of the synoptic Gospels to St. John o, and he terms the latter the εὐαγγέλιον πνευματικόν Ρ. It is unnecessary to say that the intellectual atmosphere of that famous Græco-Egyptian school would not have been favourable to any serious countenance of a really suspected document. At Rome St. John's Gospel was certainly received as being the work of that Apostle in the year 170. This is clear from the so-termed Muratorian fragment; and if in receiving it the Roman Church had been under a delusion so fundamental as is implied by the Tübingen hypothesis, St. John's own pupil Polycarp might have been expected to have corrected his Roman brethren when he came to Rome in the year 163. In the farther East, St. John's Gospel had already been translated as a matter of course into the Peschito Syriac version. It had been translated in Africa into the Latin Versio Itala t. At or soon after the middle of the century two works • Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, 5th ed. p. 119. See this writer's remarks on St. Clement's antecedents and position in the Church, ibid. pp. 343, 344. St. Clement lived from about 165 to 220. He flourished as a Christian Father under Severus and Caracalla, 193-220. P Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 14, condensing Clement's account, says, Tov μévTOL Ἰωάννην ἔσχατον συνιδόντα ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται, προτραπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων, Πνεύματι θεοφορηθέντα, πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον. Westcott on the Canon, p. 214. The Muratorian fragment claims to have been written by a contemporary of Pius I., who probably ruled the Roman Church from about A. D. 142 to 157. 'Pastorem vero nuperrimè temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente cathedrâ urbis Romæ ecclesiæ Pio episcopo fratre ejus.' Cf. Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T., p. 39, sqq. r St. Polycarp's martyrdom has been lately fixed in A. D. 155-6. Lightfoot, Cont. Rev. 1875, p. 838. But cf. Wordsworth's Ch. Hist. to Coun. of Nic., p. 161, note. [1881.] On the difficulty of fixing the exact date of the Peschito version see Westcott, Canon of New Testament, pp. 236-243. Referring (1) to the Syriac tradition of its Apostolic origin at Edessa, repeated by Gregory Bar Hebræus; (2) to the necessary existence of an early Syriac version, implied in the controversial writings of Bardesanes; (3) to the quotations of Hegesippus from the Syriac, related by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iv. 22); (4) to the antiquity of the language of the Peschito as compared with that of St. Ephrem, and the high authority in which this version was held by that Father; (5) to the liturgical and general use of it by heretical as well as orthodox Syrians; and (6) to the early translations made from it ;-Dr. Westcott concludes that in the absence of more copious critical resources which might serve to determine the date of this version on philological grounds, there is no sufficient reason to desert the opinion which has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that its formation is to be fixed within the first half of the second century.' (p. 243.) That it was complete then in A. D. 150-160, we may assume without risk of serious error. This version must have been made before A. D. 170. 'How much more were published which implied that the four Gospels had long been received as of undoubted authority: I refer to the Harmonies of Theophilus", Bishop of Antioch, and of Tatian▾, the heterodox pupil of St. Justin Martyr. St. John is quoted by either writer independently, in the work which was addressed by Theophilus to Autolycus, and in the Apology of Tatian. When, about the year 170, Apollinaris of Hierapolis points out the bearings of the different evangelical narratives upon the Quartodeciman controversy, his argument implies a familiarity with St. John. Apollinaris refers to the piercing of our Lord's Side, and Polycrates of Ephesus speaks of John as the disciple who lay on the bosom of Jesus z. Here we see that the last Gospel must have been read and heard in the Christian Churches with a care which dwells upon its distinctive peculiarities. It is surely inconceivable that a work of such primary claim to speak on the question of highest interest for Christian believers could have been forged, widely circulated, and immediately received by Africans, by Romans, by Gauls, by Syrians, as a work of an Apostle who had passed to his rest some sixty years before. And, if the evidence before us ended here, we might fairly infer that, considering the difficulties of communication between Churches in the sub-apostolic age, and the various elements of moral and intellectual caution, which, as notably in the case of ancient it really is cannot yet be discovered. Not only is the character of the version itself a proof of its extreme age, but the mutual relation of different parts of it shew that it was made originally by different hands; and if so, it is natural to conjecture that it was coeval with the introduction of Christianity into Africa, and the result of the spontaneous effort of African Christians. (Westcott on the Canon of the New Testament, p. 258.) Dr. Westcott shews from Tertullian (Adv. Prax. c. 5) that at the end of the century the Latin translation of St. John's Gospel had been so generally circulated in Africa, as to have moulded the popular theological dialect. (Ibid. p. 251.) "At latest Theophilus was bishop from A. D. 168 to 180. St. Jerome says: "Theophilus... quatuor evangelistarum in unum opus dicta compingens, ingenii sui nobis monumenta dimisit.' Epist. 121 (al. 151) ad Algas. c. 6. Eus. Hist. Eccl. iv. 29; Theodoret, Hær. Fab. i. 20; Westcott, Canon, pp. 322, 323, sqq. The recent discovery of the Commentary of St. Ephrem Syrus on Tatian's Diatessaron adds to the evidential importance of that work [1884]. w Ad Autol. ii. 31, p. 174, ed. Wolf. Cf. St. John i. 1, 3. Theophilus is the first writer who quotes St. John by name. Orat. contr. Græc. c. 4 (St. John iv. 24); c. 5 (Ibid. i. 1); c. 13 (Ibid. i. 5); c. 19 (Ibid. i. 3). Chron. Pasch. p. 14; cf. St. John xix. 34; Routh, i. 160, sq.; Westcott, Canon, p. 228 and note I. Apud Eus. v. 24. Cf. St. John xiii. 23, xxi. 20. the Epistle to the Hebrews, were likely to delay the oecumenical reception of a canonical book, St. John's Gospel must have been in existence at the beginning of the second century. But the evidence does not desert us at this point. Through Tatian we ascend into the earlier portion of the century as represented by St. Justin Martyr. It is remarkable that St. Justin's second Apology, written in 161, contains fewer allusions to the Gospels than the earlier Apology written in 138a, and than the intermediate composition of this Father, his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. Now passing by recent theories respecting a Gospel of the Hebrews or a Gospel of Peter, by which an endeavour has been made to weaken St. Justin's witness to the synoptic Evangelists, let us observe that his testimony to St. John is particularly distinct. Justin's emphatic reference of the doctrine of the Logos to our Lord b, not to mention his quotation of John the Baptist's reply to the messengers of the Jews, and of our Saviour's language about the new birthd, makes his knowledge of St. John's Gospel much more than a probability. Among the great Apostolic fathers, St. Ignatius alludes to St. John in his Letter to the Romans f, and St. Polycarp quotes the Apostle's first Epistle 8. In these sub-apostolic writings there are large districts of thought and expression, of a type unmistakeably Johannean b, which, like So Gieseler. ii. 3. § 50. p. 16: b Cf. Tischendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? 'Die Uebertragung des Logos auf Christus, von der uns keine Spur weder in der Synoptikern noch in den ältesten Parallelschriften derselben vorliegt, an mehreren Stellen Justins von Johannes abzuleiten ist.' Ibid. Dialog. cum Tryph. 88. Cf. St. John i. 20. • Apolog. i. 61: καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς εἶπεν· ‘Αν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν· Οτι δὲ καὶ ἀδύνατον εἰς τὰς μήτρας τῶν τεκουσῶν τοὺς ἅπαξ γενομένους ἐμβῆναι φανερὸν πᾶσιν ἐστι. Cf. Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, p. 151. • Cf. however Westcott (Canon of the New Testament, p. 145) on the improbability of St. John's being quoted in apologetic writings addressed to Jews and heathen. St. Justin nevertheless does 'exhibit types of language and doctrine which, if not immediately drawn from St. John (why not?), yet mark the presence of his influence and the recognition of his authority.' Westcott, Ibid. Besides the passages already alluded to, St. Justin appears to refer to St. John xii. 49 in Dialog. cum Tryph. c. 56; to St. John i. 13 in Dialog. c. 63; to St. John vii. 12 in Dialog. c. 69; to St. John i. 12 in Dialog. c. 123. Cf. Lücke, Comm. Ev. Joh. p. 34, sqq. Comp. Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, p. 73. St. Ign. ad Rom. c. 7. Cf. St. John vi. 32, 48, 53, xvi. 11. h Cf. St. Barn. Ep. v. vi. xii. (cf. St. John iii. 14); Herm. Past. Simil. ix. 12 (cf. Ibid. x. 7, 9, xiv. 6); St. Ignat. ad Philad. 7 (cf. Ibid. iii. 8); St. Justin's doctrine of the Logos, witness no less powerfully to the existence of St. John's writings than direct citations. The Tübingen writers lay emphasis upon the fact that in the short fragment of Papias which we possess, nothing is said about St. John's Gospeli. But at least we have no evidence that Papias did not speak of it in that larger part of his writings which has been lost; and if his silence is a valid argument against the fourth Gospel, it is equally available against the Gospel of St. Luke, and even against each one of those four Epistles which the Tübingen writers themselves recognise as the work of St. Pauli. The testimony of the Catholic Church during this century is supplemented by that of the contemporary heretics. St. Irenæus has pointed out how the system of the celebrated Gnostic, ad Tral 8 (cf. Ibid. vi. 51); ad Magnes. 7 (cf. Ibid. xii. 49, x. 30, xiv. 11); ad Rom. 7 (cf. Ibid. vi. 32). Meyer, Evan. Johann. Einl. p. 14: 'Dass das Fragment des Papias das Evangel. Joh. nicht erwähnt, kann nichts verschlagen, da es überhaupt keine schriftlichen Quellen, aus welchen er seine Nachrichten geschöpft habe, aufführt, vielmehr das Verfahren des Papias dahin bestimmt, dass er bei den Apostelschülern die Aussagen der Apostel erkundet habe, und dessen ausdrücklichen Grundsatz ausspricht: où yàp Tà ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν με ὠφελεῖν ὑπελάμβανον, ὅσον τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς kal μevobons. Papias wirft hier die damals vorhandenen evangelischen Schriften (Tv BIBλiwv) deren eine Menge war (Luk. i. 1) alle ohne Auswahl zusammen, und wie er das Evangel. Matthæi und das des Marcus mit darunter begriffen hat, welche beide er später besonders erwähnt, so kann er auch das Evangel. Joh. mit bei Tŵv BißXiwy gemeint haben, da Papias einen Begriff von kanonischen Evangelien als solchen offenbar noch nicht hat (vergl. Credn. Beitr. i. p. 23), und diese auszuzeichnen nicht veranlasst ist. Wenn aber weiterhin Eusebius noch zwei Aussagen des Papias über die Evangelien des Mark. und Matthäus anführt, so wird damit unser Evangelium nicht ausgeschlossen, welches Papias in anderen Theilen seines Buchs erwähnt haben kann, sondern jene beiden Aussagen werden nur deshalb bemerklich gemacht, weil sie über die Entstehung jener Evangelien etwas Absonderliches, besonders Merkwürdiges enthalten, wie auch das als besonders bemerkenswerth von Eusebius angeführt wird, dass Papias aus zwei epistolischen Schriften (1 Joh. u. 1 Petr.) Zeugnisse gebrauche, und eine Erzählung habe, welche sich im Hebräer-Evangel. finde.' Cf. also Westcott, Canon, pp. 76, 77 note 1. Papias is stated by Eusebius (iii. 39) to have quoted St. John's First Epistle. This he could hardly have done, without acknowledging St. John's Gospel. 1 The newly discovered διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων (ed. Bryennios, Constantinople, 1883) appears to be a product of the Judaising party when almost separating from the Church at the close of the first century. In this document no less than twenty references to St. Matthew's Gospel occur, and six to St. Luke's, but there is not a single quotation from the writings of St. Paul; c. 4 and Eph. vi. 5, 9, and c. 3 and 1 Thess. v. 22 being mere coincidences. That it should contain no reference to St. John is only what its general character would lead us to expect. [1884.] Valentinus, was mainly based upon a perversion of St. John's Gospel k. This assertion is borne out by that remarkable work, the Philosophumena of St. Hippolytus, which, as we in Oxford well remember, was discovered some few years since at Mount Athos. Of the pupils of Valentinus, Ptolemæus quotes from the prologue of St. John's Gospel in his extant letter to Flora m. Heracleon, another pupil, wrote a considerable commentary upon St. John ". Heracleon lived about 150; Valentinus was a contemporary of Marcion, who was teaching at Rome about 140. Marcion had originally admitted the claims of St. John's Gospel, and only denied them when, for the particular purposes of his heresy, he endeavoured at a later time to demonstrate an opposition between St. Paul and St. John. Basilides taught at Alexandria under Adrian, apparently about the year 120. Basilides is known to have written twenty-four books on the Gospel P; but if it cannot be certainly affirmed that any of these books were commentaries on St. John, it is certain from St. Hippolytus that Basilides appealed to texts of St. John * St. Irenæus (Hær. iii. 11. 7) lays down the general position: 'Tanta est circa Evangelia hæc firmitas, ut et ipsi hæretici testimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens unusquisque eorum conetur suam confirmare doctrinam.' After illustrating this from the cases of the Ebionites, Marcion, and the Cerinthians, he proceeds, 'Hi autem qui a Valentino sunt, eo [sc. evangelio] quod est secundum Johannem plenissimè utentes, ad ostensionem conjugationum suarum; ex ipso detegentur nihil rectè dicentes.' 'Die Valentinianische Gnosis (says Meyer) mit ihren Aeonen, Syzygien u. s. w. verhält sich zum Prolog des Joh. wie das künstlich Gemachte und Ausgesponnene zum Einfachen und Schöpferischen.' (Einl. in Joh. p. 12, note.) For an illustration cf. St. Iren. adv. Hær. i. 8. 5. 1 Cf. Refut. Hær. vi. 35, init., for Valentinus' use of St. John x. 8. m Apud St. Epiph. adv. Hær. lib. i. tom. i. Hær. 33; Ptol. ad Flor. Cf. St. John i. 3; also Stieren's St. Irenæus, vol. i. p. 924. n Fragments of Heracleon's Commentary on St. John, collected from Origen, are published at the end of the first vol. of Stieren's edition of St. Irenæus, pp. 938-971. St. John iv. is chiefly illustrated by these remains of the great Valentinian commentator. Two points strike one on perusal of them: (1) that before Heracleon's time St. John's Gospel must have acquired, even among heretics, the highest authority; (2) that Heracleon has continually to resort to interpretations so forced (as on St. John i. 3, i. 18, ii. 17; cited by Westcott, Canon, p. 306, note) as 'to prove sufficiently that St. John's Gospel was no Gnostic work.' • Tertullian, adv. Marcion. iv. 3; De Carne Christi, c. 2; quoted by Tischendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? pp. 25, 26. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iv. 7. 7: εἰς μὲν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τέσσαρα πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι σύνταξαι βίβλια. Was this a Commentary on the Evangelists, or a Life of Christ in the sense of Basilides, or a Dissertation on the Import of Christ's Life? The phrase is indecisive. |