We maintain that, like his followers, Valentinus acknowledged the four Gospels, and that, like them, he made special use of S. John. Our reasons are these. (1.) Tertullian tells us that heretics in reality reject Scripture, either openly like Marcion, by rejecting or mutilating its text, or like Valentinus secretly, by perverting its sense. Of Valentinus he speaks thus: "If Valentinus seems to use the entire document (i.e. all the scriptural books received in the Church), (still) with a mind no less crafty than that of Marcion, he laid violent hands upon the truth. For Marcion openly and plainly used the knife, not the pen, since he mutilated the Scriptures to suit his doctrine. But Valentinus spared [the sacred text], since he did not devise scriptures to fit his doctrine, but invented a doctrine which was fitted into the Scriptures. And yet he took away more and added more [than Marcion], since he took away the proper meanings of the words, and added systems of things [i.e. phantastic son systems] which do not appear."* This is plain testimony, as Dr. Westcott saw, that Valentinus received the Scriptures of the Church, and the Gospels among them, and it is strong testimony, for Tertullian gives it against his will, since he is trying to show the enmity of heretics to Scripture. Our author totally misunderstands the context, and this is not wonderful, for he never read it, as will presently appear. He actually translates the simple Latin words "si Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur, "if Valentinus uses the whole instrument as it seems! "+ that is, he confuses between "uti," that," and "uti," to use, or rather he thinks that uti may bear both meanings at once, and this in a chapter where (of course without ground) he charges Tischendorf with "deliberate falsification," with "unpardonable calculation upon the ignorance of his readers"; ‡ and Dr. Westcott with "audacity, extraordinary statements, &c. &c." (2.) Apart from external testimony, we have internal evidence of the most convincing kind that Valentinus used S. John's Gospel. Among his thirty sons, we find the names Father (Пarp), Grace (xápis), only-begotten (Movoyεvýc), Truth ('Aλncia), Word (Aóyoç), Life (Zwn), Man ("Av0ρwnоç), Paraclete (Пapakλnтos); and he called his whole won system the "Fulness" (IIλńрwμa).§ These words are Lipsius, of late dates. To economize space, and at the same time to avoid all appearance of arguing on mere assumption, we take the dates of Valentinus and Marcion from the latter authority. *Tertull. Præscript. 38. 99 66 + S. R., ii. 74. + Ib. p. 56. Scholten (Aeltesten Zeugnisse, p. 67), who seems to have taken the words of Tertullian second-hand from some Introduction to Scripture, commits the same error, an error neither singular nor surprising in him, and, as might have been expected, faithfully reproduced by the author of "Supernatural Religion." § Iren., i. 11, 1, where all the names taken from the first chapter of S. John, except "only begotten" and "grace," are given. Even these however are distinctly implied, as even Scholten does not venture to deny. all from S. John. All but one occur in the first few verses of his Gospel, and it is self-evident that either the writer of the fourth Gospel took them from S. John, or else vice versâ. It is perfectly credible that Valentinus borrowed them from S. John; it was the way of his school to take detached words from the Gospels, and to build their phantastic doctrines upon them; and we know that S. John's was the favourite Gospel with his followers. On the other hand the words have a plain and simple meaning, and an obvious connection in our Gospel. And when German critics have been driven to affirm that the words were due to Valentinus in the first instance, and were adopted by S. John, we can only regard this as a desperate attempt to escape the pressure of fact. Our author has not to face this alternative. He tells us magisterially that there" is no just ground for asserting that the terminology (of Valentinus) is derived from the fourth Gospel, the whole having been in current use long before." No doubt "Grace," for example, is a word to be found in a thousand books; but where did Valentinus get this extraordinary collocation, "Father." "Grace," "Truth," "Word," "only-begotten," "Life," "Man," "Fulness," "Paraclete," except from his use of S. John? Our second testimony is from Marcion, founder of another geat. Gnostic school. He was at the head of his sect not later than 144. He accused all the Apostles except S. Paul of corrupting Christianity by Judaism.† He knew the Gospels of Matthew and John, and he rejected them, not because he disputed their authenticity, but because he rejected the authority of their authors. This is the account Tertullian gives, and it is plain that Tertullian describes Marcion's procedure from a knowledge of his writings. Thus in his very rejection of the first and fourth Gospels, he yields his witness to their authenticity. However, he retained the Gospel of S. Luke on account of its connection with S. Paul. Even that he could not afford to keep unaltered. He maintained that Judaism was the religion of a lower and an evil God; and hence he cut out the passages which did not fit this view. The Tübingen school held at one time that Marcion's Luke was the true original, that it was not he who mutilated, but the Church which interpolated. We know with tolerable certainty the portions of our Luke retained by Marcion, and on close examination it was found that Marcion's Gospel could not represent the original text, and the Tübingen critics themselves made a formal retreat from their position. "The old view," says Dr. Davidson, (and we could not quote a more extreme opponent of the authenticity of the Gospels,) on the nature of Marcion's Gospel, "will not again be seriously disturbed."§ * S. R., ii. p. 372. + Iren., iii. 12, 12. Adv. Marc. iv. 1-6; De Carne Christi, c. 2. § Davidson, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 51. However, our author has attempted to disturb it, and a summary of the reasons for regarding Marcion's Luke as a mutilation of the original text will show with what success. The reasons are— -(1) the testimony of Irenæus and Tertullian. The former is at least an unprejudiced witness, for although he is contending against the Valentinians rather than Marcion, still he singles out the latter for one special reproach, and declares "he alone dared openly to mutilate the Scriptures."* In "Supernatural Religion" this evidence is met by a mistranslation of Tertullian, exposed already by Professor Lightfoot. There is another mistranslation on this one point, for our author mistakes the imperative "aufer" for the indicative "aufert,” alters the sense accordingly, and indulges in confident argument on the strength of it, adding a modest and appropriate sentence on the falsehood, "lightness, and inaccuracy of Tertullian." (2) If we take Marcion's text for the original, no motive can be assigned for the interpolation. On the other hand, if our Luke is the original, the most evident causes can be assigned for the mutilation of Marcion; e. g. he omitted a large number of passages referring to Christ's human birth which he denied, to Christ as the fulfilment of the law, or to the Jews as the chosen people. Our author argues that some of these passages are thoroughly Pauline, and must therefore have been welcome to Marcion, as if Marcion's doctrine that the God who gave the Jewish law was an imperfect, nay an evil being, had been identical with the doctrine of S. Paul. (3) Marcion has left the mark of the knife in his text of S. Luke, for his omissions have made some parts of it unintelligible. Let us take one instance out of several. Marcion's Gospel opens thus :‡ "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, &c. (Luc. iii. 1), Jesus went down to Capharnaum, a city of Galilee, and He was teaching them on the Sabbath days" (Luc. iv. 31). In our Luke the word "went down" (кarnλ0v) has a plain meaning. It describes the descent of Christ from Nazareth, which has just been mentioned, to Capharnaum, which lay lower down on the shore of the Lake of Tiberias; but what sense can it have in Marcion's text, when all reference to Nazareth is cut away, and these words form the beginning of the Gospel? He no doubt made it mean "descended from heaven"; but had he been the original author he would not have mentioned an event so extraordinary in this abrupt and unintelligible way, and still less would he have finished the verse with the matter of fact sequel, "and He was teaching in their Synagogues on the Sabbath days." Even Baur felt that this was an insuperable *Iren., i. 27, 4. + S. R., ii. p. 100. We refer the reader to the table of Marcion's Gospel, as given by De Wette, Introduction to N. T., Engl. transl., p. 3, seq.; or in Hilgenfeld, Evangelien Justins, &c., p. 441. NO. XLVIII. [New Series.] 2 D difficulty, and we confess we looked with some curiosity for the solution in "Supernatural Religion." Its author does not solve the difficulty, for he does not see it. It is not necessary, he says, for us to discuss the sense in which the word came down (κατῆλθεν) was interpreted, since it is used in Luke. Of course. But the point is that this word makes good sense in our text of Luke, none in Marcion's. With this striking specimen of "criticism," we bring the subject to an end, and state the results which follow from investigation of Christian literature in our second period (140160). Our inquiry has led us within forty years of S. John's death. He lived, S. Irenæus tells us, into the reign of Trajan (98-117), and he is said to have written his Gospel late in life. Now in the very generation which had known him, in a church ruled and guided by his disciples, we find his Gospel, and with it the three Synoptics, universally received and acknowledged. Further, we have brought testimonies from the two great heresies of the time, that of the Marcionites and the Valentinians. It is only want of space which has kept us from stating at length the testimony given to our Gospels by a third and very different order of heretics, viz. the Ebionites. Amidst these testimonies not a single voice is heard to question the authenticity of the Gospels on historic grounds.* Unless there is counter evidence, such an accumulation of early evidence ought to be convincing. We shall now see that it is confirmed by the fragments of literature which have come down to us from the disciples of the Apostles themselves. Papias, our first authority in this period, wrote an "Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord." In "Supernatural Religion" this work is assigned to the year 150, or thereabouts,† and we need not dispute the date. In any case, we may fitly place Papias in this our earliest period, for he made it the business of his life to collect traditions from the disciples of the Apostles; and it is in the very words of one among these disciples, "John the Presbyter," that he describes the origin of S. Mark's Gospel. "This," Papias writes, "the Presbyter used to say: Mark being the interpreter (or secretary) of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order the sayings and doings of Christ, which he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but afterwards, as I said, he followed Peter, who gave his instructions as occasion required, but without *The Alogi, the only early heretics who denied that the fourth Gospel was written by St. John furnish most striking proof of its authenticity. They attributed both the Apocalypse and the Gospel to Cerinthus, i.e. to the time of S. John.-Epiphan. Hær., 41, 3. They are almost certainly the same heretics alluded to, but not named, by Iren., iii. 11, 9. + S. R., i. p. 449. intending to set the oracles of the Lord in order. Thus, Mark committed no error in writing down some things just as he remembered them."+ This looks like a description of our second Gospel from a disciple of the Apostles. John the Presbyter, like all the later Fathers, ascribes it ultimately to Peter. However, our author is confident that Papias is not describing our Mark, but another record of Christ's life, which also went under S. Mark's name. Let us see what this theory involves. We must believe that in the generation after Papias, a spurious work, ascribed to Mark, was received uaiversally in the Church. This our author sees; but he fails to see that this is the least part of the difficulty. We must also believe that Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, who was the friend of Papias, not only received a false Mark in place of the true one, but also supposed that the false Mark was the one used by Papias, and then clothed this false Mark in the dress which belonged to the original gospel, and attributed this latter in its turn to the preaching of Peter. Again, we must believe that Eusebius, who knew the work of Papias, and carefully notes that he related a story contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, was blind to the fact that the Mark of Papias was different from ours, and transferred the statement of Papias about his Mark to our second Gospel. Such a theory ought to rest on strong evidence, and the only evidence produced is this. Papias, we are told, says of his Mark that he did not write "in order," while our second Gospel is in order as good as that of the other synoptics. Now, our synoptics differ in their arrangement. Authorities in ancient and modern times have taken, some one, some another Gospel as representing the true chronological sequence; and supposing John the Presbyter preferred Matthew's order to Mark's, this is rather slight ground for assuming that his Mark was other than ours. But, indeed, we need not betake ourselves even to a supposition as permissible as this. Matthew and Luke begin Christ's history with His birth. Luke lays particular stress on the fact that he has "followed all things from the beginning" and set them "in order." Mark, on the contrary, omits all the early history of Christ and all His longer discourses. This exactly fits in with the statement of Papias, that Mark did not write "in order" (v ráže), and with τάξει), his explanation of his own words, that Mark wrote "some things [via] out of all that our Lord had said and done. As to S. Matthew, Papias says that he "wrote the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each interpreted them as he was able." Here again our author insists that this cannot apply to our Matthew, * Aoyiwr. There is some MS. authority for Aóywv; but S. R., i. p. 453, n. 2, gives λoyiwr. The author translates as if he read λóywv. + Euseb. H.E., iii. 39, 15. Euseb. H.E., iii. 39, 16. |