The 'Probabilia' of Bretschneider.

21 I

who accepted conclusions which he had implied, and who expressly rejected the authenticity of the fourth Gospel d. But these negative criticisms were met in turn by the arguments of Roman Catholic divines like Hug, and of critics who were by no means loyal even to Lutheran orthodoxy, such as Eichhorn and Kuinoel. By their labours the question was again held to have been set at rest in the higher regions of German scholarship and free-thinking. This second settlement was rudely disturbed by the publication of the famous 'Probabilia' of Bretschneider, the learned superintendent of Gotha, in the year 1820. Reproducing the arguments which had been advanced by the earlier negative speculation, and adding others of his own, Bretschneider rekindled the discussion. He exaggerated the contrast between the representation of our Lord's Person in St. John and that in the synoptists into a positive contradiction. Protestant Germany was then fascinated by the school of Schleiermacher, which, by the aid of a combination of criticism, and mysticism f, was groping its way back towards the creeds of the Catholic Church. Schleiermacher, as is well known, not only accepted the Church-belief respecting the fourth Gospel, but he found in that Gospel the reason for his somewhat reckless estimate of the other three. The sharp controversy which followed resulted in Bretschneider's retractation of his thesis, and the impression produced by this retractation was not violently interfered with until 1835, when Dr. Strauss shocked the conscience of all that was Christian in Europe by the publication of his first 'Life of Jesus.' Dr. Strauss' position in respect of St. John's Gospel was a purely negative one. He confined himself to asserting that St. John's Gospel was not what the Church had always believed it to be, that it was not the work of the son of Zebedee. The school of Tübingen aspired to supplement this negative criticism of Strauss by a positive hypothesis. St. John's Gospel was held to represent a highly-developed stage of an orthodox gnosis, the growth of which presupposed the lapse of at least a century since the age of the Apostles. It was decided by the

a Especially by Dr. Ammon, preacher and professor of theology at Erlangen and Dresden successively.

• Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolarum Johannis Apostoli indole et origine. Lipsiæ, 1820.

See more especially Schleiermacher's Glaubenslehre, and compare Professor Auberlen's account of the process through which, at Tübingen, he was led back, among other things, mainly by Schleiermacher's mysticism,

so full of life and spirit, to the sanctuary of religion, and learnt to sit again at the feet of the Redeemer.' On Divine Revelation, pref.

212 leading writers of the school of Tübingen, by Drs. Baur, Schwegler, and Zeller, that the fourth Gospel was not composed until after the year A.D. 160. And, although this opinion may have been slightly modified by later representatives of the Tübingen school, such as Hilgenfeld; the general position, that the fourth Gospel was not written before the middle of the second century, is held by disciples of that school as one of its very fundamental tenets.

Theory of the later Tübingen school.

Here then it is necessary to enquire, what was the belief of the second century itself, as to the date and authenticity of St. John's Gospel 8.

Now it is scarcely too much to assert that every decade of the second century furnishes its share of proof that the four Gospels as a whole, and St. John's in particular, were to the Church of that age what they are to the Church of the present. Beginning at the end of the century, we may observe how general at that date was the reception of the four Gospels throughout the Catholic Church. Writing at Lyons, in the last decade of the century, St. Irenæus discourses on various cosmical and spiritual analogies to the fourfold form of the Gospel narrative (εὐαγγέλιον τετράμορφον) in a strain of mystical reflection which implies that the co-ordinate authority of the four Gospels had been already long established h. St. Irenæus, it is well known, had sat at the feet of St. Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of St. John. St. Irenæus, in his letter to the erring Florinus, records with reverent affection what Polycarp had told him of the lessons which he had personally learnt from John and the other disciples of Jesusi. Now is it barely probable that Irenæus should have

For a recent and complete discussion of this subject see Prof. Westcott, St. John's Gospel, Intr. pp. xxviii-xxxii, London, Murray. [1881.]

h St. Irenæus, adv. Hær. iii. II. 8: ἐξ ὧν φανερὸν, ὅτι ὁ τῶν ἁπάντων τεχνίτης Λόγος, ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῶν Χερουβὶμ καὶ συνέχων τὰ πάντα, φανερωθεὶς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἑνὶ δὲ πνεύματι συνεχόμενον. . . . Καὶ γὰρ τὰ Χερουβὶμ τετραπρόσωπα· καὶ τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν, εἰκόνες τῆς πραγματείας τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. . . Καὶ τὰ εὐαγγέλια οὖν τούτοις σύμφωνα, ἐν οἷς ἐγκαθέζεται Χριστός. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ κατὰ Ἰωάννην, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἡγεμονικὴν αὐτοῦ . . . . . καὶ ἔνδοξον γενεὰν διηγεῖται, λέγων· ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

1 St. Irenæus, fragment, vol. i. p. 822, ed. Stieren: εἶδον γάρ σε, παῖς ὢν ἔτι ἐν τῇ κάτω Ασίᾳ παρὰ τῷ Πολυκάρπῳ, λαμπρῶς πράττοντα ἐν τῇ βασιλική αὐλῇ, καὶ πειρώμενον εὐδοκιμεῖν παρ ̓ αὐτῷ· μᾶλλον γὰρ τὰ τότε διαμνημονεύω τῶν ἔναγχος γινομένων· αἱ γὰρ ἐκ παίδων μαθήσεις, συναύξουσαι τῇ ψυχῇ, ἑνοῦνται αὐτῇ) ὥστε με δύνασθαι εἰπεῖν καὶ τὸν τόπον, ἐν ᾧ καθεζόμενος διελέγετο ὁ μακάριος Πολύκαρπος, καὶ τὰς προσόδους αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς εἰσόδους καὶ τὸν χαρακτῆρα τοῦ βίου καὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἰδέαν καὶ τὰς διαλέξεις ἃς ἐποιεῖτο πρὸς τὸ πλῆθος, καὶ τὴν μετὰ Ἰωάννου συναναστροφὴν ὡς ἀπήγγελλε, καὶ τὴν

Saint John's Gospel in the Second Century. 213

imagined that a literary forgery, which is asserted to have been produced at a date when he was himself a boy of twelve or fourteen years of age, was actually the work of the Apostle John j? At Carthage, about the same time, Tertullian wrote his great work against the heretic Marcion k. Tertullian brought to the discussion of critical questions great natural acuteness, which had been sharpened during his early life by his practice at the African bar. Tertullian distinguishes between the primary, or actually apostolical rank of St. Matthew and St. John, and the lower standing of St. Mark and St. Luke, as being apostolical men of a secondary degree1; but he treats all four as inspired writers of an authority beyond discussion m. Against Marcion's mutilations of the sacred text Tertullian fearlessly appeals to the witness of the most ancient apostolical Churches. Tertullian's famous canon runs thus: 'Si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod et ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis, pariter ubique constabit, id esse ab apostolis traditum, quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum n.' But what would have been the worth of this appeal if it could have been even suspected that the last Gospel was really written when Tertullian was a boy or even a young man? At Alexandria, almost contemporaneously with Tertullian, St. Clement investigated the relation τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν ἑωρακότων τὸν Κύριον, καὶ ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευε τοὺς λόγους αὐτ τῶν· καὶ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου τίνα ἦν ἃ παρ ̓ ἐκείνων ἀκηκόει, καὶ περὶ τῶν δυνάμεων αὐτοῦ, καὶ περὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας, ὡς παρὰ τῶν αὐτοπτῶν τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Λόγου παρειληφὼς ὁ Πολύκαρπος, απήγγελλε πάντα σύμφωνα ταῖς γραφαῖς. Cf. Eus. Hist. Eccl. v. 20. St. Irenæus succeeded St. Pothinus in the see of Lyons. Pothinus was martyred A.D. 177, and Irenæus died A.D. 202.

j Adv. Hær. iii. 1. St. Irenæus was probably born about A.D. 140. * Tertullian was born at Carthage about A.D. 160. Cave places his conversion to Christianity at A.D. 185, and his lapse into the Montanist heresy at A.D. 199. Dr. Pusey (Libr. of Fathers) makes his conversion later, A.D. 195, and his secession from the Church A.D. 201.

1 Adv. Marc. iv. c. 2: Constituimus imprimis evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus evangelii promulgandi ab Ipso Domino sit impositum. Si et apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis et post apostolos, quoniam prædicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriæ studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, immo Christi, quæ magistros apostolos fecit. Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis Joannes et Matthæus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant.'

m Adv. Marc. iv. c. 5: Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum ceteris quoque patrocinabitur Evangeliis, quæ proinde per illas et secundum illas habemus, Joannis dico et Matthæi, licet et Marcus quod edidit Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Nam et Lucæ digestum Paulo adscribere solent. Capit magistrorum videri quæ discipuli promulgarint.' n Adv. Marcion. iv. 5.

214 Witness borne to Saint John's Gospel

of the synoptic Gospels to St. John o, and he terms the latter the εὐαγγέλιον πνευματικόν P. 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 9; 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 versions. It had been translated in Africa into the Latin Versio Italat. 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.

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

by Catholics of the Second Century.

215 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 w, 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.)

u 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 1.

2 Apud Eus. v. 24. Cf. St. John xiii. 23, xxi. 20.