Chapter VIII: Conclusions (5)

Dr. Lightfoot points out that there is no absolute reason for supposing that this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of the Presbyter, and, although I think it probable that it was, I agree with him in this. The doubt, however, is specially advanced because, the statement of Papias being particularly inconvenient to apologists, Dr. Lightfoot is evidently anxious to invalidate it. He accepts it in so far as it seems to permit of his drawing certain inferences from it, but for the rest he proceeds to weaken the testimony. "But it does not follow that his account of the origin was correct. It may be; it may not have been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know what he said." [120:1] What a pity it is that Dr. Lightfoot does not always exercise this rigorous logic. If he did he would infallibly agree with the conclusions of _Supernatural Religion_. I shall presently state what inference Dr. Lightfoot wishes to draw from a statement the general correctness of which he does not consider as at all certain. If this doubt exist, however, of what value can the passage from Papias be as evidence?

I cannot perceive that, if we do not reject it altogether on the ground of possible or probable incorrectness, there can be any reasonable doubt as to what the actual statement was. "Matthew composed the Oracles in the Hebrew language," and not in Greek, "and each one interpreted them as he could." The original work of Matthew was written in Hebrew: our first synoptic is a Greek work: therefore it cannot possibly be the original composition of Matthew, whoever Matthew may have been, but at the best can only be a free translation. A free translation, I say, because it does not bear any of the traces of close translation. Our synoptic, indeed, does not purport to be a translation at all, but if it be a version of the work referred to by Papias, or the Presbyter, a translation it must be. As it is not in its original form, however, and no one can affirm what its precise relation to the work of Matthew may be, the whole value of the statement of Papias is lost.

The inference which Dr. Lightfoot considers himself entitled to draw from the testimony of Papias is in most curious contrast with his severe handling of that part of the testimony which does not suit him. Papias, or the Presbyter, states regarding the Hebrew Oracles of Matthew that "each one interpreted them as he could." The use of the verb "interpreted" in the past tense, instead of "interprets" in the present, he considers, clearly indicates that the time which Papias contemplates is not the time when he writes his book. Each one interpreted as he could when the Oracles were written, but the necessity of which he speaks had passed away; and Dr. Lightfoot arrives at the conclusion: "In other words, it implies the existence of a recognised Greek translation _when Papias wrote_ ... But if a Greek St. Matthew existed in the time of Papias we are forbidden by all considerations of historical probability to suppose that it was any other than our St. Matthew." [121:1] It is very probable that, at the time when Papias wrote, there may have been several translations of the "Oracles" and not merely one, but from this to the assertion that the words imply a "recognised" version which was necessarily "our St. Matthew" is a remarkable jump at conclusions. It is really not worth while again to discuss the point. When imagination is allowed to interpret the hidden meaning of such a statement the consequence cannot well be predicated. This hypothesis still leaves us to account for the substitution of a Greek Gospel for the Hebrew original of Matthew, and Dr. Lightfoot does not assist us much. He demurs to my statement that our first Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have been translated from the Hebrew at all: "If he had said that it is not a homogeneous Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original this would have been nearer the truth." [122:1]

That Hebrew original is a sad stumbling-block, and it must be got rid of at all costs. Dr. Lightfoot is full of resources. We have seen that he has suggested that the account of Papias of the origin may not have been correct. Regarding the translation or the Greek Gospel we do not know exactly what Papias said. "He may have expressed himself in language quite consistent with the phenomena." How unlimited a field for conjecture is thus opened out. We do not know more of what Papias said than Eusebius has recorded, and may therefore suppose that he may have said something more, which may have been consistent with any theory we may advance. "Or, on the other hand," Dr. Lightfoot continues, "he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the mistake which some later Fathers made of thinking that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the original of our St. Matthew." [122:2] Who would think that this is the critic who vents so much righteous indignation upon me for pointing out possible or probable alternative interpretations of vague evidence extracted from the Fathers? It is true that Dr. Lightfoot continues: "In the absence of adequate data, it is quite vain to conjecture. But meanwhile we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion unfavourable either to the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of the document itself." [122:3] He thus seeks to reserve for himself any support he thinks he can derive from the tradition of Papias, and set aside exactly as much as he does not like. In fact, he clearly demonstrates how exceedingly loose is all this evidence from the Fathers, and with what ease one may either base magnificent conclusions upon it, or drive a coach and four through the whole mass.

In admitting for a moment that Papias may have mistaken the Gospel of the Hebrews "for the original of our St. Matthew," Dr. Lightfoot, in his attempt to get rid of that unfortunate Hebrew work of Matthew, has perhaps gone further than is safe for himself. Apart from the general flavour of inaccuracy which he imparts to the testimony of Papias, the obvious inference is suggested that, if he made this mistake, Papias is far from being a witness for the accuracy of the translation which Dr. Lightfoot supposes to have then been "recognised," and which he declares to have been our first Gospel. It is well known at least that, although the Gospel of the Hebrews bore more analogy to our present Gospel "according to Matthew" than to any of the other three, it very distinctly differed from it. If, therefore, Papias could quietly accept our Greek Matthew as an equivalent for the Gospel of the Hebrews, from which it presented considerable variation, we are entitled to reject such a translation as evidence of the contents of the original. That Papias was actually acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews may be inferred from the statement of Eusebius that he relates "a story about a woman accused of many sins before the Lord" (doubtless the same which is found in our copies of St. John's Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), "which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains." [123:1] If he exercised any critical power at all, he could not confound the Greek Matthew with it, and if he did not, what becomes of Dr. Lightfoot's argument?

Dr. Lightfoot argues at considerable length against the interpretation, accepted by many eminent critics, that the work ascribed to Matthew and called the "Oracles" ([Greek: logia]) could not be the first synoptic as we now possess it, but must have consisted mainly or entirely of Discourses. The argument will be found in _Supernatural Religion_, [124:1] and need not here be repeated. I will confine myself to some points of Dr. Lightfoot's reply. He seems not to reject the suggestion with so much vigour as might have been expected. "The theory is not without its attractions," he says; "it promises a solution of some difficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would justify its acceptance." [124:2] Indeed, he proceeds to say that it "is encumbered with the most serious difficulties." Dr. Lightfoot does not think that only [Greek: logoi] ("discourses" or "sayings") could be called [Greek: logia] ("oracles"), and says that usage does not warrant the restriction. [124:3] I had contended that "however much the signification (of the expression 'the oracles,' [Greek: ta logia]) became afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as well as sayings," and that "there is no linguistic precedent for straining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of Jesus, which were oracular or Divine." [124:4] To this Dr. Lightfoot replies that if the objection has any force it involves one or both of the two assumptions: "_first_, that books which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be called 'oracles,' unless they were occupied entirely with Divine sayings; _secondly_, that the Gospel of St. Matthew, in particular, could not at this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike are contradicted by facts." [125:1] The second point he considers proved by the well-known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas. For the discussion regarding it I beg leave to refer the reader to my volumes. [125:2] I venture to say that it is impossible to prove that Matthew's Gospel was, at that time, considered "Scripture," but, on the contrary, that there are excellent reasons for affirming that it was not.

Regarding the first point Dr. Lightfoot asserts:

"The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St. Paul, for
instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews that
they had the keeping of 'the oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we
suppose that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures
by this expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books
of Genesis, of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such
fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of God?
Would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of
the creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 _sq._), of the wanderings in the
wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 _sq._), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21
_sq._)? Does not the main part of his argument in the very next
chapter (Rom. iv.) depend more on the narrative of God's dealings
than His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God' (v. 12), his
meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the Divine
teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts
of the Old Testament. But if the language of the New Testament
writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with
their contemporary Philo. In one place, he speaks of the words in
Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek:
logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the
_narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15: 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest
anyone finding him should kill him.' [125:3] From this and other
passages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a
Scripture. Similarly Clement of Rome writes: 'Ye know well the
sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of God;' [125:4] and
immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12
_sq._, Exod. xxxii. 7 _sq._, of which the point is not any Divine
precept or prediction, but _the example of Moses_. A few years later
Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of
the Lord." [126:1]

He then goes on to refer to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Basil, but I need not follow him to these later writers, but confine myself to that which I have quoted.

"When Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans iii. 2, 'They were entrusted with the oracles of God,' can he mean anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures, including the historical books?" argues Dr. Lightfoot. I maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does not refer to a collection of writings at all, but to the communications or revelations of God, and, as the context shows, probably more immediately to the Messianic prophecies. The advantage of the Jews, in fact, according to Paul here, was that to them were first communicated the Divine oracles: that they were made the medium of God's utterances to mankind. There seems almost an echo of the expression in Acts vii. 38, where Stephen is represented as saying to the Jews of their fathers on Mount Sinai, "who received living oracles ([Greek: logia zônta]) to give unto us." Of this nature were the "oracles of God" which were entrusted to the Jews. Further, the phrase: "the first principles of the oracles of God" (Heb. v. 12), is no application of the term to narrative, as Dr. Lightfoot affirms, however much the author may illustrate his own teaching by Old Testament history; but the writer of the Epistle clearly explains his meaning in the first and second verses of his letter, when he says: "God having spoken to the fathers in time past in the prophets, at the end of these days spake unto us in His Son." Dr. Lightfoot also urges that Philo applies the term "oracle" ([Greek: logion]) to the _narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15, &c. The fact is, however, that Philo considered almost every part of the Old Testament as allegorical, and held that narrative or descriptive phrases veiled Divine oracles. When he applies the term "oracle" to any of these it is not to the narrative, but to the Divine utterance which he believes to be mystically contained in it, and which he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagant manner of Alexandrian typologists. Dr. Lightfoot does not refer to the expression of 1 Pet. iv. 11, "Let him speak as the oracles of God" ([Greek: hôs logia Theou]), which shows the use of the word in the New Testament. He does point out the passage in the "Epistle of Clement of Rome," than which, in my opinion, nothing could more directly tell against him. "Ye know well the sacred Scriptures and have studied the oracles of God." The "oracles of God" are pointedly distinguished from the sacred Scriptures, of which they form a part. These oracles are contained in the "sacred Scriptures," but are not synonymous with the whole of them. Dr. Lightfoot admits that we cannot say how much "Polycarp" included in the expression: "pervert the oracles of the Lord," but I maintain that it must be referred to the teaching of Jesus regarding "a resurrection and a judgment," and not to historical books.

In replying to Dr. Lightfoot's chapter on the Silence of Eusebius, I have said all that is necessary regarding the other Gospels in connection with Papias. Papias is the most interesting witness we have concerning the composition of the Gospels. He has not told us much, but he has told us more than any previous writer. Dr. Lightfoot has not scrupled to discredit his own witness, however, and he is quite right in suggesting that no great reliance can be placed upon his testimony. It comes to this: We cannot rely upon the correctness of the meagre account of the Gospels supposed to have been written by Mark and Matthew, and we have no other upon which to fall back. Regarding the other two Gospels, we have no information whatever from Papias, whether correct or incorrect, and altogether this Father does little or nothing towards establishing the credibility of miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation.

V.

_MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES._

Throughout the whole of these essays, Dr. Lightfoot has shown the most complete misapprehension of the purpose for which the examination of the evidence regarding the Gospels in early writings was undertaken in _Supernatural Religion_, and consequently he naturally misunderstands and misrepresents its argument from first to last. This becomes increasingly evident when we come to writers, whom he fancifully denominates: "the later school of St. John." He evidently considers that he is producing a very destructive effect, when he demonstrates from the writings, genuine or spurious, of such men as Melito of Sardis, Claudius Apollinaris and Polycrates of Ephesus, or from much more than suspected documents like the Martyrdom of Polycarp, that towards the last quarter of the second century they were acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity and, as he infers, derived them from our four Gospels. He really seems incapable of discriminating between a denial that there is clear and palpable evidence of the existence and authorship of these particular Gospels, and denial that they actually existed at all. I do not suppose that there is any critic, past or present, who doubts that our four Gospels had been composed and were in wide circulation during this period of the second century. It is a very different matter to examine what absolute testimony there is regarding the origin, authenticity, and trustworthiness of these documents, as records of miracles and witnesses for the reality of Divine Revelation.

I cannot accuse myself of having misled Dr. Lightfoot on this point by any obscurity in the statement of my object, but, as he and other apologists have carefully ignored it, and systematically warped my argument, either by accident or design, I venture to quote a few sentences from _Supernatural Religion_, both to justify myself and to restore the discussion to its proper lines.

In winding up the first part of the work, which was principally concerned with the antecedent credibility of miracles, I said:--

"Now it is apparent that the evidence for miracles requires to
embrace two distinct points: the reality of the alleged facts, and
the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced by
supernatural agency ... In order, however, to render our conclusion
complete, it remains for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be
any special evidence regarding the alleged facts entitling the
Gospel miracles to exceptional attention. If, instead of being
clear, direct, the undoubted testimony of known eye-witnesses free
from superstition and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly
to estimate the alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts
have none of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to
miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation will be easy and
conclusive." [130:1]

Before commencing the examination of the evidence for the Gospels, I was careful to state the principles upon which I considered it right to proceed. I said:

"Before commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date,
authorship, and character of the Gospels, it may be well to make a
few preliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons of
criticism. We shall make no attempt to establish any theory as to
the date at which any of the Gospels was actually written, but
simply examine all the testimony which is extant, with the view of
ascertaining _what is known of these works and their authors,
certainly and distinctly, as distinguished from what is merely
conjectured or inferred_ ... We propose, therefore, as exhaustively
as possible, to search all the writings of the early Church for
information regarding the Gospels, and to examine even the alleged
indications of their use ... It is still more important that we
should constantly bear in mind that a great number of Gospels
existed in the early Church which are no longer extant, and of most
of which even the names are lost. We need not here do more than
refer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement
of the author of the third Gospel: 'Forasmuch as many ([Greek:
polloi]) took in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the
things which have been accomplish among us,' &c. It is, therefore,
evident that before our third synoptic was written many similar
works were already in circulation. Looking at the close similarity
of large portions of the three synoptics, it is almost certain that
many of the writings here mentioned bore a close analogy to each
other and to our Gospels, and this is known to have been the case,
for instance, amongst the various forms of the 'Gospel according to
the Hebrews.' When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with
quotations closely resembling, or, we may add, even identical, with
passages which are found in our Gospels, the source of which,
however, is not mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated, _the
similarity or even identity cannot by any means be admitted as proof
that the quotation is necessarily from our Gospels, and not from
some other similar work now no longer extant_, and more especially
not when, in the same writings, there are other quotations from
sources different from our Gospels.... But whilst similarity to our
Gospels in passages quoted by early writers from unnamed sources
cannot _prove_ the use of our Gospels, variation from them would
suggest or prove a different origin, _and at least it is obvious
that anonymous quotations which do not agree with our Gospels cannot
in any case necessarily indicate their existence_ ... It is
unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from Apostolic
times without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of
our Gospels, so does the value of their testimony dwindle away.
Indeed, requiring, as we do, clear, direct and irrefragable evidence
of the integrity, authenticity, and historical character of these
Gospels, doubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal
to them as sufficient testimony--if they could, under any
circumstances, be considered sufficient testimony--for miracles and
a direct Divine Revelation like ecclesiastical Christianity."
[132:1]

Dr. Lightfoot must have been aware of these statements, since he has made the paragraph on the silence of ancient writers the basis of his essay on the silence of Eusebius, and has been so particular in calling attention to any alteration I have made in my text; and it might have been better if, instead of cheap sneers on every occasion in which these canons have been applied, he had once for all stated any reasons which he can bring forward against the canons themselves. The course he has adopted, I can well understand, is more convenient for him and, after all, with many it is quite as effective.

It may be well that I should here again illustrate the necessity for such canons of criticism as I have indicated above, and which can be done very simply from our own Gospels:

"Not only the language but the order of a quotation must have its
due weight, and we have no right to dismember a passage and,
discovering fragmentary parallels in various parts of the Gospels,
to assert that it is compiled from them and not derived, as it
stands, from another source. As an illustration, let us for a moment
suppose the 'Gospel according to Luke' to have been lost, like the
'Gospel according to the Hebrews' and so many others. In the works
of one of the Fathers we discover the following quotation from an
unnamed evangelical work: 'And he said unto them ([Greek: elegen de
pros autous]): 'The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are
few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he would send
forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways ([Greek: hupagete]):
behold, I send you forth as lambs ([Greek: arnas]) in the midst of
wolves.' Following the system adopted in regard to Justin and
others, apologetic critics would of course maintain that this was a
compilation from memory of passages quoted from our first
Gospel--that is to say, Matt ix, 37: 'Then saith he unto his
disciples ([Greek: tote legei tois mathêtais autou]), The harvest,'
&c.; and Matt. x. 16: 'Behold, I ([Greek: egô]) send you forth as
sheep' ([Greek: probata]) in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore,'
&c., which, with the differences which we have indicated, agree. It
would probably be in vain to argue that the quotation indicated a
continuous order, and the variations combined to confirm the
probability of a different source, and still more so to point out
that, although parts of the quotation, separated from their context,
might, to a certain extent, correspond with scattered verses in the
first Gospel, such a circumstance was no proof that the quotation
was taken from that and from no other Gospel. The passage, however,
is a literal quotation from Luke x. 2-3, which, as we have assumed,
had been lost.

"Again, still supposing the third Gospel no longer extant, we might
find the following quotation in a work of the Fathers: 'Take heed to
yourselves ([Greek: eautois]) of the leaven of the Pharisees, which
is hypocrisy ([Greek: hêtis estin hupocrisis]). For there is
nothing covered up ([Greek: sunkekalummenon]) which shall not be
revealed, and hid, which shall not be known.' It would, of course,
be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two verses of
our first Gospel quoted almost literally, with merely a few very
immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note, and the explanatory
words, 'which is hypocrisy,' introduced by the Father, and not a
part of the quotation at all. The two verses are Matt. xvi. 6,
'Beware and take heed ([Greek: hopate kai]) of the leaven of the
Pharisees and Sadducees ([Greek: kai Saddoukaiôn]), and Matt. x. 26,
'... for ([Greek: gar]) there is nothing covered ([Greek:
kekalummenon]) that shall not be revealed, and hid, that shall not
be known.' The sentence would, in fact, be divided as in the case of
Justin, and each part would have its parallel pointed out in
separate portions of the Gospel. How wrong such a system is--and it
is precisely that which is adopted with regard to Justin--is clearly
established by the fact that the quotation, instead of being such a
combination, is simply taken as it stands from the 'Gospel according
to Luke,' xii. 1-2." [133:1]

"If we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations which
differ merely in language, we arrive at the very same conclusion.
Supposing the third Gospel to be lost, what would be the source
assigned to the following quotation from an unnamed Gospel in the
work of one of the Fathers? 'No servant ([Greek: oudeis oiketês])
can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love the
other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye
cannot serve God and Mammon.' Of course the passage would be claimed
as a quotation from memory of Matt. vi. 24, with which it perfectly
corresponds, with the exception of the addition of the second word,
[Greek: oiketês], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an evident
and very natural amplification of the simple [Greek: oudeis] of the
first Gospel. Yet this passage, only differing by the single word
from Matthew, is a literal quotation from the Gospel according to
Luke xvi. 13. Or, to take another instance, supposing the third
Gospel to be lost, and the following passage quoted, from an unnamed
source, by one of the Fathers: 'Beware ([Greek: prosechete]) of the
Scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love ([Greek:
philountôn]) greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the
synagogues, and chief places at feasts; which devour widows' houses,
and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater
damnation.' This would, without hesitation, be declared a quotation
from memory of Mark xii. 38-40, from which it only differs in a
couple of words. It is, however, a literal quotation of Luke xx.
46-47, yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic
critics that possibly, not to say probably, the passage was not
derived from Mark, but from a lost Gospel. To quote one more
instance, let us suppose the 'Gospel according to Mark' no longer
extant, and that in some early work there existed the following
passage: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye ([Greek:
trumalias]) of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the
kingdom of God.' This of course would be claimed as a quotation from
memory of Matt. xix. 24, with which it agrees with the exception of
the substitution of [Greek: trupêmatos] for [Greek: trumalias]. It
would not the less have been an exact quotation from Mark x. 25."
[134:1]

Illustrations of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied, and to anyone who has studied the three synoptics, with their similarities and variations, and considered the probable mode of their compilation, it must be apparent that, with the knowledge that very many other Gospels existed (Luke i. 1), which can only very slowly have disappeared from circulation, it is impossible for anyone with a due appreciation of the laws of evidence to assert that the use of short passages similar to others in our Gospels actually proves that they must have been derived from these alone, and cannot have emanated from any other source. It is not necessary to deny that they may equally have come from the Gospels, but the inevitable decision of a judicial mind, seriously measuring evidence, must be that they do not absolutely prove anything.

Coming now more directly to the essay on "The later school of St. John," it is curious to find Dr. Lightfoot setting in the very foreground the account of Polycarp's martyrdom, without a single word regarding the more than suspicious character of the document, except the remark in a note that "the objections which have been urged against this narrative are not serious." [135:1] They have been considered so by men like Keim, Schürer, Lipsius, and Holtzmann. The account has too much need to be propped up itself to be of much use as a prop for the Gospels. Dr. Lightfoot points out that an "idea of literal conformity to the life and Passion of Christ runs through the document," [135:2] and it is chiefly on the fact that "most of the incidents have their counterparts in the circumstances of the Passion, as recorded by the synoptic evangelists alone or in common with St. John," that he relies, in referring to the martyrdom. I need scarcely reply that not only, on account of the very doubtful character of the document, is it useless to us as evidence, but because it does not name a single Gospel, much less add anything to our knowledge of their authorship and trustworthiness. I shall have more to say regarding Dr. Lightfoot in connection with this document further on.

The same remark applies to Melito of Sardis. I have fully discussed [135:3] the evidence which he is supposed to contribute, and it is unnecessary for me to enter into it at any length here, more especially as Dr. Lightfoot does not advance any new argument. He has said nothing which materially alters the doubtful position of many of the fragments attributed to this Father. In any case the use which Dr. Lightfoot chiefly makes of him as a witness is to show that Melito exhibits full knowledge of the details of evangelical history as contained in the four canonical Gospels. Waiving all discussion of the authenticity of the fragments, and accepting, for the sake of argument, the asserted acquaintance with evangelical history which they display, I simply enquire what this proves? Does anyone doubt that Melito of Sardis, in the last third of the second century, must have been thoroughly versed in Gospel history, or deny that he might have possessed our four Gospels? The only thing which is lacking is actual proof of the fact. Melito does not refer to a single Gospel by name. He does not add one word or one fact to our knowledge of the Gospels or their composers. He does not, indeed, mention any writing of the New Testament. If his words regarding the "Books of the Old Testament" imply "a corresponding Christian literature which he regarded as the books of the New Testament," [136:1] which I deny, what is gained? Even in that case "we cannot," as Dr. Lardner frankly states, "infer the names or the exact number of those books." As for adding anything to the credibility of miracles, such an idea is not even broached by Dr. Lightfoot, and yet if he cannot do this the only purpose for which his testimony is examined is gone. The elaborate display of vehemence in discussing the authenticity of fragments of his writings merely distracts the attention of the reader from the true issue if, when to his own satisfaction, Dr. Lightfoot cannot turn the evidence of Melito to greater account. [136:2]

Nor is he much more fortunate in the case of Claudius Apollinaris, [137:1] whose "Apology" may be dated about A.D. 177-180. In an extract preserved in the _Paschal Chronicle_, regarding the genuineness of which all discussion may, for the sake of argument, be waived here, the writer in connection with the Paschal Festival says that "they affirm that Matthew represents" one thing "and, on their showing, the Gospels seem to be at variance with one another." [137:2] If, therefore, the passage be genuine, the writer seems to refer to the first synoptic, and by inference to the fourth Gospel. He says nothing of the composition of these works, and he does nothing more than merely show that they were accepted in his time. This may seem a good deal when we consider how very few of his contemporaries do as much, but it really contributes nothing to our knowledge of the authors, and does not add a jot to their credibility as witnesses for miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation.

With regard to Polycrates of Ephesus I need say very little. Eusebius preserves a passage from a letter which he wrote "in the closing years of the second century," [137:3] when Victor of Rome attempted to force the Western usage with respect to Easter on the Asiatic Christians. In this he uses the expression "he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord," which occurs in the fourth Gospel. Nothing could more forcibly show the meagreness of our information regarding the Gospels than that such a phrase is considered of value as evidence for one of them. In fact the slightness of our knowledge of these works is perfectly astounding when the importance which is attached to them is taken into account.

VI.

_THE CHURCHES OF GAUL._

A severe persecution broke out in the year A.D. 177, under Marcus Aurelius, in the cities of Vienne and Lyons, on the Rhone, and an account of the martyrdoms which then took place was given in a letter from the persecuted communities, addressed "to the brethren that are in Asia and Phrygia." This epistle is in great part preserved to us by Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 1), and it is to a consideration of its contents that Dr. Lightfoot devotes his essay on the Churches of Gaul. But for the sake of ascertaining clearly what evidence actually exists of the Gospels, it would have been of little utility to extend the enquiry in _Supernatural Religion_ to this document, written nearly a century and a half after the death of Jesus, but it is instructive to show how exceedingly slight is the information we possess regarding those documents. I may at once say that no writing of the New Testament is directly referred to by name in this epistle, and consequently any supposed quotations are merely inferred to be such by their similarity to passages found in these writings. With the complete unconsciousness which I have pointed out that Dr. Lightfoot affects regarding the object and requirements of my argument, Dr. Lightfoot is, of course, indignant that I will not accept as conclusive evidence the imperfect coincidences which alone he is able to bring forward. I have elsewhere fully discussed these, [140:1] and I need only refer to some portions of his essay here.

"Of Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told that,
though young; he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder
Zacharias ([Greek: sunexisousthai tê tou presbuterou Zacharious
marturia]), for verily ([Greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless_.' Here we have
the same words, and in the same order, which are used of Zacharias
and Elizabeth in St. Luke (i. 6): 'and Zacharias, his father, was
filled with the Holy Ghost.'" [140:2]

Dr. Lightfoot very properly dwells on the meaning of the expression "the testimony of Zacharias" ([Greek: tê Zachariou marturia]), which he points out "might signify either 'the testimony borne to Zacharias,' _i.e._ his recorded character, or 'the testimony borne by Zacharias,' _i.e._ his martyrdom." By a vexatious mistake in reprinting, "to" was accidentally substituted for "by" in my translation of this passage in a very few of the earlier copies of my sixth edition, but the error was almost immediately observed and corrected in the rest of the edition. Dr. Lightfoot seizes upon the "to" in the early copy which I had sent to him, and argues upon it as a deliberate adoption of the interpretation, whilst he takes me to task for actually arguing upon the rendering "by" in my text. Very naturally a printer's error could not extend to my argument. The following is what I say regarding the passage in my complete edition:

"The epistle is an account of the persecution of the Christian
community of Vienne and Lyons, and Vettius Epagathus is the first
of the martyrs who is named in it: [Greek: marturia] was at that
time the term used to express the supreme testimony of Christians--
martyrdom--and the epistle seems here simply to refer to the
martyrdom, the honour of which he shared with Zacharias. It is,
we think, highly improbable that, under such circumstances, the
word [Greek: marturia] would have been used to express a mere
description of the character of Zacharias given by some other writer."

This is the interpretation which is adopted by Tischendorf, Hilgenfeld, and many eminent critics.

It will be observed that the saying that he had "walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless," which is supposed to be taken from Luke i. 6, is there applied to Zacharias and Elizabeth, the father and mother of John the Baptist, but the Gospel does not say anything of this Zacharias having suffered martyrdom. The allusion in Luke xi. 51 (Matt. xxiii. 35) is almost universally admitted to be to another Zacharias, whose martyrdom is related in 2 Chron. xxiv. 21.

"Since the epistle, therefore, refers to the martyrdom of Zacharias,
the father of John the Baptist, when using the expressions which are
supposed to be taken from our third synoptic, is it not reasonable
to suppose that those expressions were derived from some work which
likewise contained an account of his death, which is not found in
the synoptic? When we examine the matter more closely we find that,
although none of the canonical gospels except the third gives any
narrative of the birth of John the Baptist, that portion of the
Gospel in which are the words we are discussing cannot be considered
an original production by the third Synoptist, but, like the rest of
his work, is merely a composition based upon earlier written
narratives. Ewald, for instance, assigns the whole of the first
chapters of Luke (i. 5-ii. 40) to what he terms 'the eighth
recognisable book.'" [141:1]

No apologetic critic pretends that the author of the third Gospel can have written this account from his own knowledge or observation. Where, then, did he get his information? Surely not from oral tradition limited to himself. The whole character of the narrative, even apart from the prologue to the Gospel, and the composition of the rest of the work, would lead us to infer a written source.

"The fact that other works existed at an earlier period in which the
history of Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, was given, and in
which not only the words used in the epistle were found, but also
the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far as the
history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the
'Protevangelium Jacobi,' which contains it. Tischendorf, who does
not make use of this epistle at all as evidence for the Scriptures
of the New Testament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in
it to the martyrdom of Zacharias, as testimony to the existence and
use of the 'Protevangelium Jacobi,' a work whose origin he dates so
far back as the first three decades of the second century, and which
he considers was also used by Justin, as Hilgenfeld had already
observed. Tischendorf and Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming
that the reference to Zacharias which we have quoted indicates
acquaintance with a Gospel different from our third synoptic."
[142:1]

Such being the state of the case, I would ask any impartial reader whether there is any evidence here that these few words, introduced without the slightest indication of the source from which they were derived, must have been quoted from our third Gospel, and cannot have been taken from some one of the numerous evangelical works in circulation before that Gospel was written. The reply of everyone accustomed to weigh evidence must be that the words cannot even prove the existence of our synoptic at the time the letter was written.

"But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the third
Gospel in this way" (proceeds Dr. Lightfoot), "what will he say to
those with the Acts? In this same letter of the Gallican Churches we
are told that the sufferers prayed for their persecutors 'like
Stephen, the perfect martyr, "Lord, lay not this sin to their
charge.'" Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them
another Acts, containing words identical with our Acts, just as he
supposes them to have had another Gospel, containing words identical
with our Third Gospel? Or, will he allow this account to have been
taken from Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter
case, if they had the second treatise, which bears the name of St.
Luke, in their hands, why should they not have had the first also?"
[143:1]

My reply to this is:

"There is no mention of the Acts of the Apostles in the epistle, and
the source from which the writers obtained their information about
Stephen, is, of course, not stated. If there really was a martyr of
the name of Stephen, and if these words were actually spoken by him,
the tradition of the fact, and the memory of his noble saying, may
well have remained in the Church, or have been recorded in writings
then current, from one of which, indeed, eminent critics (as Bleek,
Ewald, Meyer, Neander, De Wette) conjecture that the author of Acts
derived his materials, and in this case the passage obviously does
not prove the use of the Acts. If, on the other hand, there never
was such a martyr by whom the words were spoken, and the whole story
must be considered an original invention by the author of Acts,
then, in that case, and in that case only, the passage does show the
use of the Acts. Supposing that the use of Acts be held to be thus
indicated, what does this prove? Merely that the 'Acts of the
Apostles' were in existence in the year 177-178, when the epistle of
Vienne and Lyons was written. No light whatever would thus be thrown
upon the question of its authorship; and neither its credibility nor
its sufficiency to prove the reality of a cycle of miracles would be
in the slightest degree established." [143:2]

Apart from the question of the sufficiency of evidence actually under examination, however, I have never suggested, much less asserted, that the "Acts of the Apostles" was not in existence at this date. The only interest attachable to the question is, as I have before said, the paucity of the testimony regarding the book, to demonstrate which it has been necessary to discuss all such supposed allusions. But the apologetic argument characteristically ignores the fact that "many took in hand" at an early date to set forth the Christian story, and that the books of our New Testament did not constitute the whole of Christian literature in circulation in the early days of the Church.

I need not go with any minuteness into the alleged quotation from the fourth Gospel. "There shall come a time in which whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." The Gospel has: "There cometh an hour when," &c., and, as no source is named, it is useless to maintain that the use of this Gospel, and the impossibility of the use of any other, is proved. If even this were conceded, the passage does not add one iota to our knowledge of the authorship and credibility of the Gospel. Dr. Lightfoot says "The author of _Supernatural Religion_ maintains, on the other hand, that only twelve years before, at the outside, the very Church to which Irenaeus belonged, in a public document with which he was acquainted, betrays no knowledge of our canonical Gospels, but quotes from one or more apocryphal Gospels instead. He maintains this though the quotations in question are actually found in our canonical Gospels." [144:1] Really, Dr. Lightfoot betrays that he has not understood the argument, which merely turns upon the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the use of particular documents, whilst others existed which possibly, or probably, did contain similar passages to those in debate.

VII.

_TATIAN'S 'DIATESSARON.'_

I need not reply at any length to Dr. Lightfoot's essay on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and I must refer those who wish to see what I had to say on the subject to _Supernatural Religion_. [145:1] I may here confine myself to remarks connected with fresh matter which has appeared since the publication of my work.

An Armenian translation of what is alleged to be the Commentary of Ephraem Syrus on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ was published as long ago as 1836, but failed to attract critical attention. In 1876, however, a Latin translation of this work by Aucher and Moesinger was issued, and this has now, naturally introduced new elements into the argument regarding Tatian's use of Gospels. Only last year, a still more important addition to critical materials was made by the publication in Rome of an alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, with a Latin translation by Ciasca. These works were not before Dr. Lightfoot when he wrote his Essay on Tatian in 1877, and he only refers to them in a note in his present volume. He entertains no doubt as to the genuineness of these works, and he triumphantly claims that they establish the truth of the "ecclesiastical theory" regarding the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian.

In order to understand the exact position of the case, however, it will be well to state again what is known regarding Tatian's work. Eusebius is the first writer who mentions it. He says--and to avoid all dispute I give Dr. Lightfoot's rendering:--

"Tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not
how ([Greek: ouk oid' hopôs]), of the Gospels, and called it
_Diatessaron_. This work is current in some quarters (with some
persons) even to the present day." [146:1]

I argued that this statement indicates that Eusebius was not personally acquainted with the work in question, but speaks of it from mere hearsay. Dr. Lightfoot replies--

"His inference, however, from the expression 'I know not how' is
altogether unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no
personal knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in
speaking of books where they are perfectly acquainted with the
contents, but do not understand the principles, or do not approve
the method. In idiomatic English it signifies 'I cannot think what
he was about,' and is equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so
that, if anything, it implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the
contents. I have noticed at least twenty-six examples of its use in
the treatise of Origen against Celsus alone, [146:2] where it
commonly refers to Celsus' work which he had before him, and very
often to passages which he himself quotes in the context." [146:3]

If this signification be also attached to the expression, it is equally certain that [Greek: ouk oid' hopôs] is used to express ignorance, although Dr. Lightfoot chooses, for the sake of his argument, to forget the fact. In any case some of the best critics draw the same inference from the phrase here that I do, more especially as Eusebius does not speak further or more definitely of the _Diatessaron_, amongst whom I may name Credner, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Reuss and Scholten; and should these not have weight with him I may refer Dr. Lightfoot to Zahn, [147:1] and even to Dr. Westcott [147:2] and Professor Hemphill. [147:3] Eusebius says nothing more of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and gives us no further help towards a recognition of the work.

Dr. Lightfoot supposes that I had overlooked the testimony of the _Doctrine of Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, published in 1876 by Dr. Phillips after _Supernatural Religion_ was written. I did not overlook it, but I considered it of too little critical value to require much notice in later editions of the work. The _Doctrine of Addai_ is conjecturally dated by Dr. Lightfoot about the middle of the third century, [147:4] and it might with greater certainty be placed much later. The passage to which he points is one in which it is said that the new converts meet together to hear, along with the Old Testament, "the New of the _Diatessaron_." This is assumed to be Tatian's "Harmony of the Gospels," and I shall not further argue the point; but does it bring us any nearer to a certain understanding of its character and contents?

The next witness, taking them in the order in which Dr. Lightfoot cites them, is Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the twelfth century. In his commentary on the Gospels he writes:--

"Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr,
selected and patched together from the four Gospels and constructed
a gospel, which he called _Diatessaron_--that is, _Miscellanies_.
On this work Mar Ephraem wrote an exposition; and its commencement
was--_In the beginning was the Word_. Elias of Salamia, who is also
called Aphthonius, constructed a gospel after the likeness of the
_Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, mentioned by Eusebius in his prologue to
the Canons which he made for the Gospel. Elias sought for that
_Diatessaron_ and could not find it, and in consequence constructed
this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with several
things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in them, and
rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not often met
with." [148:1]

This information regarding Ephraem--who died about A.D. 373--be it remembered, is given by a writer of the twelfth century, and but for this we should not have known from any ancient independent source that Ephraem had composed a commentary at all, supposing that he did so. It is important to note, however, that a second _Diatessaron_, prepared by Ammonius, is here mentioned, and that it was also described by Eusebius in his Epistle to Carpianus, and further that Bar-Salibi speaks of a third, composed on the same lines by Elias. Dr. Lightfoot disposes of the _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius in a very decided way. He says:

"It was quite different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of
Tatian. The _Diatessaron_ of Tatian was a patchwork of the four
Gospels, commencing with the preface of St. John. The work of
Ammonius took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving
its continuity, and placed side by side with it parallel passages
from the other Gospels. The principle of the one was _amalgamation_;
of the other, _comparison_. No one who had seen the two works could
confuse them, though they bore the same name, _Diatessaron_.
Eusebius keeps them quite distinct. So does Bar-Salibi. Later on in
his commentary, we are told, he quotes both works in the same
place." [148:2]

Doubtless, no one comparing the two works here described could confuse them, but it is far from being so clear that anyone who had not seen more than one of these works could with equal certainty distinguish it. The statement of Dr. Lightfoot quoted above, that the _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius "took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving its continuity," certainly does not tend to show that it was "quite different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian," on the supposition that the Arabic translation lately published represents the work of Tatian. I will quote what Professor Hemphill says regarding it, in preference to making any statement of my own:--