companions, and his followers, and which stood in intimate connection with the Paraclete which was promised by the Saviour to his disciples (John xiv. 16, 26)? The wanton character of Phrygian fanaticism leads us to suspect that the letter of Scripture was held in no regard; and the extracts quoted in Eusebius (v. 16 to 19), as well as the document of Epiphanius, contain nothing which can give us any light in this matter. It is quite otherwise with what Eusebius, and, long before him, Irenæus and Hippolytus record. In Irenæus (iii. 11, 9) we read: "But others, in order to do away with the gift of the Spirit, which, according to the counsel of the Father, is poured out on all flesh, do not accept that promise made in the Gospel of John, that the Lord will send down the Paraclete, casting away not only this prophetic gift, but the Gospel as well which records its sending. It is truly their misfortune that, while granting that there are false prophets, they yet deny to the church the true and real gift of prophecy; it is with them as with those who, because there are hypocrites in the church, withhold themselves from all fraternal converse with the brethren." The reference of this passage to the Montanists we hold in common with Lucke and others as not at all made out; but we regard the argument as conclusive, that the opponents of the Montanists, wittily called by Epiphanius, in a double use of language, Alogians, are meant. Epiphanius also bears evidence that the Alogians rejected the Gospel and the Apocalypse of John. But if it is a real characteristic of the opponents of Montanism, that they rejected John's Gospel, it is entirely probable that this was the result of the connection between the prophetic Spirit of the Montanists and the Paraclete of that Gospel It is not credible that the Alogians first brought this connection into view; according to the words of Irenæus, previously cited, it is certain that he was already of the opinion that the Alogians had rejected this Gospel simply because of this connection, and because it seemed to be drawn from John. Irenæus may be incorrect in his supposition that this was the only or the main ground for the Alogians' rejection of this Gospel; but Epiphanius bears witness that they could not account for the want of accordance between John's and the synoptic Gospels. To me, however, it seems to be necessarily inferred from the statements of Irenæus that he presupposes that the Montanists themselves brought their prophetical Spirit into harmony with the Paraclete of John's Gospel, and therefore made use of the latter document. Lastly, we have a statement of Hippolytus hinted at; it is found in the Philosoph. viii. 19, and runs as follows: "The Phrygian heresiarchs have been infatuated by Priscilla and Maximilla, whom they hold to be prophetesses because they aver that the Paraclete has entered into them."

How then lies the matter? The short extracts given by Eusebius from the writings of early opponents contain nothing in reference to the connection between the Montanists' prophetical Spirit and the Paraclete of John; no more do the refutations of Epiphanius; but Irenæus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Eusebius are united in averring that this connection did exist; and the fact that the Alogians rejected the Gospel of John, according to the statement of Irenæus, assuredly harmonizes with the honor which was paid by the Montanists to this Gospel.

Yet there has been the same effort to pervert the relation of Montanism to John's Gospel as in the system of Valentine; at least the suspicion has been bruited that that Gospel could only have emanated from the same circle of theological ideas and be the result of the same movement which gave rise to Montanism. What a chaotic confusion of thoughts is there in such a charge as this! what a senseless opposition to John's credibility is betrayed in the effort to pervert and falsify the evidences which go to establish his authenticity! Let us suppose for a minute that John's Gospel sprang into existence like Montanism about the year 150. De spite the fact that the lateness of its appearance must make it seem like the work of a pious fraud, and that in its whole structure and in its details it was unlike the earlier Gospels, the church, no less than those who opposed the church, and especially the Montanists, accepted it with full confidence. To one little sect alone did it fall to raise difficulties between the older Gospel and the more recent one, and in consequence to reject the latter, and yet without gaining either credit or prominence by the act. And is it true that there is clear accordance between the Montanist doctrine and that of John's Gospel? Not in the least. Aside from the fact that the points where they harmonize relate almost exclusively to the idea of the Paraclete (an idea which appears in the Gospel without any full development, while in Montanism we are directed rather to the catholicizing notions entertained by Tertullian than to those held earlier), the divergence between Montanism and John's Gospel is as great as that between an ecclesiastic prototype and a heretical copy.

In addition to this, the opponents of Montanism already named give noticeable testimony against this and similar depreciations of John's Gospel in the middle of the second century, at the time of the Montanist movement. They knew nothing about the story of the Gospel of John being a new thing first ushered into being in their time; they ascribed both the Gospel and the Apocalypse as unworthy of the church (Epiph. hær: 51, 3) to Corinth, a cotemporary of John. The very opponents of the book, therefore, did not doubt about its age, nor bring it under suspicion; they always ascribed it to the epoch in which John lived. Does not this show that the church had long used that Gospel, and that on that account there was no opening for objections to it on the ground of age? It is to be noticed at the same time that the same heretics consider the Gospel and the Apocalypse as coherent productions, and that they acted as one man in disowning John, and in claiming Corinth as the author. The authorship of the Apocalypse, expressly stated by Justin to be the production of John, has not been doubted even by the Tübingen critics to be the work of John. From the acts of the anti-Montanists, however, it is to be inferred that the conviction and usage of the church agreed in ascribing both writings, the Gospel and the Apocalypse, to John. .

In this way, as the reader can perceive, even the heretics of the first half of the second century and the beginning of the second half do good service in helping us ascertain the truth regarding the antiquity of our Gospels. We hold it impossible, without resorting to sophistry and falsification, to do away with the testimony which these heretics bear to the credibility of our Gospels, and especially to that of John.

We now advance a step beyond the church to the territory where we encounter the armed opponents of Christianity, the men to whom the whole preaching of the cross was folly and an offense. At that very time when the Gnostic errorists were throwing the church into such confusion, it happened that one of these opponents, Celsus by name, wrote a book full of mockery and scorn at Christianity. This production perished long ago; but so far from doing any harm to Christianity, it proved to be a great gain, for it impelled Origen to write his powerful and learned defense of Christianity. From Origen's work we draw enough to make us certain that in his attacks on the Christian faith Celsus made ample use of our Gospels, and that he drew from them the materials which he needed in making his attacks. In what he says respecting the appearance of angels at the resurrection of Jesus he probably refers to all four of the Gospels; for he says that according to some there were two angels, according to others, four at the grave (5, 56). Origen supposed that the first referred to Luke and John, the last to Matthew and Mark. Proceeding in a different and more definite way to work, he drew into the circle of his criticism various passages from the synoptical Gospels, especially Matthew's, and also some from that of John. Among those from the synoptical Gospels may be mentioned the account of the wise men from the East (whom he calls Chaldeans), the story of the slaughter of the children by Herod (1, 58), the flight into Egypt at the bidding of the angel (1, 66), the appearance of the dove at the baptism (1, 40), the son of the Virgin (1, 40), the direction which Jesus gives to his disciples (Matt. x. 23), "when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another " (1, 65), the grief at Gethsemane (2, 24), the thirst on the cross (2, 37), the saying of Jesus that it is easier to go through the eye of a needle, etc.—which he supposes to be a motto of Plato in a changed form (6, 16),—the command of Jesus (Matt. v. 39; Luke vi. 29), "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," which he also supposes to be a modified Platonism. Examples of a reference to John are, his statement (1, 67) that the Jews in the temple demanded a sign of Jesus (John ii. 18), that he accepts John's expression "Logos" to designate Jesus as the Word of God (2, 31), that he ridicules (2, 36) the statement that at the crucifixion blood issued from Jesus' side (John xix. 34), and that he asserts (2, 59) that after his resurrection Jesus displayed his pierced hands as the token of what he had endured (John xx. 27). It can not be claimed, in view of this, that Celsus drew all these assertions from living Christian tradition; for he himself is the very one to lay stress upon the fact that he drew upon the writings of the Christians. His words were, as cited literally by Origen (2, 74), from his own writings: "And this we have drawn from your own books; we want no further evidence, and you are impaled on your own sword." Origen remarks appositely that Celsus has indeed brought forward much that was not in the Gospels, especially some blasphemous reports about Mary, and some idle stories about the infancy of Christ; these may be found alluded to in the first book which Origen wrote contra Celsum (1, 28 and 32). But in the course of his work Celsus carried out his idea of adhering closely to the "writings of the disciples of Jesus." And plainly this was done out of respect to the fact that these writings, and these alone, had authority in the church.

The question here arises, What relation to the witness which Celsus bears to the authority of our Gospels is sustained by that criticism which does not accept that authority, so far especially as John is concerned? As that evidence can not be impugned, unbelieving scholars bring into use again here that modernizing system which crops into view in Herakleon, to the perfect shame of him who first made it current. As in Herakleon, so here, the story runs, Celsus was the cotemporary of Origen. But when was that important fact ascertained? Drawing from Origen himself, Dr. Volkmar says, "Has not Origen declared at the close of his work (8, 76) that the same Celsus announced that he would publish a work of more positive character, and that we must wait to see whether he would accomplish the undertaking? Origen (254) may have written his book against Celsus about the middle of the first half of the third century. Nothing is plainer than that Celsus, if he were alive at that time and giving men to understand that a new work might be expected from his pen, has no importance to us in helping us settle this matter. But even here we have to deal with nothing but a piece of wretched trickery, with real poverty of resources on the part of the critics whom I complain of. For the statement borrowed from the close of the work against Celsus rests upon gross ignorance or upon purposed deception. The words of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had stimulated him to write the whole Apology, run after this wise: "Know that Celsus promised [unquestionably in his book directed against Christianity, and opposed by Origen] to write still another work in which" . . . . "If now he has not written this, in spite of his promise it is enough for us to answer him with these eight books. But if he has done this, and completed his later work, do you hunt it up and send it to me, that I may answer it," etc. The difficulty to account for is in the words, "we must wait to see whether he would accomplish the undertaking." But at the outset, in the very first book, Origen says, "I do not know of a single Christian whose faith is in peril of being endangered by Celsus, a man no longer among the living, but who has been a long time numbered among the dead." They forgot, of course, to cut out this passage with the scissors which had been so effectually applied to Polycarp. In that same first book Origen says, "We have learned that there have been two men bearing the name of Celsus, the first under Nero, the second [i. e. ours] under Hadrian and later." It is not impossible that Origen erred in identifying his Celsus with the Epicurean who lived "under Hadrian and later;" but it is impossible to make the Celsus of whom Origen thus speaks, his cotemporary. Could Origen have made Celsus in his first book to be "under Hadrian and later" (117 to 138), and in the eighth have said of the same man, " we must wait to see [about 225] whether he will accomplish his undertaking? " So long therefore as we get no more reliable information respecting Celsus, we must remain content with believing that he wrote his work about the middle of the second century, perhaps between 150 and 160; and that his testimony in favor of the synoptic and Johannean Gospels dates from that period,—a fact of very great weight in enabling us to determine the early existence of the evangelical canon.

With this result, however, we by no means reach the limits of the history of Apologies for the Gospels. In order to complete this department of our subject, we now enter upon a peculiar branch of the literature of the same age with that with which we have been dealing,—a branch which, after long neglect, is in our day claiming new and respectful attention; viz., the New Testament apocryphal literature. This holds a certain position midway between the literature of the church and that of the heresiarchs: at any rate. many of its features served the ends of the former through the use of the latter. It is necessary, however, that I should instruct the reader what the theologians understand by the term "apocrypha." The apocryphal writings of the New Testament—for it is of these only that I speak—are writings which aimed to take their place on the same footing with the writings of the New Testament, but which were rejected by the church. They bore on the face of them the names of apostles, or of other eminent men; but these names have been misappropriated by unknown writers for the purpose of recommending what they wrote. The Apocrypha were written, partly in order to develop in arbitrary fashion what their authors had drawn from Scripture, partly to incorporate unauthenticated accounts of the Saviour, Mary, Joseph, and the apostles, and partly to give point and efficacy to heretical opinions directed against Holy Writ. The church was warranted, therefore, in excluding them from her accepted writings. It is true that they have been revered as authentic by many from the earliest times; and on this account they have a varied interest to readers. I have indicated elsewhere in what sense I propose to use them: they only support and strengthen our evidence of the very early origin of our Gospels. We are, of course, independent of the question how old the apocrypha are; and this has left an opening into which opponents have pressed, hoping to cut us off on this side. But we have come to the result that the two portions of the apocryphal Gospels which are extant now, known as the Protevangel of James and the Acts of Pilate, must have been written within the three first decades of the second century, and that the main substance of those works (though marred by many changes in the text) is now in our possession.