diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 3 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 13433-0.txt | 6478 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/13433-8.txt | 6867 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/13433-8.zip | bin | 0 -> 137617 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/13433.txt | 6867 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/13433.zip | bin | 0 -> 137494 bytes |
8 files changed, 20228 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6833f05 --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +* text=auto +*.txt text +*.md text diff --git a/13433-0.txt b/13433-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0b8c9cb --- /dev/null +++ b/13433-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,6478 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 13433 *** + +PRODUCTION NOTES: +A Reply to Dr Lightfoot's Essays +by Walter R. Cassels (4-Sep-1826 to 10-Jun-1907) +Originally published anonymously in 1889. +Transcribed by the Freethought Archives <freethought@despammed.com> + + + + + + +A REPLY TO DR LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS + +BY THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" + + + + +LONDON +1889 + + + + + +INTRODUCTION. + + +I sincerely rejoice that Dr. Lightfoot has recovered from his recent +illness. Of this restoration the vigorous energy of his preface to his +republication of the Essays on _Supernatural Religion_ affords decided +evidence, and I hope that no refutation of this inference at least may +be possible, however little we may agree on other points. + +It was natural that Dr. Lightfoot should not be averse to preserving +the more serious part of these Essays, the preparation of which cost +him so much time and trouble; and the republication of this portion +of his reply to my volumes, giving as it does the most eloquent and +attractive statement of the ecclesiastical case, must be welcome to +many. I cannot but think that it has been an error of judgment and +of temper, however, to have rescued from an ephemeral state of existence +and conferred literary permanence on much in his present volume, +which is mere personal attack on his adversary and a deliberate attempt +to discredit a writer with whom he pretends to enter into serious +argument. A material part of the volume is composed of such matter. +I cannot congratulate him on the spirit which he has displayed. +Personally I am profoundly indifferent to such attempts at detraction, +and it is with heretical amusement that I contemplate the large part +which purely individual and irrelevant criticism is made to play +in stuffing out the proportions of orthodox argument. In the first +moment of irritation, I can well understand that hard hitting, even +below the belt, might be indulged in against my work by an exasperated +theologian--for even a bishop is a man,--but that such attacks should +not only be perpetuated, but repeated after years of calm reflection, +is at once an error and a compliment for which I was not prepared. +Anything to prevent readers from taking up _Supernatural Religion_: +any misrepresentation to prejudice them against its statements. +Elaborate literary abuse against the author is substituted for the +effective arguments against his reasoning which are unhappily wanting. +In the later editions of my work, I removed everything that seemed +likely to irritate or to afford openings for the discussion of minor +questions, irrelevant to the main subject under treatment. Whilst +Dr. Lightfoot in many cases points out such alterations, he republishes +his original attacks and demonstrates the disparaging purpose of +his Essays by the reiterated condemnation of passages which had so +little to do with the argument that they no longer exist in the +complete edition of Supernatural Religion. Could there be more +palpable evidence of the frivolous and superficial character of +his objections? It is not too much to say that in no part of these +Essays has Dr. Lightfoot at all seriously entered upon the fundamental +proposition of _Supernatural Religion_. He has elaborately criticised +notes and references: he has discussed dates and unimportant details: +but as to the question whether there is any evidence for miracles and +the reality of alleged Divine Revelation, his volume is an absolute +blank. Bampton Lecturers and distinguished apologetic writers have +frankly admitted that the Christian argument must be reconstructed. +They have felt the positions, formerly considered to be impregnable, +crumbling away under their feet, but nothing could more forcibly expose +the feebleness of the apologetic case than this volume of Dr Lightfoot's +Essays. The substantial correctness of the main conclusions of +_Supernatural Religion_ is rendered all the more apparent by the +reply to its reasoning. The eagerness with which Dr. Lightfoot and +others rush up all the side issues and turn their backs upon the +more important central proposition is in the highest degree remarkable. +Those who are in doubt and who have understood what the problem to +be solved really is will not get any help from his volume. + +The republication of these Essays, however, has almost forced upon me +the necessity of likewise republishing the reply I gave at the time of +their appearance. The first Essay appeared in the _Fortnightly Review_, +and others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of _Supernatural +Religion_, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the +portions attacked, where reply seemed necessary. I cannot hope that +readers will refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is +published with the view of affording a convenient form of reference +for those interested in the discussion. I add brief notes upon those +Essays which did not require separate treatment at the time, and such +further explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my +statements. Of course, the full discussion of Dr. Lightfoot's arguments +must still be sought in the volumes of _Supernatural Religion_, but I +trust that I may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his +allegations and their bearing on my argument. + +I have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without any +alteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the +first time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position to +wind up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally show +the inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot's treatment. But I have still more been +moved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easier +reach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not +contain them. + +Dr. Lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. I do not think that +I am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my opinions; but +I may distinctly say that I have always held that arguments upon very +serious subjects should be impersonal, and neither gain weight by the +possession of a distinguished name nor lose by the want of it. I leave +the Bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and I take my stand upon +the basis of reason and not of reputation. + + + + + + CONTENTS + + + I. A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" + + II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES + + III. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA + + IV. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS + + V. MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES + + VI. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL + + VII. TATIAN'S "DIATESSARON" + +VIII. CONCLUSIONS + + [ENDNOTES] + + INDEX. + + + + + +I. + +_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."_ +[Endnote 1:1] + + +The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important, +that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work +should receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his +remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible +that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge +fairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and +in every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws +and mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose +perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained +application. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel +otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes +which can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing +more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which +may be fallacious. + +Reluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of +silent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the +face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the +case is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of +the Rev. Dr. Lightfoot's article upon _Supernatural Religion_ in the +December number of the "Contemporary Review." Whilst delivering severe +lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance +and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens, +falls very short of his precept. The example of moderation presented to +me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his +impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I +fail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew Arnold +so justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and +I trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat +Dr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand. +I should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his +attack at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience +and divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general +detraction. The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be +pronounced original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the +threadbare maxim: "A bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney," remains +in force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still +is. If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in +translation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with +which Canon Lightfoot reproaches _Supernatural Religion_ were well +founded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of +such a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of +the kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not +weaken the central argument, and after the Apologist's ingenuity has +been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of +Supernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure. It is, +however, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there +is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which +have "a vital bearing" upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked" +which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change +the aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once +to reply. I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to +sap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the +weakness of his own. Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has +the "misfortune" "to dispute not a few propositions which 'most +critics' are agreed in maintaining." He will probably find that "most +critics," for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune +to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many +points, from most critics. + +The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is +regarding "a highly important passage of Irenaeus," containing a +reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers +that I am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive +and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy" +would decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf +in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words +"say they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of +a passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation, +in the total absence of the original, that these special words were +supplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of +Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr. +Westcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what +"the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and +he then proceeds (§ 2) with indirect construction, indicating a +reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in +question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This +passage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of +Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of +Hierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text: +"In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears +to have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;" [4:1] and in a +note on an earlier page: "The passage quoted by Irenaeus from 'the +Elders' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of +interpretation;" [4:2] and then follows the passage in which the +indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of +"they taught." [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the +slightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing +this testimony, which Dr. Lightfoot describes as having "a vital +bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel." +The reader who had not the work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the +justness of the ascription of this passage to Papias, and who was not +acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the state of critical +opinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements, +understand the real position of the case. + +Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole +passage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he +was followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestion +to the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom +I remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot, +now seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebrated +treatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued against +Dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, there +is not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolate +the words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is +no evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussing +the evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers +to this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (in +italics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, as +Routh conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he points +out the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters" +should be used. He says, "Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo +cautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab +Irenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est, +utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet." Meyer, +[5:3] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whether +these presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived the +saying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it +merely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with Papias, and +only claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the +first half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the +translator of Tischendorf's work into Dutch, and his warm admirer, +brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the +circle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly +separates the presbyters of this passage from Papias, and asserts that +they may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt, +[6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, does +not attempt to associate the quotation with the book of Papias, but +merely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for it +formed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] does +not go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that "it is +impossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A.D. +150," refers to this passage, and says: "It is precarious to infer with +Tischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters +from Papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back +to the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "Is it not +evident that Irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, without +an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3] In another place Dr. +Davidson still more directly says: "The second proof is founded on a +passage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account of +the eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of the +Apostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the Lord said, "In +my Father's house are many mansions."' Here it is equally uncertain +whether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and +whether that Father did not insert something of his own, or something +borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel." +[6:4] + +With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his +while to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering the +external evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in +discussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do +apologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer, +Thiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette, +Gfrörer, Lücke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it, +although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of +Zeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so +indirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of +Eusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on +neither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; and +whilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with +the fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of +apologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved. +Those who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle as +testimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladly +have produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as taken +from the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to assume that any +of the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the +passage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject +generally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller in +which the quotation is discussed. + +This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune to +dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in +maintaining." I have no objection to his disputing anything. All +that I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there +is anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely +discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of +Dr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what +I objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But +although I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who +says "that there is this distinction of dwelling," &c., I did what +was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction, +a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairly +trained schoolboy." I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note, +the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below, +but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai +de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of +showing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the point +is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make +any objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott, +beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and +that I proceed to argue that "the presbyters," to whom the passage +is referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the +work of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended +to maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation +made to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had +been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately +withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different +from what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my +argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which +Dr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it +as well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this +was already published before Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared, +and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2] + +With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is +practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself. +"Tischendorf's words," he says, "are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der +Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,' +because the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact +that the words were not Irenaeus's own without this addition." Writing +of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "But he has not +altered any idea which the original contains." [9:1] I affirm, on the +contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he +has warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted +to point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct +assertion "that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters, +those high authorities of Papias." The German apologist, therefore, not +giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of +most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the +"habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high +authorities of Papias," without a hint that these words are his own. +[9:2] + +My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the +passage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was derived +from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a +quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these +words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from the +Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing +more than the exegesis of his own day. + +The second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection with +a discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage +from Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows: +"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes +that Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile +been 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him +as a contemporary.' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which +everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen +does not say 'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_ ([Greek: +epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen's knowledge +was plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he does not say +'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write,' but 'If he _did not +write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]); +nor 'If he _has commenced and finished_,' but 'If he _commenced and +finished_' ([Greek: _arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's language +itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with +the earlier passages in his work." [10:2] These remarks, and the +triumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here +"an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey +a totally wrong impression of the case. + +The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy +between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report; +[10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give the +passage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary +observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually +fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose +rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The +manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this +passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself +by Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick +of his precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's words +in a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments +as follows: "But here again we have to do with nothing else than a +completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's +poverty. For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen +rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words +of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition +of the whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]: +"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in +seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten +Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.' +'Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht +geschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genügt es uns mit diesen +acht Büchern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auch +jene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_], +'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,'" +&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly, +but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words +of Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon +these tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases, +but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2] +Whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of Origen there +may be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered +as good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist. + +Instead of depending on the "strength of the passage so translated," +however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of +this or any other version of Origen's words; and, in fact, the point +is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than +my own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his +adversary: and I add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the +conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his +impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became +considerably modified." I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons. +In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that +his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a +little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he +is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean +actually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to +whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians +which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as +a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others assert, +on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other +considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I +proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of +Lucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date; +but, on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus +attacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the +circumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against +Christians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated +about the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short, +scarcely turns upon the passage in Origen at all, and that which renders +it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the +Gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors, +which can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of +Divine Revelation. + +I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding +translations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of +passages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and +expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main +issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural +context to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as +Dr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot +interest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to accept +correction even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite +content to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair +spirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism,' in +which Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely +rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb. +[13:1] + +I am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical +errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and +magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his +apologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as +"a highly important question of Biblical criticism." In speaking, +_en passant_, of a passage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the +"Age of Miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally +omitted from vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read, +"and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation." [14:1] +In vol. ii. p. 420, after again mentioning the rejection of the passage, +I proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have +Originally stood in the text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of +such a context. The second error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24, +in which "only" has been substituted for "never" in deciphering my MS. +Since this is such a _common-place_ of "apologists," as Dr. Lightfoot +points out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon +the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation. +I can assure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him +the full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once +distinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition +[Greek: ho Baptistês]. [15:1] + +I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks +me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of +dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says-- + + "Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:-- + + "'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, + as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' ('Canon,' + p. 264) + + "The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's + book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating + the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of + St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark + was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of + information, one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author + remarks-- + + "'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading + system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to, + in the introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as + St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics + are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only + have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact + that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition + represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers + that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the + interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been + the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and + infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal + of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the + allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the + apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459) + + "Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself. + It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these. + I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed + Dr. Westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage + so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be + sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself + would have thought of." [16:1] + +In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to +quote Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott +says: "Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times, +it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian +doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration +was still fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary +prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror +into the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar +views. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, +who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2] +and he also made use of certain 'Traditions of Matthias,' which +claimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the Saviour.' +[16:3] It appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a +'Life of Christ,' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or +'The Philosophy of Christianity'--but he admitted the historic truth +of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them +as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony +of Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear. +In the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain +references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, &c." +And in a note Dr. Westcott adds, "The following examples will be +sufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c." [17:1] + +Not a word of qualification or doubt is added to these extraordinary +statements, for a full criticism of which I must beg the reader to +be good enough to refer to _Supernatural Religion_, ii. pp. 41-54. +Setting aside here the important question as to what the "gospel" +of Basilides--to which Dr. Westcott gives the fanciful names of a +"Life of Christ," or "Philosophy of Christianity," without a shadow +of evidence--really was, it could scarcely be divined, for instance, +that the statement that Basilides "admitted the historic truth of +all the facts contained in the canonical gospels" rests solely upon +a sentence in the work attributed to Hippolytus, to the effect that, +after his generation, all things regarding the Saviour--according +to the _followers_ of Basilides--occurred in the same way as they +are written in the Gospels. Again, it could scarcely be supposed +by an ordinary reader that the assertion that Basilides used the +"canonical gospels"--there certainly were no "canonical" gospels +in his day--"as Scripture," that his testimony to our 'acknowledged' +books is comprehensive and clear, and that "in the few pages of +his writings which remain there are certain references" to those +gospels, which show "his method of quotation," is not based upon +any direct extracts from his writings, but solely upon passages +in an epitome by Hippolytus of the views of the school of Basilides, +not ascribed directly to Basilides himself, but introduced by a +mere indefinite [Greek: phêsi]. [17:2] Why, I might enquire in the +vein of Dr. Lightfoot, is not a syllable said of all this, or of +the fact, which completes the separation of these passages from +Basilides, that the Gnosticism described by Hippolytus is not that +of Basilides, but clearly of a later type; and that writers of that +period, and notably Hippolytus himself, were in the habit of putting, +as it might seem, by the use of an indefinite "he says," sentiments +into the mouth of the founder of a sect which were only expressed +by his later followers? As Dr. Lightfoot evidently highly values +the testimony of Luthardt, I will quote the words of that staunch +apologist to show that, in this, I do not merely represent the views of +a heterodox school. In discussing the supposed quotations from the +fourth Gospel, which Dr. Westcott represents as "certain references" +to it by Basilides himself, Luthardt says: "But to this is opposed +the consideration that, as we know from Irenaeus, &c., the original +system of Basilides had a dualistic character, whilst that of the +'Philosophumena' is pantheistic. We must recognise that Hippolytus, +in the 'Philosophumena,' not unfrequently makes the founder of a sect +responsible for that which in the first place concerns his disciples, +so that from these quotations only the use of the Johannine Gospel +in the school of Basilides is undoubtedly proved, but not on the +part of the founder himself." [18:1] + +It is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the Basilides +regarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he did +not know our Gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work, +supplemented by traditions from Glaucias and Matthias; but, as if the +heretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity, +the additional touch is given in the passage more immediately before +us. Dr. Westcott conveys the information contained in the single +sentence of Clement of Alexandria, [Greek: kathaper ho Basileidês +kan Glaukian epigraphêtai didaskalon, hôs auchousin autoi, ton Petrou +hermênea], [19:1] in the following words; and I quote the statement +exactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in order +to show the inverted commas upon which Dr. Lightfoot lays so much +stress as having been removed. In mentioning this fact Canon Westcott +says: "At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, +who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter.' [19:2] +Now we have here, again, an illustration," &c.; and then follows the +passage quoted by Dr. Lightfoot. The positive form given to the words +of Clement, and the introduction of the words "as well as St. Mark," +seem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to Basilides +which I do not find in the original. I confess that I fail to see +any special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr. Lightfoot does, +let me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon the +strength of which he accuses me of "manipulating" a passage, and +then founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately after +the direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work, in which those inverted +commas are given. The words they mark are a quotation from Clement, +and in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally well +indicated by being the only words not put in italics. The fact is, +that Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. He +has been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failed +to perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this wonderful +illustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness which +pervades the critical portion of this (my) book." [19:3] It rather +exemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article. + +Dr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "Dr. Westcott's honour may +safely be left to take care of itself." It would have been much better +to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such +advocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it would +be the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, in +the most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any +other have I had the most distant intention of attributing "corrupt +motives" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognise, +and for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost +that I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly +possessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in +particular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and +unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which +should be more impartially made. + +Dr. Lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the +arguments of my adversaries. "The author," he says, "does indeed single +out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and +on these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts and lines +of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often occur in +the same books, and even in the same contexts which he quotes." [20:1] +I am exceedingly indebted to Dr. Lightfoot for having had compassion +upon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments, and for giving me +"samples" of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of apologists +which I have ignored. + +The first of these with which he favours me is in connection with +an anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius being +spoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested +regarding him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlier +passage he is represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:-- +"Why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have found +in any common source of information, that when the Latin version +(the Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated +into the original language, [Greek: tois sun autô], the 'anachronism' +altogether disappears?" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparently +attach much weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons for +not troubling my readers with this argument in words which, I hope, +may find more favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on +"Christian Literature and Doctrine," says: "In the ninth chapter +Ignatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the Philippians +of patience ... In the thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests information +with regard to 'Ignatius and those with him.' These words occur +only in the Latin translation of the epistle. To get rid of the +difficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words +'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the Greek [Greek: +peri ton met' autou]. And then the words are supposed to mean, +'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I heard, but of which I wish +particulars) and those who _were_ with him.' But even the Greek could +not be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there is +no reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the peculiar difficulty +presented by a comparison with the ninth chapter." [21:2] Dr. Lightfoot, +however, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit to impugn +translations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely handling +the tenses of a Greek text which the critic himself has never seen. +Here it is Dr. Lightfoot's argument which is "wrecked upon this rock +of grammar." + +The next example of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of +apologists which I have ignored is as follows:-- + + "Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion + of Papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by + Dr. Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict + interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object, in + his 'Exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative, + but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already + lying before him in written documents? This view, if correct, + entirely alters the relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and + its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main + question at issue." [22:1] + +I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced +without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias +himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much +more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords +any evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our +believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they +are the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it +cannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him, +the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch +as it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels; +and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so +clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written +documents with which he was acquainted. However important such a +discussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence, +it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of +Divine Revelation. + +The next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of +reasoning" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following: + + "Again, when he reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the + strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the + often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer + refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the + words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these + words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of + initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that + Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as + misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tübingen + interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which + we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists' + might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [23:1] + +I reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I +merely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single +sentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation +in Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: "This, however, does not concern us here, and +we have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus +opposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in +fact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why does +he not also state that I distinctly refer to Tischendorf's denial that +Hegesippus was opposed to Paul? And why does he not further state that, +instead of being the "single notice" from which the view of the +anti-Pauline feelings of Hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based +upon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain? +It was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling +against Paul entertained by a large section of the early Church. What I +have to say upon that subject will appear in my examination of the Acts +of the Apostles. + +"And again," says Dr. Lightfoot, proceeding with his samples of ignored +weightier lines of reasoning, + + "in the elaborate examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical + quotations ... our author frequently refers to Dr. Westcott's book + to censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are + discussed at great length. Why, then, does he not once mention + Dr. Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin Martyr's + quotations from the Old Testament as throwing some light on the + degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the + Gospels? A reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_ + will have his eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind when + he turns to Dr. Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves, + misnames, and misquotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot + be said that these are unimportant points." [24:1] + +Now the fact is, that in the first 105 pages of my examination of +Justin Martyr I do not once refer in my text to Dr. Westcott's work; +and when I finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing what +seemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention. +[24:2] Dr. Westcott, whilst maintaining that Justin's quotations are +derived from our Gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of the +very numerous citations in his writings "does Justin profess to give +the exact words recorded in the 'Memoirs.'" [24:3] The reason why I do +not feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of Dr. Westcott +here mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a note +quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, [24:4] which sentence he has thought it right +to omit. The note is as follows, and the sentence to which I refer is +put in italics: "For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader +may be referred to Canon Westcott's work 'On the Canon,' pp. 112-139. +Dr. Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations +are different from the text of our Gospels, but he accounts for his +variations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _It is evident that +so long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no +proof of identity is possible_." [24:5] It will be observed that +although I do not discuss Dr. Westcott's views, I pointedly refer those +who desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to his +work. Let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining the +writings of the Fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as to +what documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whether +they afford any positive evidence regarding our existing Gospels, which +can warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculous +contents of Christianity. Any argument that, although Justin, for +instance, never once names any of our Gospels, and out of very numerous +quotations of sayings of Jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything which +has an exact parallel in those Gospels, yet he may have made use of our +Gospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the Old +Testament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality of +Divine Revelation. From the point of view of such an enquiry, I +probably go much further into the examination of Justin's "Memoirs" +than was at all necessary. + +Space, however, forbids my further dwelling on these instances, +regarding which Dr. Lightfoot says: "In every instance which I have +selected"--and to which I have replied--"these omitted considerations +vitally affect the main question at issue." [25:1] If Dr. Lightfoot had +devoted half the time to mastering what "the main question at issue" +really is, which he has wasted in finding minute faults in me, he might +have spared himself the trouble of giving these instances at all. If +such considerations have vital importance, the position of the question +may easily be understood. Dr. Lightfoot, however, evidently seems to +suppose that I can be charged with want of candour and of fulness, +because I do not reproduce every shred and tatter of apologetic +reasoning which divines continue to flaunt about after others have +rejected them as useless. He again accuses me, in connection with the +fourth Gospel, of systematically ignoring the arguments of "apologetic" +writers, and he represents my work as "the very reverse of full and +impartial." "Once or twice, indeed," he says, "he fastens on passages +from such writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main +arguments remain wholly unnoticed." [26:1] I confess that I find it +somewhat difficult to distinguish between those out of which I am said +to "make capital" and those which Dr. Lightfoot characterises as "their +main arguments," if I am to judge by the "samples" of them which he +gives me. For instance, [26:2] he asks why, when asserting that the +Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited +to a single year, and his preaching as confined to Galilee and +Jerusalem, whilst the fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus +between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over three +years, and refers to three passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem: + +"Why then," he asks, + + "does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as + Matt. xiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... + _how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the + expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate + other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not + recorded in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested + also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St. + Luke, 'I do cures _to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall + be perfected,' 'I must walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day + following_,' points to the very duration of our Lord's ministry, as + indicated by the fourth Gospel. If so, the coincidence is the more + remarkable because it does not appear that St. Luke himself, while + wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical + import." [27:1] + +Now it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry +into the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escape +charges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations +of ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like +this, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task; +and "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world +itself could not contain all the books that should be written." It is +very right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any +other reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but +is it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not +exhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not +only unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his +work? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorship +of the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the +explanations offered. + +Let me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: "Why, +when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic character +of the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of +Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that +the whole texture of the language the fourth Gospel is Hebraic?" [27:2] +Now my statements with regard to the language of the Apocalypse and +fourth Gospel are as follows. Of the Apocalypse I say: "The language in +which the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New +Testament;" [28:1] and further on: "The barbarous Hebraistic Greek and +abrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of +Galilee." [28:2] Of the Gospel I say: "Instead of the Hebraistic Greek +and harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and +ignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the +purest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of +the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and +beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world," &c. [28:4] +In another place I say: "The language in which the Gospel is written, as +we have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other +Gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel according +to Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost +invariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition is +distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this +respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels." [28:5] I +believe that I do not say another word as to the texture of the language +of the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost +wholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourth +Gospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other, +and that they do not exclude Hebraisms. The views expressed might be +supported by numberless authorities. As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of +"wholly ignoring" the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived, +I will quote what Luthardt says of the two works: "The difference of the +_language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is, +of course, in a high degree remarkable ... As regards _grammar_, the +Gospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek." He +argues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter, +and that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypse +wrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written +otherwise. "The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional +emancipations from the rules of grammar" (!), in imitation of ancient +prophetic style. Presently he proceeds: "If, then, on the one hand, the +Apocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its author +was able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the +Gospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew and +Palestinian." Luthardt maintains "that the style of the Gospel betrays +the born Jew, and certainly not the Greek," but the force which he +intends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the +conclusion at which he finally arrives, that "the linguistic gulf +between the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable." [29:1] This +result from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraic +character of the Apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly different +from my representation. Take again the opinion of so eminent an +apologist as Bleek: "The language of the Apocalypse in its whole +character is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presents +grosser incorrectness than any other book of the New Testament, whilst +the language of the Gospel is certainly not pure Greek, but is beyond +comparison more grammatically correct." [29:2] I am merely replying, +to the statements of Dr. Lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regarding +the language of the fourth Gospel, or I might produce very different +arguments and authorities, but I may remark that the critical dilemma +which I have represented, in reviewing the fourth Gospel, is not merely +dependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of the +aggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the Apocalypse on the +one hand and the Gospel on the other. + +Space only allows of my referring to one other instance. [30:1] Dr. +Lightfoot says-- + + "If by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes + care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._ + the identification of Sychar and Shechem), [30:2] omitting + altogether to notice others." + +In a note Dr. Lightfoot adds:-- + + "Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar + with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not + mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that + there was no such place (as Sychar, [Greek: Suchár]), and apologetic + ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is + altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages in + the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar or + Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Géographie du Talmud,' p. 169 f. Our + author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch, ('_Zeitschr. + J. Luth. Theol._,' 1856, p. 240 f.) _He cannot have read the + article, for these Talmudic references are its main purport_." + [30:3] + +I may perhaps be allowed to refer, first, to the two sentences which +I have taken the liberty of putting in italics. If it be possible +for an apologist to apologise, an apology is surely due to the readers +of the "Contemporary Review," at least, for this style of criticism, +to which, I doubt not, they are as little accustomed as I am myself. +There is no satisfying Dr. Lightfoot. I give him references, and +he accuses me of "literary browbeating" and "subtle intimidation;" +I do not give references, and he gives me the lie. I refer to the +article of Delitzsch in support of my specific statement that he +rejects the identification of Sychar with Sichem, and apparently +because I do not quote the whole study Dr. Lightfoot courteously +asserts that I cannot have read it. [31:1] + +My statement [31:2] is, that it is admitted that there was no such place +as Sychar--I ought to have added, "except by apologists who never admit +anything"--but I thought that in saying: "and apologetic ingenuity is +severely taxed to explain the difficulty," I had sufficiently excepted +apologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are +advanced by them for that purpose. I mention that the conjecture which +identifies Sychar and Sichem is rejected by some, refer to Credner's +supposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by a +secretary in writing down the Gospel from the dictation of the Apostle, +and that Sichem is meant, and I state the "nickname" hypothesis of +Hengstenberg and others. It is undeniable that, with the exception of +some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat similar, but not +identical, name, the locality of which is quite uncertain, no place +bearing, or having borne, the designation of Sychar is known. The +ordinary apologetic theory, as Dr. Lightfoot may find "in any common +source of information,"--Dr. Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," for +instance--is the delightfully comprehensive one: "Sychar was either a +name applied to the town of Shechem, or it was an independent place." +This authority, however, goes clean against Dr. Lightfoot's assertion, +for it continues: "The first of these alternatives is now almost +universally accepted." Lightfoot [32:1] considered Sychar a mere +alteration of the name Sichem, both representing the same place. +He found a reference in the Talmud to "_Ain Socar_," and with great +hesitation he associated the name with Sychar. "May we not venture" +to render it "the well of Sychar"? And after detailed extracts and +explanations he says: "And now let the reader give us his judgment +as to its name and place, whether it doth not seem to have some relation +with our 'well of Sychar.' It may be disputed on either side." Wieseler, +who first, in more recent times, developed the conjectures of Lightfoot, +argues: "In the first place, there can be no doubt that by [Greek: +Suchar] Sichem is meant," and he adds, a few lines after: "Regarding +this there is no controversy amongst interpreters." He totally rejects +the idea of such in alteration of the name occurring in translation, +which he says is "unprecedented." He therefore concludes that in +[Greek: Suchar] we have _another_ name for Sichem. He merely submits +this, however, as "a new hypothesis to the judgment of the reader," +[32:2] which alone shows the uncertainty of the suggestion. Lightfoot +and Wieseler are substantially followed by Olshausen, [32:3] De Wette, +[32:4] Hug, [32:5] Bunsen, [32:6] Riggenbach, [32:7] Godet, [32:8] +and others. Bleek, [32:9] in spite of the arguments of Delitzsch and +Ewald, and their Talmudic researches, considers that the old town +of Sichem is meant. Delitzsch, [32:10] Ewald, [32:11] Lange, [32:12] +Meyer, [32:13] and others think that Sychar was near to, but distinct +from, Sichem. Lücke [33:1] is very undecided. He recognises the +extraordinary difference in the name Sychar. He does not favourably +receive Lightfoot's arguments regarding an alteration of the name of +Sichem, nor his conjectures as to the relation of the place mentioned +in the Talmud to Sichem, which he thinks is "very doubtful," and he +seems to incline rather to an accidental corruption of Sichem into +Sychar, although he feels the great difficulties in the way of such +an explanation. Ewald condemns the "Talmudische Studien" of Delitzsch +as generally more complicating than clearing up difficulties, and +his views as commonly incorrect, and, whilst agreeing with him that +Sychar cannot be the same place as Sichem, he points out that the +site of the _valley of the_ well of the Talmud is certainly doubtful. +[33:2] He explains his own views, however, more clearly in another +place:-- + + "That this (Sychar) cannot be the large, ancient Sikhem, which, at + the time when the Gospel was written, was probably already generally + called _Neapolis_ in Greek writings, has been already stated; it is + the place still called with an altered Arabic name _Al 'Askar_, east + of Naplûs. It is indeed difficult to prove that Sychar could stand + for Sikhem, either through change of pronunciation, or for any other + reason, and the addition [Greek: legomenê] does not indicate, here any + more than in xi. 54, so large and generally known a town as Sikhem. + or Flavia Neapolis." [33:3] + +Mr. Sanday, [33:4] of whose able work Dr. Lightfoot directly speaks, +says:-- + + "The name Sychar is not the common one, Sichem, but is a mock title + (='liar' or 'drunkard') that was given to the town by the Jews. + [33:5] This is a clear reminiscence of the vernacular that the + Apostle spoke in his youth, and is a strong touch of nature. It is + not quite certain that the name Sychar has this force, but the + hypothesis is in itself more likely than, &c.... It is not, + however, by any means improbable that Sychar may represent, not + Sichem, but the modern village Askar, which is somewhat nearer to + Jacob's Well." + +To quote one of the latest "travellers and apologists," Dr. Farrar says: +"From what the name Sychar is derived is uncertain. The word [Greek: +legomenos] in St. John seems to imply a sobriquet. It may be 'a lie,' +'drunken,' or 'a sepulchre.' Sychar may possibly have been a village +nearer the well than Sichem, on the site of the village now called El +Askar." [34:1] As Dr. Lightfoot specially mentions Neubauer, his opinion +may be substantially given in a single sentence: "La Mischna mentionne +un endroit appelé 'la plaine d'En-Sokher,' qui est peut-être le Sychar +de l'Evangile." He had a few lines before said: "Il est donc plus +logique de ne pas identifier Sychar avec Sichem." [34:2] Now, with +regard to all these theories, and especially in so far as they connect +Sychar with El Askar, let me quote a few more words in conclusion, from +a "common source of information:"-- + + "On the other hand there is an etymological difficulty in the way of + this identification. _'Askar_ begins with the letter 'Ain, which + Sychar does not appear to have contained; a letter too stubborn and + enduring to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name ... These + considerations have been stated not so much with the hope of leading + to any conclusion on the identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless, + as with the desire to show that the ordinary explanation is not + nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed to be." [34:3] + +Mr. Grove is very right. + +I have been careful only to quote from writers who are either +"apologetic," or far from belonging to heterodox schools. Is it not +perfectly clear that no place of the name of Sychar can be reasonably +identified? The case, in fact, simply stands thus:--As the Gospel +mentions a town called Sychar, apologists maintain that there must have +been such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site for +it. It is certain, however, that even in the days of St. Jerome there +was no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers have +not since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations. + +With regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notes +constitute a "subtle mode of intimidation" and "literary browbeating," +Canon Lightfoot omits to say that I as fully and candidly refer to those +who maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who support +me. It is very possible, considering the number of these references, +that I may have committed some errors, and I can only say that I shall +very thankfully receive from Dr. Lightfoot any corrections which he may +be good enough to point out. Instead of intimidation and browbeating, +my sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious further +to examine questions in debate, works in which they may find them +discussed. It is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinions +with perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed by +anyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be made +acquainted with the true state of the case. As Dr. Mozley rightly and +honestly says: "The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief +rather to the outward influence of custom and education than to any +strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many, +if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would +not find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing as +they appear to find it." [36:1] + +I shall not here follow Dr. Lightfoot into his general remarks +regarding my 'conclusions,' nor shall I proceed, in this article, to +discuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through his +misunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding the +Supreme Being. I am almost inclined to think that I can have the +pleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, before +coming to a close. When I read the curiously modified statement that I +have "studiously avoided committing myself to a belief in a universal +Father, or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God," it seems clear +to me that the _Supernatural Religion_ about which Dr. Lightfoot has +been writing cannot be my work, but is simply a work of his own +imagination. That work cannot possibly have contained, for instance, +the chapter on "Anthropomorphic Divinity," [36:2] in which, on the +contrary, I studiously commit myself to very decided disbelief in such +a "Personal God" as he means. In no way inconsistent with that chapter +are my concluding remarks, contrasting with the spasmodic Jewish +Divinity a Supreme Being manifested in the operation of invariable +laws--whose very invariability is the guarantee of beneficence and +security. If Dr. Lightfoot, however, succeeded in convicting me of +inconsistency in those final expressions, there could be no doubt which +view must logically be abandoned, and it would be a new sensation to +secure the approval of a divine by the unhesitating destruction of the +last page of my work. + +Dr. Lightfoot, again, refers to Mr. Mill's "Three Essays on Religion," +but he does not appear to have very deeply studied that work. I confess +that I do not entirely agree with some views therein expressed, and I +hope that, hereafter, I may have an opportunity of explaining what they +are; but I am surprised that Dr. Lightfoot has failed to observe how +singularly that great Thinker supports the general results of +_Supernatural Religion_, to the point even of a frequent agreement +almost in words. If Dr. Lightfoot had studied Mill a little more +closely, he would not have committed the serious error of arguing: +"Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first +part, the second and third are altogether superfluous. It is somewhat +strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole work +should be devoted to this needless task." [37:1] Now my argument in the +first part is not that miracles are impossible--a thesis which it is +quite unnecessary to maintain--but the much more simple one that +miracles are _antecedently_ incredible. Having shown that they are so, +and appreciated the true nature of the allegation of miracles, and the +amount of evidence requisite to establish it, I proceed to examine the +evidence which is actually produced in support of the assertion that, +although miracles are antecedently incredible, they nevertheless took +place. Mr. Mill clearly supports me in this course. He states the main +principle of my argument thus: "A revelation, therefore, cannot be +proved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of +supernatural facts. And we have to consider, whether it is possible to +prove supernatural facts, and if it is, what evidence is required to +prove them." [37:2] Mr. Mill decides that it is possible to prove the +occurrence of a supernatural fact, if it actually occurred, and after +showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, he says: +"Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive +evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words, +the positive evidences of miracles. And I have already admitted that +this evidence might conceivably have been such as to make the exception +equally certain with the rule." [38:1] Mr. Mill's opinion of the +evidence actually produced is not flattering, and may be compared with +my results: + + "But the evidence of miracles, at least to Protestant Christians, is + not, in our day, of this cogent description. It is not the evidence + of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand, + but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. And even in + the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts + asserted on their alleged testimony are not of the transcendent + character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the + impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be + little room for doubt. On the contrary, the recorded miracles are, + in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely + difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are + hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by + human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature." [38:2] + +It is to substantiate the statements made here, and, in fact, to +confirm the philosophical conclusion by the historical proof, that I +enter into an examination of the four Gospels, as the chief witnesses +for miracles. To those who have already ascertained the frivolous +nature of that testimony it may, no doubt, seem useless labour to +examine it in detail; but it is scarcely conceivable that an +ecclesiastic who professes to base his faith upon those records should +represent such a process as useless. In endeavouring to place me on the +forks of a dilemma, in fact, Dr. Lightfoot has betrayed that he +altogether fails to appreciate the question at issue, or to comprehend +the position of miracles in relation to philosophical and historical +enquiry. Instead of being "altogether superfluous," my examination of +witnesses, in the second and third parts, has more correctly been +represented by able critics as incomplete, from the omission of the +remaining documents of the New Testament. I foresaw, and myself to some +degree admitted, the justice of this argument; [39:1] but my work being +already bulky enough, I reserved to another volume the completion of +the enquiry. + +I cannot close this article without expressing my regret that so much +which is personal and unworthy has been introduced into the discussion +of a great and profoundly important subject. Dr. Lightfoot is too able +and too earnest a man not to recognise that no occasional errors or +faults in a writer can really affect the validity of his argument, and +instead of mere general and desultory efforts to do some damage to me, +it would be much more to the purpose were he seriously to endeavour to +refute my reasoning. I have no desire to escape hard hitting or to avoid +fair fight, and I feel unfeigned respect for many of my critics who, +differing _toto coelo_ from my views, have with vigorous ability +attacked my arguments without altogether forgetting the courtesy due +even to an enemy. Dr. Lightfoot will not find me inattentive to +courteous reasoning, nor indifferent to earnest criticism, and, whatever +he may think, I promise him that no one will be more ready respectfully +to follow every serious line of argument than the author of +_Supernatural Religion_. + + + + + +II. + +_THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES._ [Endnote 40:1] + + +This work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but +both in this country and in America and elsewhere it has been subjected +to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of +opinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to +review some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to express +my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed +generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its +completion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my +conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the +courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must +necessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such a +course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not +diminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments. + +There are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of +argument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have +objected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the proposition +advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have +been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is +only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now +I contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the +philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to +completeness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation +is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently +incredible. The counter-allegation is that, although miracles may be +antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is, +therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent +incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that +certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiry +into the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third +parts. Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until +other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. ... + +The second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has +frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to +prove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of +the second century. This error is of course closely connected with that +which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how +anyone who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of +the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The +fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the +Gospels. The evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that, +so far from their affording sufficient testimony to warrant belief in +the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently +incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the +Gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to +have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and +truth. This is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish +some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument +has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at +the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as +evidence. In a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear +and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for +the canonical Gospels falls very far short even of ordinary +requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of +serious consideration. + +It has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special +gospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in +existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief +as the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without +shaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however, +totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious +belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the +sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectors +urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual +occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out +of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took +place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious +age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful +investigation, have written an account of them, and other persons, +equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I venture +to say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referring +can have realised the nature of the question at issue, and the +relation of miracles to the order of nature. + +The last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the +statement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences +precisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how, +if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four +Gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the +second century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as +Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account +for this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature +in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready +acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment +regard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that century +either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which +concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but +the beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements of +Irenaeus and later Fathers, like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian and +Origen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except as +personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are +shown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct +trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses +for miracles. + +After having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced +against this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the +truth of its conclusions. The best and most powerful reasons which able +divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main +argument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by +inference, shown it to be unassailable. Very many of those who have +professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically +attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth +defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have +shown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicable +breach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in reference +to the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in no +sense of my own individual share in its maintenance. + +I must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who, +with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most +elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and +official zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot +and Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my +book. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of +course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in +reply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has +assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred, +although I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so +in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of +hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or +error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main +argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr. +Lightfoot, or indicated by Dr. Westcott, might be withdrawn without at +all weakening my position. These objections, I may say, refer solely to +details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent +against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed +against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such +words as "misstatements" and "misrepresentations" along the line may +have given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render +it worth while once for all to meet it in detail. + + +The first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by +Dr. Lightfoot regarding the "SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS." [45:1] I had called +attention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers, +under certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curious +limitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as +singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "In one province more +especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence +occupies a prominent place." Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this +"mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will +not be at all ambiguous." I might again agree with him, but that +unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for +the Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only +the eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere +that, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or +say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that +they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and +authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present +at least, limited to Eusebius. + +The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole +of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete +blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal +works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I +supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of +Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their +lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not +contain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary +that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main +argument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has +expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it, +and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose +that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot +says, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of +Eusebius:-- + + "This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis + of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how + much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to + be unsound. A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his + foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he + piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether + neglected to do." [46:1] + +Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his +belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:-- + + "If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part + of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces." + [46:2] + +I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must +allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the +importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the +representations made in the above passages are a very strange +exaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with +criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and +strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever, +and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after an +amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that +vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion, +proved that I have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an +inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it +was. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument +which is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding +some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be +withdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is +to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers +regarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of +three writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not +find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works +mentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing +Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in +this does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact +that Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers +contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have +we any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection of +Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius +warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these +writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical +books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend +to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was +the purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements, +which I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose +that I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any +kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand? +Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and +Dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The +reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement +Dr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _Supernatural +Religion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he has +asserted. + +We may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He +carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared +intention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention +or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of +the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words, +merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his +statement into three paragraphs. He says: + + "Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings + in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage. + + "(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any + ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([Greek: + tines hopoiais kechrêntai]); + + "(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only + professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell + about them_ ([Greek: tina peri tôn endiathêkon eirêtai]). Any + _anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the + others ([Greek: tôn mê toioutôn]), will be recorded. + + "(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will + allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise." + [48:1] + +In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we +can differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to +point out mere quotations of the books which he considered +undisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in +the case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John, +which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be +undisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That he +omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in +the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to +the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down +as much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he did +mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged +himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much +might be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little +importance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing +it. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise +include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations +of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very +subsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving it +altogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had +occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they +could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book +quoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done +nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. In the +evidential destitution of the Gospels, apologists would thankfully +have received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcely +any other evidence, but something much more definite is required to +establish the reality of miracles and Divine Revelation. If this +point be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position? +We are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the +Gospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of +Corinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the other +hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any. + +The only inference which I care to draw from the silence of Eusebius +is precisely that which Dr. Lightfoot admits that, both from his +promise and practice, I am entitled to deduce: when any ancient +writer "has something to _tell about_" the Gospels, "any _anecdote_ +of interest respecting them," Eusebius will record it. This is the +only information of the slightest value to this work which could +be looked for in these writers. So far, therefore, from producing +the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of _Supernatural +Religion_, upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself, +Dr. Lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of +Eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner. + + Before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under + discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of + Eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the + matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the Fathers have + to tell about the Gospels. I may mention, in the first place, that + Eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the + Gospels and other canonical works. [50:1] Upon two occasions he + quotes the account which Clement of Alexandria gives of the + composition of Mark's Gospel, and also cites his statements + regarding the other Gospels. [50:2] In like manner he records the + information, such as it is, which Irenaeus has to impart about the + four Gospels and other works, [50:3] and what Origen has to say + concerning them. [50:4] Interrogating extant works, we find in fact + that Eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or + interesting regarding these books from early writers. Dr. Lightfoot + says that Eusebius "restricts himself to the narrowest limits which + justice to his subject will allow," and he illustrates this by the + case of Irenaeus. He says: "Though he (Eusebius) gives the principal + passage in this author relating to the Four Gospels (Irenaeus, + _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1, 1) he omits to mention others which contain + interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the + question, _e.g._ that St. John wrote his Gospel to counteract the + errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii. + 11, 1)." [51:1] I must explain, however, that the "interesting + statement" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted, + is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only + in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it + from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground Eusebius may well + have passed it over. Dr. Lightfoot further says: "Thus too when he + quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the + Asiatic Elders who were acquainted with St. John, [51:2] he omits + the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important + bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, for it declared + that Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus + confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel against the + apparent chronology of the Synoptists." [51:3] Nothing, however, + could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to + represent any discordance between the Gospels, or to support the one + at the expense of the others. On the contrary, he enters into an + elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy + between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular + quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three + Synoptists only to write the doings of the Lord for one year after + the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the + other Gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not + embraced by the other evangelists. [51:4] Moreover, the + extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus not only contradict the + Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and Eusebius certainly could + not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although + Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the + Presbyters who were acquainted with John. + +It being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to +record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the +undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant +writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the +conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three +writers with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the "silence +of Eusebius." + +I need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very high +estimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that +he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings. +Eusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the +martyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for +the statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus, +Cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of +Joseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by +reference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a story +regarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who +were brought before Domitian; [52:4] he cites his narrative of the +martyrdom of Simeon, together with other matters concerning the early +Church; [52:5] in another place he gives a laudatory account of +Hegesippus and his writings; [52:6] shortly after he refers to the +statement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate of +Eleutherus, [52:7] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions +his observation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks about +the Church in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the general +state of the Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [52:8] I +mention these numerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed them +in turning over the pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably have +escaped me. Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works +were used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these +was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a +single remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate +inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippus +did not say anything about them. I may simply add that, as that, as +Eusebius quotes the account of Matthew and Mark from Papias, a man of +whom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in +confirmation of the statement of the Alexandrian Clement regarding the +composition of Mark's Gospel, [53:1] it would be against all reason, as +well as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that +Eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by +Hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom he +speaks with so much respect. + + I have said that Eusebius would more particularly have quoted + anything with regard to the Fourth Gospel, and for those who care to + go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. No + one can read Eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care + with which he speaks of John and his writings, and the substantially + apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any + doubts expressed regarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to + the authenticity of the Apocalypse and second and third Epistles + called by his name, with which Eusebius was so well acquainted, and + the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same John having + written both the Gospel and Apocalypse, regarding which he so fully + quotes the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, [53:2] evidently + made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to + the fourth Gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of + the essential difference between that work and the three Synoptics. + The first occasion on which he speaks of John, he records the + tradition that he was banished to Patmos during the persecution + under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes Irenaeus in + support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the + close of Domitian's reign. [54:1] He goes on to speak of the + persecution under Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command + given by that Emperor to slay all the posterity of David, [54:2] as + also Tertullian's account, [54:3] winding up his extracts from the + historians of the time by the statement that, after Nerva succeeded + Domitian, and the Senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the + latter, the Apostle John returned from exile in Patmos and, + according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at Ephesus. [54:4] He + states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist, + governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian and his + return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan + succeeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from + Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. [54:5] He then gives an account + of the writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must + be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly + put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he + gives an elaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his + account of the fourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition, + which he states to have been John's receiving the other three + Gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did + not contain a narrative of the earlier history of Christ. For this + reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings + of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison. After some very + extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says that no one who carefully + considers the points he mentions can think that the Gospels are at + variance with each other, and he conjectures that John probably + omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke had given them. + [54:6] Without further anticipating what I have to say when speaking + of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware of, and + interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings + attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting + traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities, + would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any + information on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so + frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any. + +In regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius +quotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark, +[55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrative +regarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in +confirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose +that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would not +have enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded their +information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if +Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of +the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it? +Certainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had not +only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case +which we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias had +to say about the Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his very +reference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims +of the rest. There are, however, special reasons which render it still +more certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth +Gospel,--and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have +had something, to tell about it,--Eusebius would have recorded it. The +first quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop +of Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the +words of the Presbyters, "what John or Matthew or what any other of the +disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, +disciples of the Lord, say." [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularly +points out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, the +former, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles, +evidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly +distinguished by the designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that this +proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of +John in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the +name of John. Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second +of the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation. +What an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the +subject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted +with both! His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very +moment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I +am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the +peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of +Eusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third or +fourth Gospels. + +I need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning +equally applies to his case. I have, therefore, only a few more words +to say on the subject of Eusebius. Not content with what he intended +to be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the +constructive and, "as a sober deduction from facts," makes the following +statement, which he prints in italics: "_The silence of Eusebius +respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in +its favour_." [56:1] Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by +Dr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? It means, +not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are +witnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply +that if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel +by anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century, +classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does +not undertake to mention. The value of his opinion at so late a date is +very small. + + +Professor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection +with "THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES," [57:1] which is equally abortive and +limited to details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in which +the article is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think that +readers may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversy +is carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of +misstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute +criticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression +that it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most +right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. It +is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work like +this, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it not +possible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of course +entitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even +alive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in a +spirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to be +accurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shown +that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon +himself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to +all such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, with +some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the Ignatian +Epistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to which +they commit themselves. + +Dr. Lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon +which he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its +difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. He says: +"The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the +student of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the +considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate. +A writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of +familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally +expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with +some diffidence." [58:1] My critic objects that I express my opinions +with decision. I shall hereafter justify this decision, but I would +here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for +Dr. Lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question +make it easy for me. It requires but little logical perception to +recognize that Epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult +to establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the Gospels. +The statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack, +and war is declared in the following terms: + + "The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use + such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery + of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references + to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the + author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon + it. It becomes important therefore to enquire whether the writer + shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies + us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his + arguments." [59:1] + +This sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, play +a very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to +them--and I have never desired that any should be--my argument would not +be in the least degree affected. + +The first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is +one of mere critical history. I wrote: "The strongest internal, as well +as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led +(1) the majority of critics to recognize the Syriac version as the most +genuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and (2) this is admitted +by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the +epistles." [59:2] + +Upon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:-- + + "No statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results + of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac + epistles than this." [59:1] + +It will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one +who is preaching "diffidence." When we come to details, however, +Dr. Lightfoot admits: "Those who maintain the genuineness of the +Ignatian Epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to +be almost evenly divided on this question of priority." He seems to +consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or +six critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation +of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. To the +five names quoted as recognising the priority of the Syriac Epistles +may be added those of Milman, Böhringer, de Pressensé, and Dr. Tregelles, +which immediately occur to me. But I must ask upon what ground he +limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? I +certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the +three Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority is made up partly +of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still +consider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the +Epistles. This will be evident to anyone who reads the context. With +regard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say +that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which I correct in this +edition. [60:1] Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity +prefer the Curetonian version. The Tübingen school are not unanimous +on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek, +for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the +priority of the Curetonian "im höchsten Grade wahrscheinlich." Volkmar, +Lipsius, and Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Lightfoot says: + + "The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this + point. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of + the Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, + retracted his former opinion on both questions alike." [60:2] + +Dr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has +only withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but, +whilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are +spurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He +first announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added: +"An dem relativ grössern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenüber der +kürzeren griechischen halte ich übrigens nach wie vor fest." [61:1] In +the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says +quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt überzeugt, dass der Syrer in +zahlreichen Fällen den relativ ursprünglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl. +meine Nachweise in 'Niedner's Zeitschr.' S. 15ff)." [61:2] With regard +to the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only +matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny +the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms. + +Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by +analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject +given in an earlier passage." [61:3] The "light" which he throws seems +to pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather +tempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his +attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the +accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error +and misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is +as follows:-- + + "These three Syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest + scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be + the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not + admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, + prefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider + them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As + early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were + expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed + to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and + Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be spurious,[^1] an opinion fully + shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts, + more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth + century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3) although + the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now. + That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller + examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have + confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise + that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established, + and that they can only be considered later and spurious + compositions.(4)" [62:1] + +In the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Böhringer, +Cureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot +proceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his +explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both +to call more immediate attention to the point: + + THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT. + | +_Many of the ablest critics have | "These references, it will be +pronounced them to be the only | observed, are given to illustrate +authentic Epistles of Ignatius, | _more immediately_, though perhaps +whilst others_ who do not admit | not solely, the statement that +that even these are genuine letters | writers '_who do not admit that +emanating from Ignatius, _still | even these_ (the Curetonian +prefer them_ to the version of | Epistles) _are genuine letters +seven Greek Epistles, _and consider | emanating from Ignatius, still +them the most ancient form of the | prefer them_ to the version of +letters_ which we possess. | seven Greek Epistles, and consider + | them the most ancient form of the + | letters which we possess.'" [62:2] + + +It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this +sentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian +Epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that +sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether +of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative +priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main +statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws +light" upon the point by the following remarks:-- + + THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT. + | +_Cureton, Bunsen, Böhringer, Ewald, | "The reader, therefore, will +Milman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_ | hardly be prepared to hear that +maintain both the priority and | not one of these nine writers +genuineness of the Syriac Epistles. | condemns the Ignatian letters +_Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves +distinct recognition of the letters | leaves the matter in some +in any form. Of the Vossian | uncertainty while inclining to +Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die | Bunsen's view; the other eight +Echtheit dieser Recension ist | distinctly maintain the +keineswegs sicher." He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian +priority of the Curetonian "in the | letters." [63:1] +highest degree probable." | + | +_Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles, | +as I have already said, but | +maintains the priority of the | +Syriac. | + + +Dr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of +the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury. +Not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but +would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note +was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct. + +Continuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the +ground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that so +early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed +regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, +and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared +them to be spurious, [64:1] but Dr. Lightfoot says: "The criticisms of +Calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the +Long Recension alone." [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at +that time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's objections +were not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted him. [64:3] +This is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the words of +Calvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then says: + + "The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz + did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the + contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says + that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen + the position of the Papal power, &c.'" [64:4] + +Pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for +Chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles +as evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts +of them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg +Centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing +them to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the "Long Recension were +before Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them: +"... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graece +leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non +referunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illas +epistolas, vel inde colligitur." He then shows that quotations in +ancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatius +are not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: "De Epistolis +igitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus: +transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum +regni Pontificii." [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he +"damns them with faint praise." The whole of the discussion turns upon +the word "fully," and is an instance of the minute criticism of my +critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shade +more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received +from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation. + +Dr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and +here again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as +follows: + + "(2) By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus, + Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c. + &c.; cf. Jacobson, 'Patr. Apost.' i. p. xxv; Cureton, 'Vindiciae + Ignatianae,' 1846, appendix." + +Upon this Dr. Lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:-- + + "But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they + are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted + from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the + Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.'" [65:2] + +As Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is +"the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the +whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he +persistently ignores my very careful definition of "the purpose for +which they are quoted." It is difficult, without entering into minute +classifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of +a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course +of critical judgment. Desirous, therefore, of embracing a large +class--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch, +illustrate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case +on my own side, I used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase, +decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the +Epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did +not fully accept them. I said, then, in guarded terms--and I italicise +the part which Dr. Lightfoot chooses to suppress--that "similar _doubts, +more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to. + +Dr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and +would probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel, +Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook +pronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted." So +far, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in +succession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey "considers that they have +been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the +main." Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the +text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of +the Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and +all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I +should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed +"_doubts_ more or less definite," which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot +says that Socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far +as I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." His very +denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more +or less definite." "Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether," +Dr. Lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the +Epistles with new arguments." But I have never affirmed that he +"rejected them altogether." Casaubon died before he fulfilled the +promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he +might have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does not +necessarily involve the authenticity of a document. With regard to +Rivet the case is different. I had overlooked the fact that in a +subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving Archbishop +Usher's edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion to +"that form of the Epistles." [67:1] This fact is also mentioned by +Pearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of the +writers referred to, says: "Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius +varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse: +tum aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio +Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio." He +then goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles +and the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more +decided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio +sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus +illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit." [67:3] + +The next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the preceding for +convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it +as follows:-- + + "The next note (3), p. 260, is as follows:--"'[Wotton, _Praef. + Clem. R. Epp._ 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into Original Nature, &c., + Evang. Church, Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx. p. 147; Oudin, + _Comm. de Script. Eccles._ &c. 1722, p. 88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex + Evang. Joan._ 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, + ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, _Hist. Crit. de Manichée_, &c. 1734, i. + p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, _N. Theol. Biblioth._ 1761, ii. p. 489; + [Mosheim, _De Rebus Christ._ p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in + Memorab. Eccles._ 1745, i. p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._ + 1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._ 1775, ii. p. 341; + Griesbach, _Opuscula Academ._ 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmüller, _Hist. + Interpr. Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._ 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr. + in Epist II. Petri._ 1784, _Praef._; Kestner, _Comm. de Eusebii H.E. + condit._ 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i. + p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 327, Anm. 11; + Baumgarten-Crusius, _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1832, p. 83; cf. + _Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1840, p. 79; [Niedner, _Gesch. chr. K._ + p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit._ p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._ i. + p. 115 f.]; cf. _Cureton, Vind. Ign. Append._; Ziegler, _Versuch + eine prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungsformen, u.s.w._ 1798, p. 16; + J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch üb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S. Ignat._, + in Henke's _Mag. f. Rel. Phil. u.s.w._ [1795; cf. _Biblioth. f. + Krit. u.s.w., N.T._ i. p 463 ff. _Urspr. kath. Kirche_, II. i. + p. 1 f.]; _Handbuch Chr. K.G._ i. p. 200.' + + "The brackets are not the author's, but my own. + + "This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have + made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it + stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the + by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the + gleanings of many years' reading. It is important to observe, + however, that every one of these references, except those which I + have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cureton's + 'Vindiciae Ignatianae,' where the passages are quoted in full. Thus + two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten + minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the order of the + quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in + Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing into his + notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he thought + fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among the + rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional + references on which it has no bearing?" [68:1] + +I do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might +suffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is +here advanced as an important point to observe, but I call attention to +the unfair spirit in which Dr. Lightfoot's criticisms are made. I ask +every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to +insinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references +in a note are also given by Cureton, I simply took them from him, and +thus "imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted +references," and further to insinuate that I "here and there transposed +the order" apparently to conceal the source? This is a kind of +criticism which I very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and +reverend opponent. Now, as full quotations are given in Cureton's +appendix, I should have been perfectly entitled to take references from +it, had I pleased, and for the convenience of many readers I distinctly +indicate Cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. The +fact is, however, that I did not take the references from Cureton, but +in every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note +"seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading," it certainly +does not misrepresent the fact, for I took the trouble to make myself +acquainted with the "by-paths of Ignatian literature." Now in analysing +the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they +illustrate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_," +continued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian Epistles. I am much +obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to Wotton. His name +is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list +on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and +was by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up Weismann, whose +doubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine Dr. Lightfoot's +further statements. He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian as +genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the +Vossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the +seven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: "These +three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an +older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes +found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, the +doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in +which they are known since Usher's time, are not yet entirely removed. +For no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistles +attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius." [70:1] +Thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite." +Dr. Lightfoot then continues: "Of the rest a considerable number, as, +for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander, +and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or +uncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus." +[70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my +words descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that a +leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of +these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or +less definite_," which is all I quote them for. I will take each name +in order. + +_Lardner_ says: "But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves + are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a + question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens + of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have + shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult + question." The opinion which he expresses finally is merely: + "it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main part_ + the genuine epistles of Ignatius." + +_Beausobre_ says: "Je ne veux, ni défendre, ni combattre l'authenticité + des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas véritables, elles + ne laissent pas d'être fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit + la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont été interpolées." + +_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for + the shorter (Vossian) Epistles, "many doubts arise which make them + suspicious." He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and + anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon + the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these + and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which + cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are + interpolations of a later time. He concludes with the pertinent + observation: "However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as + difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages." In fact it + would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly + doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles. + +_Griesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite," + but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy + too much space. + +_Neander._--Dr. Lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from + the English translation of the first edition of Neander's History + given by Cureton in his Appendix, has not attended to the brief + German quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the + original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from pronouncing + "in favour of a genuine nucleus," Neander might well have been + classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the Ignatian + Epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who + merely express doubt. Neander says: "As the account of the martyrdom + of Ignatius is very suspicious, so also the Epistles which suppose + the correctness of this suspicious legend do not bear throughout the + impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who + is addressing his last words to the communities. A hierarchical + purpose is not to be mistaken." In an earlier part of the work he + still more emphatically says that, "in the so-called Ignatian + Epistles," he recognises a decided "design" (_Absichtlichkeit_), and + then he continues: "As the tradition regarding the journey of + Ignatius to Rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me + for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his Epistles, which + presuppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me + with faith in their authenticity." [72:1] He goes on to state + additional grounds for disbelief. + +_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven + Epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the + extant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note + he excepts only the passages quoted by the Fathers. He seems to + agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are probably + the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being + more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic, interest. Some years + later he remarked that enquiries into the Epistles, although not yet + concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the + Shorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the + shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations + (_Ueberarbeitungen_), from interpolations. This very cautious + statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in + the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material + of the letters cannot be ascertained. + +Dr. Lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly +unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous. + +He proceeds to the next "note (4)" with the same unhesitating vigour, +and characterises it as "equally unfortunate." Wherever it has been +possible, Dr. Lightfoot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose" +of my notes, although he has recognised how important it is to ascertain +this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will +put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses +the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement +which he altogether disregards:-- + + | DR. LIGHTFOOT. + | +"Further examination and more | "References to twenty authorities +comprehensive knowledge of the | are then given, as belonging to +subject have confirmed earlier | the 'large mass of critics' who +doubts, and a large mass of critics | recognise that the Ignatian +recognise _that the authenticity of | Epistles 'can only be considered +none_ of these Epistles _can be | later and spurious compositions.'" +established_, and that they can | [73:1] +only be considered later and | +spurious compositions." | + + +There are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two +approximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the +Epistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming +to establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively +pronounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referred +to, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming +what he states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider that +a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot +be defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does +not. It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the +extant letters cannot be established without denying that there may +have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may +have been based. I will analyse the six references. + +_Bleek._--Dr. Lightfoot says: "Of these Bleek (already cited in a + previous note) expresses no definite opinion." + + Dr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek + directly, but by "Cf." merely request consideration of his opinions. + I have already partly stated Bleek's view. After pointing out some + difficulties, he says generally: "It comes to this, that the origin + of the Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful." He + refuses to make use of a passage because it is only found in the + Long Recension, and another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he + does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "The + authenticity of this Recension also is by no means certain," and, + next, the Cureton Epistles discredit the others. "Whether this + Recension (the Curetonian) is more original than the shorter Greek + is certainly not altogether certain, but ... in the highest degree + probable." In another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences + in the "Ignatian Epistles," "because it is still very doubtful how + the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these + Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions in which + we possess them." [75:1] In fact he did not consider that their + authenticity could be established. I do not, however, include him + here at all. + +_Gfrörer._--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite + this writer like the others, but by a "Cf." merely suggest a + reference to his remarks. + +_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "avows that he must 'decidedly + reject with the most considerable critics of older and more + recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that + the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a + passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well + as in the Long Recension." + + This is a mistake. Harless quotes a passage in connection with + Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: "In this + case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is + _in part_ removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have + the passage." He recognises that the completeness of the proof that + ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is + somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of + Ignatius. He did not, in fact, venture to consider the Ignatian + Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century. + +_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, "says that 'the external testimonies + oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not + satisfied with either existing recension." + + Now what Schliemann says is this: "Certainly neither the Shorter and + still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles + can lay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless, + without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. In a note he adds: + "The external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine + substratum--Polycarp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his + Epistle. But that in their present form they do not proceed from + Ignatius the contents sufficiently show." + +_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion." + + If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what + that opinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he + says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion + of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not + fully attested either. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and + least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome. "But even + if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they + would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the + second century." These last words are a clear admission of his + opinion that the authenticity cannot be established. + +_Lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in + favour of the authenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension, + but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable + to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been + able to shake off. He proceeds to point out their internal + improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed + journey, which make it "still more improbable that Ignatius himself + can really have written these Epistles in this situation." Lechler + does not consider that the Curetonian Epistles strengthen the case; + and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the + possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the + inauthenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, he at least very clearly + justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be + established. + +Now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon +my notes? Out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with +what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of Christian +literature, it appears that--much to my regret--I have inserted one name +totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been +removed by the subsequent publication of the Short Recension and +consequently erroneously classed him, and I withdraw a third whose +doubts I consider that I have overrated. Mistakes to this extent in +dealing with such a mass of references, or a difference of a shade more +or less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly +expressed, may, I hope, be excusable, and I can truly say that I am only +too glad to correct such errors. On the other hand, a critic who attacks +such references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of +"misstatement" and "misrepresentation," was bound to be accurate, and I +have shown that Dr. Lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact, +but unfair in his statements of my purpose. I am happy, however, to be +able to make use of his own words and say: "I may perhaps have fallen +into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but +the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable." [78:1] + +There are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I must +briefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, with +unhesitating boldness: + + "One highly important omission is significant. There is no mention, + from first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that + this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) _has been + felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has + raged fiercely since its publication_. One who (like our author) + maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was especially + bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most + formidable argument to his opponents. This version was given to the + world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in which Cureton's later + work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown + to him. Its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all, + or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian + question during the last quarter of a century. This is true of + Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he cites, not + less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to cite_." + [78:2] + +Now first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the priority of the +Curetonian Epistles in this book myself; indeed I express no personal +opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general +declaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my +diffident critic, that the Epistles in no form have "any value as +evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning +of the third century, even if they have any value at all." I merely +represent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot +very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the Armenian +version, and I call special attention to the passages in the above +quotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I venture +to say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "key +of the position," this version has, with some exceptions, played +a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and +as Dr. Lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I will +state how the case stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn, +Merx, and Zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them. +Denzinger, however, only refers to Petermann's publication, which +appeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press, +in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the Ignatian +question, two years after, [79:1] he does not even allude to the +Armenian version. Beyond the barest historical reference to Petermann's +work, Hilgenfeld does not discuss the Armenian version at all. So +much for the writers actually mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot. + +As for "the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question +during the last quarter of a century:" Cureton apparently did not think +it worth while to add anything regarding the Armenian version of +Petermann after its appearance; Bunsen refutes Petermann's arguments +in a few pages of his "Hippolytus;" [79:2] Baur, who wrote against +Bunsen and the Curetonian letters, and, according to Dr. Lightfoot's +representation, should have found this "the most formidable argument" +against them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even +allude to the Armenian Epistles; Ewald, in a note of a couple of lines, +[79:3] refers to Petermann's Epistles as identical with a post-Eusebian +manipulated form of the Epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his +text; Dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them; [80:1] Hefele +[80:2] supports them at somewhat greater length; but Bleek, Volkmar, +Tischendorf, Böhringer, Scholten, and others have not thought them +worthy of special notice; at any rate none of these nor any other +writers of any weight have, so far as I am aware, introduced them into +the controversy at all. + +The argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to drag +into a discussion already too long and complicated, and I refer the +reader to Bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, I may quote the +following lines: + + "But it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the Seven + Letters in Armenian, and I maintain, they prove that Cureton's text + is an incomplete extract, because, I think, I have found some Syriac + idioms in the Armenian text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply + proves, according to ordinary logic, that the Seven Letters must + have once been translated into Syriac. But how can it prove that the + Greek original of this supposed Syriac version is the genuine text, + and not an interpolated and partially forged one?" [80:3] + +Dr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to mention this argument, on the +ground that "a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the +Curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital +problem of which it was bound to give an account." Now all this is sheer +misrepresentation. I do not assume the priority of the Curetonian +Epistles, and I examine all the passages contained in the seven Greek +Epistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels. + +Passing on to another point, I say: + + "Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all + equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that + number were mentioned by Eusebius." [81:1] + +Another passage is also quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, which will be found a +little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. Upon +this he writes as follows:-- + + "This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius + with the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented + themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the + important facts bearing on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century + after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other Epistles, and + there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious + Epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. (2) The + confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in style from the seven + Epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven + Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed part of the Long + Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in anachronisms + which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of their + composition." [81:2] + +Although I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are +advanced in favour of the seven Epistles, I contend that, reduced to +its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly, +if not altogether, upon their mention by Eusebius. The very first +reason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute me is a practical +admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight Epistles +are put out of court because even Theodoret, a century after Eusebius, +does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of Eusebius," +the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely +receives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret. +Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how +changed their position would have been! The Epistles referred to would +have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has +conferred upon the rest.. The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the +controversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the +"prae-" and "post-Eusebian," making him the turning-point of the +controversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: "The +testimony of Eusebius first differentiates them." [82:1] The argument +(2 and 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and +interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same +accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian +Epistles. + +The fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second +paragraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which +I have reserved till now, as it requires more detailed notice. It is +this:-- + + "It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned + by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These + Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient + Latin MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to + be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal + honour." [82:2] + +I will at once give Dr. Lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast with +the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and +orthodoxy--Dr. Tregelles:-- + + DR. LIGHTFOOT. | DR. TREGELLES. + | +(4) "It is not strictly true that | "It is a mistake to think of _seven_ +the seven Epistles are mixed up | Ignatian Epistles in Greek having +with the confessedly spurious | been _transmitted_ to us, for no +Epistles. In the Greek and Latin | such seven exist, except through +MSS., as also in the Armenian | their having been selected by +version, the spurious Epistles | _editors_ from the Medicean MS. +come after the others; and the | which contains so much that +circumstance, combined with the | is confessedly spurious;--a fact +facts already mentioned, plainly | which some who imagine a +shows that they were a later | diplomatic transmission of +addition, borrowed from the Long | _seven_ have overlooked." [83:2] +Recension to complete the body | +of Ignatian letters." [83:1] | + + +I will further quote the words of Cureton, for, as Dr. Lightfoot +advances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the +testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own +statement. Cureton says: + + "Again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us + to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the Epistles of + St. Ignatius, as exhibited in the Medicean MS., and in the ancient + Latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the Epistles + presumed to be the genuine production of that holy Martyr are mixed + up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious. + Both in the Greek and Latin MSS. all these are placed upon the same + footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only + ground which has hitherto been assumed for their separation has been + the specification of some of them by Eusebius and his omission of + any mention of the others." [83:3] + + "The external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour + of the rejected Greek Epistles, with the exception of that to the + Philippians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which + have been received. They are found in all the manuscripts, both + Greek and Latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two + distinct and very different recensions, if we except the Epistle to + Polycarp, in which the variations are very few. Of these two + recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the + circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its + reception; and the text of the Medicean Codex and of the two copies + of the corresponding Latin version belonging to Caius College, + Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has been adopted ... + In all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the + former and latter Epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and + there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of + the Greek recension or the translator of the Latin version esteemed + one to be better or more genuine than another. Nor can any prejudice + result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, and to + Hero, from the circumstance of their being placed after the others + in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological + order, and rank after the rest as having been written from Philippi, + at which place Ignatius is said to have arrived after he had + despatched the previous Letters. So far, therefore, as the evidence + of all the existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, of both the + recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the + rejected Epistles, rather than of those which have been retained." + [84:1] + +Proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, I will very briefly +show the order in which these Epistles have been found in some of the +principal MSS. One of the earliest published was the ancient Latin +version of eleven Epistles edited by J. Faber Stapulensis in 1498, which +was at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined +table I shall mark A, [84:2] and which also exhibits the order of Cod. +Vat. 859, assigned to the eleventh century. [84:3] The next (B) is a +Greek MS. edited by Valentinus Pacaeus in 1557, [84:4] and the order at +the same time represents that of the Cod. Pal. 150. [84:5] The third +(C) is the ancient Latin translation, referred to above, published +by Archbishop Usher. [84:6] The fourth (D) is the celebrated Medicean +MS. assigned to the eleventh century, and published by Vossius in 1646. +[84:7] This also represents the order of the Cod. Casanatensis G.V. 14. +[84:8] I italicise the rejected Epistles: + + A. | B. | C. | D. | + FABER STAP. | VAL. PACAEUS. | USHER | VOSSIUS. | + | | | | + 1. Trallians | _Mar. Cass._ | Smyrn. | Smyrn. | + 2. Magn. | Trallians | Polycarp | Polycarp | + 3. _Tarsians_ | Magnes. | Ephes. | Ephes. | + 4. _Philip._ | _Tarsians_ | Magnes. | Magnes. | + 5. Philad. | _Philip. | Philad. | Philad. | + 6. Smyrn. | Philad. | Trallians | Trallians | + 7. Polycarp | Smyrn. | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | + 8. _Antioch._ | Polycarp | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | + 9. _Hero_ | _Antioch. | _Tarsians_ | _Tarsians_ | + 10. Ephes. | _Hero_ | _Antioch._ | | + 11. Romans | Ephes. | _Hero_ | | + 12. | Romans | _Mart. Ign._ | | + 13. | | Romans | | + +I have given the order in MSS. containing the "Long Recension" as well +as the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them, +the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have +an undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS., it is +obvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and +the spurious, it contains three of the false Epistles, and _does not +contain the so-called genuine Epistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistle +to the Romans, in fact, is, to use Dr. Lightfoot's own expression, +"embedded in the Martyrology," which is as spurious as any of the +epistles. This circumstance alone would justify the assertion which +Dr. Lightfoot contradicts. + +I must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn +for a short time to consider objections raised by Dr. Westcott. Whilst I +have to thank him for greater courtesy, I regret that I must point out +serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my +references, which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. Before +proceeding to them I may make one or two general observations. +Dr. Westcott says:-- + + "I may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite + capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his + while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings, + arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many + cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress + the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics + are on one side. The questions to be discussed must be decided by + evidence and by argument and not by authority." [86:1] + +Now the fact is that hitherto, in England, argument and evidence have +almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in +this work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the +Church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted +reverence. The orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a +very great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned +and independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of +little more than a passing word of pious indignation. At the same time, +therefore, that I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to decide these +questions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical +authority, I refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to +works where they may find them discussed. I must be permitted to add, +that I do not consider I uselessly burden my pages by references to +critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is +right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and +recognise that belief is not so easy and matter-of-course a thing as +they have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as +English divines have often seemed to represent it. Dr. Westcott, +however, omits to state that I as persistently refer to writers who +oppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions. + +Dr. Westcott proceeds to make the accusation which I now desire to +investigate. He says: + + "Writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion + which is involved in their characteristic assumptions. And more than + this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. One + example will show that I do not speak too strongly." [87:1] + +Dr. Westcott has scrutinised this work with great minuteness, and, as I +shall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care. +The idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by +a single instance is somewhat startling but to insinuate that a supposed +contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he +does, if I rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely +worthy of Dr. Westcott, although I am sure he does not mean to be +unfair. The example selected is as follows: + + "'It has been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at + all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December, + A.D. 115,(3) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the + amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by + the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.(4)" + [87:2] + + "'The references in support of these statements are the following:-- + + "'(3) Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. Zeitschr. f. Theol._ 1838, H.3, + p. 155, Anm.; Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, &c. p. 185; Bleek, _Einl. + N.T._ p. 144; Guericke, _Handbuch, K.G._ i. p. 148; Hagenbach, + _K.G._ i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19; Mayerhoff, + _Einl. petr. Schr._ p. 79; Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, pp. 40, + 50 f.; Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52; _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. + pp. 121 f., 136. + + "'(4) Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.; + _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.; Baur, _Ursp. d. Episc. Tüb. Zeitschr. f. + Theol._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.; _Gesch. chr. Kirche,_ 1863, i. + p. 440, Amn. 1; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i, p. 19; Scholten, _Die + ält. Zeugnisse_, p. 51 f.; cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajans u.s.w._ + 1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p, 214.'" + +Upon this Dr. Westcott remarks: + + Such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot + but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are + quoted twice over emphasises the implied precision of their + testimony as to the two points affirmed." [88:1] + +Dr. Westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact +that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes +differ in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 being +absent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which do +not appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the +place referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed +being significantly varied. For instance, in note 3, the reference to +Volkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similar +transposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations are +made in the pages. The references in note 3, in fact, are given for the +date occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4, +placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is +made. I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but +which I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3, +although it does not affect note 4. Readers are probably aware that +there has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only +as to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius. I have +in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my +omission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book. +The fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now add +to the note: "The martyrdom has been variously dated about A.D. 107, or +115-116. but whether assigning the event to Rome or to Antioch a +majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later +date." Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the +text with this, I removed it with the design of putting the statement at +the head of note 3, with reference to "A.D. 115" in the text, but +unfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of +this intention, as well as the addition of some fuller references to the +writers quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite +regret, was overlooked. The whole of the authorities in note 3, +therefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in +Antioch, although they all confirm the date, for which I really referred +to them. With this explanation, and marking the omitted references +[89:1] by placing them within brackets, I proceed to analyse the two +notes in contrast with Dr. Westcott's statements. + + NOTE 3, FOR THE DATE A.D. 115-116. + + DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS. | THE TRUTH. + | + | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. + | Zeitschr._ 1838, H.3 (p. 149, + | Anm.) Baur states as the date of + | the Parthian war, and of Trajan's + | visit to Rome, "during which the + | above order" (the sentence against + | Ignatius) is said to have been + | given, A.D. 115 and not 107. + | +"1. Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. | _Ibid._ p. 155, Anm. +Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. 3. p. 155, | +Anm. In this note, which is too | After showing the extreme +long to quote, _there is nothing_, | improbability of the circumstances +so far as I see, _in any way | under which the letters to the +bearing_ upon the history [90:1] | Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp are said +except a passing supposition 'wenn | to have been written, Baur points +... Ignatius im J. 116 an ihn | out the additional difficulty in +[Polycarp] ... schrieb ...' | regard to the latter that, if + | [Polycarp] died in A.D. 167 in his + | 86th year, and Ignatius wrote to him + | as already Bishop of Smyrna in A.D. + | 116, he must have become bishop at + | least in his 35th year, and + | continued so for upwards of half + | a century. The inference is clear + | that if Ignatius died so much + | earlier as A.D. 107 it involves + | the still greater improbability + | that Polycarp must have become + | Bishop of Smyrna at latest in his + | 26th year, which is scarcely to be + | maintained, and the later date is + | thus obviously supported. + | + | (Ibid. _Gesch. christl. Kirche_, + | i. p. 440, Anm. 1.) + | + | Baur supports the assertion that + | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in + | Antioch, A.D. 115. + | +"2. Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, x. | The same. +p. 185. 'Pergamus ad Ignatium '_qui | +circa annum cxvi obiisse dicitur_.' | + | +"3. Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144 | Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144. +[p. 142 ed. 1862] '... In den | +Briefen des Ignatius Bischofes von | Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Rome +Antiochien, der unter Trajan gegen | under Trajan, A.D. 115. +115 _zu Rom_ als Märtyrer starb.' | + | +"4. Guericke, _Handb. K.G._ i. | Guericke, _Handbuch K.G._ i. p. 148. +p. 148 [p. 177 ed. 3, 1838, the | +edition which I have used]. | Ignatius was sent to Rome, under +'Ignatius, Bischoff von Antiochien | Trajan, A.D. 115, and was destroyed +(Euseb. "H.E." iii. 36), _welcher_ | by lions in the Coliseum, A.D. 116. +wegen seines standhaften | +Bekenntnisses Christi _unter Trajan | +115 _nach Rom geführt, und hier 116 | +im Colosseum von Löwen zerrissen | +wurde_ (vgl. § 23, i.)' [where the | +same statement is repeated]. | + | +"5. Hagenbach, K.G. i. 113 f. [I | Hagenbach, _K.G._ 1869, p. 113. f. +have not been able to see the book | +referred to, but in his Lectures | "He (Ignatius) may have filled his +'Die christliche Kirche der drei | office about 40 years when the +ersten Jahrhunderte," [91:1] 1853 | Emperor, in the year 115 (according +(pp. 122 ff.), Hagenbach mentions | to others still earlier), came to +the difficulty which has been felt | Antioch. It was during his war +as to the execution at Rome, while | against the Parthians." [Hagenbach +an execution at Antioch might have | states some of the arguments for and +been simpler and more impressive, | against the martyrdom in Antioch, +and then quotes Gieseler's solution,| and the journey to Rome, the former +and passes on with 'Wie dem such | of which he seems to consider more +sei.'] | probable.] + | +"6. Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19. +p. 19. 'All [the Epistles of | +Ignatius] are posterior to Ignatius | The same as opposite. +himself, who was not thrown to the | +wild beasts in the amphitheatre at | These "peremptory statements" are +Rome by command of Trajan, but at | of course based upon what is +Antioch on December 20, A.D. 115. | considered satisfactory evidence, +The Epistles were written after | though it may not be adduced here. +150 A.D.' [For these peremptory | +statements no authority whatever is | +adduced]. | + | +"7. Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._ | Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._ +p. 79. '... Ignatius, _der | p. 79. +spätestens 117 zu Rom den | +Märtyrertod litt ..._' | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in Rome + | at latest A.D. 117. + | +"8. Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, | Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, +p. 40, mentions 115 as the year of | p. 40, states A.D. 115 as the date +Ignatius' death: p. 50 f. The | of Ignatius' death. At p. 50 he +Ignatian letters are rejected | repeats this statement, and gives +partly 'weil sie eine Märtyrerreise | his support to the view that his +des Ignatius nach Rom melden, deren | martyrdom took place in Antioch on +schon früher erkanntes | the 20th December, A.D. 115. +ungeschichtliches Wesen durch | +Volkmar's nicht ungegründete | +Vermuthung um so wahrscheinlicher | +wird. Darnach scheint nämlich | +Ignatius nicht zu Rom auf Befehl | +des sanftmüthigen Trajans, sondern | +zu Antiochia selbst, in Folge eines | +am dreizehnten December 115 | +eingetretenen Erdbebens, als Opfer | +eines abergläubischen Volkswahns am | +zwanzigsten December dieses Jahres | +im Amphitheater den wilden Thieren | +zur Beute überliefert worden zu | +sein.' | + | +"9. Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 | Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52, +[p. 52 ff.] [92:1] [This book I | affirms the martyrdom at Antioch, +have not been able to consult, but | 20th December, 115. +from secondary references I gather | +that it repeats the arguments given | +under the next reference.] | + | +"10. Volkmar, Haindb. _Einl. Apocr._| Ibid. _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ +pp. 121 f., 136. 'Ein Haupt der | p. 121 f., affirms the martyrdom +Gemeinde zu Antiochia, Ignatius, | at Antioch, 20th December, 115. +wurde, während Trajan dortselbst | +überwinterte, am 20. December den | +Thieren vorgeworfen, in Folge der | +durch das Erdbeben vom 13. December | +115 gegen die [Greek: atheoi] | +erweckten Volkswuth, ein Opfer | +zugleich der Siegesfeste des | +Parthicus, welche die Judith- | +Erzählung (i. 16) andeutet, Dio | +(c. 24 f.; vgl. c. 10) voraussetzt | +...' | + | +"P. 136. The same statement is | Ibid. p. 136. The same +repeated briefly." [93:1] | statement, with fuller + | chronological evidence. + +It will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the +later date assigned to the martyrdom, and that Baur, in the note in +which Dr. Westcott finds "nothing in any way bearing upon the history +except a passing supposition," really advances a weighty argument for it +and against the earlier date, and as Dr. Westcott considers, rightly, +that argument should decide everything, I am surprised that he has not +perceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as +statements of evidence. + +To sum up the opinions expressed, I may state that whilst all the nine +writers support the later date, for which purpose they were quoted, +three of them (Bleek, Guericke, and Mayerhoff) ascribe the martyrdom to +Rome, one (Bretschneider) mentions no place, one (Hagenbach) is +doubtful, but leans to Antioch, and the other four declare for the +martyrdom in Antioch. Nothing, however, could show more conclusively the +purpose of note 3, which I have explained, than this very contradiction, +and the fact that I claim for the general statement in the text, +regarding the martyrdom in Antioch itself in opposition to the legend of +the journey to and death in Rome, only the authorities in note 4, which +I shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with Dr. Westcott's +statements, and here I beg the favour of the reader's attention. + + NOTE 4. + + DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS. | THE TRUTH. + | +1. Volkmar: see above. | Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ + | i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f. + | + | It will be observed on turning to + | the passage "above" (10), to which + | Dr. Westcott refers, that he quotes + | a single sentence containing merely + | a concise statement of facts, and + | that no indication is given to the + | reader that there is anything beyond + | it. At p. 136 "the same statement + | is repeated briefly." Now either + | Dr. Westcott, whilst bringing a most + | serious charge against my work, based + | upon this "one example," has actually + | not taken the trouble to examine my + | reference to "pp. 121 ff., 136 f.," + | and p. 50 ff., to which he would + | have found himself there directed, + | or he has acted towards me with a + | want of fairness which I venture to + | say he will be the first to regret, + | when he considers the facts. + | + | Would it be divined from the words + | opposite, and the sentence "above," + | that Volkmar enters into an elaborate + | argument, extending over a dozen + | closely printed pages, to prove that + | Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, + | but suffered martyrdom in Antioch + | itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115, + | probably as a sacrifice to the + | superstitious fury of the people + | against the [Greek: atheoi], excited + | by the earthquake which occurred on + | the thirteenth of that month? I shall + | not here attempt to give even an + | epitome of the reasoning, as I shall + | presently reproduce some of the + | arguments of Volkmar and others in a + | more condensed and consecutive form. + | + | Ibid. _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff. + | + | Volkmar repeats the affirmations which + | he had fully argued in the above + | work and elsewhere. + | +2. "Baur, _Ursprung d. Episc., | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. +Tüb. Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. H. 3, | Zeitschr._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f. +p. 149 f. | + | +"In this passage Baur discusses | Baur enters into a long and minute +generally the historical | examination of the historical +character of the martyrdom, which | character of the martyrdom of +he considers, as a whole, to be | Ignatius, and of the Ignatian +'doubtful and incredible.' To | Epistles, and pronounces the whole +establish this result he notices | to be fabulous, and more especially +the relation of Christianity to | the representation of his sentence +the Empire in the time of Trajan, | and martyr-journey to Rome. He +which he regards as inconsistent | shows that, while isolated cases of +with the condemnation of Ignatius;| condemnation to death, under +and the improbable circumstances | occurred during Trajan's reign may +of the journey. The personal | justify the mere tradition that he +characteristics, the letters, the | suffered martyrdom, there is no +history of Ignatius, are, in his | instance recorded in which a +opinion, all a mere creation of | Christian was condemned to be sent +the imagination. The utmost he | to Rome to be cast to the beasts; +allows is that he may have | that such a sentence is opposed to +suffered martyrdom." (P. 169.) | all historical data of the reign of + | Trajan, and to all that is known of + | his character and principles; and + | that the whole of the statements + | regarding the supposed journey + | directly discredit the story. The + | argument is much too long and + | elaborate to reproduce here, but I + | shall presently make use of some + | parts of it. + | +"3. Baur, _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, | "Ibid., _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1863, +1863, i. p. 440, Anm. 1. | i. p. 440, Anm. 1. + | +"'Die Verurtheilung _ad bestias_ | "The reality is 'wohl nur' that in +und die Abführung dazu nach Rom | the year 115, when Trajan wintered +... mag auch unter Trajan nichts | in Antioch, Ignatius suffered +zu ungewöhnliches gewesen sein, | martyrdom in Antioch itself, as a +aber ... bleibt ie Geschichte | sacrifice to popular fury +seines Märtyrerthums auch nach | consequent on the earthquake of +der Vertheidigung derselben von | that year. The rest was developed +Lipsius ... höchst | out of the reference to Trajan for +unwahrscheinlich. Das Factische | the glorification of martyrdom." +ist wohl nur dass Ignatius im J. | +115, als Trajan in Antiochien | +überwinterte, in Folge des | +Erdbebens in diesem Jahr, in | +Antiochien selbst als ein Opfer | +der Volkswuth zum Märtyrer | +wurde.' | + | +4. Davidson: see above. | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._, p. 19. + | + | "All (the Epistles) are posterior + | to Ignatius himself, who was not + | thrown to the wild beasts in the + | amphitheatre at Rome by command of + | Trajan, but at Antioch, on December + | 20th, A.D. 115." + | +5. Scholten: see above. | Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, + | p. 51 f. The Ignatian Epistles are + | declared to be spurious for various + | reasons, but partly "because they + | mention a martyr-journey of Ignatius + | to Rome, the unhistorical character + | of which, already earlier recognised + | (see Baur, _Urspr. des Episc._ 1838, + | p. 147 ff., _Die Ign. Briefe_, 1848; + | Schwegler, _Nachap. Zeitalt._ ii. + | p. 159 ff.; Hilgenfeld, _Apost. + | Väter_, p. 210 ff.; Réville, + | _Le Lien_, 1856, Nos. 18-22), is + | made all the more probable by + | Volkmar's not groundless conjecture. + | According to it Ignatius is reported + | to have become the prey of wild beasts + | on the 20th December, 115, not in the + | amphitheatre in Rome by the order of + | the mild Trajan, but in Antioch + | itself, as the victim of superstitious + | popular fury consequent on an + | earthquake which occurred on the + | 13th December of that year." + | +6. "Francke, _Zur Gesch. | "Cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajan's_, +Trajan's_, 1840 [1837], p. 253 f. | 1840. This is a mere comparative +[A discussion of the date of the | reference to establish the important +beginning of Trajan's Parthian | point of the date of the Parthian +war, which he fixes in A.D. 115, | war and Trajan's visit to Antioch. +but he decides nothing directly | Dr. Westcott omits the "Cf." +as to the time of Ignatius' | +martyrdom.] | + | +7. "Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, | Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p. 214 ff. +p. 214 [pp. 210 ff.] Hilgenfeld | Hilgenfeld strongly supports Baur's +points out the objections to the | argument which is referred to +narrative in the Acts of the | above, and while declaring the +Martyrdom, the origin of which he | whole story of Ignatius, and more +refers to the period between | especially the journey to Rome, +Eusebius and Jerome: setting | incredible, he considers the mere +aside this detailed narrative he | fact that Ignatius suffered +considers the historical character| martyrdom the only point regarding +of the general statements in the | which the possibility has been made +letters. The mode of punishment | out. He shows [97:1] that the +by a provincial governor causes | martyrology states the 20th +some difficulty: 'bedenklicher,' | December as the day of Ignatius' +he continues, 'ist jedenfalls der | death, and that his remains were +andre Punct, die Versendung nach | buried at Antioch, where they still +Rom.' Why was the punishment not | were in the days of Chrysostom and +carried out at Antioch? Would it | Jerome. He argues from all that is +be likely that under an Emperor | known of the reign and character of +like Trajan a prisoner like | Trajan, that such a sentence from +Ignatius would be sent to Rome to | the Emperor himself is quite +fight in the amphitheatre? The | unsupported and inconceivable. A +circumstances of the journey as | provincial Governor might have +described are most improbable. | condemned him ad bestias, but in +The account of the persecution | any case the transmission to Rome +itself is beset by difficulties. | is more doubtful. He shows, +Having set out these objections | however, that the whole story is +he leaves the question, casting | inconsistent with historical facts, +doubt (like Baur) upon the whole | and the circumstances of the +history, and gives no support to | journey incredible. It is +the bold affirmation of a | impossible to give even a sketch of +martyrdom 'at Antioch on the 20th | this argument, which extends over +December, A.D. 115.'" | five long pages, but although + | Hilgenfeld does not directly refer + | to the theory of the martyrdom in + | Antioch itself, his reasoning + | forcibly points to that conclusion, + | and forms part of the converging + | trains of reasoning which result in + | that "demonstration" which I + | assert. I will presently make use + | of some of his arguments. + +At the close of this analysis Dr. Westcott sums up the result as follows: + + "In this case, therefore, again, Volkmar alone offers any arguments + in support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the + references is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most, + what Scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'" [98:1] + +It is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of +the fact than the assertion that "Volkmar alone offers any arguments in +support of the statement in the text," and it is incomprehensible upon +any ordinary theory. My mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate +idea of the elaborate arguments of Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, but +I hope to state their main features, a few pages on. With regard to +Dr. Westcott's remark on the "alleged 'demonstration,'" it must be +evident that when a writer states anything to be "demonstrated" he +expresses his own belief. It is impossible to secure absolute unanimity +of opinion, and the only question in such a case is whether I refer +to writers, in connection with the circumstances which I affirm to +be demonstrated, who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it. +A critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient, +but he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all +when the elaborate reasoning of men like Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld +is referred to. Therefore, when he goes on to say: + + "It seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results. + Anyone who will candidly consider this analysis will, I believe, + agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation, which + runs through the whole work, is justly characterised as frivolous + and misleading"--[99:1] + +Dr. Westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his +own criticism of it, endorsed by Professor Lightfoot, is "frivolous and +misleading," and I venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has +been, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy +of my references. + +As Dr. Westcott does not advance any further arguments of his own in +regard to the Ignatian controversy, I may now return to Dr. Lightfoot, +and complete my reply to his objections; but I must do so with extreme +brevity, as I have already devoted too much space to this subject, and +must now come to a close. To the argument that it is impossible to +suppose that soldiers such as the "ten leopards" described in the +Epistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing +Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his +journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, as +well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various +Churches, Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments, derived from Zahn, regarding +the Roman procedure in cases that are said to be "known." These cases, +however, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which is +assumed. That Christians imprisoned for their religious belief should +receive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything +but extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many +cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The case of +Ignatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of [Greek: oi kai +euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] be that, although receiving bribes, +the "ten leopards" only became more cruel, the very reverse of the +leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the Roman procedure is described +by the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothing +approaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-Ignatius can be +pointed out in any known instance. The case of Saturus and Perpetua, +even if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being very +different; [100:1] but in fact there is no evidence whatever that the +extant history was written by either of them, [100:2] but on the +contrary, I maintain, every reason to believe that it was not. + +Dr. Lightfoot advances the instance of Paul as a case in point of a +Christian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who "writes +letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with +Churches and individuals as he desires." [101:1] It is scarcely possible +to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-Ignatius and +Paul, as narrated in the "Acts of the Apostles," although doubtless the +story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the +latter. Whilst Ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a +Christian, Paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a +Roman citizen, rescued from infuriated Jews (xxiii. 27), repeatedly +declared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds +(xxv. 25, xxvi. 31), and who might have been set at liberty but that he +had appealed to Caesar (xxv. 11 f., xxvi. 32). His position was one +which secured the sympathy of the Roman soldiers. Ignatius "fights with +beasts from Syria even unto Rome," and is cruelly treated by his "ten +leopards," but Paul is represented as receiving very different +treatment. Felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come +and minister to him (xxiv. 23), and when the voyage is commenced it is +said that Julius, who had charge of Paul, treated him courteously, and, +gave him liberty to go to see his friends at Sidon (xxvii. 3). At Rome +he was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him +(xxviii. 16), and he continued for two years in his own hired house +(xxviii. 28). These circumstances are totally different from those under +which the Epistles of Ignatius are said to have been written. + +"But the most powerful testimony," Dr. Lightfoot goes on to say, "is +derived from the representations of a heathen writer." [101:2] The case +of Peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate +than that of Paul. Of Peregrinus himself, historically, we really know +little or nothing, for the account of Lucian is scarcely received as +serious by anyone. [102:1] Lucian narrates that this Peregrinus Proteus, +a cynic philosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes, +found it convenient to leave his own country. In the course of his +travels he fell in with Christians and learnt their doctrines, and, +according to Lucian, the Christians soon were mere children in his +hands, so that he became in his own person "prophet, high-priest, and +ruler of a synagogue," and further "they spoke of him as a god, used him +as a lawgiver, and elected him their chief man." [102:2] After a time he +was put in prison for his new faith, which Lucian says was a real +service to him afterwards in his impostures. During the time he was in +prison he is said to have received those services from Christians which +Dr. Lightfoot quotes. Peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the +Governor of Syria, who loved philosophy, [102:3] and travelled about, +living in great comfort at the expense of the Christians, until at last +they quarrelled in consequence, Lucian thinks, of his eating some +forbidden food. Finally, Peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself +into the flames of a funeral pile during the Olympian games. An +earthquake is said to have taken place at the time; a vulture flew out +from the pile crying out with a human voice; and, shortly after, +Peregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment, unhurt by +the fire. + +Now this writing, of which I have given the barest sketch, is a direct +satire upon Christians, or even, as Baur affirms, "a parody of the +history of Jesus." [102:4] There are no means of ascertaining that any +of the events of the Christian career of Peregrinus were true, but it is +obvious that Lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to +prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the Christians to +Peregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of +the satire. + +There is another circumstance which must be mentioned. Lucian's account +of Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the Ignatian Epistles as +evidence for them. [103:1] "The singular correspondence in this +narrative with the account of Ignatius, combined with some striking +coincidences of expression," they argue, show "that Lucian was +acquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters." +These are the words of Dr. Lightfoot, although he guards himself, in +referring to this argument, by the words "if it be true," and does not +express his own opinion; but he goes on to say: "At all events it is +conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that Christian prisoners +were treated in the very way described in these epistles." [103:2] On +the contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. If it were true +that Lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistles +and Martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as +independent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the +treatment of Christian prisoners. On the other hand, as this cannot be +shown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historical +value. Apart from all this, however, the case of Peregrinus, a man +confined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, and +not pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of Ignatius +condemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement, +cruelly treated by the "ten leopards;" and further the liberty of +pseudo-Ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of +Peregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such free +intercourse as they represent. + +I will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of +the writers referred to in the note [104:1] attacked by Dr. Westcott, +in which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion, +demonstrate that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered +martyrdom in Antioch itself. The reader who wishes to go minutely into +the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and +I will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the +source of each argument. Where I add any particulars I will, when +necessary, give my authorities. The Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies +set forth that, during a general persecution of Christians, in Syria at +least, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan, when he wintered in Antioch +during the Parthian War, to be taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in +the amphitheatre. Instead of being sent to Rome by the short sea voyage, +he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more +difficult land route. The ten soldiers who guard him are described by +himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to +secure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but +all the way from Syria to Rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he +"fights with beasts." Notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely +receives deputations from the various Churches, who, far from being +molested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to +accompany him on his journey. He not only converses with these freely, +but he is represented as writing long epistles to the various Churches, +which, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words +which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled +with advanced views of Church government, and the dignity of the +episcopate. These circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions +of the truth of the documents and of the story which they set forth. + +When we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by +historical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is known +of the treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well as +of the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition that +Ignatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even by a +provincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to the beasts. +It is well known that under Trajan there was no general persecution of +Christians, although there may have been instances in which prominent +members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular +fury and superstition. [105:1] An instance of this kind was the martyrdom +of Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not +condemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to Rome for the +purpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? In +fact, even during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, although +Christians in Syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is +no instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent to +Rome. Such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of +Trajan and his principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by +Baur, says: "As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity mere +fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined +with clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open +demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by +persecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and +the matter by degrees come to an end." [106:1] This was certainly the +policy which mainly characterised his reign. Now not only would this +severe sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation +excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a +long journey by land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through some +of the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various +Christian communities, and address long epistles to them. With the +fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have +been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and +enthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an indication of the results +of impartial examination, to point out that Neander's inability to +accept the Ignatian Epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole +tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "We do not recognise the +Emperor Trajan in this narrative" (the martyrology), he says, "therefore +cannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as well +as that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild +beasts." [106:2] + +If, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajan +himself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor, +the story does not gain greater probability. It is not credible that +such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition +to the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides, if such a governor +did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in +Antioch? Why send the prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all the +more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the +clement Trajan. The cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_ +would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is +besides no instance known, even during the following general persecution, +of Christians being sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Rome +is in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that +Ignatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to death +during this reign, more especially if the event be associated with +some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the Christians, +to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. We are not +without indications of such a cause operating in the case of Ignatius. + +It is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch is +A.D. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian War. An earthquake +occurred on the 13th December of that year, which was well calculated to +excite popular superstition. It may not be out of place to quote here +the account of the earthquake given by Dean Milman, who, although he +mentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still +associates the condemnation of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says: +"Nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with +singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in Antioch +... At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and +destructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its most +appalling ravages--Antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for +the Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors and tributary kings +from all parts of the East. The city shook through all its streets; +houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. Many were killed: +the Consul Pedo died of his hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped +through a window, and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some +days in the open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of +the Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? This was towards +the end of January; early in February the Christian Bishop, Ignatius, +was arrested. We know how, during this century, at every period of +public calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the +panic-stricken Heathens was, 'The Christians to the lions!' It maybe +that, in Trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by +the infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice, +the execution was ordered to take place, not in Antioch, but in Rome." +[108:1] I contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution +in Antioch infinitely more probable. To continue, however: the +earthquake occurred on the 13th, and the martyrdom of Ignatius took +place on the 20th December, just a week after the earthquake. His +remains, as we know from Chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact, +interred at Antioch. The natural inference is that the martyrdom, the +only part of the Ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in Rome +but in Antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against +the [Greek: atheoi] aroused by the earthquake. + +I will now go more into the details of the brief statements I have just +made, and here we come for the first time to John Malalas. In the first +place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the 13th December. +I will quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his further important +statement. He says:-- + + "The words of John Malalas are: The same king Trajan was residing + in the same city (Antioch) when the visitation of God (_i.e._ the + earthquake) occurred. And at that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop + of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek: + emarturêse]) before him ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was + exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'" [109:1] + +Dr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement. +He argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters, +and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece +of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere +may record stupid traditions. [109:2] If the narrative of foolish +stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything +else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the Fathers are +disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. Dr. Lightfoot +also assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced +by Volkmar "receives no countenance from the story of Malalas, who +gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to +the Emperor." [109:3] On the other hand, it in no way contradicts +it, for Ignatius can only have "reviled" Trajan when brought before +him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by +the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the +Bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of Malalas +is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the +main, of course, directly supports it. Then Dr. Lightfoot actually +makes use of the following extraordinary argument:-- + + "But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is + capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some + earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation. + The words [Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used + especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense, + including other modes of witnessing to the faith: the expression + [Greek: epi Traianou] again is ambiguous and might denote either + 'during the reign of Trajan,' or 'in the presence of Trajan.' A + blundering writer like Malalas might have stumbled over either + expression." [110:1] + +This is a favourite device. In case his abuse of poor Malalas should not +sufficiently discredit him, Dr. Lightfoot attempts to explain away his +language. It would be difficult indeed to show that the words [Greek: +marturein, marturia], already used in that sense in the New Testament, +were not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius +which Malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express +martyrdom, when applied to such a case, as Dr. Lightfoot indeed has in +the first instance rendered the phrase. Even Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so +implicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points. +"The [Greek: epi autou] together with [Greek: tote] can only signify +'coram Trajano' ('in the presence of Trajan'), and [Greek: emarturaese] +only the execution." [110:2] Let anyone simply read over Dr. Lightfoot's +own rendering, which I have quoted above, and he will see that such +quibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, Malalas seems +excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority. + +That the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports of the +Fathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that +none of them had information from any other source than the Ignatian +Epistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius evidently had not. Irenaeus, +Origen, and some later Fathers tell us nothing about him. Jerome and +Chrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. Malalas is +the first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and +different authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to +Rome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalas +lived at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It is +objected that so also did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet +he repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid argument against +Malalas. Chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of +Epistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation, +and had been quoted by earlier Fathers. It is in no way surprising that, +some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly +have accepted the representations of the Epistles purporting to have +been written by the martyr himself, and that their story should have +shaped the prevailing tradition. + +The remains of Ignatius, as we are informed by Chrysostom and Jerome, +long remained interred in the cemetery of Antioch, but finally--in the +time of Theodosius, it is said--were translated with great pomp and +ceremony to a building which--such is the irony of events--had +previously been a Temple of Fortune. The story told, of course, is that +the relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the Coliseum +and carried from Rome to Antioch. After reposing there for some +centuries, the relics, which are said to have been transported from Rome +to Antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from Antioch +to Rome. [111:1] The natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead +of this double translation, the bones of Ignatius had always remained in +Antioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that they +had been brought back from Rome was merely the explanation which +reconciled the fact of their actually being in Antioch with the legend +of the Ignatian Epistles. + +The 20th of December is the date assigned to the death of Ignatius in +the Martyrology, [112:1] and Zahn admits that this interpretation is +undeniable [112:2] Moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated +on that day in the Greek Churches and throughout the East. In the Latin +Church it is kept on the 1st of February. There can be little doubt that +this was the day of the translation of the relics to Rome, and this was +evidently the view of Ruinart, who, although he could not positively +contradict the views of his own Church, says: "Ignatii festum Graeci +vigesima die mensis Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum, fuisse Acta +testantur; Latini vero die prima Februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus +reliquiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat." [112:3] Zahn +[112:4] states that the Feast of the translation in later calendars was +celebrated on the 29th January, and he points out the evident ignorance +which prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius. [112:5] + +On the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess +regarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story that +Ignatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; and +all the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistles +themselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in +Antioch. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the +statement that Ignatius was sent to Rome is more or less directly based +upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in +discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. And +what is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian Epistles +and martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as Ewald says, +are "the one more fabulous than the other." There are fifteen Epistles +all equally purporting to be by Ignatius, and most of them handed down +together in MSS., without any distinction. Three of these, in Latin +only, are universally rejected, as are also other five Epistles, of +which there are Greek, Latin, and other versions. Of the remaining seven +there are two forms, one called the Long Recension and another shorter, +known as the Vossian Epistles. The former is almost unanimously rejected +as shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics +assert that the text of the Vossian Epistles is likewise very impure. +Besides these there is a still shorter version of three Epistles only, +the Curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine +letters of Ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal +and external reasons, deny the authenticity of the Epistles in any form. +The second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but I +venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous +than in dealing with the Martyr of Antioch. The mere statement of the +simple and acknowledged facts regarding the Ignatian Epistles is ample +justification of the assertion, which so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot, +that "the whole of the Ignatian literature is a mass of falsification +and fraud." Even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as +genuine more than the three short Syriac letters [114:1] out of this +mass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. Documents +which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove +anything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian Epistles, whatever the +value of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in +favour of our Gospels, rather discredit them. + +I have now minutely followed Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott in their +attacks upon me in connection with Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles, +and I trust that I have shown once for all that the charges of +"misrepresentation" and "misstatement," so lightly and liberally +advanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. It is +impossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials, +to escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but +I have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and I venture to +think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the +actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has +been made. + + + + + +III. + +_POLYCARP OF SMYRNA._ + + +In my chapter on Polycarp I state the various opinions expressed by +critics regarding the authenticity of the Epistle ascribed to him, and +I more particularly point out the reasons which have led many to decide +that it is either spurious or interpolated. + +That an Epistle of Polycarp did really exist at one time no one doubts, +but the proof that the Epistle which is now extant was the actual +Epistle written by Polycarp is not proven. Dr. Lightfoot's essay of +course assumes the authenticity, and seeks to establish it. A large part +of it is directed to the date which must be assigned to it on that +supposition, and recent researches seem to establish that the martyrdom +of Polycarp must be set some two years earlier than was formerly +believed. The _Chronicon_ of Eusebius dates his death A.D. 166 or 167, +and he is said to have been martyred during the proconsulship of Statius +Quadratus. M. Waddington, in examining the proconsular annals of Asia +Minor, with the assistance of newly-discovered inscriptions, has decided +that Statius Quadratus was proconsul in A.D. 154-155, and if Polycarp +was martyred during his proconsulship it would follow that his death +must have taken place in one of those years. + +Having said so much in support of the authenticity of the Epistle of +Polycarp, and the earlier date to be assigned to it, it might have been +expected that Dr. Lightfoot would have proceeded to show what bearing +the epistle has upon the evidence for the existence of the Gospels and +their sufficiency as testimony for the miracles which those Gospels +record. He has not done so, however, for he is in such haste to find +small faults with my statements, and disparage my work, that, having +arrived at this point, he at once rushes off upon this side issue, and +does not say one word that I can discover regarding any supposed use of +Gospels in the Epistle. For a complete discussion of analogies which +other apologists have pointed out I must refer to _Supernatural +Religion_ itself; [116:1] but I may here state the case in the strongest +form for them. It is asserted that Polycarp in this Epistle uses +expressions which correspond more or less closely with some of those in +our Gospels. It is not in the least pretended that the Gospels are +referred to by name, or that any information is given regarding their +authorship or composition. If, therefore, the use of the Gospels could +be established, and the absolute authenticity of the Epistle, what could +this do towards proving the actual performance of miracles or the +reality of Divine Revelation? The mere existence of anonymous Gospels +would be indicated, and though this might be considered a good deal in +the actual evidential destitution, it would leave the chief difficulty +quite untouched. + + + + + +IV. + +_PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS._ + + +Dr. Lightfoot has devoted two long chapters to the evidence of Papias, +although with a good deal of divergence to other topics in the second. +I need not follow him minutely here, for I have treated the subject +fully in _Supernatural Religion_, [117:1] to which I beg leave to +refer any reader who is interested in the discussion; and this is +merely Dr. Lightfoot's reply. I will confine myself here to a few +words on the fundamental question at issue. + +Papias, in the absence of other testimony, is an important witness of +whom theologians are naturally very tenacious, inasmuch as he is the +first writer who mentions the name of anyone who was believed to have +written a Gospel. It is true that what he says is of very little +weight, but, since no one else had said anything at all on the point, +his remarks merit attention which they would not otherwise receive. + +Eusebius states that, in his last work, [117:2] "Exposition of the Lord's +Oracles" ([Greek: Logiôn kuriakôn exêgêsis]), Papias wrote as follows: + + "And the elder said this also: 'Mark, having become the interpreter + of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, + without, however, recording in order what was either said or done + by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; + but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted his + instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of + giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [or discourses] + ([Greek: all' ouch hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn] + or [Greek: logôn).' So, then, Mark made no mistake while he thus + wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his + one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any + false statement therein." [118:1] + +The first question which suggests itself is: Does the description here +given correspond with the Gospel "according to Mark" which we now +possess? Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed "without +recording in order what was either said or done by Christ"? A negative +answer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar +enquiries, and the application of the Presbyter's words to it has +consequently been denied by them. It does not follow from this that +there has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring to +a work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it. +However, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of +argument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the +value of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our +second Gospel. + +In the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, who +is said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the +circumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but that +he merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter. +It is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy +of Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false +statement, but this does not add much value to his record. No one +supposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately invented +what he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can +be received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker. +The testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition, +confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to +attest miraculous pretensions. The tradition that Mark derived his +information from the preaching of Peter is not supported by internal +evidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability. +Because some person, whose very identity is far from established, says +so, is not strong evidence of the fact. It was the earnest desire of +the early Christians to connect Apostles with the authorship of the +Gospels, and as Mark is represented as the interpreter of Peter, so +Luke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely with +Paul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reason +whatever for believing that Paul ever saw Jesus. Comparison of the +contents of the first three Gospels, moreover, not only does not render +more probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic as +it lies before us, but is really opposed to it. Into this I shall not +here go. + +Setting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicability +of the tradition recorded by Papias regarding the Gospel said to have +been written by Mark, I simply appeal to those who have rightly +appreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is required +as to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himself +seen nor heard Jesus. It is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closer +examination of the supposed evidence. + + "But concerning Matthew the following statement is made [by Papias]: + 'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the Oracles + in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.'" + [119:1] + +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:-- + + "On examining the _Diatessaron_ as translated into Latin from this + Arabic, we find in by far the greater portion of it, from the Sermon + on the Mount to the Last Supper (§§ 30-134) that Tatian, like his + brother harmonist Ammonius, took St. Matthew as the basis of his + work ... St. Mark, as might be expected, runs parallel with St. + Matthew in the _Diatessaron_, and is in a few cases the source out + of which incidents have been incorporated. St. Luke, on the other + hand, is employed by Tatian, as also in a lesser degree is St. John, + in complete defiance of chronological order." [149:1] + +This is not quite so different from the description of the _Diatessaron_ +of Ammonius, which Dr. Lightfoot quotes:-- + + "He placed side by side with the Gospel according to Matthew the + corresponding passages of the other Evangelists, so that as a + necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was + destroyed so far as regards the order (texture) of reading." [149:2] + +The next witness cited is Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, writing about A.D. +453, and I need not quote the well-known passage in which he describes +the suppression of some 200 copies of Tatian's work in his diocese, +which were in use "not only among persons belonging to his sect, but +also among those who follow the Apostolic doctrine," who did not +perceive the heretical purpose of a book in which the genealogies and +other passages showing the Lord to have been born of the seed of David +after the flesh were suppressed. It is a fact, however, which even Zahn +points out, that, in the alleged _Diatessaron_ of Ephraem, these +passages are not all excised, but still remain part of the text, [150:1] +as they also do in the Arabic translation. This is the only definite +information which we possess of the contents of the _Diatessaron_ beyond +the opening words, and it does not tally with the recently discovered +works. + +I need not further discuss here the statement of Epiphanius that some +called Tatian's _Diatessaron_ the Gospel according to the Hebrews. +Epiphanius had not seen the work himself, and he leaves us in the same +ignorance as to its character. + +It is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regarding +the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. As Dr. Donaldson said long ago: "We should +not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it +told us something reliable about itself." [150:2] + +We may now come to the documents recently published. The MS. of the +Armenian version of the commentary ascribed to Ephraem is dated A.D. +1195, and Moesinger declares that it is translated from the Syriac, of +which it is said to retain many traces. [150:3] He states that in the +judgment of the Mechitarist Fathers the translation dates from about the +fifth century, [150:4] but an opinion on such a point can only be +received with great caution. The name of Tatian is not mentioned as the +author of the "Harmony," and the question is open as to whether the +authorship of the commentary is rightly ascribed to Ephraem Syrus. In +any case there can be no doubt that the Armenian work is a translation. + +The Arabic work published by Ciasca, and supposed to be a version of +Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, is derived from two manuscripts, one +belonging to the Vatican Library and the other forwarded to Rome from +Egypt by the Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. The latter MS. +states, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an Arabic +translation of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, made from the Syriac by the +presbyter Abû-l-Pharag Abdullah Ben-at-Tib, who is believed to have +flourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one of +these notes the name of the scribe who wrote the Syriac copy is given, +which leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the end +of the ninth century. A note in the Vatican MS. also ascribes the +original work to Tatian. These notes constitute the principal or only +ground for connecting Tatian's name with the "Harmony." + +So little is known regarding the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian that even the +language in which it was written is matter of vehement debate. The name +would, of course, lead to the conclusion that it was a Greek +composition, and many other circumstances support this, but the mere +fact that it does not seem to have been known to Greek Fathers, and +that it is very doubtful whether any of them, with the exception of +Theodoret, had ever seen it, has led many critics to maintain that it +was written in Syriac. Nothing but circumstantial evidence of this can +be produced. This alone shows how little we really know of the +original. The recently discovered works, being in Arabic and Armenian, +even supposing them to be translations from the Syriac and that the +_Diatessaron_ was composed in Syriac, can only indirectly represent the +original, and they obviously labour under fatal disability in regard to +a restoration of the text of the documents at the basis of the work. +Between doubtful accuracy of rendering and evident work of revision, +the original matter cannot but be seriously disfigured. + +It is certain that the name of Tatian did not appear as the author of +the _Diatessaron_. [152:1] This is obvious from the very nature of the +composition and its object. We have met with three works of this +description and it is impossible to say how many more may not have +existed. As the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certain +that, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, the +first idea of anyone meeting with such a Harmony must have been that it +was the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. What means could there be of +correcting it and positively ascertaining the truth? It is not as if +such a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of style +and invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of Gospels already +current, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely in +details of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible its +authorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence of +an arranger's name? + +An illustration of all this is aptly supplied in the case of Victor of +Capua, and I will allow Dr. Lightfoot himself to tell the story. + + "Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an + anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels, and began in consequence + to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in Eusebius of + such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed to the + canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the + _Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that + the work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in + favour of the latter, because it does not give St. Matthew + continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists, as + Eusebius states Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in + the preface to this anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin + dress. + + "There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the + authorship; for though the work is constructed on the same general + plan as Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke + i. 1, and it does contain the genealogies. It belongs, therefore, + at least in its present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius." + [153:1] + +How this reasoning would have fallen to the ground had the Harmonist, as +he might well have done in imitation of Tatian, commenced with the +words, "In the beginning was the Word"! The most instructive part is +still to come, however, for although in May 1887 Dr. Lightfoot says: +"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship," +&c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to +the newly-discovered works, he adds: "On the relation of Victor's +_Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of +Tatian_ ... See Hemphill's _Diatessaron_." [153:2] On turning to +Professor Hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is +discovered:-- + + "It will be remembered that Victor, Bishop of Capua, in the year + 543, found a Latin Harmony or compilation of the four Gospels + without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at + once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. I have + already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of Eusebius, he + was led to ascribe his discovery to Tatian. This conclusion was + generally traversed by Church writers, and Victor was supposed to + have made a mistake. He is now, however, proved to have been a + better judge than his critics, for, as Dr. Wace was the first to + point out, a comparison of this Latin Harmony with the Ephraem + fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve + to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed _pari + passu_." [153:3] + +But how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothing +could more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about +such works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally right +about the reading _Diapente_? + +I have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing +how little we know of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and, I may add, of the +Commentary of Ephraem Syrus and the work on which it is based. It is not +at present necessary to examine more closely the text of either of the +recently published works, but, whilst leaving them to be tried by time, +I may clearly state what the effect on my argument would be on the +assumption made by Dr. Lightfoot that we have actually recovered the +_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and that it is composed upon a text more or +less corresponding with our four Gospels. Neither in the "Harmony" +itself nor in the supposed Commentary of Ephraem Syrus is the name of +any of the Evangelists mentioned, and much less is there any information +given as to their personality, character, or trustworthiness. If these +works were, therefore, the veritable _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and the +Commentary of Ephraem upon it, the Gospels would not be rendered more +credible as the record of miracles nor as witnesses for the reality of +Divine Revelation. + + * * * * * + +It may not be uninstructive if I take the liberty of quoting here some +arguments of Dr. Lightfoot regarding the authenticity of the "Letter of +the Smyrnaens," giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. [154:1] + + "The miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters as an + objection to the genuineness of the document. Yet, considering all + the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised + at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the + supernatural in the narrative. Compared with records of early + Christian martyrs, or with biographies of mediaeval saints, or with + notices of religious heroes at any great crisis, even in the more + recent history of the Church--as, for instance, the rise of + Jesuitism or of Wesleyanism--this document contains nothing which + ought to excite a suspicion as to its authenticity. + + "The one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty, is + the dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. Yet even this + might be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances + it would be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery. + But it will be shown hereafter (p. 627) that there are excellent + reasons for regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which + had no place in the original document. Beyond this we have the voice + from heaven calling to Polycarp in the stadium to play the man (§ 9). + But the very simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism. + The brethren present heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker. + This was the sole ground for the belief that it was not a human + utterance. Again, there is the arching of the fire round the martyr + like a sail swelled by the wind (§ 15). But this may be explained as + a strictly natural occurrence, and similar phenomena have been + witnessed more than once on like occasions, notably at the + martyrdoms of Savonarola and of Hooper. Again, there is the sweet + scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre (§ 15); but this + phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether from the + fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us constantly. In + another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the persecutions + at Vienne and Lyons, a little more than twenty years later, we are + told (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1, § 35) that the heroic martyrs, as they + stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet + odour of Christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had + been anointed with material ointment' ([Greek: hôste enious doxai + kai murô kosmikô kechristhai autous]). Yet there was no pyre and no + burning wood here, so that the imagination of the bystanders must + have supplied the incident. Indeed, this account of the Gallican + martyrs, indisputably written by eye-witnesses, contains many more + startling occurrences than the record of Polycarp's fate. + + "More or less closely connected with the miraculous element is the + _prophetic insight_ attributed to Polycarp. But what does this + amount to? It is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered was + accomplished and will be accomplished' (§ 16). But the future tense, + 'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not + the statement of a fact. We may, indeed, accept this qualification + as clear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his + forebodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. The only example + of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his + burning pillow, which suggested to him that he would undergo + martyrdom by fire. But what more natural than this presentiment, + when persecution was raging around him and fire was a common + instrument of death? I need not stop here to discuss how far a + prescience may be vouchsafed to God's saints. Even 'old experience' + is found to be gifted with 'something like prophetic strain.' It is + sufficient to say here again that it would be difficult to point to + a single authentic biography of any Christian hero--certainly of any + Christian hero of the early centuries--of whom some incident at + least as remarkable as this prophecy, if prophecy it can be called, + is not recorded. Pontius, the disciple and biographer of Cyprian, + relates a similar intimation which preceded the martyrdom of his + master, and adds: 'Quid hac revelatione manifestius? quid hac + dignatione felicius? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque + postmodum subsecuta sunt.' (_Vit. et Pass. Cypr._ 12, 13)" [156:1] + +I am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, written +long after the essays on _Supernatural Religion_, as it presents +Dr. Lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunity +of congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towards +freedom which it exhibits. I quite agree with him that the presence of +supernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against the +authenticity of an early Christian writing, but the promptitude with +which he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away into +naturalism, is worthy of Professor Huxley. He now understands, without +doubt, the reason why I demand such clear and conclusive evidence of +miracles, and why I refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous and +insufficient testimony. In fact, he cannot complain that I feel bound to +explain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of which +he has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing but +very sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated the +imagination and devout reverence of early Christians to such mistakes, +I resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations. + + + + + +VIII. + +CONCLUSIONS. + + +We have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or +conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we +could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which +are essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested +in any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as Divine. +It is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the +specific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance of +which is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its +doctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be +pronounced "the wildest delusions." "By no rational being could a just +and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing +announcements." + +On examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as Divine +Revelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of the +supposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would +be destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to +one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are +performed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and +are not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive +and for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed are +beyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the +human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a +nature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would disqualify the +Christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of +performing. + +The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover, is +not only without any special Divine character, being avowedly common +also to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or +details. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first +promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for +centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has +flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed +through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has +entered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and +commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian +miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to +convince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. The +selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more +characteristic of human weakness than of Divine power. + +The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that +their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance +and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or +place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and +ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There +is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate +the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so +freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the +witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of +knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No +miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent +reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of +imagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles, +connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all +miraculous pretension. + +There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural +interference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have +sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a +single valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates that, +wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure +occurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely +acknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and +'miraculous' are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion as +knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural +interference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracles +have ceased. The effect of science, however, is not limited to the +present and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and +phenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of +natural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbroken +order. Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for +ever annihilated them. + +To justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an Infinite +Personal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution +of which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is +argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate +causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this +Infinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the +Divine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably +maintained. + +The assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once limited and +unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can +possibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God working +miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order +of nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles is +further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is +avowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other +spiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to +prove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not +with the other. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design of +Revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived +from the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise +the assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious as +arguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divine +design, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible and +opposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance any +theory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the +human race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of +creation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as +inconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed +punishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them +are opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially +inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles. + +Whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena +must at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absolute +knowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and +it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of +nature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously +greater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. On +the other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of +the senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only +possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of +phenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more +especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and +superstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses only +reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the +probability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation of +miracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the +order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation +and testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world and the +circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are +examining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which +wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural. + +When we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christian +miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralising +the preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the case +turns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere +narratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years +ago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force +and validity, it is essential that their character and authorship should +be placed beyond all doubt. They must proceed from eye-witnesses capable +of estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels, +however, are strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which now +distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works +themselves and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels. Of the +writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are +even said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and +third Synoptics neither having been personal followers of Jesus nor +eye-witnesses of the events they describe. Under these circumstances, we +are wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding +the authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels. + +In examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite +principles. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the +date or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of the +Fathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for +information regarding the composition and character of these works and +even for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these +could prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at the +date of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we were +guided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are based +upon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the +Fathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a +complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and +character of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition +preserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the details +of which fully justify the conclusion that our first and second +Synoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been +composed by Matthew and Mark. There is thus no evidence whatever +directly connecting any of the canonical Gospels with the writers to +whom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no +value in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence +from the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. With +one exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a +half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous +use of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This fact, of course, +does not justify the conclusion that none of these Gospels was actually +in existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere +suggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence +shows that there is no positive proof that they were. The exception to +which we refer is Marcion's Gospel, which was, we think, based upon our +third Synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the +existence of that work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightest +information as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges against +it of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to +its infallible character. The canonical Gospels continue to the end +anonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. They do not +themselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from +the ordinary rules of criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the +inferences from external testimony. Apart from continual minor +contradictions throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to +reconcile the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth +Gospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They must be +pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by +unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous +occurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. They +cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of +Divine Revelation. + +Applying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles we arrived at similar +results. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the +third Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear. +There is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character, +but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with +miraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of the +narrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for +it any serious consideration. When the statements of the author are +compared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle Paul and with +authentic accounts of the development of the early Christian Church, it +becomes evident that the Acts of the Apostles, as might have been +supposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be +regarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends +to establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so +suspiciously abound. + +The remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separate +examination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional +testimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied belief +in such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It is +unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostles +believed in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so +supersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the Catholic +Epistles and Apocalypse. In like manner, the recognition as genuine of +four Epistles of Paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders +it superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters +attributed to him. + +The general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Church +is brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. After +elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating +conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the +unconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility with +which erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into +supernatural occurrences. + +As a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the +cardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension of +Jesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts of +these events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradict +and exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of such +stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the +statements of the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul, +which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an +Apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries +of Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient. +His so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the +belief in the Resurrection rested" consists merely of vague and +undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the +statements in the Gospels, and without other attestation than the bare +fact that it is repeated by Paul, who doubtless believed it, although he +had not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the +risen Jesus which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personal +testimony to the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of which +we have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle. +Considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul, of +which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation +in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in +all probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. The +testimony of Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to +ecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an +earnest denial of the great Christian dogma, emphasised by the active +persecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in the +case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the +fact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is +not an argument of convincing force. We were compelled to pronounce the +evidence for the Resurrection and Ascension absolutely and hopelessly +inadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must +consequently be unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, or +even conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting +the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be +accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in +the case of any common question of property or title before a legal +tribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point to be +established, the more complete must be the proof required. + +If we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations, +we find them everywhere confirmed and established. There is nothing +original in the claim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation, +and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed, +or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished. +There has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst +men which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written +books of which have not been represented as directly inspired. There +is not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has not +substantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single +phase of the supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculous +conception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, and +ascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies. +Heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held +an important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. The +same may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity, the elevated +precepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had +already suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated +by ancient sages and philosophers. That this Enquiry into the reality +of Divine Revelation has been limited to the claim of Christianity +has arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds, +and confine it to the only Religion in connection with which it could +practically interest us now. + +There is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity which +can be considered characteristic of a Religion Divinely revealed for the +salvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to a +single nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, for +whom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost +unanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued to +be repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to the +present day. After more than eighteen centuries, this Divine scheme of +salvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a +third of the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinction +could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as +Supernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower numerical +position. Sâkya Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to +Jesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even +now almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries +never sought converts in the West. [168:1] Considered as a scheme +Divinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human +race and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himself +incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the +cross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be +regarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionate +for a system of elevated morality. + +We shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teacher +may through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances +have suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to +him, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed; +but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by +the absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It +is to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that we +owe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and +people. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for the +doctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus. +The great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who had +never seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after +it had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of the +East constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow the +development of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most +instructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas +were expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents +several stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had +passed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples, +who had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life, +piously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and +humility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaborate +structure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines of +human superstition and deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy, +displaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, which +commenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity of +the Christian body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations of +churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have +naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of Immaculate +Conception and Papal Infallibility. + +It is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such +conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but +remove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before +existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a +substitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech or +silence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of Truth +cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by +considerations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious and +suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be +premature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a +humiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality +is concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments, +although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent, +have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and +even in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education and +civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How far +Christianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not here +venture adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, that +whatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due, not +to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic +Theology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science. +Wherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. Science has +been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of +Genesis. Almost every great advance which has been made towards +enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema +of the Church. Submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been +tacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind. +"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not +enter into the kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of +Doctors of Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of +assimilation by the virile mind. Even now, the friction of theological +resistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The early +enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to +the simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the +world; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higher +principles do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals +sufficiently observed. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating +rules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divine +institution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than +it must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of +social experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a theological +question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have +finally expired. Morality, which has ever changed its complexion and +modified its injunctions according to social requirements, will +necessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent +on religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed +to say: _Cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right +principles, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost, +for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation +which can as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever +been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any +degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the +true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action, +we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and +punishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as +essential to Christianity. + +As to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by +such an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by any +means be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? The +Revelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an +illusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it and +its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the +traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and +green shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no cool +fountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his +wearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank. +Rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the +desert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek not +vainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other +horizons and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging to +ecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search +elsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think of +the man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two make +four from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? Whose +fault is it that two and two do make four and not five? Whose folly is +it that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five +than to know that they only make four? This folly is theirs who +represent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special +illusions, which they have religiously adopted. To discover that a +former belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of +existence. The sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we +believe it to be noon or not. It is idle and foolish, if human, to +repine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at +least we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream. + +The argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation is +necessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelation +are required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived +from the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing +absolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, must +our moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the +expectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through +natural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished +as supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that we +desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount to +complaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. To +attain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should +be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may be +certain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason is +as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know all that man requires +to know. + +We gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is human +invention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from the +incubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divine +government which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the +place of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic +visions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either of +unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered +from quibbling discussions of the meaning of [Greek: aiônios], and our +eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured +in hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end of +life there may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light +of apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable +horror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helpless +victims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous +representations at all as part of the contents of "Divine Revelation," +it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways +of the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the +perfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call +wrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But now +the reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns +to the Jewish superstition from which it sprang. + +As myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be +baseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless pass +away, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although +it cannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled for +so long the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank can +rightly be maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguish +between what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from +characterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us. +That mysterious Unknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply +an impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which +excludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope. + + + + + +[ENDNOTES] + + +[1:1] Originally published in the _Fortnightly Review_, January 1, 1875. + +[4:1] _On the Canon_, p. 65. + +[4:2] _Ibid._ p. 61, note 2. + +[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, "Indeed, from the +similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards +referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this +interpretation is one from Papias' _Exposition_." + +[4:4] _Reliq. Sacrae_, i. p. 10 f. + +[4:5] _Lehre Pers. Christ_, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62. + +[5:1] _Theol. Jahrb. _1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1. + +[5:2] _Synops. Evang._, Proleg. xxxi. + +[5:3] _Komm. Ev. des Johannes_, p. 6 f. + +[5:4] _Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh._ p. 116 f. + +[5:5] _Basilides_, p. 110 f. + +[5:6] _Zeitschr. für wiss. Theol._ 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219, +Anm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., "Die Evangelien," p. 339, Anm. 4. + +[6:1] _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 72. + +[6:2] _Th. Stud. u. Krit._ 1866, p. 674. + +[6:3] _Intro. N.T._ ii. p. 424 f. + +[6:4] _Ibid._ ii. p. 372. + +[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with +such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part +itself. + +[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition. + +[9:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 4, n. 1; _Essays on S.R._ +p. 4, n. 4. + +[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after the +example of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he +introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within +brackets. + +[10:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 231 f. + +[10:2] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 5 f.; _Essays on S.R._ p. 7. + +[10:3] _S.R._ ii. 228 ff. + +[11:1] _Wann wurden_, u.s.w., p. 73 f. + +[11:2] The translation in Scholten's work is substantially the same as +Tischendorf's, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which +is of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is +treated as a contemporary. + +[12:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 229 ff. + +[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation +attacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho +logos edêlou], "Scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase +from Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is +surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that +Prudentius Maranus renders the words "... scripturam declarare," and +Otto "... effatum declarare." They occur in reference to passages from +the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is +[Greek: kata korrhês propêlakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is +rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. The +phrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all' +hostis se rhapisei epi tên dexian sou siagona, strepson autô kai tên +allên], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata +korrhês prospêlakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tês kephalês +meros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of +the linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but to +those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other +side, _of the head_," &c., inserting the three Greek words after +"side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the +sake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised. +Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." The passage +from Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the +uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which +reason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into +the text. It was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense and +meaning of "quem caederet," but I ventured to paraphrase the words and +their context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say, +the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian +proceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel +of Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the +assurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could +have doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores." + +[14:1] I altered "certainly" to "probably" in the second edition, +as Dr. Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of +exaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that +I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting +the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence +of the words given above. + +[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my +having been misled by the "nur" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic +might have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument, +but also to _De Wette_, who has "... dass er _nie_ Joh. dem Taüfer wie +der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptistês] giebt" (_Einl. N.T._ +p. 230), and to _Bleek_, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (_Beiträge_, +p. 178, and _Einl. N.T._ p. 150), which could not be misread. + +[16:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 15; _Essays on S.R._ p. 21 f. + +[16:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above +reference, but does not quote the passage. + +[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias. + +[17:1] _Canon_, p. 255 f. + +[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by +Tischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius. + +[18:1] Luthardt, _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 85 f. + +[19:1] _Strom._ vii. 17, § 106. + +[19:2] _Canon_, p. 255. + +[19:3] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 16 [_Essays_, p. 22]. + +[20:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11]. + +[21:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11]. + +[21:2] _A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine_, i. 184 f. I do not +refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view. + +[22:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11 f.] + +[23:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 11]. + +[23:2] _S.R._ i. p. 441. + +[24:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 12 f.] + +[24:2] _S.R._ i. p. 387 ff. + +[24:3] _Canon_, p. 112 f. + +[24:4] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9, note [_ibid._ p. 12, n. 4]. + +[24:5] _S.R._ i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, "can hardly +suppose" that "I had read the passage to which I refer." + +[25:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13]. + +[26:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13]. + +[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that +such a passage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the passage +Matt. xi. 27 _seq_. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the +contrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the +allusion to Paul's teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even +by his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the "pillar" +Apostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument +regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.) +sufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers. + +[27:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 11 f. [_ibid._ p. 16]. + +[27:2] _Ibid._ p. 10 [_ibid._ p. 14]. + +[28:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 402. + +[28:2] _Ibid._ ii. p. 406. + +[28:3] See Acts iv. 13. + +[28:4] _S.R._ ii. p. 410. + +[28:5] _Ibid._ ii, p. 413. + +[29:1] _Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang._ 1874, pp. 204-7. + +[29:2] _Einl. N.T._ p. 625. + +[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being +silent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the +Apocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point +out its existence, as, for instance, _S.R._ ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c., +and I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the +doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it +had already been applied to Christianity in N.T. writings before the +composition of that work. + +[30:2] _S.R._ ii. 421. + +[30:3] _Contemporary Review_, 12 f. [_ibid._ p. 17 f.] + +[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more +especially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, "Nur zwei neuere +Ausleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit." + +[31:2] _S.R._ 421 f. + +[32:1] _Works_, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; _Horae et Talm._ p. 938. + +[32:2] _Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv._ p. 256, Anm. 1. + +[32:3] _Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh._, umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f. + +[32:4] _Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N.T._ i. 3, p. 84. + +[32:5] _Einl. N.T._ ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to +the sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32). + +[32:6] _Bibelwerk_, iv. 219. + +[32:7] _Die Zeugnisse_, p. 21. + +[32:8] _Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean_, i. p. 475 f. + +[32:9] _Einl. N.T._ p. 211. + +[32:10] _Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche_, 1856, p. 240 ff. + +[32:11] _Die Joh. Schriften_, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ +viii. p. 255 f.; cf. _Gesch. v. Isr._ v. p. 348, Anm. 1. + +[32:12] _Das Ev. Joh._ p. 107. + +[32:13] _Comm. Ev. n. Joh._ p. 188 f. + +[33:1] _Comm. Ev. des Joh._ i. p. 577 f. + +[33:2] _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ viii. p. 255 f. + +[33:3] _Die Joh. Schr._ i. p. 181, Anm. 1. + +[33:4] _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, 1872, p. 92. + +[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: "This may perhaps be called the +current explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who +deny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf. +Keim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with +El Askar, &c." _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, p. 93, +note 1. + +[34:1] _Life of Christ_, i. p. 206, note 1. + +[34:2] _La Géographie du Tulmud_, p. 170. + +[34:3] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 1395 f. + +[36:1] _Bampton Lect._ 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4. + +[36:2] _S.R._ i. p. 61 ff. + +[37:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 19 [_ibid._ p. 26 f.] + +[37:2] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 216 f. + +[38:1] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 234. + +[38:2] _Ibid._ p. 219. + +[39:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 477. + +[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition. + +[45:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (_Ibid._ p. 32 ff.) + +[45:2] _S.R._ i. p. 212. + +[46:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 172 [_ibid._ p. 36]. + +[46:2] _Ibid._ p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51]. + +[48:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 173 [_ibid._ p. 38]. + +[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ i. +p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used +the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and +not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this +edition I have made my meaning clear. + +[50:1] Cf. _H.E._ iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c. + +[50:2] _Ibid._ ii. 15, vi. 14. + +[50:3] _Ibid._ v. 8. + +[50:4] _Ibid._ vi. 25. + +[51:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 181 [_ibid._ p. 48]. + +[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, _Adv. +Haer._ iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5. + +[51:3] _Ibid._ p. 181. + +[51:4] _H.E._ iii, 24. + +[52:1] _H.E._ ii. 23. + +[52:2] _Ibid._ iii. 11. + +[52:3] _Ibid._ 16. + +[52:4] _Ibid._ 19, 20. + +[52:5] _Ibid._ 32. + +[52:6] _Ibid._ iv. 8. + +[52:7] _Ibid._ 11. + +[52:8] _Ibid._ iv. 22. + +[53:1] _H.E._ ii. 15. + +[53:2] _Ibid._ vii. 25. + +[54:1] _H.E._ iii. 18. + +[54:2] _Ibid._ 19, 20. + +[54:3] _Ibid._ 20. + +[54:4] _Ibid._ 20. + +[54:5] _Ibid._ 23. + +[54:6] _Ibid._ 24. + +[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to +the accidental insertion of the words "and the Apocalypse" (_S.R._ i. +p. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and +the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements. + +[55:2] _H.E._ iii. 39. + +[56:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51]. + +[57:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [_ibid._ p. 59 +ff.] + +[58:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 339 [_ibid._ p. 62]. + +[59:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 340 [_ibid._ p. 63]. + +[59:2] _S.R._ i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of +reference. + +[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: "The reading 'most' is +explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint" (p. 63, n. 2). +Not so at all. "A slip of the pen" is a very different thing. + +[60:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 341 [_ibid._ p. 64]. + +[61:1] _Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens_, p. 7, Anm. 1. + +[61:2] _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have +added that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the +text, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his _Apostolic Fathers_ (part ii. +vol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this +appears clearly enough in the quotations I have made. + +[61:3] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 841 [_ibid._ p. 65]. + +[62:1] _S.R._ i. p. 259 f. + +[62:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p, 65 f.] + +[62:3] _S.R._ i. p. 259. + +[63:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr. +Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works, +where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian +Epistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages +further on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the +authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority +of these letters [_ibid._ p. 66]. + +[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: "Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii +nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum +impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (_Inst. Chr. +Rel._ i. 13, § 39). + +[64:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. + +[64:3] _Op. Theolog._ 1652, 11, p. 1085. + +[64:4] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p. 66]. +Dr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's _Vindiciae Ignat._ p. 28 (ed. Churton). + +[65:1] _Exam. Concilii Tridentim_, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89). + +[65:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 [_ibid._ p. 67]. + +[67:1] _Critici Sacri_, lib. ii cap. 1; _Op. Theolog._ 1652, ii. p. 1086. + +[67:2] _Vind. Ignat._ 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._ i. +p. xxxviii. + +[67:3] _Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch._ v. 8 § 1, edit. +Venetiis, 1757, vol. vii. + +[68:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 f. [_ibid._ p. 67 f.] + +[70:1] _Die Kirche im ap. Zeit._ p. 322. + +[70:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 344 f. [_ibid._ p. 69.] + +[72:1] _K.G._ 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1. + +[73:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 345 [_ibid._ p. 69]. + +[75:1] _Einl. N.T._ pp. 144 f., 233. + +[78:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51]. + +[78:2] _Ibid._, February 1875, p. 346 [_ibid._ p. 71]. + +[79:1] _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1851, p. 389 ff. + +[79:2] _Hippolytus and his Age_, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff. + +[79:3] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._ vii. p. 321, Anm. 1. + +[80:1] _Patr. Apost. Proleg._ 1863, p. xxx. + +[80:2] _Patr. Apost._ ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in +the _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight +lines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.) + +[80:3] _Hippolytus_, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff. + +[81:1] _S.R._ i. p. 264. + +[81:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72]. + +[82:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 348 [_ibid._ p. 74]. + +[82:2] _S.R._ i. p. 265. + +[83:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72 f.] +Dr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "The +Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is +embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection +in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before +the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles +come together, and _are followed_ by the confessedly spurious Epistles +in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are +together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn, +_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 111." + +[83:2] Note to Horne's _Int. to the Holy Scriptures_, 12th ed. 1869, iv. +p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original. + +[83:3] _The Ancient Syrian Version_, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f. + +[84:1] _Corpus Ignat._ p. 338. + +[84:2] _Ibid._ p. ii. + +[84:3] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvi. + +[84:4] Cureton, _Corp. Ign._ p. iii. + +[84:5] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvii f. + +[84:6] Cureton, _Corp. Ignat._ p. vii f. + +[84:7] _Ibid._ p. xi; Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii; +Jacobson, _Patr. Ap._ i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, _Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart._, +Amstel. 1646. + +[84:8] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lxi. + +[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'" pref. to _Hist. of the +Canon_, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix. + +[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S.R.,'" preface to _Hist. of Canon_, 4th ed. +p. xix f. + +[87:2] _S.R._ i. p. 268. + +[88:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx. + +[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first +quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second +note, but accidentally left out of note 3. + +[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call +attention to the assertion opposed to what I find in the note. + +[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an +extended form. The work I quote is entitled _Kirchengeschichte der +ersten sechs Jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is +part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth +century. + +[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference, +but I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to +'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different +object of the two notes. + +[93:1] _On the Canon_, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f. + +[97:1] P. 213. + +[98:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a +note, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display +of learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second +edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn." I might +reply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had +reached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which +reference was necessary. + +[99:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv. + +[100:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, _Mart. Rom._ +1631, p. 152. + +[100:2] Cf. Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, iii. p. 3. + +[101:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 349 [_ibid._ p. 75]. + +[101:2] _Ibid._ p. 350 [_ibid._ p. 76]. + +[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether +inauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, _Peregrinus Proteus_, 1879. + +[102:2] _De Morte Peregr._ 11. + +[102:3] _Ibid._ 14. + +[102:4] _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, i. p. 410 f. + +[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, _Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish. +Textes d. Ignat. Briefe_, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, _Ignatius v. Ant._, +1873, p. 517 ff. + +[103:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 350 f. [_ibid._ p. 77]. + +[104:1] _S.R._ i. p. 268, note 4. + +[105:1] Dean Milman says: "Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the +almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the +Christians." In a note he adds: "Excepting of Ignatius, probably of +Simeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of +Trajan."--_Hist. of Christianity_, 1867, ii. p. 103. + +[106:1] _K.G._ 1842, i. p. 171. + +[106:2] _Ibid._ i. p. 172, Anm. + +[108:1] _Hist. of Christianity_, ii. p. 101 f. + +[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 352 +[_ibid._ p. 79]. + +[109:2] _Ibid._ p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 80]. + +[109:3] _Ibid._ p. 352 [_ibid._ p. 79 f.]. + +[110:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 81]. + +[110:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 66, Anm. 3. + +[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these +relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards +translated to Antioch. + +[112:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ pp. 59, 69. + +[112:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p, 68. + +[112:3] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of +the martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December. +(_Mart. Rom._ pp. 87, 766 ff.) + +[112:4] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2. + +[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in +Chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere +allusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently" +the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been +celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is +nothing else to establish it. + +[114:1] _St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians_, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note. +Cf. _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 358 f. (_Ibid._ p. 88) + +[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in +these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition. + +[117:1] i. p. 443 ff. + +[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work"] + +[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's _Essays_, p. 163. + +[119:1] _Essays_, p. 167 f. + +[120:1] _Essays_, p. 170. + +[121:1] _Ibid._ p. 169. + +[122:1] _Essays_, p. 170. + +[122:2] _Ibid._ p. 170. + +[122:3] _Ibid._ p. 170. + +[123:1] _Ibid._ p. 152. + +[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f. + +[124:2] _Ibid._ p. 171. + +[124:3] _Ibid._ p. 172 f. + +[124:4] i. p. 463 f. + +[125:1] _Ibid._ p. 173. + +[125:2] i. 236 ff. + +[125:3] Note. + +[125:4] Note. + +[126:1] _Clem. Rom._ § 53, § 45; ibid. 173 f. + +[130:1] I. p. 210 f. + +[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases. + +[133:1] _S.R._ i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here. + +[134:1] _S.R._ i. p. 363 f. + +[135:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 221, n. 7. + +[135:2] _Ibid._ p. 220. + +[135:3] _Ibid._ ii. p. 169 f. + +[136:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 226. + +[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito, +Dr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from _Supernatural Religion_ the +following words: "They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except +that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore, +is worthless." The passage appeared thus in the _Contemporary Review_, +and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume +that the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: "They have +no attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is +unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (_S.R._ ii. p. 181). If +Dr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the +press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable +to those who have none. + +[137:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 182 ff. + +[137:2] _Ibid._ p. 239. + +[137:3] _Ibid._ p. 248. + +[140:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 198 ff., iii. 24 ff. + +[140:2] _Ibid._ 255. + +[141:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200. + +[142:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200 f. + +[143:1] _S.R._ iii. p. 257 + +[143:2] _Ibid._ p. 25 f. + +[144:1] _Ibid._, p. 259. + +[145:1] II. pp. 144 ff., 372 ff. + +[146:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 29. (_Ibid._ p. 227 f.) + +[146:2] I need not quote the references which Dr. Lightfoot gives in a +note. + +[146:3] _Ibid._ p. 278. + +[147:1] _Unters. N.T. Kanons_, 1881, p. 15 f. + +[147:2] _On the Canon_, 1875, p. 318, n. 3. Cf. 1881, p. 322, n. 3. + +[147:3] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, 1888, p. xiv. + +[147:4] _Ibid._ p. 279. + +[148:1] Dr. Lightfoot's rendering, p, 280. Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. +p. 159 sq. + +[148:2] _Ibid._ p. 280 f. + +[149:1] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxx. + +[149:2] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne.) The translation is by +Dr. Lightfoot (_l.c._ p. 281, n. 1). + +[150:1] Zahn, _Tatian's Diatessaron_, 1881, p. 70 f. + +[150:2] _Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr._ iii. p. 26. + +[150:3] Moesinger, _Evang. Concor. Expositio_, 1876, p. x f. + +[150:4] _Ibid._ p. xi. + +[152:1] Zahn, _l.c._ p. 38. + +[153:1] _Ibid._ p. 286. + +[153:2] _Ibid._ p. 288. The italics are mine. + +[153:3] Hemphill, _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxiv. + +[154:1] I have already referred to this document further back, p. 136. + +[156:1] Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, part ii. 1885, p. 598 ff. + +[168:1] By recent returns the number of the professors of different +religions is estimated as follows: + + Parsees 150,000 + Sikhs 1,200,000 + Jews 7,000,000, being about ½ per cent. + of the whole. + Greek Catholics 75,000,000 " 6 " " + Roman Catholics 152,000,000 " 12 " " + Other Christians 100,000,000 " 8 " " + Hindus 160,000,000 " 13 " " + Muhammedans 155,000,000 " 12½ " " + Buddhists 500,000,000 " 40 " " + Not included in the above 100,000,000 " 8 " " + ----------- + 1,250,350,000 + +We have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an +excellent little work recently published by the Society for the +Propagation of Christian Knowledge--_Buddhism_, by T.W. Rhys Davids, p. 6. + + + + + +INDEX. + + +Acts of the Apostles, evidence for, 142 f., 164 +Addai, Doctrine of, 147 +Ammonius, _Diatessaron_ of, 148 +Anger, 5 +Antioch, earthquake at, in A.D. 115, 107 f. +Aphthonius; see Elias of Salamia +Apocalypse, allusion to Paul in, 26, n. 2; language of, 27 ff. +Apollinaris, Claudius; date, 137; evidence for Gospels, 137 +Aristion, 55 +Ascension, evidence for, 165 +Aubertin, 65, 66 +Aucher, 145 + +Baronius, 112 n. 3 +Bar-Salibi, Dionysius, 147 f. +Basnage, 65, 66 +Baumgarten-Crusius, 70, 72 +Baur, does not allude to Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 79; + date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 f.; place of his martyrdom, 95 ff.; + on Peregrinus Proteus, 102 +Beausobre, 70, 71 +Bleek, 7, 32, 60, 62, 68, 74, 80, 90, 93 +Blondel, 65, 66 +Bochart, 65, 66 +Böhringer, 59, 62, 63, 80 +Bunsen, 32, 62, 63, 79 + +Calvin, 64 +Campianus, 64 +Casaubon, 65, 67 +Celsus, Origen on, 10 ff., 146 +Centuriators, Magdeburg, 64 +Chemnitz, 62, 64, 65 +Christianity, claim to be Divine Revelation, not original, 166 f.; + history and achievements opposed to this claim, 167 f.; + census of religions, 168 n. 1; transformation of, 169 f. +Chrysostom, 108, 110, 111 f. +Ciasca, alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 145, 150 f. +Clement of Alexandria, on Basilides, 18 f. +Cleophas, 52 +Cook, 65, 66 +Criticism, attitude towards, 1 +Cureton, 62, 63, 65, 68 ff., 79, 83 f. +Curetonian version of Ignatian Epistles, 59 ff., 67 ff., 74 ff., 80 f. + +Dallaeus, 62 +Davidson, Dr., on passage of Irenaeus, 6; date of martyrdom of + Ignatius, 91; place of the martyrdom, 96 +Delitzsch, 30, 31, 32 +Denzinger, 78, 79, 80 n. 2, 103 n. 1 +Diatessaron of Ammonius, 148 ff., 152 ff. +Diatessaron of Elias of Salamia, 148 ff. +Diatessaron of Tatian, 145 ff.; alleged Armenian version of Ephraem's + commentary on it, 145 f.; Latin translation by Aucher and + Moesinger, 145 f.; Arabic version of, translated by Ciasca, 145 f.; + Eusebius on it, 146 f.; did Eusebius directly know it? 146 f.; + Bar-Salibi on it, 147 f.; Theodoret suppresses it, 149 f.; the + genealogies of Jesus said to be excised, 149 f.; not all suppressed + in Armenian and Arabic works, 150; called 'Gospel according to the + Hebrews,' 150; Epiphanius had not seen it, 150; we could not identify + it, 150; Arabic version of Ciasca, 150 f.; said to be translated + from Syriac, 151; its date, 151; ascribed in notes to Tatian, 151; + original language of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 151 f.; Gospel texts + in alleged versions affected by repeated translation, 151 f.; name of + Tatian not on original work, 152; could it be identified? 152 ff.; + case of Victor of Capua, 152 ff.; was he mistaken? 153 f.; Dr. Wace + says: No, 153; value of evidence if alleged versions be genuine, 154 +Dionysius of Corinth, 56 +Doctrine of Addai, 147 +Donaldson, Dr., on Epistle of Polycarp, 21; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 150 +Dorner, 4 +Dressel, 79 + +Ebrard, 7 +Elias of Salamia, his _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; he finds fault with Canons + of Eusebius, 148 +Ephraem Syrus, his Commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; + date, 148; alleged Armenian version of his Commentary, 145; date + of the MS., 150; translated from Syriac, 150; evidence, 150 f.; + Tatian's name not mentioned, 150; value as evidence if genuine, 154 +Epiphanius, 150 +Eusebius, on Papias, 7; silence of, 45 f.; my only inference from silence + of, 50 f.; procedure of, 50 f.; his references to Hegesippus, 52 ff.; + his references to John, 53 ff.; on Claudius Apollinaris, 137; + on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.; + on _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, 148 f.; his Epistle to Carpianus, + 148 f., 152 +Ewald, 32, 33, 62, 63, 79, 141 + +Farrar, Dr., 34 +Francke, 97 + +Gfrörer, 7, 75 +Glaucias, 15, 18, 19, +Gobarus, Stephanus, 23 +Godet, 32 +Gospel, the Fourth, contrast with Synoptics, 26 f., 26 n. 2; + Hebraic character of its language, 27 ff.; + Eusebius regarding it, 49, 51, 53 f., 55 ff.; + evidence to it of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; + alleged evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; + alleged evidence of Polycrates 137; + supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 144; + Tatian's _Diatessaron_ said to begin with it, 147 f.; + insufficiency of evidence for it, 162 ff.; + its contents cannot be reconciled with Synoptics, 163 f. +Gospels, Justin's use of, 24 f.; evidence of alleged quotations, 24 f.; + object in examining evidence for, 37 ff., 41 ff.; numerous Gospels + circulating in early Church, 131 f.; anonymous quotations not + necessarily from canonical, 131 ff.; illustrations of this, 132 ff.; + evidence of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; evidence of Melito of + Sardis, 135 f.; evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; evidence of + Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 141 ff.; principles on which evidence + is examined, 162; insufficiency of evidence for, 162 ff. +Greet, Hofstede de, 5, 9 n. 2 +Grove, 34 +Guericke, 7, 90 f., 93 + +Hadrian, 12 +Hagenbach, 91, 93 +Harless, 75 +Hase, 76 +Hebrews, Gospel according to the, 122 f., 123, 150 +Hefele, 80 +Hegesippus, his attitude to Paul, 23; references to him by Eusebius, + 52 ff.; on Simeon, 52 +Hemphill, Professor, did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_? + 146 f.; on Arabic _Diatessaron_, 149; it takes Matthew as basis, 149; + its substantial identity with Victor's _Diatessaron_, 153 +Hengstenberg, 31 +Hilgenfeld, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 f.; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79; + place and date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 97 ff.; on Papias and + Matthew's Hebrew "Oracles," 122; Protevangelium Jacobi, 142; + Eusebius on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f. +Hippolytus, 17 f. +Holtzmann, 135, 147 +Hug, 32 +Humfrey, 66 + +Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp regarding him, 20 ff.; date and place of + his martyrdom, 87, 94 ff.; his alleged martyr-journey, 94 ff.; + his treatment during it, 99 f.; compared with Paul's journey, 100 f.; + compared with case of Peregrinus, 101 ff.; reasons opposed to + martyr-journey to Rome, and for martyrdom in Antioch, 104 ff.; + remains of Ignatius, 111 ff.; martyrologies, 112 f. +Ignatian Epistles, Dr. Lightfoot on, 57 ff.; critics on priority of + Syriac version, 59 ff., long recension, 64 ff.; Vossian Epistles, + 67 ff.; version of Ussher, 67; Armenian version, 78 ff.; Eusebian + Epistles, 80 ff.; their order in MSS., 82 ff.; their value as + evidence, 113 f. +Irenaeus, 3 ff. + +Jacobson, 65 +Jerome, 110 f. +John, references of Eusebius, 53 ff.; Papias and Presbyters on, 55 f.; + double use of name, 55 f. +Justin Martyr, his quotations, 28 ff. + +Keim, 135 +Kestner, 70, 71 +Kirchhofer, 7 + +Lange, 32 +Lardner, 70, 136 +Lechler, 76 f. +Lightfoot, 32, 33 +Lightfoot, Dr., objectionable style of criticism, 1 f., 3, 7 f., + 13 n. 1, 14 f., 15 n. 1, 20, 21, 23 f., 24 n. 5, 25 f., 27, 30 f., + 36, 44 f., 46 f., 57 ff., 68 ff.; 73 ff., 144; on a passage of + Irenaeus, 3 ff.; discussion of date of Celsus, 9 ff.; Dr. Westcott + on Basilides, 15 ff.; weightier arguments of apologists, 20 ff.; + on Epistle of Polycarp, 20 f., object of Papias' work, 22; on + Hegesippus and Apostle Paul, 22 f.; on Justin Martyr's quotations, + 23 ff.; on duration of ministry of Jesus, 26 f.; on Hebraic character + of language of the Fourth Gospel, 27 ff.; identification of Sychar, + 30 ff.; on argument of S.R., 36 ff.; on silence of Eusebius, 45 ff.; + the intention of Eusebius, 44 f.; procedure of Eusebius, 50 f.; + silence of Eusebius as evidence for Fourth Gospel, 56 f.; on + Ignatian Epistles, 57 ff.; on view of Lipsius, 60 f.; misstatements + regarding references in S.R., 61 ff.; differentiation of Ignatian + Epistles, 80 ff.; their position in MSS., 82 ff.; on martyr-journey + and treatment of Ignatius, 99 f.; compared with Apostle Paul's, + 100 f.; compared with case of Peregrinus Proteus, 101 ff.; on + John Malalas, 108 ff.; on Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of his + Epistle, 115; does not examine alleged quotations of Gospels, 116; + on Papias of Hierapolis, 117 ff.; Papias on Mark, 117 f.; Papias on + Matthew, 119 ff.; on accuracy of Papias, 120 ff.; translation of + Hebrew Oracles of Matthew, 121 f.; on Gospel according to the + Hebrews, 122 f.; on nature of Oracles of Matthew, 124 ff.; can + Oracles include narrative? 125 f.; his misapprehension of argument + of S.R., 129 ff.; on Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; on Melito of + Sardis, 135 f.; erroneous quotation from S.R., 136, n. 2; on + Claudius Apollinaris, 137 f.; on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on + Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 139 ff.; on the "testimony of Zacharias," + 140 ff.; alleged reference to Acts, 142 f.; alleged reference + to Fourth Gospel, 144; Tatian's Diatessaron, 145 f.; on Eusebius's + mention of it, 146 f.; did he directly know it? 146; on Doctrine + of Addai, 147; it mentions Tatian's Diatessaron, 147; Dionysius + Bar-Salibi on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; on _Diatessaron_ of + Ammonius, 148; quite different from Tatian's work, 148 f.; + similarity to Arabic version asserted by Hemphill, 149; case of + Victor of Capua, 152 f.; Victor must have been mistaken, 153 f.; + Victor not mistaken after all, 153; on Letter of the Smyrnaens, + 154 ff.; a short way with its miraculous elements, 154 f.; + practically justifies procedure of "Supernatural Religion," 156 +Lipsius, on Ignatian Epistles, 60 f., 63, 78, 79; on Martyrdom of + Polycarp, 135 +Logia, meaning of, in N.T., 124 ff. +Logos doctrine in Apocalypse, 30 n. 1 +Lucian, 12, 101 f. +Luke, Gospel according to, supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne + and Lyons, 141 f.; its use in _Diatessaron_, 149, 153 +Luthardt, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Basilides, 18; on language of + Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 28 ff. + +Magdeburg Centuriators, 64 +Malalas, John, on martyrdom of Ignatius, 108 ff. +Marcus Aurelius, 105 f. +Mark, Presbyters and Papias on, 117 f.; not eye-witness but interpreter + of Peter, 118 f.; value of his Gospel as evidence, 118 f.; use in + _Diatessaron_, 149 +Matthew, Presbyters and Papias on, 55 f., 119 ff.; wrote oracles in + Hebrew, 119 ff.; when translated, 121 ff.; use in _Diatessaron_ + of Ammonius, 148; also in that of Tatian, 149 f. +Matthias, 16, 18 +Mayerhoff, 91, 93 +Melito of Sardis, 135 f. +Merx, 78, 79 +Meyer, on passage of Irenaeus, 5, 82 +Mill, on miracles, 36 ff. +Milman, 59, 62, 63, 105 n. 1, 107 f. +Moesinger, Ephraem's Commentary, 145 f., 150 +Mozley, on belief, 35 f. + +Neander, 70, 71 f., 105 f. +Neubauer, 30, 34 +Nicephorus, 111 n. 1 + +Olshausen, 7, 32 +"Oracles," meaning of, 124 ff. +Origen, on Celsus, 10 f. + +Papias of Hierapolis, alleged quotations from him, 3 ff.; object of + his work, 22; references of Eusebius to him, 54 ff.; words of + the Presbyters, 55 f.; double reference to "John," 55 f.; he had + nothing to tell of Fourth Gospel, 55 ff.; on Mark's Gospel, 117 ff.; + on Matthew's Hebrew Oracles, 119 f.; value of his evidence for the + Gospels, 127 f. +Parker, 65, 66 +Paul, Apostle, his treatment as prisoner compared to that of Ignatius, + 100 f.; unconscious testimony regarding the supernatural, 165; + his testimony for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f. +Pearson, 67 +Peregrinus Proteus, 102 ff. +Perpetua, Saturus and, 100 +Petau, 65, 67 +Petermann, 78 ff. +Phillips, 147 +Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of martyrdom, 115 +Polycarp, Martyrdom of, 135, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot's short way with + the miraculous elements, 154 f. +Polycrates of Ephesus, date, 137; evidence for Fourth Gospel, 137 +Pressensé, de, 60 +Protevangelium Jacobi, 142 +Quadratus, Statius, date of proconsulship, 115 + +"Religion, Supernatural," argument of, 36 ff., 40 ff., 129 ff.; canons + of criticism, 130 ff.; the "testimony of Zacharias," Epistle of + Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.; was Eusebius directly acquainted with + Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 146 f.; argument of S.R. practically + justified by Dr. Lightfoot, 154 ff.; conclusions of, 157 ff.; + evidence of Divine Revelation which is necessary, 157; miracles + as evidence destroyed by doubtful source, 157 f.; miraculous evidence + not original, 158 f., stream of miraculous pretension, 158; true + character of miracles betrayed, 158 f.; origin of belief in + supernatural interference, 159; assumptions to justify miracles, + 159 f.; an Infinite Personal God, 159 f.; Divine design of + Revelation, 160; miracles antecedently incredible, 160 f.; + evidence for the Christian miracles, 161 f.; principles upon which + evidence examined, 162; evidence for Gospels, 162 f.; evidence for + Acts, 164; the remaining books of New Testament, 164 f.; evidence + of Paul, 165; evidence for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.; + results tested by general considerations, 166 ff.; claim of + Christianity to be Divinely revealed not original, 166 f.; + history and achievements of Christianity opposed to it, 167 f.; + census of religions, 168 n. 1; how far the Great Teacher was + misunderstood, 168 f.; transformation of Christianity, 169 f.; + alleged objections to disturbing belief, 169 f.; objections not + valid, 170 f.; argument that Divine Revelation is necessary to + man, 172 f.; we gain more than we lose by finding our theology + to be mere human inventions, 173 f. +Resurrection, evidence for, 165 f. +Reuss, 147 +Riggenbach, on passage of Irenaeus, 5; on Sychar, 32 +Ritschl, 62, 63 +Rivet, 64, 65, 67 +Routh, on passage of Irenaeus, 4 +Ruinart, anniversary of Ignatius, 112 +Rumpf, 60 + +Sanday, 33 +Saumaise, 65, 66 +Schleimann, 75 f. +Scholten, 11 n. 2, 80, 91 f., 96 f., 147 +Schroeckh, 70, 71 +Schürer, 135 +Shechem, 30 ff. +Simeon, 52, 105 f. +Smyrnaens, Letter of, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot as a sceptical critic, 154 f. +Socinus, 65 +Stephen, 142 f. +Sychar, 30 ff. +Synoptics, contrasted with Fourth Gospel, 26 f. + +Tatian's _Diatessaron_: see Diatessaron +Theodoret, the Ignatian Epistles, 81 +Thiersch, 7, 70 +Tholuck, 7 +Tischendorf, on passage of Irenaeus, 3 ff.; passage of Celsus, 11 ff.; + does not notice Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 80; + "testimony of Zacharias," in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 142; + it is a reference to the Protevangelium Jacobi, 142 +Trajan, in connection with the martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 ff., 105 ff. +Tregelles, 60, 82 f. + +Uhlhorn, 78, 79 +Ussher, 67 + +Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of, 139 ff.; date, 139; the "testimony of + Zacharias," 140 f.; alleged quotations of Acts, 142 ff.; value of + evidence, 143; Dr. Lightfoot on fragrance of the martyrs, 155 +Volkmar, on Celsus, 10 ff.; on Ignatian Epistles, 60; does not notice + Armenian version, 80; date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 92 f.; place + of martyrdom, 94 ff. +Vossian Epistles of Ignatius, 67 f. + +Wace, Dr., 153 +Waddington, 115 +Weiss, 62, 63, 78, 79 +Weissmann, 69 f. +Westcott, Dr., criticisms on, 3 f.; on Papias, 4; on Basilides, 15 ff.; + on Justin Martyr's quotations, 23 ff.; on "Supernatural Religion," + 44 f.; misstatements regarding notes, 85 ff.; was Eusebius directly + acquainted with Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147 +Wette, de, 7, 15 n. 1, 32 +Wieseler, 31, 32 +Wotton, 68, 69 + +Zacharias, the testimony of, Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff. +Zahn, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79, 99 n. 1, + 101; on John Malalas, 110, date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 112; + did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147; passages + regarding descent of Jesus from David not all excised from alleged + Armenian version, 150 +Zeller, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays +by Walter R. Cassels + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 13433 *** diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..381dccb --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #13433 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13433) diff --git a/old/13433-8.txt b/old/13433-8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5175447 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/13433-8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,6867 @@ +Project Gutenberg's A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays, by Walter R. Cassels + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays + +Author: Walter R. Cassels + +Release Date: September 24, 2004 [EBook #13433] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS *** + + + + +Produced by David Ross <davidross@despammed.com> and Freethought +Archives <freethought@despammed.com> + + + + + + +PRODUCTION NOTES: +A Reply to Dr Lightfoot's Essays +by Walter R. Cassels (4-Sep-1826 to 10-Jun-1907) +Originally published anonymously in 1889. +Transcribed by the Freethought Archives <freethought@despammed.com> + + + + + + +A REPLY TO DR LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS + +BY THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" + + + + +LONDON +1889 + + + + + +INTRODUCTION. + + +I sincerely rejoice that Dr. Lightfoot has recovered from his recent +illness. Of this restoration the vigorous energy of his preface to his +republication of the Essays on _Supernatural Religion_ affords decided +evidence, and I hope that no refutation of this inference at least may +be possible, however little we may agree on other points. + +It was natural that Dr. Lightfoot should not be averse to preserving +the more serious part of these Essays, the preparation of which cost +him so much time and trouble; and the republication of this portion +of his reply to my volumes, giving as it does the most eloquent and +attractive statement of the ecclesiastical case, must be welcome to +many. I cannot but think that it has been an error of judgment and +of temper, however, to have rescued from an ephemeral state of existence +and conferred literary permanence on much in his present volume, +which is mere personal attack on his adversary and a deliberate attempt +to discredit a writer with whom he pretends to enter into serious +argument. A material part of the volume is composed of such matter. +I cannot congratulate him on the spirit which he has displayed. +Personally I am profoundly indifferent to such attempts at detraction, +and it is with heretical amusement that I contemplate the large part +which purely individual and irrelevant criticism is made to play +in stuffing out the proportions of orthodox argument. In the first +moment of irritation, I can well understand that hard hitting, even +below the belt, might be indulged in against my work by an exasperated +theologian--for even a bishop is a man,--but that such attacks should +not only be perpetuated, but repeated after years of calm reflection, +is at once an error and a compliment for which I was not prepared. +Anything to prevent readers from taking up _Supernatural Religion_: +any misrepresentation to prejudice them against its statements. +Elaborate literary abuse against the author is substituted for the +effective arguments against his reasoning which are unhappily wanting. +In the later editions of my work, I removed everything that seemed +likely to irritate or to afford openings for the discussion of minor +questions, irrelevant to the main subject under treatment. Whilst +Dr. Lightfoot in many cases points out such alterations, he republishes +his original attacks and demonstrates the disparaging purpose of +his Essays by the reiterated condemnation of passages which had so +little to do with the argument that they no longer exist in the +complete edition of Supernatural Religion. Could there be more +palpable evidence of the frivolous and superficial character of +his objections? It is not too much to say that in no part of these +Essays has Dr. Lightfoot at all seriously entered upon the fundamental +proposition of _Supernatural Religion_. He has elaborately criticised +notes and references: he has discussed dates and unimportant details: +but as to the question whether there is any evidence for miracles and +the reality of alleged Divine Revelation, his volume is an absolute +blank. Bampton Lecturers and distinguished apologetic writers have +frankly admitted that the Christian argument must be reconstructed. +They have felt the positions, formerly considered to be impregnable, +crumbling away under their feet, but nothing could more forcibly expose +the feebleness of the apologetic case than this volume of Dr Lightfoot's +Essays. The substantial correctness of the main conclusions of +_Supernatural Religion_ is rendered all the more apparent by the +reply to its reasoning. The eagerness with which Dr. Lightfoot and +others rush up all the side issues and turn their backs upon the +more important central proposition is in the highest degree remarkable. +Those who are in doubt and who have understood what the problem to +be solved really is will not get any help from his volume. + +The republication of these Essays, however, has almost forced upon me +the necessity of likewise republishing the reply I gave at the time of +their appearance. The first Essay appeared in the _Fortnightly Review_, +and others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of _Supernatural +Religion_, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the +portions attacked, where reply seemed necessary. I cannot hope that +readers will refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is +published with the view of affording a convenient form of reference +for those interested in the discussion. I add brief notes upon those +Essays which did not require separate treatment at the time, and such +further explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my +statements. Of course, the full discussion of Dr. Lightfoot's arguments +must still be sought in the volumes of _Supernatural Religion_, but I +trust that I may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his +allegations and their bearing on my argument. + +I have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without any +alteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the +first time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position to +wind up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally show +the inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot's treatment. But I have still more been +moved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easier +reach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not +contain them. + +Dr. Lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. I do not think that +I am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my opinions; but +I may distinctly say that I have always held that arguments upon very +serious subjects should be impersonal, and neither gain weight by the +possession of a distinguished name nor lose by the want of it. I leave +the Bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and I take my stand upon +the basis of reason and not of reputation. + + + + + + CONTENTS + + + I. A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" + + II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES + + III. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA + + IV. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS + + V. MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES + + VI. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL + + VII. TATIAN'S "DIATESSARON" + +VIII. CONCLUSIONS + + [ENDNOTES] + + INDEX. + + + + + +I. + +_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."_ +[Endnote 1:1] + + +The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important, +that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work +should receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his +remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible +that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge +fairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and +in every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws +and mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose +perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained +application. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel +otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes +which can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing +more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which +may be fallacious. + +Reluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of +silent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the +face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the +case is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of +the Rev. Dr. Lightfoot's article upon _Supernatural Religion_ in the +December number of the "Contemporary Review." Whilst delivering severe +lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance +and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens, +falls very short of his precept. The example of moderation presented to +me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his +impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I +fail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew Arnold +so justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and +I trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat +Dr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand. +I should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his +attack at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience +and divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general +detraction. The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be +pronounced original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the +threadbare maxim: "A bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney," remains +in force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still +is. If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in +translation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with +which Canon Lightfoot reproaches _Supernatural Religion_ were well +founded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of +such a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of +the kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not +weaken the central argument, and after the Apologist's ingenuity has +been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of +Supernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure. It is, +however, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there +is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which +have "a vital bearing" upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked" +which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change +the aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once +to reply. I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to +sap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the +weakness of his own. Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has +the "misfortune" "to dispute not a few propositions which 'most +critics' are agreed in maintaining." He will probably find that "most +critics," for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune +to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many +points, from most critics. + +The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is +regarding "a highly important passage of Irenaeus," containing a +reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers +that I am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive +and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy" +would decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf +in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words +"say they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of +a passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation, +in the total absence of the original, that these special words were +supplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of +Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr. +Westcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what +"the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and +he then proceeds (§ 2) with indirect construction, indicating a +reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in +question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This +passage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of +Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of +Hierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text: +"In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears +to have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;" [4:1] and in a +note on an earlier page: "The passage quoted by Irenaeus from 'the +Elders' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of +interpretation;" [4:2] and then follows the passage in which the +indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of +"they taught." [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the +slightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing +this testimony, which Dr. Lightfoot describes as having "a vital +bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel." +The reader who had not the work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the +justness of the ascription of this passage to Papias, and who was not +acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the state of critical +opinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements, +understand the real position of the case. + +Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole +passage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he +was followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestion +to the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom +I remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot, +now seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebrated +treatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued against +Dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, there +is not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolate +the words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is +no evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussing +the evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers +to this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (in +italics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, as +Routh conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he points +out the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters" +should be used. He says, "Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo +cautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab +Irenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est, +utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet." Meyer, +[5:3] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whether +these presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived the +saying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it +merely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with Papias, and +only claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the +first half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the +translator of Tischendorf's work into Dutch, and his warm admirer, +brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the +circle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly +separates the presbyters of this passage from Papias, and asserts that +they may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt, +[6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, does +not attempt to associate the quotation with the book of Papias, but +merely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for it +formed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] does +not go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that "it is +impossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A.D. +150," refers to this passage, and says: "It is precarious to infer with +Tischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters +from Papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back +to the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "Is it not +evident that Irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, without +an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3] In another place Dr. +Davidson still more directly says: "The second proof is founded on a +passage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account of +the eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of the +Apostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the Lord said, "In +my Father's house are many mansions."' Here it is equally uncertain +whether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and +whether that Father did not insert something of his own, or something +borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel." +[6:4] + +With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his +while to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering the +external evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in +discussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do +apologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer, +Thiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette, +Gfrörer, Lücke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it, +although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of +Zeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so +indirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of +Eusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on +neither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; and +whilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with +the fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of +apologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved. +Those who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle as +testimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladly +have produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as taken +from the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to assume that any +of the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the +passage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject +generally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller in +which the quotation is discussed. + +This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune to +dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in +maintaining." I have no objection to his disputing anything. All +that I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there +is anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely +discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of +Dr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what +I objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But +although I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who +says "that there is this distinction of dwelling," &c., I did what +was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction, +a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairly +trained schoolboy." I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note, +the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below, +but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai +de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of +showing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the point +is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make +any objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott, +beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and +that I proceed to argue that "the presbyters," to whom the passage +is referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the +work of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended +to maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation +made to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had +been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately +withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different +from what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my +argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which +Dr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it +as well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this +was already published before Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared, +and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2] + +With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is +practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself. +"Tischendorf's words," he says, "are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der +Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,' +because the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact +that the words were not Irenaeus's own without this addition." Writing +of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "But he has not +altered any idea which the original contains." [9:1] I affirm, on the +contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he +has warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted +to point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct +assertion "that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters, +those high authorities of Papias." The German apologist, therefore, not +giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of +most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the +"habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high +authorities of Papias," without a hint that these words are his own. +[9:2] + +My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the +passage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was derived +from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a +quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these +words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from the +Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing +more than the exegesis of his own day. + +The second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection with +a discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage +from Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows: +"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes +that Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile +been 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him +as a contemporary.' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which +everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen +does not say 'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_ ([Greek: +epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen's knowledge +was plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he does not say +'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write,' but 'If he _did not +write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]); +nor 'If he _has commenced and finished_,' but 'If he _commenced and +finished_' ([Greek: _arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's language +itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with +the earlier passages in his work." [10:2] These remarks, and the +triumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here +"an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey +a totally wrong impression of the case. + +The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy +between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report; +[10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give the +passage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary +observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually +fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose +rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The +manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this +passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself +by Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick +of his precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's words +in a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments +as follows: "But here again we have to do with nothing else than a +completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's +poverty. For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen +rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words +of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition +of the whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]: +"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in +seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten +Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.' +'Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht +geschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genügt es uns mit diesen +acht Büchern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auch +jene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_], +'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,'" +&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly, +but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words +of Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon +these tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases, +but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2] +Whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of Origen there +may be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered +as good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist. + +Instead of depending on the "strength of the passage so translated," +however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of +this or any other version of Origen's words; and, in fact, the point +is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than +my own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his +adversary: and I add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the +conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his +impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became +considerably modified." I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons. +In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that +his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a +little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he +is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean +actually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to +whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians +which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as +a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others assert, +on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other +considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I +proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of +Lucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date; +but, on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus +attacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the +circumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against +Christians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated +about the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short, +scarcely turns upon the passage in Origen at all, and that which renders +it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the +Gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors, +which can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of +Divine Revelation. + +I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding +translations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of +passages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and +expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main +issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural +context to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as +Dr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot +interest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to accept +correction even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite +content to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair +spirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism,' in +which Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely +rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb. +[13:1] + +I am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical +errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and +magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his +apologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as +"a highly important question of Biblical criticism." In speaking, +_en passant_, of a passage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the +"Age of Miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally +omitted from vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read, +"and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation." [14:1] +In vol. ii. p. 420, after again mentioning the rejection of the passage, +I proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have +Originally stood in the text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of +such a context. The second error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24, +in which "only" has been substituted for "never" in deciphering my MS. +Since this is such a _common-place_ of "apologists," as Dr. Lightfoot +points out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon +the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation. +I can assure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him +the full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once +distinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition +[Greek: ho Baptistês]. [15:1] + +I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks +me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of +dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says-- + + "Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:-- + + "'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, + as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' ('Canon,' + p. 264) + + "The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's + book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating + the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of + St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark + was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of + information, one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author + remarks-- + + "'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading + system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to, + in the introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as + St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics + are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only + have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact + that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition + represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers + that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the + interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been + the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and + infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal + of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the + allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the + apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459) + + "Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself. + It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these. + I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed + Dr. Westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage + so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be + sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself + would have thought of." [16:1] + +In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to +quote Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott +says: "Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times, +it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian +doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration +was still fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary +prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror +into the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar +views. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, +who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2] +and he also made use of certain 'Traditions of Matthias,' which +claimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the Saviour.' +[16:3] It appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a +'Life of Christ,' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or +'The Philosophy of Christianity'--but he admitted the historic truth +of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them +as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony +of Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear. +In the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain +references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, &c." +And in a note Dr. Westcott adds, "The following examples will be +sufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c." [17:1] + +Not a word of qualification or doubt is added to these extraordinary +statements, for a full criticism of which I must beg the reader to +be good enough to refer to _Supernatural Religion_, ii. pp. 41-54. +Setting aside here the important question as to what the "gospel" +of Basilides--to which Dr. Westcott gives the fanciful names of a +"Life of Christ," or "Philosophy of Christianity," without a shadow +of evidence--really was, it could scarcely be divined, for instance, +that the statement that Basilides "admitted the historic truth of +all the facts contained in the canonical gospels" rests solely upon +a sentence in the work attributed to Hippolytus, to the effect that, +after his generation, all things regarding the Saviour--according +to the _followers_ of Basilides--occurred in the same way as they +are written in the Gospels. Again, it could scarcely be supposed +by an ordinary reader that the assertion that Basilides used the +"canonical gospels"--there certainly were no "canonical" gospels +in his day--"as Scripture," that his testimony to our 'acknowledged' +books is comprehensive and clear, and that "in the few pages of +his writings which remain there are certain references" to those +gospels, which show "his method of quotation," is not based upon +any direct extracts from his writings, but solely upon passages +in an epitome by Hippolytus of the views of the school of Basilides, +not ascribed directly to Basilides himself, but introduced by a +mere indefinite [Greek: phêsi]. [17:2] Why, I might enquire in the +vein of Dr. Lightfoot, is not a syllable said of all this, or of +the fact, which completes the separation of these passages from +Basilides, that the Gnosticism described by Hippolytus is not that +of Basilides, but clearly of a later type; and that writers of that +period, and notably Hippolytus himself, were in the habit of putting, +as it might seem, by the use of an indefinite "he says," sentiments +into the mouth of the founder of a sect which were only expressed +by his later followers? As Dr. Lightfoot evidently highly values +the testimony of Luthardt, I will quote the words of that staunch +apologist to show that, in this, I do not merely represent the views of +a heterodox school. In discussing the supposed quotations from the +fourth Gospel, which Dr. Westcott represents as "certain references" +to it by Basilides himself, Luthardt says: "But to this is opposed +the consideration that, as we know from Irenaeus, &c., the original +system of Basilides had a dualistic character, whilst that of the +'Philosophumena' is pantheistic. We must recognise that Hippolytus, +in the 'Philosophumena,' not unfrequently makes the founder of a sect +responsible for that which in the first place concerns his disciples, +so that from these quotations only the use of the Johannine Gospel +in the school of Basilides is undoubtedly proved, but not on the +part of the founder himself." [18:1] + +It is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the Basilides +regarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he did +not know our Gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work, +supplemented by traditions from Glaucias and Matthias; but, as if the +heretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity, +the additional touch is given in the passage more immediately before +us. Dr. Westcott conveys the information contained in the single +sentence of Clement of Alexandria, [Greek: kathaper ho Basileidês +kan Glaukian epigraphêtai didaskalon, hôs auchousin autoi, ton Petrou +hermênea], [19:1] in the following words; and I quote the statement +exactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in order +to show the inverted commas upon which Dr. Lightfoot lays so much +stress as having been removed. In mentioning this fact Canon Westcott +says: "At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, +who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter.' [19:2] +Now we have here, again, an illustration," &c.; and then follows the +passage quoted by Dr. Lightfoot. The positive form given to the words +of Clement, and the introduction of the words "as well as St. Mark," +seem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to Basilides +which I do not find in the original. I confess that I fail to see +any special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr. Lightfoot does, +let me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon the +strength of which he accuses me of "manipulating" a passage, and +then founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately after +the direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work, in which those inverted +commas are given. The words they mark are a quotation from Clement, +and in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally well +indicated by being the only words not put in italics. The fact is, +that Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. He +has been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failed +to perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this wonderful +illustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness which +pervades the critical portion of this (my) book." [19:3] It rather +exemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article. + +Dr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "Dr. Westcott's honour may +safely be left to take care of itself." It would have been much better +to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such +advocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it would +be the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, in +the most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any +other have I had the most distant intention of attributing "corrupt +motives" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognise, +and for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost +that I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly +possessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in +particular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and +unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which +should be more impartially made. + +Dr. Lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the +arguments of my adversaries. "The author," he says, "does indeed single +out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and +on these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts and lines +of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often occur in +the same books, and even in the same contexts which he quotes." [20:1] +I am exceedingly indebted to Dr. Lightfoot for having had compassion +upon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments, and for giving me +"samples" of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of apologists +which I have ignored. + +The first of these with which he favours me is in connection with +an anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius being +spoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested +regarding him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlier +passage he is represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:-- +"Why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have found +in any common source of information, that when the Latin version +(the Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated +into the original language, [Greek: tois sun autô], the 'anachronism' +altogether disappears?" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparently +attach much weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons for +not troubling my readers with this argument in words which, I hope, +may find more favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on +"Christian Literature and Doctrine," says: "In the ninth chapter +Ignatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the Philippians +of patience ... In the thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests information +with regard to 'Ignatius and those with him.' These words occur +only in the Latin translation of the epistle. To get rid of the +difficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words +'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the Greek [Greek: +peri ton met' autou]. And then the words are supposed to mean, +'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I heard, but of which I wish +particulars) and those who _were_ with him.' But even the Greek could +not be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there is +no reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the peculiar difficulty +presented by a comparison with the ninth chapter." [21:2] Dr. Lightfoot, +however, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit to impugn +translations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely handling +the tenses of a Greek text which the critic himself has never seen. +Here it is Dr. Lightfoot's argument which is "wrecked upon this rock +of grammar." + +The next example of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of +apologists which I have ignored is as follows:-- + + "Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion + of Papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by + Dr. Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict + interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object, in + his 'Exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative, + but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already + lying before him in written documents? This view, if correct, + entirely alters the relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and + its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main + question at issue." [22:1] + +I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced +without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias +himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much +more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords +any evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our +believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they +are the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it +cannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him, +the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch +as it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels; +and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so +clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written +documents with which he was acquainted. However important such a +discussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence, +it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of +Divine Revelation. + +The next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of +reasoning" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following: + + "Again, when he reproduces the Tübingen fallacy respecting 'the + strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the + often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer + refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the + words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these + words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of + initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that + Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as + misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tübingen + interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which + we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists' + might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [23:1] + +I reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I +merely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single +sentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation +in Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: "This, however, does not concern us here, and +we have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus +opposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in +fact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why does +he not also state that I distinctly refer to Tischendorf's denial that +Hegesippus was opposed to Paul? And why does he not further state that, +instead of being the "single notice" from which the view of the +anti-Pauline feelings of Hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based +upon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain? +It was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling +against Paul entertained by a large section of the early Church. What I +have to say upon that subject will appear in my examination of the Acts +of the Apostles. + +"And again," says Dr. Lightfoot, proceeding with his samples of ignored +weightier lines of reasoning, + + "in the elaborate examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical + quotations ... our author frequently refers to Dr. Westcott's book + to censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are + discussed at great length. Why, then, does he not once mention + Dr. Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin Martyr's + quotations from the Old Testament as throwing some light on the + degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the + Gospels? A reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_ + will have his eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind when + he turns to Dr. Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves, + misnames, and misquotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot + be said that these are unimportant points." [24:1] + +Now the fact is, that in the first 105 pages of my examination of +Justin Martyr I do not once refer in my text to Dr. Westcott's work; +and when I finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing what +seemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention. +[24:2] Dr. Westcott, whilst maintaining that Justin's quotations are +derived from our Gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of the +very numerous citations in his writings "does Justin profess to give +the exact words recorded in the 'Memoirs.'" [24:3] The reason why I do +not feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of Dr. Westcott +here mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a note +quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, [24:4] which sentence he has thought it right +to omit. The note is as follows, and the sentence to which I refer is +put in italics: "For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader +may be referred to Canon Westcott's work 'On the Canon,' pp. 112-139. +Dr. Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations +are different from the text of our Gospels, but he accounts for his +variations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _It is evident that +so long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no +proof of identity is possible_." [24:5] It will be observed that +although I do not discuss Dr. Westcott's views, I pointedly refer those +who desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to his +work. Let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining the +writings of the Fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as to +what documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whether +they afford any positive evidence regarding our existing Gospels, which +can warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculous +contents of Christianity. Any argument that, although Justin, for +instance, never once names any of our Gospels, and out of very numerous +quotations of sayings of Jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything which +has an exact parallel in those Gospels, yet he may have made use of our +Gospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the Old +Testament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality of +Divine Revelation. From the point of view of such an enquiry, I +probably go much further into the examination of Justin's "Memoirs" +than was at all necessary. + +Space, however, forbids my further dwelling on these instances, +regarding which Dr. Lightfoot says: "In every instance which I have +selected"--and to which I have replied--"these omitted considerations +vitally affect the main question at issue." [25:1] If Dr. Lightfoot had +devoted half the time to mastering what "the main question at issue" +really is, which he has wasted in finding minute faults in me, he might +have spared himself the trouble of giving these instances at all. If +such considerations have vital importance, the position of the question +may easily be understood. Dr. Lightfoot, however, evidently seems to +suppose that I can be charged with want of candour and of fulness, +because I do not reproduce every shred and tatter of apologetic +reasoning which divines continue to flaunt about after others have +rejected them as useless. He again accuses me, in connection with the +fourth Gospel, of systematically ignoring the arguments of "apologetic" +writers, and he represents my work as "the very reverse of full and +impartial." "Once or twice, indeed," he says, "he fastens on passages +from such writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main +arguments remain wholly unnoticed." [26:1] I confess that I find it +somewhat difficult to distinguish between those out of which I am said +to "make capital" and those which Dr. Lightfoot characterises as "their +main arguments," if I am to judge by the "samples" of them which he +gives me. For instance, [26:2] he asks why, when asserting that the +Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited +to a single year, and his preaching as confined to Galilee and +Jerusalem, whilst the fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus +between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over three +years, and refers to three passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem: + +"Why then," he asks, + + "does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as + Matt. xiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... + _how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the + expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate + other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not + recorded in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested + also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St. + Luke, 'I do cures _to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall + be perfected,' 'I must walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day + following_,' points to the very duration of our Lord's ministry, as + indicated by the fourth Gospel. If so, the coincidence is the more + remarkable because it does not appear that St. Luke himself, while + wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical + import." [27:1] + +Now it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry +into the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escape +charges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations +of ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like +this, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task; +and "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world +itself could not contain all the books that should be written." It is +very right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any +other reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but +is it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not +exhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not +only unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his +work? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorship +of the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the +explanations offered. + +Let me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: "Why, +when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic character +of the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of +Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that +the whole texture of the language the fourth Gospel is Hebraic?" [27:2] +Now my statements with regard to the language of the Apocalypse and +fourth Gospel are as follows. Of the Apocalypse I say: "The language in +which the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New +Testament;" [28:1] and further on: "The barbarous Hebraistic Greek and +abrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of +Galilee." [28:2] Of the Gospel I say: "Instead of the Hebraistic Greek +and harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and +ignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the +purest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of +the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and +beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world," &c. [28:4] +In another place I say: "The language in which the Gospel is written, as +we have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other +Gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel according +to Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost +invariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition is +distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this +respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels." [28:5] I +believe that I do not say another word as to the texture of the language +of the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost +wholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourth +Gospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other, +and that they do not exclude Hebraisms. The views expressed might be +supported by numberless authorities. As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of +"wholly ignoring" the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived, +I will quote what Luthardt says of the two works: "The difference of the +_language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is, +of course, in a high degree remarkable ... As regards _grammar_, the +Gospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek." He +argues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter, +and that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypse +wrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written +otherwise. "The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional +emancipations from the rules of grammar" (!), in imitation of ancient +prophetic style. Presently he proceeds: "If, then, on the one hand, the +Apocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its author +was able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the +Gospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew and +Palestinian." Luthardt maintains "that the style of the Gospel betrays +the born Jew, and certainly not the Greek," but the force which he +intends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the +conclusion at which he finally arrives, that "the linguistic gulf +between the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable." [29:1] This +result from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraic +character of the Apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly different +from my representation. Take again the opinion of so eminent an +apologist as Bleek: "The language of the Apocalypse in its whole +character is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presents +grosser incorrectness than any other book of the New Testament, whilst +the language of the Gospel is certainly not pure Greek, but is beyond +comparison more grammatically correct." [29:2] I am merely replying, +to the statements of Dr. Lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regarding +the language of the fourth Gospel, or I might produce very different +arguments and authorities, but I may remark that the critical dilemma +which I have represented, in reviewing the fourth Gospel, is not merely +dependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of the +aggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the Apocalypse on the +one hand and the Gospel on the other. + +Space only allows of my referring to one other instance. [30:1] Dr. +Lightfoot says-- + + "If by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes + care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._ + the identification of Sychar and Shechem), [30:2] omitting + altogether to notice others." + +In a note Dr. Lightfoot adds:-- + + "Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar + with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not + mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that + there was no such place (as Sychar, [Greek: Suchár]), and apologetic + ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is + altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages in + the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar or + Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Géographie du Talmud,' p. 169 f. Our + author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch, ('_Zeitschr. + J. Luth. Theol._,' 1856, p. 240 f.) _He cannot have read the + article, for these Talmudic references are its main purport_." + [30:3] + +I may perhaps be allowed to refer, first, to the two sentences which +I have taken the liberty of putting in italics. If it be possible +for an apologist to apologise, an apology is surely due to the readers +of the "Contemporary Review," at least, for this style of criticism, +to which, I doubt not, they are as little accustomed as I am myself. +There is no satisfying Dr. Lightfoot. I give him references, and +he accuses me of "literary browbeating" and "subtle intimidation;" +I do not give references, and he gives me the lie. I refer to the +article of Delitzsch in support of my specific statement that he +rejects the identification of Sychar with Sichem, and apparently +because I do not quote the whole study Dr. Lightfoot courteously +asserts that I cannot have read it. [31:1] + +My statement [31:2] is, that it is admitted that there was no such place +as Sychar--I ought to have added, "except by apologists who never admit +anything"--but I thought that in saying: "and apologetic ingenuity is +severely taxed to explain the difficulty," I had sufficiently excepted +apologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are +advanced by them for that purpose. I mention that the conjecture which +identifies Sychar and Sichem is rejected by some, refer to Credner's +supposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by a +secretary in writing down the Gospel from the dictation of the Apostle, +and that Sichem is meant, and I state the "nickname" hypothesis of +Hengstenberg and others. It is undeniable that, with the exception of +some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat similar, but not +identical, name, the locality of which is quite uncertain, no place +bearing, or having borne, the designation of Sychar is known. The +ordinary apologetic theory, as Dr. Lightfoot may find "in any common +source of information,"--Dr. Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," for +instance--is the delightfully comprehensive one: "Sychar was either a +name applied to the town of Shechem, or it was an independent place." +This authority, however, goes clean against Dr. Lightfoot's assertion, +for it continues: "The first of these alternatives is now almost +universally accepted." Lightfoot [32:1] considered Sychar a mere +alteration of the name Sichem, both representing the same place. +He found a reference in the Talmud to "_Ain Socar_," and with great +hesitation he associated the name with Sychar. "May we not venture" +to render it "the well of Sychar"? And after detailed extracts and +explanations he says: "And now let the reader give us his judgment +as to its name and place, whether it doth not seem to have some relation +with our 'well of Sychar.' It may be disputed on either side." Wieseler, +who first, in more recent times, developed the conjectures of Lightfoot, +argues: "In the first place, there can be no doubt that by [Greek: +Suchar] Sichem is meant," and he adds, a few lines after: "Regarding +this there is no controversy amongst interpreters." He totally rejects +the idea of such in alteration of the name occurring in translation, +which he says is "unprecedented." He therefore concludes that in +[Greek: Suchar] we have _another_ name for Sichem. He merely submits +this, however, as "a new hypothesis to the judgment of the reader," +[32:2] which alone shows the uncertainty of the suggestion. Lightfoot +and Wieseler are substantially followed by Olshausen, [32:3] De Wette, +[32:4] Hug, [32:5] Bunsen, [32:6] Riggenbach, [32:7] Godet, [32:8] +and others. Bleek, [32:9] in spite of the arguments of Delitzsch and +Ewald, and their Talmudic researches, considers that the old town +of Sichem is meant. Delitzsch, [32:10] Ewald, [32:11] Lange, [32:12] +Meyer, [32:13] and others think that Sychar was near to, but distinct +from, Sichem. Lücke [33:1] is very undecided. He recognises the +extraordinary difference in the name Sychar. He does not favourably +receive Lightfoot's arguments regarding an alteration of the name of +Sichem, nor his conjectures as to the relation of the place mentioned +in the Talmud to Sichem, which he thinks is "very doubtful," and he +seems to incline rather to an accidental corruption of Sichem into +Sychar, although he feels the great difficulties in the way of such +an explanation. Ewald condemns the "Talmudische Studien" of Delitzsch +as generally more complicating than clearing up difficulties, and +his views as commonly incorrect, and, whilst agreeing with him that +Sychar cannot be the same place as Sichem, he points out that the +site of the _valley of the_ well of the Talmud is certainly doubtful. +[33:2] He explains his own views, however, more clearly in another +place:-- + + "That this (Sychar) cannot be the large, ancient Sikhem, which, at + the time when the Gospel was written, was probably already generally + called _Neapolis_ in Greek writings, has been already stated; it is + the place still called with an altered Arabic name _Al 'Askar_, east + of Naplûs. It is indeed difficult to prove that Sychar could stand + for Sikhem, either through change of pronunciation, or for any other + reason, and the addition [Greek: legomenê] does not indicate, here any + more than in xi. 54, so large and generally known a town as Sikhem. + or Flavia Neapolis." [33:3] + +Mr. Sanday, [33:4] of whose able work Dr. Lightfoot directly speaks, +says:-- + + "The name Sychar is not the common one, Sichem, but is a mock title + (='liar' or 'drunkard') that was given to the town by the Jews. + [33:5] This is a clear reminiscence of the vernacular that the + Apostle spoke in his youth, and is a strong touch of nature. It is + not quite certain that the name Sychar has this force, but the + hypothesis is in itself more likely than, &c.... It is not, + however, by any means improbable that Sychar may represent, not + Sichem, but the modern village Askar, which is somewhat nearer to + Jacob's Well." + +To quote one of the latest "travellers and apologists," Dr. Farrar says: +"From what the name Sychar is derived is uncertain. The word [Greek: +legomenos] in St. John seems to imply a sobriquet. It may be 'a lie,' +'drunken,' or 'a sepulchre.' Sychar may possibly have been a village +nearer the well than Sichem, on the site of the village now called El +Askar." [34:1] As Dr. Lightfoot specially mentions Neubauer, his opinion +may be substantially given in a single sentence: "La Mischna mentionne +un endroit appelé 'la plaine d'En-Sokher,' qui est peut-être le Sychar +de l'Evangile." He had a few lines before said: "Il est donc plus +logique de ne pas identifier Sychar avec Sichem." [34:2] Now, with +regard to all these theories, and especially in so far as they connect +Sychar with El Askar, let me quote a few more words in conclusion, from +a "common source of information:"-- + + "On the other hand there is an etymological difficulty in the way of + this identification. _'Askar_ begins with the letter 'Ain, which + Sychar does not appear to have contained; a letter too stubborn and + enduring to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name ... These + considerations have been stated not so much with the hope of leading + to any conclusion on the identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless, + as with the desire to show that the ordinary explanation is not + nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed to be." [34:3] + +Mr. Grove is very right. + +I have been careful only to quote from writers who are either +"apologetic," or far from belonging to heterodox schools. Is it not +perfectly clear that no place of the name of Sychar can be reasonably +identified? The case, in fact, simply stands thus:--As the Gospel +mentions a town called Sychar, apologists maintain that there must have +been such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site for +it. It is certain, however, that even in the days of St. Jerome there +was no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers have +not since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations. + +With regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notes +constitute a "subtle mode of intimidation" and "literary browbeating," +Canon Lightfoot omits to say that I as fully and candidly refer to those +who maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who support +me. It is very possible, considering the number of these references, +that I may have committed some errors, and I can only say that I shall +very thankfully receive from Dr. Lightfoot any corrections which he may +be good enough to point out. Instead of intimidation and browbeating, +my sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious further +to examine questions in debate, works in which they may find them +discussed. It is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinions +with perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed by +anyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be made +acquainted with the true state of the case. As Dr. Mozley rightly and +honestly says: "The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief +rather to the outward influence of custom and education than to any +strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many, +if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would +not find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing as +they appear to find it." [36:1] + +I shall not here follow Dr. Lightfoot into his general remarks +regarding my 'conclusions,' nor shall I proceed, in this article, to +discuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through his +misunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding the +Supreme Being. I am almost inclined to think that I can have the +pleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, before +coming to a close. When I read the curiously modified statement that I +have "studiously avoided committing myself to a belief in a universal +Father, or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God," it seems clear +to me that the _Supernatural Religion_ about which Dr. Lightfoot has +been writing cannot be my work, but is simply a work of his own +imagination. That work cannot possibly have contained, for instance, +the chapter on "Anthropomorphic Divinity," [36:2] in which, on the +contrary, I studiously commit myself to very decided disbelief in such +a "Personal God" as he means. In no way inconsistent with that chapter +are my concluding remarks, contrasting with the spasmodic Jewish +Divinity a Supreme Being manifested in the operation of invariable +laws--whose very invariability is the guarantee of beneficence and +security. If Dr. Lightfoot, however, succeeded in convicting me of +inconsistency in those final expressions, there could be no doubt which +view must logically be abandoned, and it would be a new sensation to +secure the approval of a divine by the unhesitating destruction of the +last page of my work. + +Dr. Lightfoot, again, refers to Mr. Mill's "Three Essays on Religion," +but he does not appear to have very deeply studied that work. I confess +that I do not entirely agree with some views therein expressed, and I +hope that, hereafter, I may have an opportunity of explaining what they +are; but I am surprised that Dr. Lightfoot has failed to observe how +singularly that great Thinker supports the general results of +_Supernatural Religion_, to the point even of a frequent agreement +almost in words. If Dr. Lightfoot had studied Mill a little more +closely, he would not have committed the serious error of arguing: +"Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first +part, the second and third are altogether superfluous. It is somewhat +strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole work +should be devoted to this needless task." [37:1] Now my argument in the +first part is not that miracles are impossible--a thesis which it is +quite unnecessary to maintain--but the much more simple one that +miracles are _antecedently_ incredible. Having shown that they are so, +and appreciated the true nature of the allegation of miracles, and the +amount of evidence requisite to establish it, I proceed to examine the +evidence which is actually produced in support of the assertion that, +although miracles are antecedently incredible, they nevertheless took +place. Mr. Mill clearly supports me in this course. He states the main +principle of my argument thus: "A revelation, therefore, cannot be +proved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of +supernatural facts. And we have to consider, whether it is possible to +prove supernatural facts, and if it is, what evidence is required to +prove them." [37:2] Mr. Mill decides that it is possible to prove the +occurrence of a supernatural fact, if it actually occurred, and after +showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, he says: +"Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive +evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words, +the positive evidences of miracles. And I have already admitted that +this evidence might conceivably have been such as to make the exception +equally certain with the rule." [38:1] Mr. Mill's opinion of the +evidence actually produced is not flattering, and may be compared with +my results: + + "But the evidence of miracles, at least to Protestant Christians, is + not, in our day, of this cogent description. It is not the evidence + of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand, + but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. And even in + the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts + asserted on their alleged testimony are not of the transcendent + character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the + impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be + little room for doubt. On the contrary, the recorded miracles are, + in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely + difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are + hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by + human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature." [38:2] + +It is to substantiate the statements made here, and, in fact, to +confirm the philosophical conclusion by the historical proof, that I +enter into an examination of the four Gospels, as the chief witnesses +for miracles. To those who have already ascertained the frivolous +nature of that testimony it may, no doubt, seem useless labour to +examine it in detail; but it is scarcely conceivable that an +ecclesiastic who professes to base his faith upon those records should +represent such a process as useless. In endeavouring to place me on the +forks of a dilemma, in fact, Dr. Lightfoot has betrayed that he +altogether fails to appreciate the question at issue, or to comprehend +the position of miracles in relation to philosophical and historical +enquiry. Instead of being "altogether superfluous," my examination of +witnesses, in the second and third parts, has more correctly been +represented by able critics as incomplete, from the omission of the +remaining documents of the New Testament. I foresaw, and myself to some +degree admitted, the justice of this argument; [39:1] but my work being +already bulky enough, I reserved to another volume the completion of +the enquiry. + +I cannot close this article without expressing my regret that so much +which is personal and unworthy has been introduced into the discussion +of a great and profoundly important subject. Dr. Lightfoot is too able +and too earnest a man not to recognise that no occasional errors or +faults in a writer can really affect the validity of his argument, and +instead of mere general and desultory efforts to do some damage to me, +it would be much more to the purpose were he seriously to endeavour to +refute my reasoning. I have no desire to escape hard hitting or to avoid +fair fight, and I feel unfeigned respect for many of my critics who, +differing _toto coelo_ from my views, have with vigorous ability +attacked my arguments without altogether forgetting the courtesy due +even to an enemy. Dr. Lightfoot will not find me inattentive to +courteous reasoning, nor indifferent to earnest criticism, and, whatever +he may think, I promise him that no one will be more ready respectfully +to follow every serious line of argument than the author of +_Supernatural Religion_. + + + + + +II. + +_THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES._ [Endnote 40:1] + + +This work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but +both in this country and in America and elsewhere it has been subjected +to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of +opinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to +review some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to express +my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed +generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its +completion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my +conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the +courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must +necessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such a +course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not +diminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments. + +There are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of +argument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have +objected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the proposition +advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have +been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is +only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now +I contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the +philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to +completeness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation +is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently +incredible. The counter-allegation is that, although miracles may be +antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is, +therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent +incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that +certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiry +into the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third +parts. Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until +other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. ... + +The second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has +frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to +prove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of +the second century. This error is of course closely connected with that +which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how +anyone who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of +the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The +fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the +Gospels. The evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that, +so far from their affording sufficient testimony to warrant belief in +the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently +incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the +Gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to +have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and +truth. This is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish +some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument +has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at +the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as +evidence. In a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear +and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for +the canonical Gospels falls very far short even of ordinary +requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of +serious consideration. + +It has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special +gospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in +existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief +as the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without +shaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however, +totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious +belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the +sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectors +urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual +occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out +of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took +place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious +age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful +investigation, have written an account of them, and other persons, +equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I venture +to say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referring +can have realised the nature of the question at issue, and the +relation of miracles to the order of nature. + +The last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the +statement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences +precisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how, +if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four +Gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the +second century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as +Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account +for this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature +in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready +acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment +regard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that century +either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which +concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but +the beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements of +Irenaeus and later Fathers, like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian and +Origen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except as +personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are +shown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct +trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses +for miracles. + +After having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced +against this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the +truth of its conclusions. The best and most powerful reasons which able +divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main +argument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by +inference, shown it to be unassailable. Very many of those who have +professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically +attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth +defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have +shown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicable +breach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in reference +to the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in no +sense of my own individual share in its maintenance. + +I must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who, +with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most +elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and +official zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot +and Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my +book. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of +course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in +reply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has +assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred, +although I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so +in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of +hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or +error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main +argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr. +Lightfoot, or indicated by Dr. Westcott, might be withdrawn without at +all weakening my position. These objections, I may say, refer solely to +details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent +against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed +against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such +words as "misstatements" and "misrepresentations" along the line may +have given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render +it worth while once for all to meet it in detail. + + +The first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by +Dr. Lightfoot regarding the "SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS." [45:1] I had called +attention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers, +under certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curious +limitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as +singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "In one province more +especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence +occupies a prominent place." Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this +"mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will +not be at all ambiguous." I might again agree with him, but that +unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for +the Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only +the eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere +that, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or +say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that +they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and +authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present +at least, limited to Eusebius. + +The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole +of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete +blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal +works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I +supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of +Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their +lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not +contain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary +that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main +argument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has +expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it, +and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose +that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot +says, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of +Eusebius:-- + + "This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis + of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how + much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to + be unsound. A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his + foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he + piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether + neglected to do." [46:1] + +Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his +belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:-- + + "If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part + of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces." + [46:2] + +I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must +allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the +importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the +representations made in the above passages are a very strange +exaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with +criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and +strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever, +and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after an +amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that +vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion, +proved that I have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an +inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it +was. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument +which is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding +some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be +withdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is +to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers +regarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of +three writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not +find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works +mentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing +Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in +this does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact +that Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers +contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have +we any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection of +Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius +warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these +writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical +books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend +to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was +the purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements, +which I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose +that I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any +kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand? +Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and +Dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The +reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement +Dr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _Supernatural +Religion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he has +asserted. + +We may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He +carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared +intention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention +or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of +the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words, +merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his +statement into three paragraphs. He says: + + "Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings + in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage. + + "(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any + ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([Greek: + tines hopoiais kechrêntai]); + + "(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only + professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell + about them_ ([Greek: tina peri tôn endiathêkon eirêtai]). Any + _anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the + others ([Greek: tôn mê toioutôn]), will be recorded. + + "(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will + allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise." + [48:1] + +In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we +can differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to +point out mere quotations of the books which he considered +undisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in +the case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John, +which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be +undisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That he +omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in +the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to +the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down +as much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he did +mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged +himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much +might be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little +importance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing +it. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise +include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations +of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very +subsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving it +altogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had +occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they +could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book +quoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done +nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. In the +evidential destitution of the Gospels, apologists would thankfully +have received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcely +any other evidence, but something much more definite is required to +establish the reality of miracles and Divine Revelation. If this +point be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position? +We are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the +Gospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of +Corinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the other +hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any. + +The only inference which I care to draw from the silence of Eusebius +is precisely that which Dr. Lightfoot admits that, both from his +promise and practice, I am entitled to deduce: when any ancient +writer "has something to _tell about_" the Gospels, "any _anecdote_ +of interest respecting them," Eusebius will record it. This is the +only information of the slightest value to this work which could +be looked for in these writers. So far, therefore, from producing +the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of _Supernatural +Religion_, upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself, +Dr. Lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of +Eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner. + + Before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under + discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of + Eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the + matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the Fathers have + to tell about the Gospels. I may mention, in the first place, that + Eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the + Gospels and other canonical works. [50:1] Upon two occasions he + quotes the account which Clement of Alexandria gives of the + composition of Mark's Gospel, and also cites his statements + regarding the other Gospels. [50:2] In like manner he records the + information, such as it is, which Irenaeus has to impart about the + four Gospels and other works, [50:3] and what Origen has to say + concerning them. [50:4] Interrogating extant works, we find in fact + that Eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or + interesting regarding these books from early writers. Dr. Lightfoot + says that Eusebius "restricts himself to the narrowest limits which + justice to his subject will allow," and he illustrates this by the + case of Irenaeus. He says: "Though he (Eusebius) gives the principal + passage in this author relating to the Four Gospels (Irenaeus, + _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1, 1) he omits to mention others which contain + interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the + question, _e.g._ that St. John wrote his Gospel to counteract the + errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii. + 11, 1)." [51:1] I must explain, however, that the "interesting + statement" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted, + is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only + in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it + from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground Eusebius may well + have passed it over. Dr. Lightfoot further says: "Thus too when he + quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the + Asiatic Elders who were acquainted with St. John, [51:2] he omits + the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important + bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, for it declared + that Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus + confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel against the + apparent chronology of the Synoptists." [51:3] Nothing, however, + could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to + represent any discordance between the Gospels, or to support the one + at the expense of the others. On the contrary, he enters into an + elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy + between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular + quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three + Synoptists only to write the doings of the Lord for one year after + the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the + other Gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not + embraced by the other evangelists. [51:4] Moreover, the + extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus not only contradict the + Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and Eusebius certainly could + not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although + Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the + Presbyters who were acquainted with John. + +It being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to +record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the +undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant +writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the +conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three +writers with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the "silence +of Eusebius." + +I need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very high +estimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that +he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings. +Eusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the +martyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for +the statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus, +Cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of +Joseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by +reference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a story +regarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who +were brought before Domitian; [52:4] he cites his narrative of the +martyrdom of Simeon, together with other matters concerning the early +Church; [52:5] in another place he gives a laudatory account of +Hegesippus and his writings; [52:6] shortly after he refers to the +statement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate of +Eleutherus, [52:7] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions +his observation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks about +the Church in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the general +state of the Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [52:8] I +mention these numerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed them +in turning over the pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably have +escaped me. Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works +were used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these +was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a +single remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate +inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippus +did not say anything about them. I may simply add that, as that, as +Eusebius quotes the account of Matthew and Mark from Papias, a man of +whom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in +confirmation of the statement of the Alexandrian Clement regarding the +composition of Mark's Gospel, [53:1] it would be against all reason, as +well as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that +Eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by +Hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom he +speaks with so much respect. + + I have said that Eusebius would more particularly have quoted + anything with regard to the Fourth Gospel, and for those who care to + go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. No + one can read Eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care + with which he speaks of John and his writings, and the substantially + apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any + doubts expressed regarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to + the authenticity of the Apocalypse and second and third Epistles + called by his name, with which Eusebius was so well acquainted, and + the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same John having + written both the Gospel and Apocalypse, regarding which he so fully + quotes the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, [53:2] evidently + made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to + the fourth Gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of + the essential difference between that work and the three Synoptics. + The first occasion on which he speaks of John, he records the + tradition that he was banished to Patmos during the persecution + under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes Irenaeus in + support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the + close of Domitian's reign. [54:1] He goes on to speak of the + persecution under Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command + given by that Emperor to slay all the posterity of David, [54:2] as + also Tertullian's account, [54:3] winding up his extracts from the + historians of the time by the statement that, after Nerva succeeded + Domitian, and the Senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the + latter, the Apostle John returned from exile in Patmos and, + according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at Ephesus. [54:4] He + states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist, + governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian and his + return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan + succeeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from + Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. [54:5] He then gives an account + of the writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must + be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly + put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he + gives an elaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his + account of the fourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition, + which he states to have been John's receiving the other three + Gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did + not contain a narrative of the earlier history of Christ. For this + reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings + of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison. After some very + extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says that no one who carefully + considers the points he mentions can think that the Gospels are at + variance with each other, and he conjectures that John probably + omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke had given them. + [54:6] Without further anticipating what I have to say when speaking + of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware of, and + interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings + attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting + traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities, + would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any + information on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so + frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any. + +In regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius +quotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark, +[55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrative +regarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in +confirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose +that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would not +have enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded their +information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if +Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of +the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it? +Certainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had not +only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case +which we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias had +to say about the Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his very +reference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims +of the rest. There are, however, special reasons which render it still +more certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth +Gospel,--and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have +had something, to tell about it,--Eusebius would have recorded it. The +first quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop +of Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the +words of the Presbyters, "what John or Matthew or what any other of the +disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, +disciples of the Lord, say." [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularly +points out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, the +former, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles, +evidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly +distinguished by the designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that this +proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of +John in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the +name of John. Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second +of the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation. +What an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the +subject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted +with both! His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very +moment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I +am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the +peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of +Eusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third or +fourth Gospels. + +I need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning +equally applies to his case. I have, therefore, only a few more words +to say on the subject of Eusebius. Not content with what he intended +to be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the +constructive and, "as a sober deduction from facts," makes the following +statement, which he prints in italics: "_The silence of Eusebius +respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in +its favour_." [56:1] Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by +Dr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? It means, +not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are +witnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply +that if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel +by anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century, +classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does +not undertake to mention. The value of his opinion at so late a date is +very small. + + +Professor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection +with "THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES," [57:1] which is equally abortive and +limited to details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in which +the article is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think that +readers may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversy +is carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of +misstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute +criticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression +that it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most +right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. It +is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work like +this, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it not +possible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of course +entitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even +alive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in a +spirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to be +accurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shown +that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon +himself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to +all such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, with +some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the Ignatian +Epistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to which +they commit themselves. + +Dr. Lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon +which he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its +difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. He says: +"The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the +student of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the +considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate. +A writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of +familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally +expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with +some diffidence." [58:1] My critic objects that I express my opinions +with decision. I shall hereafter justify this decision, but I would +here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for +Dr. Lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question +make it easy for me. It requires but little logical perception to +recognize that Epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult +to establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the Gospels. +The statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack, +and war is declared in the following terms: + + "The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use + such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery + of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references + to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the + author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon + it. It becomes important therefore to enquire whether the writer + shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies + us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his + arguments." [59:1] + +This sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, play +a very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to +them--and I have never desired that any should be--my argument would not +be in the least degree affected. + +The first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is +one of mere critical history. I wrote: "The strongest internal, as well +as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led +(1) the majority of critics to recognize the Syriac version as the most +genuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and (2) this is admitted +by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the +epistles." [59:2] + +Upon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:-- + + "No statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results + of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac + epistles than this." [59:1] + +It will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one +who is preaching "diffidence." When we come to details, however, +Dr. Lightfoot admits: "Those who maintain the genuineness of the +Ignatian Epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to +be almost evenly divided on this question of priority." He seems to +consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or +six critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation +of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. To the +five names quoted as recognising the priority of the Syriac Epistles +may be added those of Milman, Böhringer, de Pressensé, and Dr. Tregelles, +which immediately occur to me. But I must ask upon what ground he +limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? I +certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the +three Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority is made up partly +of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still +consider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the +Epistles. This will be evident to anyone who reads the context. With +regard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say +that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which I correct in this +edition. [60:1] Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity +prefer the Curetonian version. The Tübingen school are not unanimous +on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek, +for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the +priority of the Curetonian "im höchsten Grade wahrscheinlich." Volkmar, +Lipsius, and Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Lightfoot says: + + "The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this + point. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of + the Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, + retracted his former opinion on both questions alike." [60:2] + +Dr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has +only withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but, +whilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are +spurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He +first announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added: +"An dem relativ grössern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenüber der +kürzeren griechischen halte ich übrigens nach wie vor fest." [61:1] In +the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says +quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt überzeugt, dass der Syrer in +zahlreichen Fällen den relativ ursprünglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl. +meine Nachweise in 'Niedner's Zeitschr.' S. 15ff)." [61:2] With regard +to the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only +matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny +the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms. + +Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by +analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject +given in an earlier passage." [61:3] The "light" which he throws seems +to pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather +tempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his +attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the +accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error +and misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is +as follows:-- + + "These three Syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest + scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be + the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not + admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, + prefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider + them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As + early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were + expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed + to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and + Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be spurious,[^1] an opinion fully + shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts, + more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth + century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3) although + the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now. + That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller + examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have + confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise + that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established, + and that they can only be considered later and spurious + compositions.(4)" [62:1] + +In the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Böhringer, +Cureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot +proceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his +explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both +to call more immediate attention to the point: + + THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT. + | +_Many of the ablest critics have | "These references, it will be +pronounced them to be the only | observed, are given to illustrate +authentic Epistles of Ignatius, | _more immediately_, though perhaps +whilst others_ who do not admit | not solely, the statement that +that even these are genuine letters | writers '_who do not admit that +emanating from Ignatius, _still | even these_ (the Curetonian +prefer them_ to the version of | Epistles) _are genuine letters +seven Greek Epistles, _and consider | emanating from Ignatius, still +them the most ancient form of the | prefer them_ to the version of +letters_ which we possess. | seven Greek Epistles, and consider + | them the most ancient form of the + | letters which we possess.'" [62:2] + + +It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this +sentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian +Epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that +sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether +of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative +priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main +statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws +light" upon the point by the following remarks:-- + + THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT. + | +_Cureton, Bunsen, Böhringer, Ewald, | "The reader, therefore, will +Milman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_ | hardly be prepared to hear that +maintain both the priority and | not one of these nine writers +genuineness of the Syriac Epistles. | condemns the Ignatian letters +_Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves +distinct recognition of the letters | leaves the matter in some +in any form. Of the Vossian | uncertainty while inclining to +Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die | Bunsen's view; the other eight +Echtheit dieser Recension ist | distinctly maintain the +keineswegs sicher." He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian +priority of the Curetonian "in the | letters." [63:1] +highest degree probable." | + | +_Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles, | +as I have already said, but | +maintains the priority of the | +Syriac. | + + +Dr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of +the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury. +Not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but +would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note +was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct. + +Continuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the +ground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that so +early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed +regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, +and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared +them to be spurious, [64:1] but Dr. Lightfoot says: "The criticisms of +Calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the +Long Recension alone." [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at +that time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's objections +were not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted him. [64:3] +This is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the words of +Calvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then says: + + "The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz + did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the + contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says + that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen + the position of the Papal power, &c.'" [64:4] + +Pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for +Chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles +as evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts +of them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg +Centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing +them to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the "Long Recension were +before Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them: +"... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graece +leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non +referunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illas +epistolas, vel inde colligitur." He then shows that quotations in +ancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatius +are not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: "De Epistolis +igitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus: +transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum +regni Pontificii." [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he +"damns them with faint praise." The whole of the discussion turns upon +the word "fully," and is an instance of the minute criticism of my +critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shade +more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received +from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation. + +Dr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and +here again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as +follows: + + "(2) By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus, + Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c. + &c.; cf. Jacobson, 'Patr. Apost.' i. p. xxv; Cureton, 'Vindiciae + Ignatianae,' 1846, appendix." + +Upon this Dr. Lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:-- + + "But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they + are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted + from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the + Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.'" [65:2] + +As Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is +"the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the +whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he +persistently ignores my very careful definition of "the purpose for +which they are quoted." It is difficult, without entering into minute +classifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of +a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course +of critical judgment. Desirous, therefore, of embracing a large +class--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch, +illustrate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case +on my own side, I used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase, +decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the +Epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did +not fully accept them. I said, then, in guarded terms--and I italicise +the part which Dr. Lightfoot chooses to suppress--that "similar _doubts, +more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to. + +Dr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and +would probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel, +Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook +pronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted." So +far, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in +succession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey "considers that they have +been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the +main." Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the +text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of +the Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and +all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I +should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed +"_doubts_ more or less definite," which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot +says that Socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far +as I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." His very +denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more +or less definite." "Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether," +Dr. Lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the +Epistles with new arguments." But I have never affirmed that he +"rejected them altogether." Casaubon died before he fulfilled the +promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he +might have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does not +necessarily involve the authenticity of a document. With regard to +Rivet the case is different. I had overlooked the fact that in a +subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving Archbishop +Usher's edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion to +"that form of the Epistles." [67:1] This fact is also mentioned by +Pearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of the +writers referred to, says: "Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius +varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse: +tum aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio +Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio." He +then goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles +and the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more +decided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio +sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus +illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit." [67:3] + +The next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the preceding for +convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it +as follows:-- + + "The next note (3), p. 260, is as follows:--"'[Wotton, _Praef. + Clem. R. Epp._ 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into Original Nature, &c., + Evang. Church, Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx. p. 147; Oudin, + _Comm. de Script. Eccles._ &c. 1722, p. 88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex + Evang. Joan._ 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, + ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, _Hist. Crit. de Manichée_, &c. 1734, i. + p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, _N. Theol. Biblioth._ 1761, ii. p. 489; + [Mosheim, _De Rebus Christ._ p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in + Memorab. Eccles._ 1745, i. p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._ + 1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._ 1775, ii. p. 341; + Griesbach, _Opuscula Academ._ 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmüller, _Hist. + Interpr. Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._ 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr. + in Epist II. Petri._ 1784, _Praef._; Kestner, _Comm. de Eusebii H.E. + condit._ 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i. + p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 327, Anm. 11; + Baumgarten-Crusius, _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1832, p. 83; cf. + _Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1840, p. 79; [Niedner, _Gesch. chr. K._ + p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit._ p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._ i. + p. 115 f.]; cf. _Cureton, Vind. Ign. Append._; Ziegler, _Versuch + eine prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungsformen, u.s.w._ 1798, p. 16; + J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch üb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S. Ignat._, + in Henke's _Mag. f. Rel. Phil. u.s.w._ [1795; cf. _Biblioth. f. + Krit. u.s.w., N.T._ i. p 463 ff. _Urspr. kath. Kirche_, II. i. + p. 1 f.]; _Handbuch Chr. K.G._ i. p. 200.' + + "The brackets are not the author's, but my own. + + "This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have + made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it + stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the + by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the + gleanings of many years' reading. It is important to observe, + however, that every one of these references, except those which I + have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cureton's + 'Vindiciae Ignatianae,' where the passages are quoted in full. Thus + two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten + minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the order of the + quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in + Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing into his + notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he thought + fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among the + rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional + references on which it has no bearing?" [68:1] + +I do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might +suffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is +here advanced as an important point to observe, but I call attention to +the unfair spirit in which Dr. Lightfoot's criticisms are made. I ask +every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to +insinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references +in a note are also given by Cureton, I simply took them from him, and +thus "imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted +references," and further to insinuate that I "here and there transposed +the order" apparently to conceal the source? This is a kind of +criticism which I very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and +reverend opponent. Now, as full quotations are given in Cureton's +appendix, I should have been perfectly entitled to take references from +it, had I pleased, and for the convenience of many readers I distinctly +indicate Cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. The +fact is, however, that I did not take the references from Cureton, but +in every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note +"seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading," it certainly +does not misrepresent the fact, for I took the trouble to make myself +acquainted with the "by-paths of Ignatian literature." Now in analysing +the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they +illustrate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_," +continued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian Epistles. I am much +obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to Wotton. His name +is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list +on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and +was by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up Weismann, whose +doubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine Dr. Lightfoot's +further statements. He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian as +genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the +Vossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the +seven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: "These +three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an +older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes +found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, the +doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in +which they are known since Usher's time, are not yet entirely removed. +For no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistles +attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius." [70:1] +Thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite." +Dr. Lightfoot then continues: "Of the rest a considerable number, as, +for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander, +and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or +uncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus." +[70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my +words descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that a +leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of +these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or +less definite_," which is all I quote them for. I will take each name +in order. + +_Lardner_ says: "But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves + are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a + question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens + of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have + shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult + question." The opinion which he expresses finally is merely: + "it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main part_ + the genuine epistles of Ignatius." + +_Beausobre_ says: "Je ne veux, ni défendre, ni combattre l'authenticité + des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas véritables, elles + ne laissent pas d'être fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit + la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont été interpolées." + +_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for + the shorter (Vossian) Epistles, "many doubts arise which make them + suspicious." He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and + anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon + the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these + and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which + cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are + interpolations of a later time. He concludes with the pertinent + observation: "However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as + difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages." In fact it + would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly + doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles. + +_Griesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite," + but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy + too much space. + +_Neander._--Dr. Lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from + the English translation of the first edition of Neander's History + given by Cureton in his Appendix, has not attended to the brief + German quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the + original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from pronouncing + "in favour of a genuine nucleus," Neander might well have been + classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the Ignatian + Epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who + merely express doubt. Neander says: "As the account of the martyrdom + of Ignatius is very suspicious, so also the Epistles which suppose + the correctness of this suspicious legend do not bear throughout the + impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who + is addressing his last words to the communities. A hierarchical + purpose is not to be mistaken." In an earlier part of the work he + still more emphatically says that, "in the so-called Ignatian + Epistles," he recognises a decided "design" (_Absichtlichkeit_), and + then he continues: "As the tradition regarding the journey of + Ignatius to Rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me + for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his Epistles, which + presuppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me + with faith in their authenticity." [72:1] He goes on to state + additional grounds for disbelief. + +_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven + Epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the + extant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note + he excepts only the passages quoted by the Fathers. He seems to + agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are probably + the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being + more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic, interest. Some years + later he remarked that enquiries into the Epistles, although not yet + concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the + Shorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the + shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations + (_Ueberarbeitungen_), from interpolations. This very cautious + statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in + the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material + of the letters cannot be ascertained. + +Dr. Lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly +unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous. + +He proceeds to the next "note (4)" with the same unhesitating vigour, +and characterises it as "equally unfortunate." Wherever it has been +possible, Dr. Lightfoot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose" +of my notes, although he has recognised how important it is to ascertain +this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will +put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses +the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement +which he altogether disregards:-- + + | DR. LIGHTFOOT. + | +"Further examination and more | "References to twenty authorities +comprehensive knowledge of the | are then given, as belonging to +subject have confirmed earlier | the 'large mass of critics' who +doubts, and a large mass of critics | recognise that the Ignatian +recognise _that the authenticity of | Epistles 'can only be considered +none_ of these Epistles _can be | later and spurious compositions.'" +established_, and that they can | [73:1] +only be considered later and | +spurious compositions." | + + +There are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two +approximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the +Epistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming +to establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively +pronounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referred +to, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming +what he states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider that +a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot +be defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does +not. It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the +extant letters cannot be established without denying that there may +have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may +have been based. I will analyse the six references. + +_Bleek._--Dr. Lightfoot says: "Of these Bleek (already cited in a + previous note) expresses no definite opinion." + + Dr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek + directly, but by "Cf." merely request consideration of his opinions. + I have already partly stated Bleek's view. After pointing out some + difficulties, he says generally: "It comes to this, that the origin + of the Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful." He + refuses to make use of a passage because it is only found in the + Long Recension, and another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he + does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "The + authenticity of this Recension also is by no means certain," and, + next, the Cureton Epistles discredit the others. "Whether this + Recension (the Curetonian) is more original than the shorter Greek + is certainly not altogether certain, but ... in the highest degree + probable." In another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences + in the "Ignatian Epistles," "because it is still very doubtful how + the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these + Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions in which + we possess them." [75:1] In fact he did not consider that their + authenticity could be established. I do not, however, include him + here at all. + +_Gfrörer._--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite + this writer like the others, but by a "Cf." merely suggest a + reference to his remarks. + +_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "avows that he must 'decidedly + reject with the most considerable critics of older and more + recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that + the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a + passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well + as in the Long Recension." + + This is a mistake. Harless quotes a passage in connection with + Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: "In this + case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is + _in part_ removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have + the passage." He recognises that the completeness of the proof that + ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is + somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of + Ignatius. He did not, in fact, venture to consider the Ignatian + Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century. + +_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, "says that 'the external testimonies + oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not + satisfied with either existing recension." + + Now what Schliemann says is this: "Certainly neither the Shorter and + still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles + can lay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless, + without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. In a note he adds: + "The external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine + substratum--Polycarp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his + Epistle. But that in their present form they do not proceed from + Ignatius the contents sufficiently show." + +_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion." + + If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what + that opinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he + says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion + of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not + fully attested either. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and + least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome. "But even + if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they + would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the + second century." These last words are a clear admission of his + opinion that the authenticity cannot be established. + +_Lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in + favour of the authenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension, + but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable + to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been + able to shake off. He proceeds to point out their internal + improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed + journey, which make it "still more improbable that Ignatius himself + can really have written these Epistles in this situation." Lechler + does not consider that the Curetonian Epistles strengthen the case; + and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the + possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the + inauthenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, he at least very clearly + justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be + established. + +Now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon +my notes? Out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with +what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of Christian +literature, it appears that--much to my regret--I have inserted one name +totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been +removed by the subsequent publication of the Short Recension and +consequently erroneously classed him, and I withdraw a third whose +doubts I consider that I have overrated. Mistakes to this extent in +dealing with such a mass of references, or a difference of a shade more +or less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly +expressed, may, I hope, be excusable, and I can truly say that I am only +too glad to correct such errors. On the other hand, a critic who attacks +such references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of +"misstatement" and "misrepresentation," was bound to be accurate, and I +have shown that Dr. Lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact, +but unfair in his statements of my purpose. I am happy, however, to be +able to make use of his own words and say: "I may perhaps have fallen +into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but +the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable." [78:1] + +There are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I must +briefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, with +unhesitating boldness: + + "One highly important omission is significant. There is no mention, + from first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that + this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) _has been + felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has + raged fiercely since its publication_. One who (like our author) + maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was especially + bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most + formidable argument to his opponents. This version was given to the + world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in which Cureton's later + work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown + to him. Its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all, + or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian + question during the last quarter of a century. This is true of + Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he cites, not + less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to cite_." + [78:2] + +Now first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the priority of the +Curetonian Epistles in this book myself; indeed I express no personal +opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general +declaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my +diffident critic, that the Epistles in no form have "any value as +evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning +of the third century, even if they have any value at all." I merely +represent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot +very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the Armenian +version, and I call special attention to the passages in the above +quotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I venture +to say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "key +of the position," this version has, with some exceptions, played +a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and +as Dr. Lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I will +state how the case stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn, +Merx, and Zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them. +Denzinger, however, only refers to Petermann's publication, which +appeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press, +in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the Ignatian +question, two years after, [79:1] he does not even allude to the +Armenian version. Beyond the barest historical reference to Petermann's +work, Hilgenfeld does not discuss the Armenian version at all. So +much for the writers actually mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot. + +As for "the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question +during the last quarter of a century:" Cureton apparently did not think +it worth while to add anything regarding the Armenian version of +Petermann after its appearance; Bunsen refutes Petermann's arguments +in a few pages of his "Hippolytus;" [79:2] Baur, who wrote against +Bunsen and the Curetonian letters, and, according to Dr. Lightfoot's +representation, should have found this "the most formidable argument" +against them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even +allude to the Armenian Epistles; Ewald, in a note of a couple of lines, +[79:3] refers to Petermann's Epistles as identical with a post-Eusebian +manipulated form of the Epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his +text; Dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them; [80:1] Hefele +[80:2] supports them at somewhat greater length; but Bleek, Volkmar, +Tischendorf, Böhringer, Scholten, and others have not thought them +worthy of special notice; at any rate none of these nor any other +writers of any weight have, so far as I am aware, introduced them into +the controversy at all. + +The argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to drag +into a discussion already too long and complicated, and I refer the +reader to Bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, I may quote the +following lines: + + "But it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the Seven + Letters in Armenian, and I maintain, they prove that Cureton's text + is an incomplete extract, because, I think, I have found some Syriac + idioms in the Armenian text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply + proves, according to ordinary logic, that the Seven Letters must + have once been translated into Syriac. But how can it prove that the + Greek original of this supposed Syriac version is the genuine text, + and not an interpolated and partially forged one?" [80:3] + +Dr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to mention this argument, on the +ground that "a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the +Curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital +problem of which it was bound to give an account." Now all this is sheer +misrepresentation. I do not assume the priority of the Curetonian +Epistles, and I examine all the passages contained in the seven Greek +Epistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels. + +Passing on to another point, I say: + + "Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all + equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that + number were mentioned by Eusebius." [81:1] + +Another passage is also quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, which will be found a +little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. Upon +this he writes as follows:-- + + "This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius + with the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented + themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the + important facts bearing on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century + after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other Epistles, and + there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious + Epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. (2) The + confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in style from the seven + Epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven + Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed part of the Long + Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in anachronisms + which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of their + composition." [81:2] + +Although I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are +advanced in favour of the seven Epistles, I contend that, reduced to +its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly, +if not altogether, upon their mention by Eusebius. The very first +reason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute me is a practical +admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight Epistles +are put out of court because even Theodoret, a century after Eusebius, +does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of Eusebius," +the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely +receives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret. +Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how +changed their position would have been! The Epistles referred to would +have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has +conferred upon the rest.. The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the +controversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the +"prae-" and "post-Eusebian," making him the turning-point of the +controversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: "The +testimony of Eusebius first differentiates them." [82:1] The argument +(2 and 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and +interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same +accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian +Epistles. + +The fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second +paragraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which +I have reserved till now, as it requires more detailed notice. It is +this:-- + + "It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned + by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These + Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient + Latin MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to + be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal + honour." [82:2] + +I will at once give Dr. Lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast with +the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and +orthodoxy--Dr. Tregelles:-- + + DR. LIGHTFOOT. | DR. TREGELLES. + | +(4) "It is not strictly true that | "It is a mistake to think of _seven_ +the seven Epistles are mixed up | Ignatian Epistles in Greek having +with the confessedly spurious | been _transmitted_ to us, for no +Epistles. In the Greek and Latin | such seven exist, except through +MSS., as also in the Armenian | their having been selected by +version, the spurious Epistles | _editors_ from the Medicean MS. +come after the others; and the | which contains so much that +circumstance, combined with the | is confessedly spurious;--a fact +facts already mentioned, plainly | which some who imagine a +shows that they were a later | diplomatic transmission of +addition, borrowed from the Long | _seven_ have overlooked." [83:2] +Recension to complete the body | +of Ignatian letters." [83:1] | + + +I will further quote the words of Cureton, for, as Dr. Lightfoot +advances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the +testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own +statement. Cureton says: + + "Again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us + to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the Epistles of + St. Ignatius, as exhibited in the Medicean MS., and in the ancient + Latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the Epistles + presumed to be the genuine production of that holy Martyr are mixed + up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious. + Both in the Greek and Latin MSS. all these are placed upon the same + footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only + ground which has hitherto been assumed for their separation has been + the specification of some of them by Eusebius and his omission of + any mention of the others." [83:3] + + "The external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour + of the rejected Greek Epistles, with the exception of that to the + Philippians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which + have been received. They are found in all the manuscripts, both + Greek and Latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two + distinct and very different recensions, if we except the Epistle to + Polycarp, in which the variations are very few. Of these two + recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the + circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its + reception; and the text of the Medicean Codex and of the two copies + of the corresponding Latin version belonging to Caius College, + Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has been adopted ... + In all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the + former and latter Epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and + there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of + the Greek recension or the translator of the Latin version esteemed + one to be better or more genuine than another. Nor can any prejudice + result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, and to + Hero, from the circumstance of their being placed after the others + in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological + order, and rank after the rest as having been written from Philippi, + at which place Ignatius is said to have arrived after he had + despatched the previous Letters. So far, therefore, as the evidence + of all the existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, of both the + recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the + rejected Epistles, rather than of those which have been retained." + [84:1] + +Proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, I will very briefly +show the order in which these Epistles have been found in some of the +principal MSS. One of the earliest published was the ancient Latin +version of eleven Epistles edited by J. Faber Stapulensis in 1498, which +was at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined +table I shall mark A, [84:2] and which also exhibits the order of Cod. +Vat. 859, assigned to the eleventh century. [84:3] The next (B) is a +Greek MS. edited by Valentinus Pacaeus in 1557, [84:4] and the order at +the same time represents that of the Cod. Pal. 150. [84:5] The third +(C) is the ancient Latin translation, referred to above, published +by Archbishop Usher. [84:6] The fourth (D) is the celebrated Medicean +MS. assigned to the eleventh century, and published by Vossius in 1646. +[84:7] This also represents the order of the Cod. Casanatensis G.V. 14. +[84:8] I italicise the rejected Epistles: + + A. | B. | C. | D. | + FABER STAP. | VAL. PACAEUS. | USHER | VOSSIUS. | + | | | | + 1. Trallians | _Mar. Cass._ | Smyrn. | Smyrn. | + 2. Magn. | Trallians | Polycarp | Polycarp | + 3. _Tarsians_ | Magnes. | Ephes. | Ephes. | + 4. _Philip._ | _Tarsians_ | Magnes. | Magnes. | + 5. Philad. | _Philip. | Philad. | Philad. | + 6. Smyrn. | Philad. | Trallians | Trallians | + 7. Polycarp | Smyrn. | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | + 8. _Antioch._ | Polycarp | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | + 9. _Hero_ | _Antioch. | _Tarsians_ | _Tarsians_ | + 10. Ephes. | _Hero_ | _Antioch._ | | + 11. Romans | Ephes. | _Hero_ | | + 12. | Romans | _Mart. Ign._ | | + 13. | | Romans | | + +I have given the order in MSS. containing the "Long Recension" as well +as the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them, +the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have +an undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS., it is +obvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and +the spurious, it contains three of the false Epistles, and _does not +contain the so-called genuine Epistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistle +to the Romans, in fact, is, to use Dr. Lightfoot's own expression, +"embedded in the Martyrology," which is as spurious as any of the +epistles. This circumstance alone would justify the assertion which +Dr. Lightfoot contradicts. + +I must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn +for a short time to consider objections raised by Dr. Westcott. Whilst I +have to thank him for greater courtesy, I regret that I must point out +serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my +references, which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. Before +proceeding to them I may make one or two general observations. +Dr. Westcott says:-- + + "I may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite + capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his + while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings, + arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many + cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress + the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics + are on one side. The questions to be discussed must be decided by + evidence and by argument and not by authority." [86:1] + +Now the fact is that hitherto, in England, argument and evidence have +almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in +this work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the +Church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted +reverence. The orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a +very great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned +and independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of +little more than a passing word of pious indignation. At the same time, +therefore, that I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to decide these +questions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical +authority, I refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to +works where they may find them discussed. I must be permitted to add, +that I do not consider I uselessly burden my pages by references to +critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is +right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and +recognise that belief is not so easy and matter-of-course a thing as +they have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as +English divines have often seemed to represent it. Dr. Westcott, +however, omits to state that I as persistently refer to writers who +oppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions. + +Dr. Westcott proceeds to make the accusation which I now desire to +investigate. He says: + + "Writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion + which is involved in their characteristic assumptions. And more than + this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. One + example will show that I do not speak too strongly." [87:1] + +Dr. Westcott has scrutinised this work with great minuteness, and, as I +shall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care. +The idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by +a single instance is somewhat startling but to insinuate that a supposed +contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he +does, if I rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely +worthy of Dr. Westcott, although I am sure he does not mean to be +unfair. The example selected is as follows: + + "'It has been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at + all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December, + A.D. 115,(3) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the + amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by + the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.(4)" + [87:2] + + "'The references in support of these statements are the following:-- + + "'(3) Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. Zeitschr. f. Theol._ 1838, H.3, + p. 155, Anm.; Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, &c. p. 185; Bleek, _Einl. + N.T._ p. 144; Guericke, _Handbuch, K.G._ i. p. 148; Hagenbach, + _K.G._ i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19; Mayerhoff, + _Einl. petr. Schr._ p. 79; Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, pp. 40, + 50 f.; Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52; _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. + pp. 121 f., 136. + + "'(4) Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.; + _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.; Baur, _Ursp. d. Episc. Tüb. Zeitschr. f. + Theol._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.; _Gesch. chr. Kirche,_ 1863, i. + p. 440, Amn. 1; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i, p. 19; Scholten, _Die + ält. Zeugnisse_, p. 51 f.; cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajans u.s.w._ + 1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p, 214.'" + +Upon this Dr. Westcott remarks: + + Such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot + but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are + quoted twice over emphasises the implied precision of their + testimony as to the two points affirmed." [88:1] + +Dr. Westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact +that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes +differ in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 being +absent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which do +not appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the +place referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed +being significantly varied. For instance, in note 3, the reference to +Volkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similar +transposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations are +made in the pages. The references in note 3, in fact, are given for the +date occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4, +placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is +made. I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but +which I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3, +although it does not affect note 4. Readers are probably aware that +there has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only +as to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius. I have +in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my +omission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book. +The fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now add +to the note: "The martyrdom has been variously dated about A.D. 107, or +115-116. but whether assigning the event to Rome or to Antioch a +majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later +date." Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the +text with this, I removed it with the design of putting the statement at +the head of note 3, with reference to "A.D. 115" in the text, but +unfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of +this intention, as well as the addition of some fuller references to the +writers quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite +regret, was overlooked. The whole of the authorities in note 3, +therefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in +Antioch, although they all confirm the date, for which I really referred +to them. With this explanation, and marking the omitted references +[89:1] by placing them within brackets, I proceed to analyse the two +notes in contrast with Dr. Westcott's statements. + + NOTE 3, FOR THE DATE A.D. 115-116. + + DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS. | THE TRUTH. + | + | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. + | Zeitschr._ 1838, H.3 (p. 149, + | Anm.) Baur states as the date of + | the Parthian war, and of Trajan's + | visit to Rome, "during which the + | above order" (the sentence against + | Ignatius) is said to have been + | given, A.D. 115 and not 107. + | +"1. Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. | _Ibid._ p. 155, Anm. +Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. 3. p. 155, | +Anm. In this note, which is too | After showing the extreme +long to quote, _there is nothing_, | improbability of the circumstances +so far as I see, _in any way | under which the letters to the +bearing_ upon the history [90:1] | Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp are said +except a passing supposition 'wenn | to have been written, Baur points +... Ignatius im J. 116 an ihn | out the additional difficulty in +[Polycarp] ... schrieb ...' | regard to the latter that, if + | [Polycarp] died in A.D. 167 in his + | 86th year, and Ignatius wrote to him + | as already Bishop of Smyrna in A.D. + | 116, he must have become bishop at + | least in his 35th year, and + | continued so for upwards of half + | a century. The inference is clear + | that if Ignatius died so much + | earlier as A.D. 107 it involves + | the still greater improbability + | that Polycarp must have become + | Bishop of Smyrna at latest in his + | 26th year, which is scarcely to be + | maintained, and the later date is + | thus obviously supported. + | + | (Ibid. _Gesch. christl. Kirche_, + | i. p. 440, Anm. 1.) + | + | Baur supports the assertion that + | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in + | Antioch, A.D. 115. + | +"2. Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, x. | The same. +p. 185. 'Pergamus ad Ignatium '_qui | +circa annum cxvi obiisse dicitur_.' | + | +"3. Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144 | Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144. +[p. 142 ed. 1862] '... In den | +Briefen des Ignatius Bischofes von | Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Rome +Antiochien, der unter Trajan gegen | under Trajan, A.D. 115. +115 _zu Rom_ als Märtyrer starb.' | + | +"4. Guericke, _Handb. K.G._ i. | Guericke, _Handbuch K.G._ i. p. 148. +p. 148 [p. 177 ed. 3, 1838, the | +edition which I have used]. | Ignatius was sent to Rome, under +'Ignatius, Bischoff von Antiochien | Trajan, A.D. 115, and was destroyed +(Euseb. "H.E." iii. 36), _welcher_ | by lions in the Coliseum, A.D. 116. +wegen seines standhaften | +Bekenntnisses Christi _unter Trajan | +115 _nach Rom geführt, und hier 116 | +im Colosseum von Löwen zerrissen | +wurde_ (vgl. § 23, i.)' [where the | +same statement is repeated]. | + | +"5. Hagenbach, K.G. i. 113 f. [I | Hagenbach, _K.G._ 1869, p. 113. f. +have not been able to see the book | +referred to, but in his Lectures | "He (Ignatius) may have filled his +'Die christliche Kirche der drei | office about 40 years when the +ersten Jahrhunderte," [91:1] 1853 | Emperor, in the year 115 (according +(pp. 122 ff.), Hagenbach mentions | to others still earlier), came to +the difficulty which has been felt | Antioch. It was during his war +as to the execution at Rome, while | against the Parthians." [Hagenbach +an execution at Antioch might have | states some of the arguments for and +been simpler and more impressive, | against the martyrdom in Antioch, +and then quotes Gieseler's solution,| and the journey to Rome, the former +and passes on with 'Wie dem such | of which he seems to consider more +sei.'] | probable.] + | +"6. Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19. +p. 19. 'All [the Epistles of | +Ignatius] are posterior to Ignatius | The same as opposite. +himself, who was not thrown to the | +wild beasts in the amphitheatre at | These "peremptory statements" are +Rome by command of Trajan, but at | of course based upon what is +Antioch on December 20, A.D. 115. | considered satisfactory evidence, +The Epistles were written after | though it may not be adduced here. +150 A.D.' [For these peremptory | +statements no authority whatever is | +adduced]. | + | +"7. Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._ | Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._ +p. 79. '... Ignatius, _der | p. 79. +spätestens 117 zu Rom den | +Märtyrertod litt ..._' | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in Rome + | at latest A.D. 117. + | +"8. Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, | Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, +p. 40, mentions 115 as the year of | p. 40, states A.D. 115 as the date +Ignatius' death: p. 50 f. The | of Ignatius' death. At p. 50 he +Ignatian letters are rejected | repeats this statement, and gives +partly 'weil sie eine Märtyrerreise | his support to the view that his +des Ignatius nach Rom melden, deren | martyrdom took place in Antioch on +schon früher erkanntes | the 20th December, A.D. 115. +ungeschichtliches Wesen durch | +Volkmar's nicht ungegründete | +Vermuthung um so wahrscheinlicher | +wird. Darnach scheint nämlich | +Ignatius nicht zu Rom auf Befehl | +des sanftmüthigen Trajans, sondern | +zu Antiochia selbst, in Folge eines | +am dreizehnten December 115 | +eingetretenen Erdbebens, als Opfer | +eines abergläubischen Volkswahns am | +zwanzigsten December dieses Jahres | +im Amphitheater den wilden Thieren | +zur Beute überliefert worden zu | +sein.' | + | +"9. Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 | Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52, +[p. 52 ff.] [92:1] [This book I | affirms the martyrdom at Antioch, +have not been able to consult, but | 20th December, 115. +from secondary references I gather | +that it repeats the arguments given | +under the next reference.] | + | +"10. Volkmar, Haindb. _Einl. Apocr._| Ibid. _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ +pp. 121 f., 136. 'Ein Haupt der | p. 121 f., affirms the martyrdom +Gemeinde zu Antiochia, Ignatius, | at Antioch, 20th December, 115. +wurde, während Trajan dortselbst | +überwinterte, am 20. December den | +Thieren vorgeworfen, in Folge der | +durch das Erdbeben vom 13. December | +115 gegen die [Greek: atheoi] | +erweckten Volkswuth, ein Opfer | +zugleich der Siegesfeste des | +Parthicus, welche die Judith- | +Erzählung (i. 16) andeutet, Dio | +(c. 24 f.; vgl. c. 10) voraussetzt | +...' | + | +"P. 136. The same statement is | Ibid. p. 136. The same +repeated briefly." [93:1] | statement, with fuller + | chronological evidence. + +It will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the +later date assigned to the martyrdom, and that Baur, in the note in +which Dr. Westcott finds "nothing in any way bearing upon the history +except a passing supposition," really advances a weighty argument for it +and against the earlier date, and as Dr. Westcott considers, rightly, +that argument should decide everything, I am surprised that he has not +perceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as +statements of evidence. + +To sum up the opinions expressed, I may state that whilst all the nine +writers support the later date, for which purpose they were quoted, +three of them (Bleek, Guericke, and Mayerhoff) ascribe the martyrdom to +Rome, one (Bretschneider) mentions no place, one (Hagenbach) is +doubtful, but leans to Antioch, and the other four declare for the +martyrdom in Antioch. Nothing, however, could show more conclusively the +purpose of note 3, which I have explained, than this very contradiction, +and the fact that I claim for the general statement in the text, +regarding the martyrdom in Antioch itself in opposition to the legend of +the journey to and death in Rome, only the authorities in note 4, which +I shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with Dr. Westcott's +statements, and here I beg the favour of the reader's attention. + + NOTE 4. + + DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS. | THE TRUTH. + | +1. Volkmar: see above. | Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ + | i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f. + | + | It will be observed on turning to + | the passage "above" (10), to which + | Dr. Westcott refers, that he quotes + | a single sentence containing merely + | a concise statement of facts, and + | that no indication is given to the + | reader that there is anything beyond + | it. At p. 136 "the same statement + | is repeated briefly." Now either + | Dr. Westcott, whilst bringing a most + | serious charge against my work, based + | upon this "one example," has actually + | not taken the trouble to examine my + | reference to "pp. 121 ff., 136 f.," + | and p. 50 ff., to which he would + | have found himself there directed, + | or he has acted towards me with a + | want of fairness which I venture to + | say he will be the first to regret, + | when he considers the facts. + | + | Would it be divined from the words + | opposite, and the sentence "above," + | that Volkmar enters into an elaborate + | argument, extending over a dozen + | closely printed pages, to prove that + | Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, + | but suffered martyrdom in Antioch + | itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115, + | probably as a sacrifice to the + | superstitious fury of the people + | against the [Greek: atheoi], excited + | by the earthquake which occurred on + | the thirteenth of that month? I shall + | not here attempt to give even an + | epitome of the reasoning, as I shall + | presently reproduce some of the + | arguments of Volkmar and others in a + | more condensed and consecutive form. + | + | Ibid. _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff. + | + | Volkmar repeats the affirmations which + | he had fully argued in the above + | work and elsewhere. + | +2. "Baur, _Ursprung d. Episc., | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tüb. +Tüb. Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. H. 3, | Zeitschr._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f. +p. 149 f. | + | +"In this passage Baur discusses | Baur enters into a long and minute +generally the historical | examination of the historical +character of the martyrdom, which | character of the martyrdom of +he considers, as a whole, to be | Ignatius, and of the Ignatian +'doubtful and incredible.' To | Epistles, and pronounces the whole +establish this result he notices | to be fabulous, and more especially +the relation of Christianity to | the representation of his sentence +the Empire in the time of Trajan, | and martyr-journey to Rome. He +which he regards as inconsistent | shows that, while isolated cases of +with the condemnation of Ignatius;| condemnation to death, under +and the improbable circumstances | occurred during Trajan's reign may +of the journey. The personal | justify the mere tradition that he +characteristics, the letters, the | suffered martyrdom, there is no +history of Ignatius, are, in his | instance recorded in which a +opinion, all a mere creation of | Christian was condemned to be sent +the imagination. The utmost he | to Rome to be cast to the beasts; +allows is that he may have | that such a sentence is opposed to +suffered martyrdom." (P. 169.) | all historical data of the reign of + | Trajan, and to all that is known of + | his character and principles; and + | that the whole of the statements + | regarding the supposed journey + | directly discredit the story. The + | argument is much too long and + | elaborate to reproduce here, but I + | shall presently make use of some + | parts of it. + | +"3. Baur, _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, | "Ibid., _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1863, +1863, i. p. 440, Anm. 1. | i. p. 440, Anm. 1. + | +"'Die Verurtheilung _ad bestias_ | "The reality is 'wohl nur' that in +und die Abführung dazu nach Rom | the year 115, when Trajan wintered +... mag auch unter Trajan nichts | in Antioch, Ignatius suffered +zu ungewöhnliches gewesen sein, | martyrdom in Antioch itself, as a +aber ... bleibt ie Geschichte | sacrifice to popular fury +seines Märtyrerthums auch nach | consequent on the earthquake of +der Vertheidigung derselben von | that year. The rest was developed +Lipsius ... höchst | out of the reference to Trajan for +unwahrscheinlich. Das Factische | the glorification of martyrdom." +ist wohl nur dass Ignatius im J. | +115, als Trajan in Antiochien | +überwinterte, in Folge des | +Erdbebens in diesem Jahr, in | +Antiochien selbst als ein Opfer | +der Volkswuth zum Märtyrer | +wurde.' | + | +4. Davidson: see above. | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._, p. 19. + | + | "All (the Epistles) are posterior + | to Ignatius himself, who was not + | thrown to the wild beasts in the + | amphitheatre at Rome by command of + | Trajan, but at Antioch, on December + | 20th, A.D. 115." + | +5. Scholten: see above. | Scholten, _Die ält. Zeugnisse_, + | p. 51 f. The Ignatian Epistles are + | declared to be spurious for various + | reasons, but partly "because they + | mention a martyr-journey of Ignatius + | to Rome, the unhistorical character + | of which, already earlier recognised + | (see Baur, _Urspr. des Episc._ 1838, + | p. 147 ff., _Die Ign. Briefe_, 1848; + | Schwegler, _Nachap. Zeitalt._ ii. + | p. 159 ff.; Hilgenfeld, _Apost. + | Väter_, p. 210 ff.; Réville, + | _Le Lien_, 1856, Nos. 18-22), is + | made all the more probable by + | Volkmar's not groundless conjecture. + | According to it Ignatius is reported + | to have become the prey of wild beasts + | on the 20th December, 115, not in the + | amphitheatre in Rome by the order of + | the mild Trajan, but in Antioch + | itself, as the victim of superstitious + | popular fury consequent on an + | earthquake which occurred on the + | 13th December of that year." + | +6. "Francke, _Zur Gesch. | "Cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajan's_, +Trajan's_, 1840 [1837], p. 253 f. | 1840. This is a mere comparative +[A discussion of the date of the | reference to establish the important +beginning of Trajan's Parthian | point of the date of the Parthian +war, which he fixes in A.D. 115, | war and Trajan's visit to Antioch. +but he decides nothing directly | Dr. Westcott omits the "Cf." +as to the time of Ignatius' | +martyrdom.] | + | +7. "Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, | Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Väter_, p. 214 ff. +p. 214 [pp. 210 ff.] Hilgenfeld | Hilgenfeld strongly supports Baur's +points out the objections to the | argument which is referred to +narrative in the Acts of the | above, and while declaring the +Martyrdom, the origin of which he | whole story of Ignatius, and more +refers to the period between | especially the journey to Rome, +Eusebius and Jerome: setting | incredible, he considers the mere +aside this detailed narrative he | fact that Ignatius suffered +considers the historical character| martyrdom the only point regarding +of the general statements in the | which the possibility has been made +letters. The mode of punishment | out. He shows [97:1] that the +by a provincial governor causes | martyrology states the 20th +some difficulty: 'bedenklicher,' | December as the day of Ignatius' +he continues, 'ist jedenfalls der | death, and that his remains were +andre Punct, die Versendung nach | buried at Antioch, where they still +Rom.' Why was the punishment not | were in the days of Chrysostom and +carried out at Antioch? Would it | Jerome. He argues from all that is +be likely that under an Emperor | known of the reign and character of +like Trajan a prisoner like | Trajan, that such a sentence from +Ignatius would be sent to Rome to | the Emperor himself is quite +fight in the amphitheatre? The | unsupported and inconceivable. A +circumstances of the journey as | provincial Governor might have +described are most improbable. | condemned him ad bestias, but in +The account of the persecution | any case the transmission to Rome +itself is beset by difficulties. | is more doubtful. He shows, +Having set out these objections | however, that the whole story is +he leaves the question, casting | inconsistent with historical facts, +doubt (like Baur) upon the whole | and the circumstances of the +history, and gives no support to | journey incredible. It is +the bold affirmation of a | impossible to give even a sketch of +martyrdom 'at Antioch on the 20th | this argument, which extends over +December, A.D. 115.'" | five long pages, but although + | Hilgenfeld does not directly refer + | to the theory of the martyrdom in + | Antioch itself, his reasoning + | forcibly points to that conclusion, + | and forms part of the converging + | trains of reasoning which result in + | that "demonstration" which I + | assert. I will presently make use + | of some of his arguments. + +At the close of this analysis Dr. Westcott sums up the result as follows: + + "In this case, therefore, again, Volkmar alone offers any arguments + in support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the + references is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most, + what Scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'" [98:1] + +It is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of +the fact than the assertion that "Volkmar alone offers any arguments in +support of the statement in the text," and it is incomprehensible upon +any ordinary theory. My mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate +idea of the elaborate arguments of Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, but +I hope to state their main features, a few pages on. With regard to +Dr. Westcott's remark on the "alleged 'demonstration,'" it must be +evident that when a writer states anything to be "demonstrated" he +expresses his own belief. It is impossible to secure absolute unanimity +of opinion, and the only question in such a case is whether I refer +to writers, in connection with the circumstances which I affirm to +be demonstrated, who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it. +A critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient, +but he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all +when the elaborate reasoning of men like Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld +is referred to. Therefore, when he goes on to say: + + "It seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results. + Anyone who will candidly consider this analysis will, I believe, + agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation, which + runs through the whole work, is justly characterised as frivolous + and misleading"--[99:1] + +Dr. Westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his +own criticism of it, endorsed by Professor Lightfoot, is "frivolous and +misleading," and I venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has +been, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy +of my references. + +As Dr. Westcott does not advance any further arguments of his own in +regard to the Ignatian controversy, I may now return to Dr. Lightfoot, +and complete my reply to his objections; but I must do so with extreme +brevity, as I have already devoted too much space to this subject, and +must now come to a close. To the argument that it is impossible to +suppose that soldiers such as the "ten leopards" described in the +Epistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing +Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his +journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, as +well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various +Churches, Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments, derived from Zahn, regarding +the Roman procedure in cases that are said to be "known." These cases, +however, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which is +assumed. That Christians imprisoned for their religious belief should +receive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything +but extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many +cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The case of +Ignatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of [Greek: oi kai +euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] be that, although receiving bribes, +the "ten leopards" only became more cruel, the very reverse of the +leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the Roman procedure is described +by the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothing +approaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-Ignatius can be +pointed out in any known instance. The case of Saturus and Perpetua, +even if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being very +different; [100:1] but in fact there is no evidence whatever that the +extant history was written by either of them, [100:2] but on the +contrary, I maintain, every reason to believe that it was not. + +Dr. Lightfoot advances the instance of Paul as a case in point of a +Christian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who "writes +letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with +Churches and individuals as he desires." [101:1] It is scarcely possible +to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-Ignatius and +Paul, as narrated in the "Acts of the Apostles," although doubtless the +story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the +latter. Whilst Ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a +Christian, Paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a +Roman citizen, rescued from infuriated Jews (xxiii. 27), repeatedly +declared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds +(xxv. 25, xxvi. 31), and who might have been set at liberty but that he +had appealed to Caesar (xxv. 11 f., xxvi. 32). His position was one +which secured the sympathy of the Roman soldiers. Ignatius "fights with +beasts from Syria even unto Rome," and is cruelly treated by his "ten +leopards," but Paul is represented as receiving very different +treatment. Felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come +and minister to him (xxiv. 23), and when the voyage is commenced it is +said that Julius, who had charge of Paul, treated him courteously, and, +gave him liberty to go to see his friends at Sidon (xxvii. 3). At Rome +he was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him +(xxviii. 16), and he continued for two years in his own hired house +(xxviii. 28). These circumstances are totally different from those under +which the Epistles of Ignatius are said to have been written. + +"But the most powerful testimony," Dr. Lightfoot goes on to say, "is +derived from the representations of a heathen writer." [101:2] The case +of Peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate +than that of Paul. Of Peregrinus himself, historically, we really know +little or nothing, for the account of Lucian is scarcely received as +serious by anyone. [102:1] Lucian narrates that this Peregrinus Proteus, +a cynic philosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes, +found it convenient to leave his own country. In the course of his +travels he fell in with Christians and learnt their doctrines, and, +according to Lucian, the Christians soon were mere children in his +hands, so that he became in his own person "prophet, high-priest, and +ruler of a synagogue," and further "they spoke of him as a god, used him +as a lawgiver, and elected him their chief man." [102:2] After a time he +was put in prison for his new faith, which Lucian says was a real +service to him afterwards in his impostures. During the time he was in +prison he is said to have received those services from Christians which +Dr. Lightfoot quotes. Peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the +Governor of Syria, who loved philosophy, [102:3] and travelled about, +living in great comfort at the expense of the Christians, until at last +they quarrelled in consequence, Lucian thinks, of his eating some +forbidden food. Finally, Peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself +into the flames of a funeral pile during the Olympian games. An +earthquake is said to have taken place at the time; a vulture flew out +from the pile crying out with a human voice; and, shortly after, +Peregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment, unhurt by +the fire. + +Now this writing, of which I have given the barest sketch, is a direct +satire upon Christians, or even, as Baur affirms, "a parody of the +history of Jesus." [102:4] There are no means of ascertaining that any +of the events of the Christian career of Peregrinus were true, but it is +obvious that Lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to +prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the Christians to +Peregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of +the satire. + +There is another circumstance which must be mentioned. Lucian's account +of Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the Ignatian Epistles as +evidence for them. [103:1] "The singular correspondence in this +narrative with the account of Ignatius, combined with some striking +coincidences of expression," they argue, show "that Lucian was +acquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters." +These are the words of Dr. Lightfoot, although he guards himself, in +referring to this argument, by the words "if it be true," and does not +express his own opinion; but he goes on to say: "At all events it is +conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that Christian prisoners +were treated in the very way described in these epistles." [103:2] On +the contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. If it were true +that Lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistles +and Martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as +independent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the +treatment of Christian prisoners. On the other hand, as this cannot be +shown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historical +value. Apart from all this, however, the case of Peregrinus, a man +confined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, and +not pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of Ignatius +condemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement, +cruelly treated by the "ten leopards;" and further the liberty of +pseudo-Ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of +Peregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such free +intercourse as they represent. + +I will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of +the writers referred to in the note [104:1] attacked by Dr. Westcott, +in which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion, +demonstrate that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered +martyrdom in Antioch itself. The reader who wishes to go minutely into +the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and +I will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the +source of each argument. Where I add any particulars I will, when +necessary, give my authorities. The Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies +set forth that, during a general persecution of Christians, in Syria at +least, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan, when he wintered in Antioch +during the Parthian War, to be taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in +the amphitheatre. Instead of being sent to Rome by the short sea voyage, +he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more +difficult land route. The ten soldiers who guard him are described by +himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to +secure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but +all the way from Syria to Rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he +"fights with beasts." Notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely +receives deputations from the various Churches, who, far from being +molested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to +accompany him on his journey. He not only converses with these freely, +but he is represented as writing long epistles to the various Churches, +which, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words +which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled +with advanced views of Church government, and the dignity of the +episcopate. These circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions +of the truth of the documents and of the story which they set forth. + +When we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by +historical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is known +of the treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well as +of the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition that +Ignatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even by a +provincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to the beasts. +It is well known that under Trajan there was no general persecution of +Christians, although there may have been instances in which prominent +members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular +fury and superstition. [105:1] An instance of this kind was the martyrdom +of Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not +condemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to Rome for the +purpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? In +fact, even during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, although +Christians in Syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is +no instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent to +Rome. Such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of +Trajan and his principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by +Baur, says: "As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity mere +fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined +with clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open +demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by +persecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and +the matter by degrees come to an end." [106:1] This was certainly the +policy which mainly characterised his reign. Now not only would this +severe sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation +excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a +long journey by land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through some +of the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various +Christian communities, and address long epistles to them. With the +fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have +been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and +enthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an indication of the results +of impartial examination, to point out that Neander's inability to +accept the Ignatian Epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole +tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "We do not recognise the +Emperor Trajan in this narrative" (the martyrology), he says, "therefore +cannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as well +as that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild +beasts." [106:2] + +If, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajan +himself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor, +the story does not gain greater probability. It is not credible that +such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition +to the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides, if such a governor +did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in +Antioch? Why send the prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all the +more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the +clement Trajan. The cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_ +would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is +besides no instance known, even during the following general persecution, +of Christians being sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Rome +is in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that +Ignatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to death +during this reign, more especially if the event be associated with +some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the Christians, +to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. We are not +without indications of such a cause operating in the case of Ignatius. + +It is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch is +A.D. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian War. An earthquake +occurred on the 13th December of that year, which was well calculated to +excite popular superstition. It may not be out of place to quote here +the account of the earthquake given by Dean Milman, who, although he +mentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still +associates the condemnation of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says: +"Nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with +singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in Antioch +... At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and +destructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its most +appalling ravages--Antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for +the Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors and tributary kings +from all parts of the East. The city shook through all its streets; +houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. Many were killed: +the Consul Pedo died of his hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped +through a window, and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some +days in the open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of +the Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? This was towards +the end of January; early in February the Christian Bishop, Ignatius, +was arrested. We know how, during this century, at every period of +public calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the +panic-stricken Heathens was, 'The Christians to the lions!' It maybe +that, in Trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by +the infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice, +the execution was ordered to take place, not in Antioch, but in Rome." +[108:1] I contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution +in Antioch infinitely more probable. To continue, however: the +earthquake occurred on the 13th, and the martyrdom of Ignatius took +place on the 20th December, just a week after the earthquake. His +remains, as we know from Chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact, +interred at Antioch. The natural inference is that the martyrdom, the +only part of the Ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in Rome +but in Antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against +the [Greek: atheoi] aroused by the earthquake. + +I will now go more into the details of the brief statements I have just +made, and here we come for the first time to John Malalas. In the first +place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the 13th December. +I will quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his further important +statement. He says:-- + + "The words of John Malalas are: The same king Trajan was residing + in the same city (Antioch) when the visitation of God (_i.e._ the + earthquake) occurred. And at that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop + of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek: + emarturêse]) before him ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was + exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'" [109:1] + +Dr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement. +He argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters, +and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece +of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere +may record stupid traditions. [109:2] If the narrative of foolish +stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything +else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the Fathers are +disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. Dr. Lightfoot +also assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced +by Volkmar "receives no countenance from the story of Malalas, who +gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to +the Emperor." [109:3] On the other hand, it in no way contradicts +it, for Ignatius can only have "reviled" Trajan when brought before +him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by +the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the +Bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of Malalas +is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the +main, of course, directly supports it. Then Dr. Lightfoot actually +makes use of the following extraordinary argument:-- + + "But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is + capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some + earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation. + The words [Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used + especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense, + including other modes of witnessing to the faith: the expression + [Greek: epi Traianou] again is ambiguous and might denote either + 'during the reign of Trajan,' or 'in the presence of Trajan.' A + blundering writer like Malalas might have stumbled over either + expression." [110:1] + +This is a favourite device. In case his abuse of poor Malalas should not +sufficiently discredit him, Dr. Lightfoot attempts to explain away his +language. It would be difficult indeed to show that the words [Greek: +marturein, marturia], already used in that sense in the New Testament, +were not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius +which Malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express +martyrdom, when applied to such a case, as Dr. Lightfoot indeed has in +the first instance rendered the phrase. Even Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so +implicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points. +"The [Greek: epi autou] together with [Greek: tote] can only signify +'coram Trajano' ('in the presence of Trajan'), and [Greek: emarturaese] +only the execution." [110:2] Let anyone simply read over Dr. Lightfoot's +own rendering, which I have quoted above, and he will see that such +quibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, Malalas seems +excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority. + +That the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports of the +Fathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that +none of them had information from any other source than the Ignatian +Epistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius evidently had not. Irenaeus, +Origen, and some later Fathers tell us nothing about him. Jerome and +Chrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. Malalas is +the first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and +different authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to +Rome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalas +lived at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It is +objected that so also did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet +he repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid argument against +Malalas. Chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of +Epistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation, +and had been quoted by earlier Fathers. It is in no way surprising that, +some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly +have accepted the representations of the Epistles purporting to have +been written by the martyr himself, and that their story should have +shaped the prevailing tradition. + +The remains of Ignatius, as we are informed by Chrysostom and Jerome, +long remained interred in the cemetery of Antioch, but finally--in the +time of Theodosius, it is said--were translated with great pomp and +ceremony to a building which--such is the irony of events--had +previously been a Temple of Fortune. The story told, of course, is that +the relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the Coliseum +and carried from Rome to Antioch. After reposing there for some +centuries, the relics, which are said to have been transported from Rome +to Antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from Antioch +to Rome. [111:1] The natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead +of this double translation, the bones of Ignatius had always remained in +Antioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that they +had been brought back from Rome was merely the explanation which +reconciled the fact of their actually being in Antioch with the legend +of the Ignatian Epistles. + +The 20th of December is the date assigned to the death of Ignatius in +the Martyrology, [112:1] and Zahn admits that this interpretation is +undeniable [112:2] Moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated +on that day in the Greek Churches and throughout the East. In the Latin +Church it is kept on the 1st of February. There can be little doubt that +this was the day of the translation of the relics to Rome, and this was +evidently the view of Ruinart, who, although he could not positively +contradict the views of his own Church, says: "Ignatii festum Graeci +vigesima die mensis Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum, fuisse Acta +testantur; Latini vero die prima Februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus +reliquiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat." [112:3] Zahn +[112:4] states that the Feast of the translation in later calendars was +celebrated on the 29th January, and he points out the evident ignorance +which prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius. [112:5] + +On the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess +regarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story that +Ignatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; and +all the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistles +themselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in +Antioch. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the +statement that Ignatius was sent to Rome is more or less directly based +upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in +discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. And +what is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian Epistles +and martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as Ewald says, +are "the one more fabulous than the other." There are fifteen Epistles +all equally purporting to be by Ignatius, and most of them handed down +together in MSS., without any distinction. Three of these, in Latin +only, are universally rejected, as are also other five Epistles, of +which there are Greek, Latin, and other versions. Of the remaining seven +there are two forms, one called the Long Recension and another shorter, +known as the Vossian Epistles. The former is almost unanimously rejected +as shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics +assert that the text of the Vossian Epistles is likewise very impure. +Besides these there is a still shorter version of three Epistles only, +the Curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine +letters of Ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal +and external reasons, deny the authenticity of the Epistles in any form. +The second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but I +venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous +than in dealing with the Martyr of Antioch. The mere statement of the +simple and acknowledged facts regarding the Ignatian Epistles is ample +justification of the assertion, which so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot, +that "the whole of the Ignatian literature is a mass of falsification +and fraud." Even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as +genuine more than the three short Syriac letters [114:1] out of this +mass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. Documents +which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove +anything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian Epistles, whatever the +value of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in +favour of our Gospels, rather discredit them. + +I have now minutely followed Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott in their +attacks upon me in connection with Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles, +and I trust that I have shown once for all that the charges of +"misrepresentation" and "misstatement," so lightly and liberally +advanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. It is +impossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials, +to escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but +I have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and I venture to +think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the +actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has +been made. + + + + + +III. + +_POLYCARP OF SMYRNA._ + + +In my chapter on Polycarp I state the various opinions expressed by +critics regarding the authenticity of the Epistle ascribed to him, and +I more particularly point out the reasons which have led many to decide +that it is either spurious or interpolated. + +That an Epistle of Polycarp did really exist at one time no one doubts, +but the proof that the Epistle which is now extant was the actual +Epistle written by Polycarp is not proven. Dr. Lightfoot's essay of +course assumes the authenticity, and seeks to establish it. A large part +of it is directed to the date which must be assigned to it on that +supposition, and recent researches seem to establish that the martyrdom +of Polycarp must be set some two years earlier than was formerly +believed. The _Chronicon_ of Eusebius dates his death A.D. 166 or 167, +and he is said to have been martyred during the proconsulship of Statius +Quadratus. M. Waddington, in examining the proconsular annals of Asia +Minor, with the assistance of newly-discovered inscriptions, has decided +that Statius Quadratus was proconsul in A.D. 154-155, and if Polycarp +was martyred during his proconsulship it would follow that his death +must have taken place in one of those years. + +Having said so much in support of the authenticity of the Epistle of +Polycarp, and the earlier date to be assigned to it, it might have been +expected that Dr. Lightfoot would have proceeded to show what bearing +the epistle has upon the evidence for the existence of the Gospels and +their sufficiency as testimony for the miracles which those Gospels +record. He has not done so, however, for he is in such haste to find +small faults with my statements, and disparage my work, that, having +arrived at this point, he at once rushes off upon this side issue, and +does not say one word that I can discover regarding any supposed use of +Gospels in the Epistle. For a complete discussion of analogies which +other apologists have pointed out I must refer to _Supernatural +Religion_ itself; [116:1] but I may here state the case in the strongest +form for them. It is asserted that Polycarp in this Epistle uses +expressions which correspond more or less closely with some of those in +our Gospels. It is not in the least pretended that the Gospels are +referred to by name, or that any information is given regarding their +authorship or composition. If, therefore, the use of the Gospels could +be established, and the absolute authenticity of the Epistle, what could +this do towards proving the actual performance of miracles or the +reality of Divine Revelation? The mere existence of anonymous Gospels +would be indicated, and though this might be considered a good deal in +the actual evidential destitution, it would leave the chief difficulty +quite untouched. + + + + + +IV. + +_PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS._ + + +Dr. Lightfoot has devoted two long chapters to the evidence of Papias, +although with a good deal of divergence to other topics in the second. +I need not follow him minutely here, for I have treated the subject +fully in _Supernatural Religion_, [117:1] to which I beg leave to +refer any reader who is interested in the discussion; and this is +merely Dr. Lightfoot's reply. I will confine myself here to a few +words on the fundamental question at issue. + +Papias, in the absence of other testimony, is an important witness of +whom theologians are naturally very tenacious, inasmuch as he is the +first writer who mentions the name of anyone who was believed to have +written a Gospel. It is true that what he says is of very little +weight, but, since no one else had said anything at all on the point, +his remarks merit attention which they would not otherwise receive. + +Eusebius states that, in his last work, [117:2] "Exposition of the Lord's +Oracles" ([Greek: Logiôn kuriakôn exêgêsis]), Papias wrote as follows: + + "And the elder said this also: 'Mark, having become the interpreter + of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, + without, however, recording in order what was either said or done + by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; + but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted his + instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of + giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [or discourses] + ([Greek: all' ouch hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn] + or [Greek: logôn).' So, then, Mark made no mistake while he thus + wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his + one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any + false statement therein." [118:1] + +The first question which suggests itself is: Does the description here +given correspond with the Gospel "according to Mark" which we now +possess? Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed "without +recording in order what was either said or done by Christ"? A negative +answer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar +enquiries, and the application of the Presbyter's words to it has +consequently been denied by them. It does not follow from this that +there has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring to +a work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it. +However, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of +argument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the +value of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our +second Gospel. + +In the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, who +is said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the +circumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but that +he merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter. +It is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy +of Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false +statement, but this does not add much value to his record. No one +supposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately invented +what he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can +be received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker. +The testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition, +confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to +attest miraculous pretensions. The tradition that Mark derived his +information from the preaching of Peter is not supported by internal +evidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability. +Because some person, whose very identity is far from established, says +so, is not strong evidence of the fact. It was the earnest desire of +the early Christians to connect Apostles with the authorship of the +Gospels, and as Mark is represented as the interpreter of Peter, so +Luke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely with +Paul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reason +whatever for believing that Paul ever saw Jesus. Comparison of the +contents of the first three Gospels, moreover, not only does not render +more probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic as +it lies before us, but is really opposed to it. Into this I shall not +here go. + +Setting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicability +of the tradition recorded by Papias regarding the Gospel said to have +been written by Mark, I simply appeal to those who have rightly +appreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is required +as to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himself +seen nor heard Jesus. It is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closer +examination of the supposed evidence. + + "But concerning Matthew the following statement is made [by Papias]: + 'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the Oracles + in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.'" + [119:1] + +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:-- + + "On examining the _Diatessaron_ as translated into Latin from this + Arabic, we find in by far the greater portion of it, from the Sermon + on the Mount to the Last Supper (§§ 30-134) that Tatian, like his + brother harmonist Ammonius, took St. Matthew as the basis of his + work ... St. Mark, as might be expected, runs parallel with St. + Matthew in the _Diatessaron_, and is in a few cases the source out + of which incidents have been incorporated. St. Luke, on the other + hand, is employed by Tatian, as also in a lesser degree is St. John, + in complete defiance of chronological order." [149:1] + +This is not quite so different from the description of the _Diatessaron_ +of Ammonius, which Dr. Lightfoot quotes:-- + + "He placed side by side with the Gospel according to Matthew the + corresponding passages of the other Evangelists, so that as a + necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was + destroyed so far as regards the order (texture) of reading." [149:2] + +The next witness cited is Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, writing about A.D. +453, and I need not quote the well-known passage in which he describes +the suppression of some 200 copies of Tatian's work in his diocese, +which were in use "not only among persons belonging to his sect, but +also among those who follow the Apostolic doctrine," who did not +perceive the heretical purpose of a book in which the genealogies and +other passages showing the Lord to have been born of the seed of David +after the flesh were suppressed. It is a fact, however, which even Zahn +points out, that, in the alleged _Diatessaron_ of Ephraem, these +passages are not all excised, but still remain part of the text, [150:1] +as they also do in the Arabic translation. This is the only definite +information which we possess of the contents of the _Diatessaron_ beyond +the opening words, and it does not tally with the recently discovered +works. + +I need not further discuss here the statement of Epiphanius that some +called Tatian's _Diatessaron_ the Gospel according to the Hebrews. +Epiphanius had not seen the work himself, and he leaves us in the same +ignorance as to its character. + +It is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regarding +the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. As Dr. Donaldson said long ago: "We should +not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it +told us something reliable about itself." [150:2] + +We may now come to the documents recently published. The MS. of the +Armenian version of the commentary ascribed to Ephraem is dated A.D. +1195, and Moesinger declares that it is translated from the Syriac, of +which it is said to retain many traces. [150:3] He states that in the +judgment of the Mechitarist Fathers the translation dates from about the +fifth century, [150:4] but an opinion on such a point can only be +received with great caution. The name of Tatian is not mentioned as the +author of the "Harmony," and the question is open as to whether the +authorship of the commentary is rightly ascribed to Ephraem Syrus. In +any case there can be no doubt that the Armenian work is a translation. + +The Arabic work published by Ciasca, and supposed to be a version of +Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, is derived from two manuscripts, one +belonging to the Vatican Library and the other forwarded to Rome from +Egypt by the Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. The latter MS. +states, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an Arabic +translation of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, made from the Syriac by the +presbyter Abû-l-Pharag Abdullah Ben-at-Tib, who is believed to have +flourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one of +these notes the name of the scribe who wrote the Syriac copy is given, +which leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the end +of the ninth century. A note in the Vatican MS. also ascribes the +original work to Tatian. These notes constitute the principal or only +ground for connecting Tatian's name with the "Harmony." + +So little is known regarding the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian that even the +language in which it was written is matter of vehement debate. The name +would, of course, lead to the conclusion that it was a Greek +composition, and many other circumstances support this, but the mere +fact that it does not seem to have been known to Greek Fathers, and +that it is very doubtful whether any of them, with the exception of +Theodoret, had ever seen it, has led many critics to maintain that it +was written in Syriac. Nothing but circumstantial evidence of this can +be produced. This alone shows how little we really know of the +original. The recently discovered works, being in Arabic and Armenian, +even supposing them to be translations from the Syriac and that the +_Diatessaron_ was composed in Syriac, can only indirectly represent the +original, and they obviously labour under fatal disability in regard to +a restoration of the text of the documents at the basis of the work. +Between doubtful accuracy of rendering and evident work of revision, +the original matter cannot but be seriously disfigured. + +It is certain that the name of Tatian did not appear as the author of +the _Diatessaron_. [152:1] This is obvious from the very nature of the +composition and its object. We have met with three works of this +description and it is impossible to say how many more may not have +existed. As the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certain +that, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, the +first idea of anyone meeting with such a Harmony must have been that it +was the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. What means could there be of +correcting it and positively ascertaining the truth? It is not as if +such a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of style +and invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of Gospels already +current, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely in +details of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible its +authorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence of +an arranger's name? + +An illustration of all this is aptly supplied in the case of Victor of +Capua, and I will allow Dr. Lightfoot himself to tell the story. + + "Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an + anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels, and began in consequence + to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in Eusebius of + such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed to the + canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the + _Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that + the work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in + favour of the latter, because it does not give St. Matthew + continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists, as + Eusebius states Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in + the preface to this anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin + dress. + + "There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the + authorship; for though the work is constructed on the same general + plan as Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke + i. 1, and it does contain the genealogies. It belongs, therefore, + at least in its present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius." + [153:1] + +How this reasoning would have fallen to the ground had the Harmonist, as +he might well have done in imitation of Tatian, commenced with the +words, "In the beginning was the Word"! The most instructive part is +still to come, however, for although in May 1887 Dr. Lightfoot says: +"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship," +&c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to +the newly-discovered works, he adds: "On the relation of Victor's +_Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of +Tatian_ ... See Hemphill's _Diatessaron_." [153:2] On turning to +Professor Hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is +discovered:-- + + "It will be remembered that Victor, Bishop of Capua, in the year + 543, found a Latin Harmony or compilation of the four Gospels + without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at + once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. I have + already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of Eusebius, he + was led to ascribe his discovery to Tatian. This conclusion was + generally traversed by Church writers, and Victor was supposed to + have made a mistake. He is now, however, proved to have been a + better judge than his critics, for, as Dr. Wace was the first to + point out, a comparison of this Latin Harmony with the Ephraem + fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve + to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed _pari + passu_." [153:3] + +But how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothing +could more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about +such works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally right +about the reading _Diapente_? + +I have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing +how little we know of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and, I may add, of the +Commentary of Ephraem Syrus and the work on which it is based. It is not +at present necessary to examine more closely the text of either of the +recently published works, but, whilst leaving them to be tried by time, +I may clearly state what the effect on my argument would be on the +assumption made by Dr. Lightfoot that we have actually recovered the +_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and that it is composed upon a text more or +less corresponding with our four Gospels. Neither in the "Harmony" +itself nor in the supposed Commentary of Ephraem Syrus is the name of +any of the Evangelists mentioned, and much less is there any information +given as to their personality, character, or trustworthiness. If these +works were, therefore, the veritable _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and the +Commentary of Ephraem upon it, the Gospels would not be rendered more +credible as the record of miracles nor as witnesses for the reality of +Divine Revelation. + + * * * * * + +It may not be uninstructive if I take the liberty of quoting here some +arguments of Dr. Lightfoot regarding the authenticity of the "Letter of +the Smyrnaens," giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. [154:1] + + "The miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters as an + objection to the genuineness of the document. Yet, considering all + the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised + at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the + supernatural in the narrative. Compared with records of early + Christian martyrs, or with biographies of mediaeval saints, or with + notices of religious heroes at any great crisis, even in the more + recent history of the Church--as, for instance, the rise of + Jesuitism or of Wesleyanism--this document contains nothing which + ought to excite a suspicion as to its authenticity. + + "The one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty, is + the dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. Yet even this + might be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances + it would be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery. + But it will be shown hereafter (p. 627) that there are excellent + reasons for regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which + had no place in the original document. Beyond this we have the voice + from heaven calling to Polycarp in the stadium to play the man (§ 9). + But the very simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism. + The brethren present heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker. + This was the sole ground for the belief that it was not a human + utterance. Again, there is the arching of the fire round the martyr + like a sail swelled by the wind (§ 15). But this may be explained as + a strictly natural occurrence, and similar phenomena have been + witnessed more than once on like occasions, notably at the + martyrdoms of Savonarola and of Hooper. Again, there is the sweet + scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre (§ 15); but this + phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether from the + fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us constantly. In + another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the persecutions + at Vienne and Lyons, a little more than twenty years later, we are + told (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1, § 35) that the heroic martyrs, as they + stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet + odour of Christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had + been anointed with material ointment' ([Greek: hôste enious doxai + kai murô kosmikô kechristhai autous]). Yet there was no pyre and no + burning wood here, so that the imagination of the bystanders must + have supplied the incident. Indeed, this account of the Gallican + martyrs, indisputably written by eye-witnesses, contains many more + startling occurrences than the record of Polycarp's fate. + + "More or less closely connected with the miraculous element is the + _prophetic insight_ attributed to Polycarp. But what does this + amount to? It is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered was + accomplished and will be accomplished' (§ 16). But the future tense, + 'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not + the statement of a fact. We may, indeed, accept this qualification + as clear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his + forebodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. The only example + of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his + burning pillow, which suggested to him that he would undergo + martyrdom by fire. But what more natural than this presentiment, + when persecution was raging around him and fire was a common + instrument of death? I need not stop here to discuss how far a + prescience may be vouchsafed to God's saints. Even 'old experience' + is found to be gifted with 'something like prophetic strain.' It is + sufficient to say here again that it would be difficult to point to + a single authentic biography of any Christian hero--certainly of any + Christian hero of the early centuries--of whom some incident at + least as remarkable as this prophecy, if prophecy it can be called, + is not recorded. Pontius, the disciple and biographer of Cyprian, + relates a similar intimation which preceded the martyrdom of his + master, and adds: 'Quid hac revelatione manifestius? quid hac + dignatione felicius? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque + postmodum subsecuta sunt.' (_Vit. et Pass. Cypr._ 12, 13)" [156:1] + +I am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, written +long after the essays on _Supernatural Religion_, as it presents +Dr. Lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunity +of congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towards +freedom which it exhibits. I quite agree with him that the presence of +supernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against the +authenticity of an early Christian writing, but the promptitude with +which he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away into +naturalism, is worthy of Professor Huxley. He now understands, without +doubt, the reason why I demand such clear and conclusive evidence of +miracles, and why I refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous and +insufficient testimony. In fact, he cannot complain that I feel bound to +explain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of which +he has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing but +very sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated the +imagination and devout reverence of early Christians to such mistakes, +I resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations. + + + + + +VIII. + +CONCLUSIONS. + + +We have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or +conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we +could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which +are essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested +in any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as Divine. +It is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the +specific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance of +which is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its +doctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be +pronounced "the wildest delusions." "By no rational being could a just +and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing +announcements." + +On examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as Divine +Revelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of the +supposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would +be destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to +one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are +performed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and +are not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive +and for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed are +beyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the +human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a +nature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would disqualify the +Christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of +performing. + +The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover, is +not only without any special Divine character, being avowedly common +also to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or +details. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first +promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for +centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has +flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed +through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has +entered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and +commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian +miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to +convince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. The +selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more +characteristic of human weakness than of Divine power. + +The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that +their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance +and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or +place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and +ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There +is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate +the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so +freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the +witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of +knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No +miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent +reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of +imagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles, +connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all +miraculous pretension. + +There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural +interference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have +sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a +single valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates that, +wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure +occurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely +acknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and +'miraculous' are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion as +knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural +interference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracles +have ceased. The effect of science, however, is not limited to the +present and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and +phenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of +natural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbroken +order. Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for +ever annihilated them. + +To justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an Infinite +Personal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution +of which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is +argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate +causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this +Infinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the +Divine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably +maintained. + +The assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once limited and +unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can +possibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God working +miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order +of nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles is +further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is +avowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other +spiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to +prove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not +with the other. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design of +Revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived +from the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise +the assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious as +arguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divine +design, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible and +opposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance any +theory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the +human race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of +creation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as +inconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed +punishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them +are opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially +inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles. + +Whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena +must at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absolute +knowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and +it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of +nature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously +greater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. On +the other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of +the senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only +possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of +phenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more +especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and +superstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses only +reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the +probability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation of +miracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the +order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation +and testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world and the +circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are +examining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which +wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural. + +When we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christian +miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralising +the preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the case +turns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere +narratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years +ago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force +and validity, it is essential that their character and authorship should +be placed beyond all doubt. They must proceed from eye-witnesses capable +of estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels, +however, are strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which now +distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works +themselves and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels. Of the +writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are +even said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and +third Synoptics neither having been personal followers of Jesus nor +eye-witnesses of the events they describe. Under these circumstances, we +are wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding +the authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels. + +In examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite +principles. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the +date or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of the +Fathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for +information regarding the composition and character of these works and +even for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these +could prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at the +date of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we were +guided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are based +upon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the +Fathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a +complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and +character of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition +preserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the details +of which fully justify the conclusion that our first and second +Synoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been +composed by Matthew and Mark. There is thus no evidence whatever +directly connecting any of the canonical Gospels with the writers to +whom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no +value in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence +from the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. With +one exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a +half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous +use of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This fact, of course, +does not justify the conclusion that none of these Gospels was actually +in existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere +suggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence +shows that there is no positive proof that they were. The exception to +which we refer is Marcion's Gospel, which was, we think, based upon our +third Synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the +existence of that work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightest +information as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges against +it of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to +its infallible character. The canonical Gospels continue to the end +anonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. They do not +themselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from +the ordinary rules of criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the +inferences from external testimony. Apart from continual minor +contradictions throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to +reconcile the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth +Gospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They must be +pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by +unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous +occurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. They +cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of +Divine Revelation. + +Applying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles we arrived at similar +results. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the +third Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear. +There is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character, +but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with +miraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of the +narrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for +it any serious consideration. When the statements of the author are +compared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle Paul and with +authentic accounts of the development of the early Christian Church, it +becomes evident that the Acts of the Apostles, as might have been +supposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be +regarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends +to establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so +suspiciously abound. + +The remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separate +examination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional +testimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied belief +in such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It is +unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostles +believed in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so +supersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the Catholic +Epistles and Apocalypse. In like manner, the recognition as genuine of +four Epistles of Paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders +it superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters +attributed to him. + +The general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Church +is brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. After +elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating +conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the +unconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility with +which erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into +supernatural occurrences. + +As a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the +cardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension of +Jesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts of +these events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradict +and exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of such +stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the +statements of the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul, +which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an +Apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries +of Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient. +His so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the +belief in the Resurrection rested" consists merely of vague and +undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the +statements in the Gospels, and without other attestation than the bare +fact that it is repeated by Paul, who doubtless believed it, although he +had not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the +risen Jesus which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personal +testimony to the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of which +we have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle. +Considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul, of +which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation +in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in +all probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. The +testimony of Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to +ecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an +earnest denial of the great Christian dogma, emphasised by the active +persecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in the +case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the +fact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is +not an argument of convincing force. We were compelled to pronounce the +evidence for the Resurrection and Ascension absolutely and hopelessly +inadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must +consequently be unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, or +even conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting +the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be +accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in +the case of any common question of property or title before a legal +tribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point to be +established, the more complete must be the proof required. + +If we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations, +we find them everywhere confirmed and established. There is nothing +original in the claim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation, +and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed, +or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished. +There has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst +men which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written +books of which have not been represented as directly inspired. There +is not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has not +substantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single +phase of the supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculous +conception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, and +ascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies. +Heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held +an important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. The +same may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity, the elevated +precepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had +already suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated +by ancient sages and philosophers. That this Enquiry into the reality +of Divine Revelation has been limited to the claim of Christianity +has arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds, +and confine it to the only Religion in connection with which it could +practically interest us now. + +There is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity which +can be considered characteristic of a Religion Divinely revealed for the +salvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to a +single nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, for +whom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost +unanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued to +be repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to the +present day. After more than eighteen centuries, this Divine scheme of +salvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a +third of the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinction +could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as +Supernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower numerical +position. Sâkya Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to +Jesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even +now almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries +never sought converts in the West. [168:1] Considered as a scheme +Divinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human +race and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himself +incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the +cross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be +regarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionate +for a system of elevated morality. + +We shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teacher +may through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances +have suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to +him, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed; +but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by +the absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It +is to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that we +owe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and +people. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for the +doctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus. +The great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who had +never seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after +it had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of the +East constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow the +development of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most +instructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas +were expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents +several stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had +passed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples, +who had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life, +piously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and +humility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaborate +structure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines of +human superstition and deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy, +displaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, which +commenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity of +the Christian body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations of +churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have +naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of Immaculate +Conception and Papal Infallibility. + +It is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such +conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but +remove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before +existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a +substitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech or +silence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of Truth +cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by +considerations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious and +suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be +premature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a +humiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality +is concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments, +although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent, +have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and +even in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education and +civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How far +Christianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not here +venture adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, that +whatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due, not +to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic +Theology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science. +Wherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. Science has +been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of +Genesis. Almost every great advance which has been made towards +enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema +of the Church. Submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been +tacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind. +"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not +enter into the kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of +Doctors of Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of +assimilation by the virile mind. Even now, the friction of theological +resistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The early +enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to +the simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the +world; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higher +principles do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals +sufficiently observed. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating +rules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divine +institution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than +it must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of +social experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a theological +question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have +finally expired. Morality, which has ever changed its complexion and +modified its injunctions according to social requirements, will +necessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent +on religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed +to say: _Cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right +principles, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost, +for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation +which can as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever +been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any +degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the +true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action, +we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and +punishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as +essential to Christianity. + +As to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by +such an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by any +means be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? The +Revelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an +illusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it and +its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the +traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and +green shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no cool +fountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his +wearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank. +Rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the +desert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek not +vainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other +horizons and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging to +ecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search +elsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think of +the man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two make +four from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? Whose +fault is it that two and two do make four and not five? Whose folly is +it that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five +than to know that they only make four? This folly is theirs who +represent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special +illusions, which they have religiously adopted. To discover that a +former belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of +existence. The sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we +believe it to be noon or not. It is idle and foolish, if human, to +repine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at +least we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream. + +The argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation is +necessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelation +are required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived +from the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing +absolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, must +our moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the +expectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through +natural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished +as supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that we +desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount to +complaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. To +attain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should +be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may be +certain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason is +as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know all that man requires +to know. + +We gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is human +invention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from the +incubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divine +government which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the +place of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic +visions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either of +unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered +from quibbling discussions of the meaning of [Greek: aiônios], and our +eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured +in hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end of +life there may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light +of apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable +horror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helpless +victims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous +representations at all as part of the contents of "Divine Revelation," +it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways +of the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the +perfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call +wrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But now +the reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns +to the Jewish superstition from which it sprang. + +As myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be +baseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless pass +away, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although +it cannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled for +so long the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank can +rightly be maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguish +between what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from +characterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us. +That mysterious Unknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply +an impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which +excludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope. + + + + + +[ENDNOTES] + + +[1:1] Originally published in the _Fortnightly Review_, January 1, 1875. + +[4:1] _On the Canon_, p. 65. + +[4:2] _Ibid._ p. 61, note 2. + +[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, "Indeed, from the +similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards +referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this +interpretation is one from Papias' _Exposition_." + +[4:4] _Reliq. Sacrae_, i. p. 10 f. + +[4:5] _Lehre Pers. Christ_, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62. + +[5:1] _Theol. Jahrb. _1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1. + +[5:2] _Synops. Evang._, Proleg. xxxi. + +[5:3] _Komm. Ev. des Johannes_, p. 6 f. + +[5:4] _Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh._ p. 116 f. + +[5:5] _Basilides_, p. 110 f. + +[5:6] _Zeitschr. für wiss. Theol._ 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219, +Anm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., "Die Evangelien," p. 339, Anm. 4. + +[6:1] _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 72. + +[6:2] _Th. Stud. u. Krit._ 1866, p. 674. + +[6:3] _Intro. N.T._ ii. p. 424 f. + +[6:4] _Ibid._ ii. p. 372. + +[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with +such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part +itself. + +[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition. + +[9:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 4, n. 1; _Essays on S.R._ +p. 4, n. 4. + +[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after the +example of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he +introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within +brackets. + +[10:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 231 f. + +[10:2] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 5 f.; _Essays on S.R._ p. 7. + +[10:3] _S.R._ ii. 228 ff. + +[11:1] _Wann wurden_, u.s.w., p. 73 f. + +[11:2] The translation in Scholten's work is substantially the same as +Tischendorf's, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which +is of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is +treated as a contemporary. + +[12:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 229 ff. + +[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation +attacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho +logos edêlou], "Scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase +from Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is +surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that +Prudentius Maranus renders the words "... scripturam declarare," and +Otto "... effatum declarare." They occur in reference to passages from +the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is +[Greek: kata korrhês propêlakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is +rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. The +phrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all' +hostis se rhapisei epi tên dexian sou siagona, strepson autô kai tên +allên], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata +korrhês prospêlakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tês kephalês +meros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of +the linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but to +those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other +side, _of the head_," &c., inserting the three Greek words after +"side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the +sake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised. +Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." The passage +from Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the +uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which +reason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into +the text. It was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense and +meaning of "quem caederet," but I ventured to paraphrase the words and +their context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say, +the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian +proceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel +of Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the +assurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could +have doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores." + +[14:1] I altered "certainly" to "probably" in the second edition, +as Dr. Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of +exaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that +I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting +the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence +of the words given above. + +[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my +having been misled by the "nur" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic +might have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument, +but also to _De Wette_, who has "... dass er _nie_ Joh. dem Taüfer wie +der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptistês] giebt" (_Einl. N.T._ +p. 230), and to _Bleek_, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (_Beiträge_, +p. 178, and _Einl. N.T._ p. 150), which could not be misread. + +[16:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 15; _Essays on S.R._ p. 21 f. + +[16:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above +reference, but does not quote the passage. + +[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias. + +[17:1] _Canon_, p. 255 f. + +[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by +Tischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius. + +[18:1] Luthardt, _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 85 f. + +[19:1] _Strom._ vii. 17, § 106. + +[19:2] _Canon_, p. 255. + +[19:3] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 16 [_Essays_, p. 22]. + +[20:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11]. + +[21:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11]. + +[21:2] _A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine_, i. 184 f. I do not +refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view. + +[22:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11 f.] + +[23:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 11]. + +[23:2] _S.R._ i. p. 441. + +[24:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 12 f.] + +[24:2] _S.R._ i. p. 387 ff. + +[24:3] _Canon_, p. 112 f. + +[24:4] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9, note [_ibid._ p. 12, n. 4]. + +[24:5] _S.R._ i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, "can hardly +suppose" that "I had read the passage to which I refer." + +[25:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13]. + +[26:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13]. + +[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that +such a passage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the passage +Matt. xi. 27 _seq_. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the +contrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the +allusion to Paul's teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even +by his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the "pillar" +Apostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument +regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.) +sufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers. + +[27:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 11 f. [_ibid._ p. 16]. + +[27:2] _Ibid._ p. 10 [_ibid._ p. 14]. + +[28:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 402. + +[28:2] _Ibid._ ii. p. 406. + +[28:3] See Acts iv. 13. + +[28:4] _S.R._ ii. p. 410. + +[28:5] _Ibid._ ii, p. 413. + +[29:1] _Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang._ 1874, pp. 204-7. + +[29:2] _Einl. N.T._ p. 625. + +[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being +silent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the +Apocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point +out its existence, as, for instance, _S.R._ ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c., +and I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the +doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it +had already been applied to Christianity in N.T. writings before the +composition of that work. + +[30:2] _S.R._ ii. 421. + +[30:3] _Contemporary Review_, 12 f. [_ibid._ p. 17 f.] + +[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more +especially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, "Nur zwei neuere +Ausleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit." + +[31:2] _S.R._ 421 f. + +[32:1] _Works_, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; _Horae et Talm._ p. 938. + +[32:2] _Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv._ p. 256, Anm. 1. + +[32:3] _Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh._, umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f. + +[32:4] _Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N.T._ i. 3, p. 84. + +[32:5] _Einl. N.T._ ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to +the sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32). + +[32:6] _Bibelwerk_, iv. 219. + +[32:7] _Die Zeugnisse_, p. 21. + +[32:8] _Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean_, i. p. 475 f. + +[32:9] _Einl. N.T._ p. 211. + +[32:10] _Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche_, 1856, p. 240 ff. + +[32:11] _Die Joh. Schriften_, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ +viii. p. 255 f.; cf. _Gesch. v. Isr._ v. p. 348, Anm. 1. + +[32:12] _Das Ev. Joh._ p. 107. + +[32:13] _Comm. Ev. n. Joh._ p. 188 f. + +[33:1] _Comm. Ev. des Joh._ i. p. 577 f. + +[33:2] _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ viii. p. 255 f. + +[33:3] _Die Joh. Schr._ i. p. 181, Anm. 1. + +[33:4] _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, 1872, p. 92. + +[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: "This may perhaps be called the +current explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who +deny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf. +Keim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with +El Askar, &c." _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, p. 93, +note 1. + +[34:1] _Life of Christ_, i. p. 206, note 1. + +[34:2] _La Géographie du Tulmud_, p. 170. + +[34:3] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 1395 f. + +[36:1] _Bampton Lect._ 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4. + +[36:2] _S.R._ i. p. 61 ff. + +[37:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 19 [_ibid._ p. 26 f.] + +[37:2] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 216 f. + +[38:1] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 234. + +[38:2] _Ibid._ p. 219. + +[39:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 477. + +[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition. + +[45:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (_Ibid._ p. 32 ff.) + +[45:2] _S.R._ i. p. 212. + +[46:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 172 [_ibid._ p. 36]. + +[46:2] _Ibid._ p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51]. + +[48:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 173 [_ibid._ p. 38]. + +[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ i. +p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used +the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and +not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this +edition I have made my meaning clear. + +[50:1] Cf. _H.E._ iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c. + +[50:2] _Ibid._ ii. 15, vi. 14. + +[50:3] _Ibid._ v. 8. + +[50:4] _Ibid._ vi. 25. + +[51:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 181 [_ibid._ p. 48]. + +[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, _Adv. +Haer._ iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5. + +[51:3] _Ibid._ p. 181. + +[51:4] _H.E._ iii, 24. + +[52:1] _H.E._ ii. 23. + +[52:2] _Ibid._ iii. 11. + +[52:3] _Ibid._ 16. + +[52:4] _Ibid._ 19, 20. + +[52:5] _Ibid._ 32. + +[52:6] _Ibid._ iv. 8. + +[52:7] _Ibid._ 11. + +[52:8] _Ibid._ iv. 22. + +[53:1] _H.E._ ii. 15. + +[53:2] _Ibid._ vii. 25. + +[54:1] _H.E._ iii. 18. + +[54:2] _Ibid._ 19, 20. + +[54:3] _Ibid._ 20. + +[54:4] _Ibid._ 20. + +[54:5] _Ibid._ 23. + +[54:6] _Ibid._ 24. + +[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to +the accidental insertion of the words "and the Apocalypse" (_S.R._ i. +p. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and +the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements. + +[55:2] _H.E._ iii. 39. + +[56:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51]. + +[57:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [_ibid._ p. 59 +ff.] + +[58:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 339 [_ibid._ p. 62]. + +[59:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 340 [_ibid._ p. 63]. + +[59:2] _S.R._ i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of +reference. + +[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: "The reading 'most' is +explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint" (p. 63, n. 2). +Not so at all. "A slip of the pen" is a very different thing. + +[60:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 341 [_ibid._ p. 64]. + +[61:1] _Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens_, p. 7, Anm. 1. + +[61:2] _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have +added that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the +text, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his _Apostolic Fathers_ (part ii. +vol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this +appears clearly enough in the quotations I have made. + +[61:3] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 841 [_ibid._ p. 65]. + +[62:1] _S.R._ i. p. 259 f. + +[62:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p, 65 f.] + +[62:3] _S.R._ i. p. 259. + +[63:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr. +Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works, +where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian +Epistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages +further on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the +authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority +of these letters [_ibid._ p. 66]. + +[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: "Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii +nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum +impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (_Inst. Chr. +Rel._ i. 13, § 39). + +[64:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. + +[64:3] _Op. Theolog._ 1652, 11, p. 1085. + +[64:4] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p. 66]. +Dr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's _Vindiciae Ignat._ p. 28 (ed. Churton). + +[65:1] _Exam. Concilii Tridentim_, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89). + +[65:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 [_ibid._ p. 67]. + +[67:1] _Critici Sacri_, lib. ii cap. 1; _Op. Theolog._ 1652, ii. p. 1086. + +[67:2] _Vind. Ignat._ 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._ i. +p. xxxviii. + +[67:3] _Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch._ v. 8 § 1, edit. +Venetiis, 1757, vol. vii. + +[68:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 f. [_ibid._ p. 67 f.] + +[70:1] _Die Kirche im ap. Zeit._ p. 322. + +[70:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 344 f. [_ibid._ p. 69.] + +[72:1] _K.G._ 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1. + +[73:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 345 [_ibid._ p. 69]. + +[75:1] _Einl. N.T._ pp. 144 f., 233. + +[78:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51]. + +[78:2] _Ibid._, February 1875, p. 346 [_ibid._ p. 71]. + +[79:1] _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1851, p. 389 ff. + +[79:2] _Hippolytus and his Age_, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff. + +[79:3] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._ vii. p. 321, Anm. 1. + +[80:1] _Patr. Apost. Proleg._ 1863, p. xxx. + +[80:2] _Patr. Apost._ ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in +the _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight +lines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.) + +[80:3] _Hippolytus_, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff. + +[81:1] _S.R._ i. p. 264. + +[81:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72]. + +[82:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 348 [_ibid._ p. 74]. + +[82:2] _S.R._ i. p. 265. + +[83:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72 f.] +Dr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "The +Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is +embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection +in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before +the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles +come together, and _are followed_ by the confessedly spurious Epistles +in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are +together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn, +_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 111." + +[83:2] Note to Horne's _Int. to the Holy Scriptures_, 12th ed. 1869, iv. +p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original. + +[83:3] _The Ancient Syrian Version_, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f. + +[84:1] _Corpus Ignat._ p. 338. + +[84:2] _Ibid._ p. ii. + +[84:3] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvi. + +[84:4] Cureton, _Corp. Ign._ p. iii. + +[84:5] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvii f. + +[84:6] Cureton, _Corp. Ignat._ p. vii f. + +[84:7] _Ibid._ p. xi; Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii; +Jacobson, _Patr. Ap._ i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, _Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart._, +Amstel. 1646. + +[84:8] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lxi. + +[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'" pref. to _Hist. of the +Canon_, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix. + +[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S.R.,'" preface to _Hist. of Canon_, 4th ed. +p. xix f. + +[87:2] _S.R._ i. p. 268. + +[88:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx. + +[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first +quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second +note, but accidentally left out of note 3. + +[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call +attention to the assertion opposed to what I find in the note. + +[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an +extended form. The work I quote is entitled _Kirchengeschichte der +ersten sechs Jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is +part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth +century. + +[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference, +but I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to +'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different +object of the two notes. + +[93:1] _On the Canon_, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f. + +[97:1] P. 213. + +[98:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a +note, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display +of learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second +edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn." I might +reply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had +reached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which +reference was necessary. + +[99:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv. + +[100:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, _Mart. Rom._ +1631, p. 152. + +[100:2] Cf. Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, iii. p. 3. + +[101:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 349 [_ibid._ p. 75]. + +[101:2] _Ibid._ p. 350 [_ibid._ p. 76]. + +[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether +inauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, _Peregrinus Proteus_, 1879. + +[102:2] _De Morte Peregr._ 11. + +[102:3] _Ibid._ 14. + +[102:4] _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, i. p. 410 f. + +[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, _Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish. +Textes d. Ignat. Briefe_, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, _Ignatius v. Ant._, +1873, p. 517 ff. + +[103:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 350 f. [_ibid._ p. 77]. + +[104:1] _S.R._ i. p. 268, note 4. + +[105:1] Dean Milman says: "Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the +almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the +Christians." In a note he adds: "Excepting of Ignatius, probably of +Simeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of +Trajan."--_Hist. of Christianity_, 1867, ii. p. 103. + +[106:1] _K.G._ 1842, i. p. 171. + +[106:2] _Ibid._ i. p. 172, Anm. + +[108:1] _Hist. of Christianity_, ii. p. 101 f. + +[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 352 +[_ibid._ p. 79]. + +[109:2] _Ibid._ p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 80]. + +[109:3] _Ibid._ p. 352 [_ibid._ p. 79 f.]. + +[110:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 81]. + +[110:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 66, Anm. 3. + +[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these +relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards +translated to Antioch. + +[112:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ pp. 59, 69. + +[112:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p, 68. + +[112:3] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of +the martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December. +(_Mart. Rom._ pp. 87, 766 ff.) + +[112:4] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2. + +[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in +Chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere +allusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently" +the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been +celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is +nothing else to establish it. + +[114:1] _St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians_, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note. +Cf. _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 358 f. (_Ibid._ p. 88) + +[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in +these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition. + +[117:1] i. p. 443 ff. + +[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work"] + +[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's _Essays_, p. 163. + +[119:1] _Essays_, p. 167 f. + +[120:1] _Essays_, p. 170. + +[121:1] _Ibid._ p. 169. + +[122:1] _Essays_, p. 170. + +[122:2] _Ibid._ p. 170. + +[122:3] _Ibid._ p. 170. + +[123:1] _Ibid._ p. 152. + +[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f. + +[124:2] _Ibid._ p. 171. + +[124:3] _Ibid._ p. 172 f. + +[124:4] i. p. 463 f. + +[125:1] _Ibid._ p. 173. + +[125:2] i. 236 ff. + +[125:3] Note. + +[125:4] Note. + +[126:1] _Clem. Rom._ § 53, § 45; ibid. 173 f. + +[130:1] I. p. 210 f. + +[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases. + +[133:1] _S.R._ i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here. + +[134:1] _S.R._ i. p. 363 f. + +[135:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 221, n. 7. + +[135:2] _Ibid._ p. 220. + +[135:3] _Ibid._ ii. p. 169 f. + +[136:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 226. + +[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito, +Dr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from _Supernatural Religion_ the +following words: "They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except +that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore, +is worthless." The passage appeared thus in the _Contemporary Review_, +and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume +that the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: "They have +no attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is +unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (_S.R._ ii. p. 181). If +Dr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the +press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable +to those who have none. + +[137:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 182 ff. + +[137:2] _Ibid._ p. 239. + +[137:3] _Ibid._ p. 248. + +[140:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 198 ff., iii. 24 ff. + +[140:2] _Ibid._ 255. + +[141:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200. + +[142:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200 f. + +[143:1] _S.R._ iii. p. 257 + +[143:2] _Ibid._ p. 25 f. + +[144:1] _Ibid._, p. 259. + +[145:1] II. pp. 144 ff., 372 ff. + +[146:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 29. (_Ibid._ p. 227 f.) + +[146:2] I need not quote the references which Dr. Lightfoot gives in a +note. + +[146:3] _Ibid._ p. 278. + +[147:1] _Unters. N.T. Kanons_, 1881, p. 15 f. + +[147:2] _On the Canon_, 1875, p. 318, n. 3. Cf. 1881, p. 322, n. 3. + +[147:3] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, 1888, p. xiv. + +[147:4] _Ibid._ p. 279. + +[148:1] Dr. Lightfoot's rendering, p, 280. Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. +p. 159 sq. + +[148:2] _Ibid._ p. 280 f. + +[149:1] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxx. + +[149:2] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne.) The translation is by +Dr. Lightfoot (_l.c._ p. 281, n. 1). + +[150:1] Zahn, _Tatian's Diatessaron_, 1881, p. 70 f. + +[150:2] _Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr._ iii. p. 26. + +[150:3] Moesinger, _Evang. Concor. Expositio_, 1876, p. x f. + +[150:4] _Ibid._ p. xi. + +[152:1] Zahn, _l.c._ p. 38. + +[153:1] _Ibid._ p. 286. + +[153:2] _Ibid._ p. 288. The italics are mine. + +[153:3] Hemphill, _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxiv. + +[154:1] I have already referred to this document further back, p. 136. + +[156:1] Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, part ii. 1885, p. 598 ff. + +[168:1] By recent returns the number of the professors of different +religions is estimated as follows: + + Parsees 150,000 + Sikhs 1,200,000 + Jews 7,000,000, being about ½ per cent. + of the whole. + Greek Catholics 75,000,000 " 6 " " + Roman Catholics 152,000,000 " 12 " " + Other Christians 100,000,000 " 8 " " + Hindus 160,000,000 " 13 " " + Muhammedans 155,000,000 " 12½ " " + Buddhists 500,000,000 " 40 " " + Not included in the above 100,000,000 " 8 " " + ----------- + 1,250,350,000 + +We have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an +excellent little work recently published by the Society for the +Propagation of Christian Knowledge--_Buddhism_, by T.W. Rhys Davids, p. 6. + + + + + +INDEX. + + +Acts of the Apostles, evidence for, 142 f., 164 +Addai, Doctrine of, 147 +Ammonius, _Diatessaron_ of, 148 +Anger, 5 +Antioch, earthquake at, in A.D. 115, 107 f. +Aphthonius; see Elias of Salamia +Apocalypse, allusion to Paul in, 26, n. 2; language of, 27 ff. +Apollinaris, Claudius; date, 137; evidence for Gospels, 137 +Aristion, 55 +Ascension, evidence for, 165 +Aubertin, 65, 66 +Aucher, 145 + +Baronius, 112 n. 3 +Bar-Salibi, Dionysius, 147 f. +Basnage, 65, 66 +Baumgarten-Crusius, 70, 72 +Baur, does not allude to Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 79; + date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 f.; place of his martyrdom, 95 ff.; + on Peregrinus Proteus, 102 +Beausobre, 70, 71 +Bleek, 7, 32, 60, 62, 68, 74, 80, 90, 93 +Blondel, 65, 66 +Bochart, 65, 66 +Böhringer, 59, 62, 63, 80 +Bunsen, 32, 62, 63, 79 + +Calvin, 64 +Campianus, 64 +Casaubon, 65, 67 +Celsus, Origen on, 10 ff., 146 +Centuriators, Magdeburg, 64 +Chemnitz, 62, 64, 65 +Christianity, claim to be Divine Revelation, not original, 166 f.; + history and achievements opposed to this claim, 167 f.; + census of religions, 168 n. 1; transformation of, 169 f. +Chrysostom, 108, 110, 111 f. +Ciasca, alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 145, 150 f. +Clement of Alexandria, on Basilides, 18 f. +Cleophas, 52 +Cook, 65, 66 +Criticism, attitude towards, 1 +Cureton, 62, 63, 65, 68 ff., 79, 83 f. +Curetonian version of Ignatian Epistles, 59 ff., 67 ff., 74 ff., 80 f. + +Dallaeus, 62 +Davidson, Dr., on passage of Irenaeus, 6; date of martyrdom of + Ignatius, 91; place of the martyrdom, 96 +Delitzsch, 30, 31, 32 +Denzinger, 78, 79, 80 n. 2, 103 n. 1 +Diatessaron of Ammonius, 148 ff., 152 ff. +Diatessaron of Elias of Salamia, 148 ff. +Diatessaron of Tatian, 145 ff.; alleged Armenian version of Ephraem's + commentary on it, 145 f.; Latin translation by Aucher and + Moesinger, 145 f.; Arabic version of, translated by Ciasca, 145 f.; + Eusebius on it, 146 f.; did Eusebius directly know it? 146 f.; + Bar-Salibi on it, 147 f.; Theodoret suppresses it, 149 f.; the + genealogies of Jesus said to be excised, 149 f.; not all suppressed + in Armenian and Arabic works, 150; called 'Gospel according to the + Hebrews,' 150; Epiphanius had not seen it, 150; we could not identify + it, 150; Arabic version of Ciasca, 150 f.; said to be translated + from Syriac, 151; its date, 151; ascribed in notes to Tatian, 151; + original language of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 151 f.; Gospel texts + in alleged versions affected by repeated translation, 151 f.; name of + Tatian not on original work, 152; could it be identified? 152 ff.; + case of Victor of Capua, 152 ff.; was he mistaken? 153 f.; Dr. Wace + says: No, 153; value of evidence if alleged versions be genuine, 154 +Dionysius of Corinth, 56 +Doctrine of Addai, 147 +Donaldson, Dr., on Epistle of Polycarp, 21; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 150 +Dorner, 4 +Dressel, 79 + +Ebrard, 7 +Elias of Salamia, his _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; he finds fault with Canons + of Eusebius, 148 +Ephraem Syrus, his Commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; + date, 148; alleged Armenian version of his Commentary, 145; date + of the MS., 150; translated from Syriac, 150; evidence, 150 f.; + Tatian's name not mentioned, 150; value as evidence if genuine, 154 +Epiphanius, 150 +Eusebius, on Papias, 7; silence of, 45 f.; my only inference from silence + of, 50 f.; procedure of, 50 f.; his references to Hegesippus, 52 ff.; + his references to John, 53 ff.; on Claudius Apollinaris, 137; + on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.; + on _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, 148 f.; his Epistle to Carpianus, + 148 f., 152 +Ewald, 32, 33, 62, 63, 79, 141 + +Farrar, Dr., 34 +Francke, 97 + +Gfrörer, 7, 75 +Glaucias, 15, 18, 19, +Gobarus, Stephanus, 23 +Godet, 32 +Gospel, the Fourth, contrast with Synoptics, 26 f., 26 n. 2; + Hebraic character of its language, 27 ff.; + Eusebius regarding it, 49, 51, 53 f., 55 ff.; + evidence to it of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; + alleged evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; + alleged evidence of Polycrates 137; + supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 144; + Tatian's _Diatessaron_ said to begin with it, 147 f.; + insufficiency of evidence for it, 162 ff.; + its contents cannot be reconciled with Synoptics, 163 f. +Gospels, Justin's use of, 24 f.; evidence of alleged quotations, 24 f.; + object in examining evidence for, 37 ff., 41 ff.; numerous Gospels + circulating in early Church, 131 f.; anonymous quotations not + necessarily from canonical, 131 ff.; illustrations of this, 132 ff.; + evidence of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; evidence of Melito of + Sardis, 135 f.; evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; evidence of + Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 141 ff.; principles on which evidence + is examined, 162; insufficiency of evidence for, 162 ff. +Greet, Hofstede de, 5, 9 n. 2 +Grove, 34 +Guericke, 7, 90 f., 93 + +Hadrian, 12 +Hagenbach, 91, 93 +Harless, 75 +Hase, 76 +Hebrews, Gospel according to the, 122 f., 123, 150 +Hefele, 80 +Hegesippus, his attitude to Paul, 23; references to him by Eusebius, + 52 ff.; on Simeon, 52 +Hemphill, Professor, did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_? + 146 f.; on Arabic _Diatessaron_, 149; it takes Matthew as basis, 149; + its substantial identity with Victor's _Diatessaron_, 153 +Hengstenberg, 31 +Hilgenfeld, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 f.; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79; + place and date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 97 ff.; on Papias and + Matthew's Hebrew "Oracles," 122; Protevangelium Jacobi, 142; + Eusebius on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f. +Hippolytus, 17 f. +Holtzmann, 135, 147 +Hug, 32 +Humfrey, 66 + +Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp regarding him, 20 ff.; date and place of + his martyrdom, 87, 94 ff.; his alleged martyr-journey, 94 ff.; + his treatment during it, 99 f.; compared with Paul's journey, 100 f.; + compared with case of Peregrinus, 101 ff.; reasons opposed to + martyr-journey to Rome, and for martyrdom in Antioch, 104 ff.; + remains of Ignatius, 111 ff.; martyrologies, 112 f. +Ignatian Epistles, Dr. Lightfoot on, 57 ff.; critics on priority of + Syriac version, 59 ff., long recension, 64 ff.; Vossian Epistles, + 67 ff.; version of Ussher, 67; Armenian version, 78 ff.; Eusebian + Epistles, 80 ff.; their order in MSS., 82 ff.; their value as + evidence, 113 f. +Irenaeus, 3 ff. + +Jacobson, 65 +Jerome, 110 f. +John, references of Eusebius, 53 ff.; Papias and Presbyters on, 55 f.; + double use of name, 55 f. +Justin Martyr, his quotations, 28 ff. + +Keim, 135 +Kestner, 70, 71 +Kirchhofer, 7 + +Lange, 32 +Lardner, 70, 136 +Lechler, 76 f. +Lightfoot, 32, 33 +Lightfoot, Dr., objectionable style of criticism, 1 f., 3, 7 f., + 13 n. 1, 14 f., 15 n. 1, 20, 21, 23 f., 24 n. 5, 25 f., 27, 30 f., + 36, 44 f., 46 f., 57 ff., 68 ff.; 73 ff., 144; on a passage of + Irenaeus, 3 ff.; discussion of date of Celsus, 9 ff.; Dr. Westcott + on Basilides, 15 ff.; weightier arguments of apologists, 20 ff.; + on Epistle of Polycarp, 20 f., object of Papias' work, 22; on + Hegesippus and Apostle Paul, 22 f.; on Justin Martyr's quotations, + 23 ff.; on duration of ministry of Jesus, 26 f.; on Hebraic character + of language of the Fourth Gospel, 27 ff.; identification of Sychar, + 30 ff.; on argument of S.R., 36 ff.; on silence of Eusebius, 45 ff.; + the intention of Eusebius, 44 f.; procedure of Eusebius, 50 f.; + silence of Eusebius as evidence for Fourth Gospel, 56 f.; on + Ignatian Epistles, 57 ff.; on view of Lipsius, 60 f.; misstatements + regarding references in S.R., 61 ff.; differentiation of Ignatian + Epistles, 80 ff.; their position in MSS., 82 ff.; on martyr-journey + and treatment of Ignatius, 99 f.; compared with Apostle Paul's, + 100 f.; compared with case of Peregrinus Proteus, 101 ff.; on + John Malalas, 108 ff.; on Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of his + Epistle, 115; does not examine alleged quotations of Gospels, 116; + on Papias of Hierapolis, 117 ff.; Papias on Mark, 117 f.; Papias on + Matthew, 119 ff.; on accuracy of Papias, 120 ff.; translation of + Hebrew Oracles of Matthew, 121 f.; on Gospel according to the + Hebrews, 122 f.; on nature of Oracles of Matthew, 124 ff.; can + Oracles include narrative? 125 f.; his misapprehension of argument + of S.R., 129 ff.; on Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; on Melito of + Sardis, 135 f.; erroneous quotation from S.R., 136, n. 2; on + Claudius Apollinaris, 137 f.; on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on + Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 139 ff.; on the "testimony of Zacharias," + 140 ff.; alleged reference to Acts, 142 f.; alleged reference + to Fourth Gospel, 144; Tatian's Diatessaron, 145 f.; on Eusebius's + mention of it, 146 f.; did he directly know it? 146; on Doctrine + of Addai, 147; it mentions Tatian's Diatessaron, 147; Dionysius + Bar-Salibi on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; on _Diatessaron_ of + Ammonius, 148; quite different from Tatian's work, 148 f.; + similarity to Arabic version asserted by Hemphill, 149; case of + Victor of Capua, 152 f.; Victor must have been mistaken, 153 f.; + Victor not mistaken after all, 153; on Letter of the Smyrnaens, + 154 ff.; a short way with its miraculous elements, 154 f.; + practically justifies procedure of "Supernatural Religion," 156 +Lipsius, on Ignatian Epistles, 60 f., 63, 78, 79; on Martyrdom of + Polycarp, 135 +Logia, meaning of, in N.T., 124 ff. +Logos doctrine in Apocalypse, 30 n. 1 +Lucian, 12, 101 f. +Luke, Gospel according to, supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne + and Lyons, 141 f.; its use in _Diatessaron_, 149, 153 +Luthardt, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Basilides, 18; on language of + Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 28 ff. + +Magdeburg Centuriators, 64 +Malalas, John, on martyrdom of Ignatius, 108 ff. +Marcus Aurelius, 105 f. +Mark, Presbyters and Papias on, 117 f.; not eye-witness but interpreter + of Peter, 118 f.; value of his Gospel as evidence, 118 f.; use in + _Diatessaron_, 149 +Matthew, Presbyters and Papias on, 55 f., 119 ff.; wrote oracles in + Hebrew, 119 ff.; when translated, 121 ff.; use in _Diatessaron_ + of Ammonius, 148; also in that of Tatian, 149 f. +Matthias, 16, 18 +Mayerhoff, 91, 93 +Melito of Sardis, 135 f. +Merx, 78, 79 +Meyer, on passage of Irenaeus, 5, 82 +Mill, on miracles, 36 ff. +Milman, 59, 62, 63, 105 n. 1, 107 f. +Moesinger, Ephraem's Commentary, 145 f., 150 +Mozley, on belief, 35 f. + +Neander, 70, 71 f., 105 f. +Neubauer, 30, 34 +Nicephorus, 111 n. 1 + +Olshausen, 7, 32 +"Oracles," meaning of, 124 ff. +Origen, on Celsus, 10 f. + +Papias of Hierapolis, alleged quotations from him, 3 ff.; object of + his work, 22; references of Eusebius to him, 54 ff.; words of + the Presbyters, 55 f.; double reference to "John," 55 f.; he had + nothing to tell of Fourth Gospel, 55 ff.; on Mark's Gospel, 117 ff.; + on Matthew's Hebrew Oracles, 119 f.; value of his evidence for the + Gospels, 127 f. +Parker, 65, 66 +Paul, Apostle, his treatment as prisoner compared to that of Ignatius, + 100 f.; unconscious testimony regarding the supernatural, 165; + his testimony for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f. +Pearson, 67 +Peregrinus Proteus, 102 ff. +Perpetua, Saturus and, 100 +Petau, 65, 67 +Petermann, 78 ff. +Phillips, 147 +Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of martyrdom, 115 +Polycarp, Martyrdom of, 135, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot's short way with + the miraculous elements, 154 f. +Polycrates of Ephesus, date, 137; evidence for Fourth Gospel, 137 +Pressensé, de, 60 +Protevangelium Jacobi, 142 +Quadratus, Statius, date of proconsulship, 115 + +"Religion, Supernatural," argument of, 36 ff., 40 ff., 129 ff.; canons + of criticism, 130 ff.; the "testimony of Zacharias," Epistle of + Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.; was Eusebius directly acquainted with + Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 146 f.; argument of S.R. practically + justified by Dr. Lightfoot, 154 ff.; conclusions of, 157 ff.; + evidence of Divine Revelation which is necessary, 157; miracles + as evidence destroyed by doubtful source, 157 f.; miraculous evidence + not original, 158 f., stream of miraculous pretension, 158; true + character of miracles betrayed, 158 f.; origin of belief in + supernatural interference, 159; assumptions to justify miracles, + 159 f.; an Infinite Personal God, 159 f.; Divine design of + Revelation, 160; miracles antecedently incredible, 160 f.; + evidence for the Christian miracles, 161 f.; principles upon which + evidence examined, 162; evidence for Gospels, 162 f.; evidence for + Acts, 164; the remaining books of New Testament, 164 f.; evidence + of Paul, 165; evidence for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.; + results tested by general considerations, 166 ff.; claim of + Christianity to be Divinely revealed not original, 166 f.; + history and achievements of Christianity opposed to it, 167 f.; + census of religions, 168 n. 1; how far the Great Teacher was + misunderstood, 168 f.; transformation of Christianity, 169 f.; + alleged objections to disturbing belief, 169 f.; objections not + valid, 170 f.; argument that Divine Revelation is necessary to + man, 172 f.; we gain more than we lose by finding our theology + to be mere human inventions, 173 f. +Resurrection, evidence for, 165 f. +Reuss, 147 +Riggenbach, on passage of Irenaeus, 5; on Sychar, 32 +Ritschl, 62, 63 +Rivet, 64, 65, 67 +Routh, on passage of Irenaeus, 4 +Ruinart, anniversary of Ignatius, 112 +Rumpf, 60 + +Sanday, 33 +Saumaise, 65, 66 +Schleimann, 75 f. +Scholten, 11 n. 2, 80, 91 f., 96 f., 147 +Schroeckh, 70, 71 +Schürer, 135 +Shechem, 30 ff. +Simeon, 52, 105 f. +Smyrnaens, Letter of, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot as a sceptical critic, 154 f. +Socinus, 65 +Stephen, 142 f. +Sychar, 30 ff. +Synoptics, contrasted with Fourth Gospel, 26 f. + +Tatian's _Diatessaron_: see Diatessaron +Theodoret, the Ignatian Epistles, 81 +Thiersch, 7, 70 +Tholuck, 7 +Tischendorf, on passage of Irenaeus, 3 ff.; passage of Celsus, 11 ff.; + does not notice Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 80; + "testimony of Zacharias," in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 142; + it is a reference to the Protevangelium Jacobi, 142 +Trajan, in connection with the martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 ff., 105 ff. +Tregelles, 60, 82 f. + +Uhlhorn, 78, 79 +Ussher, 67 + +Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of, 139 ff.; date, 139; the "testimony of + Zacharias," 140 f.; alleged quotations of Acts, 142 ff.; value of + evidence, 143; Dr. Lightfoot on fragrance of the martyrs, 155 +Volkmar, on Celsus, 10 ff.; on Ignatian Epistles, 60; does not notice + Armenian version, 80; date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 92 f.; place + of martyrdom, 94 ff. +Vossian Epistles of Ignatius, 67 f. + +Wace, Dr., 153 +Waddington, 115 +Weiss, 62, 63, 78, 79 +Weissmann, 69 f. +Westcott, Dr., criticisms on, 3 f.; on Papias, 4; on Basilides, 15 ff.; + on Justin Martyr's quotations, 23 ff.; on "Supernatural Religion," + 44 f.; misstatements regarding notes, 85 ff.; was Eusebius directly + acquainted with Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147 +Wette, de, 7, 15 n. 1, 32 +Wieseler, 31, 32 +Wotton, 68, 69 + +Zacharias, the testimony of, Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff. +Zahn, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79, 99 n. 1, + 101; on John Malalas, 110, date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 112; + did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147; passages + regarding descent of Jesus from David not all excised from alleged + Armenian version, 150 +Zeller, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays +by Walter R. Cassels + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS *** + +***** This file should be named 13433-8.txt or 13433-8.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/3/4/3/13433/ + +Produced by David Ross <davidross@despammed.com> and Freethought +Archives <freethought@despammed.com> + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/13433-8.zip b/old/13433-8.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..e3402c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/13433-8.zip diff --git a/old/13433.txt b/old/13433.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ff0237c --- /dev/null +++ b/old/13433.txt @@ -0,0 +1,6867 @@ +Project Gutenberg's A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays, by Walter R. Cassels + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays + +Author: Walter R. Cassels + +Release Date: September 24, 2004 [EBook #13433] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS *** + + + + +Produced by David Ross <davidross@despammed.com> and Freethought +Archives <freethought@despammed.com> + + + + + + +PRODUCTION NOTES: +A Reply to Dr Lightfoot's Essays +by Walter R. Cassels (4-Sep-1826 to 10-Jun-1907) +Originally published anonymously in 1889. +Transcribed by the Freethought Archives <freethought@despammed.com> + + + + + +A REPLY TO DR LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS + +BY THE AUTHOR OF "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" + + + + +LONDON +1889 + + + + + +INTRODUCTION. + + +I sincerely rejoice that Dr. Lightfoot has recovered from his recent +illness. Of this restoration the vigorous energy of his preface to his +republication of the Essays on _Supernatural Religion_ affords decided +evidence, and I hope that no refutation of this inference at least may +be possible, however little we may agree on other points. + +It was natural that Dr. Lightfoot should not be averse to preserving +the more serious part of these Essays, the preparation of which cost +him so much time and trouble; and the republication of this portion +of his reply to my volumes, giving as it does the most eloquent and +attractive statement of the ecclesiastical case, must be welcome to +many. I cannot but think that it has been an error of judgment and +of temper, however, to have rescued from an ephemeral state of existence +and conferred literary permanence on much in his present volume, +which is mere personal attack on his adversary and a deliberate attempt +to discredit a writer with whom he pretends to enter into serious +argument. A material part of the volume is composed of such matter. +I cannot congratulate him on the spirit which he has displayed. +Personally I am profoundly indifferent to such attempts at detraction, +and it is with heretical amusement that I contemplate the large part +which purely individual and irrelevant criticism is made to play +in stuffing out the proportions of orthodox argument. In the first +moment of irritation, I can well understand that hard hitting, even +below the belt, might be indulged in against my work by an exasperated +theologian--for even a bishop is a man,--but that such attacks should +not only be perpetuated, but repeated after years of calm reflection, +is at once an error and a compliment for which I was not prepared. +Anything to prevent readers from taking up _Supernatural Religion_: +any misrepresentation to prejudice them against its statements. +Elaborate literary abuse against the author is substituted for the +effective arguments against his reasoning which are unhappily wanting. +In the later editions of my work, I removed everything that seemed +likely to irritate or to afford openings for the discussion of minor +questions, irrelevant to the main subject under treatment. Whilst +Dr. Lightfoot in many cases points out such alterations, he republishes +his original attacks and demonstrates the disparaging purpose of +his Essays by the reiterated condemnation of passages which had so +little to do with the argument that they no longer exist in the +complete edition of Supernatural Religion. Could there be more +palpable evidence of the frivolous and superficial character of +his objections? It is not too much to say that in no part of these +Essays has Dr. Lightfoot at all seriously entered upon the fundamental +proposition of _Supernatural Religion_. He has elaborately criticised +notes and references: he has discussed dates and unimportant details: +but as to the question whether there is any evidence for miracles and +the reality of alleged Divine Revelation, his volume is an absolute +blank. Bampton Lecturers and distinguished apologetic writers have +frankly admitted that the Christian argument must be reconstructed. +They have felt the positions, formerly considered to be impregnable, +crumbling away under their feet, but nothing could more forcibly expose +the feebleness of the apologetic case than this volume of Dr Lightfoot's +Essays. The substantial correctness of the main conclusions of +_Supernatural Religion_ is rendered all the more apparent by the +reply to its reasoning. The eagerness with which Dr. Lightfoot and +others rush up all the side issues and turn their backs upon the +more important central proposition is in the highest degree remarkable. +Those who are in doubt and who have understood what the problem to +be solved really is will not get any help from his volume. + +The republication of these Essays, however, has almost forced upon me +the necessity of likewise republishing the reply I gave at the time of +their appearance. The first Essay appeared in the _Fortnightly Review_, +and others followed in the preface to the sixth edition of _Supernatural +Religion_, and in that and the complete edition, in notes to the +portions attacked, where reply seemed necessary. I cannot hope that +readers will refer to these scattered arguments, and this volume is +published with the view of affording a convenient form of reference +for those interested in the discussion. I add brief notes upon those +Essays which did not require separate treatment at the time, and such +further explanations as seem to me desirable for the elucidation of my +statements. Of course, the full discussion of Dr. Lightfoot's arguments +must still be sought in the volumes of _Supernatural Religion_, but I +trust that I may have said enough here to indicate the nature of his +allegations and their bearing on my argument. + +I have likewise thought it right to add the Conclusions, without any +alteration, which were written for the complete edition, when, for the +first time, having examined all the evidence, I was in a position to +wind up the case. This is all the more necessary as they finally show +the inadequacy of Dr. Lightfoot's treatment. But I have still more been +moved to append these Conclusions in order to put them within easier +reach of those who only possess the earlier editions, which do not +contain them. + +Dr. Lightfoot again reproaches me with my anonymity. I do not think that +I am open to much rebuke for not having the courage of my opinions; but +I may distinctly say that I have always held that arguments upon very +serious subjects should be impersonal, and neither gain weight by the +possession of a distinguished name nor lose by the want of it. I leave +the Bishop any advantage he has in his throne, and I take my stand upon +the basis of reason and not of reputation. + + + + + + CONTENTS + + + I. A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION" + + II. THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES + + III. POLYCARP OF SMYRNA + + IV. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS + + V. MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES + + VI. THE CHURCHES OF GAUL + + VII. TATIAN'S "DIATESSARON" + +VIII. CONCLUSIONS + + [ENDNOTES] + + INDEX. + + + + + +I. + +_A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S FIRST ESSAY ON "SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."_ +[Endnote 1:1] + + +The function of the critic, when rightly exercised, is so important, +that it is fitting that a reviewer seriously examining serious work +should receive serious and respectful consideration, however severe his +remarks and however unpleasant his strictures. It is scarcely possible +that a man can so fully separate himself from his work as to judge +fairly either of its effect as a whole or its treatment in detail; and +in every undertaking of any magnitude it is almost certain that flaws +and mistakes must occur, which can best be detected by those whose +perception has not been dulled by continuous and over-strained +application. No honest writer, however much he may wince, can feel +otherwise than thankful to anyone who points out errors or mistakes +which can be rectified; and, for myself, I may say that I desire nothing +more than such frankness, and the fair refutation of any arguments which +may be fallacious. + +Reluctant as I must ever be, therefore, to depart from the attitude of +silent attention which I think should be maintained by writers in the +face of criticism, or to interrupt the fair reply of an opponent, the +case is somewhat different when criticism assumes the vicious tone of +the Rev. Dr. Lightfoot's article upon _Supernatural Religion_ in the +December number of the "Contemporary Review." Whilst delivering severe +lectures upon want of candour and impartiality, and preaching temperance +and moderation, the practice of the preacher, as sometimes happens, +falls very short of his precept. The example of moderation presented to +me by my clerical critic does not seem to me very edifying, his +impartiality does not appear to be beyond reproach, and in his tone I +fail to recognise any of the [Greek: epieikeia] which Mr. Matthew Arnold +so justly admires. I shall not emulate the spirit of that article, and +I trust that I shall not scant the courtesy with which I desire to treat +Dr. Lightfoot, whose ability I admire and whose position I understand. +I should not, indeed, consider it necessary at present to notice his +attack at all, but that I perceive the attempt to prejudice an audience +and divert attention from the issues of a serious argument by general +detraction. The device is far from new, and the tactics cannot be +pronounced original. In religious as well as legal controversy, the +threadbare maxim: "A bad case--abuse the plaintiff's attorney," remains +in force; and it is surprising how effectual the simple practice still +is. If it were granted, for the sake of argument, that each slip in +translation, each error in detail and each oversight in statement, with +which Canon Lightfoot reproaches _Supernatural Religion_ were well +founded, it must be evident to any intelligent mind that the mass of +such a work would not really be affected; such flaws--and what book of +the kind escapes them--which can most easily be removed, would not +weaken the central argument, and after the Apologist's ingenuity has +been exerted to the utmost to blacken every blot, the basis of +Supernatural Religion would not be made one whit more secure. It is, +however, because I recognise that, behind this skirmishing attack, there +is the constant insinuation that misstatements have been detected which +have "a vital bearing" upon the question at issue, arguments "wrecked" +which are of serious importance, and omissions indicated which change +the aspect of reasoning, that I have thought it worth my while at once +to reply. I shall endeavour briefly to show that, in thus attempting to +sap the strength of my position, Dr. Lightfoot has only exposed the +weakness of his own. Dr. Lightfoot somewhat scornfully says that he has +the "misfortune" "to dispute not a few propositions which 'most +critics' are agreed in maintaining." He will probably find that "most +critics," for their part, will not consider it a very great misfortune +to differ from a divine who has the misfortune of differing on so many +points, from most critics. + +The first and most vehement attack made upon me by Dr. Lightfoot is +regarding "a highly important passage of Irenaeus," containing a +reference to some other and unnamed authority, in which he considers +that I am "quite unconscious of the distinction between the infinitive +and indicative;" a point upon which "any fairly trained schoolboy" +would decide against my reasoning. I had found fault with Tischendorf +in the text, and with Dr. Westcott in a note, for inserting the words +"say they," and "they taught," in rendering the oblique construction of +a passage whose source is in dispute, without some mark or explanation, +in the total absence of the original, that these special words were +supplementary and introduced by the translator. I shall speak of +Tischendorf presently, and for the moment I confine myself to Dr. +Westcott. Irenaeus (_Adv. Haer._ v. 36, 1) makes a statement as to what +"the presbyters say" regarding the joys of the Millennial kingdom, and +he then proceeds (Sec. 2) with indirect construction, indicating a +reference to some other authority than himself, to the passage in +question, in which a saying similar to John xiv. 2 is introduced. This +passage is claimed by Tischendorf as a quotation from the work of +Papias, and is advanced in discussing the evidence of the Bishop of +Hierapolis. Dr. Westcott, without any explanation, states in his text: +"In addition to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, Papias appears +to have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. John;" [4:1] and in a +note on an earlier page: "The passage quoted by Irenaeus from 'the +Elders' may probably be taken as a specimen of his style of +interpretation;" [4:2] and then follows the passage in which the +indirect construction receives a specific direction by the insertion of +"they taught." [4:3] Neither Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Lightfoot makes the +slightest allusion to the fact that they are almost alone in advancing +this testimony, which Dr. Lightfoot describes as having "a vital +bearing on the main question at issue, the date of the fourth Gospel." +The reader who had not the work of Irenaeus before him to estimate the +justness of the ascription of this passage to Papias, and who was not +acquainted with all the circumstances, and with the state of critical +opinion on the point, could scarcely, on reading such statements, +understand the real position of the case. + +Now the facts are as follows: Routh [4:4] conjectured that the whole +passage in Irenaeus was derived from the work of Papias, and in this he +was followed by Dorner, [4:5] who practically introduced the suggestion +to the critics of Germany, with whom it found no favour, and no one whom +I remember, except Tischendorf and perhaps Professor Hofstede de Groot, +now seriously supports this view. Zeller, [5:1] in his celebrated +treatise on the external testimony for the fourth Gospel, argued against +Dorner that, in spite of the indirect construction of the passage, there +is not the slightest certainty that Irenaeus did not himself interpolate +the words from the fourth Gospel, and he affirmed the fact that there is +no evidence whatever that Papias knew that work. Anger, [5:2] discussing +the evidence of the presbyters quoted by Irenaeus in our Gospels, refers +to this passage in a note with marked doubt, saying, that _fortasse_ (in +italics), on account the chiliastic tone of the passage, it may, as +Routh conjectures, be from the work of Papias; but in the text he points +out the great caution with which these quotations from "the presbyters" +should be used. He says, "Sed in usu horum testimoniorum faciendo +cautissime versandum est, tum quod, nisi omnia, certe pleraque ab +Irenaeo _memoriter_ repetuntur, tum quia hic illic incertissimum est, +utrum ipse loquatur Irenaeus an presbyterorum verba recitet." Meyer, +[5:3] who refers to the passage, remarks that it is doubtful whether +these presbyters, whom he does not connect with Papias, derived the +saying from the Gospel or from tradition. Riggenbach [5:4] alludes to it +merely to abandon the passage as evidence connected with Papias, and +only claims the quotation, in an arbitrary way, as emanating from the +first half of the second century. Professor Hofstede de Groot, [5:5] the +translator of Tischendorf's work into Dutch, and his warm admirer, +brings forward the quotation, after him, as either belonging to the +circle of Papias or to that Father himself. Hilgenfeld [5:6] distinctly +separates the presbyters of this passage from Papias, and asserts that +they may have lived in the second half of the second century. Luthardt, +[6:1] in the new issue of his youthful work on the fourth Gospel, does +not attempt to associate the quotation with the book of Papias, but +merely argues that the presbyters to whom Irenaeus was indebted for it +formed a circle to which Polycarp and Papias belonged. Zahn [6:2] does +not go beyond him in this. Dr. Davidson, while arguing that "it is +impossible to show that the four (Gospels) were current as early as A.D. +150," refers to this passage, and says: "It is precarious to infer with +Tischendorf either that Irenaeus derived his account of the presbyters +from Papias's book, or that the authority of the elders carries us back +to the termination of the apostolic times;" and he concludes: "Is it not +evident that Irenaeus employed it (the word 'elders') loosely, without +an exact idea of the persons he meant?" [6:3] In another place Dr. +Davidson still more directly says: "The second proof is founded on a +passage in Irenaeus where the Father, professing to give an account of +the eschatological tradition of 'the presbyter, a disciple of the +Apostles,' introduces the words, 'and that therefore the Lord said, "In +my Father's house are many mansions."' Here it is equally uncertain +whether a work of Papias be meant as the source of the quotation, and +whether that Father did not insert something of his own, or something +borrowed elsewhere, and altered according to the text of the Gospel." +[6:4] + +With these exceptions, no critic seems to have considered it worth his +while to refer to this passage at all. Neither in considering the +external evidences for the antiquity of the fourth Gospel, nor in +discussing the question whether Papias was acquainted with it, do +apologetic writers like Bleek, Ebrard, Olshausen, Guericke, Kirchhofer, +Thiersch, or Tholuck, or impartial writers like Credner, De Wette, +Gfroerer, Luecke, and others commit the mistake of even alluding to it, +although many of them directly endeavour to refute the article of +Zeller, in which it is cited and rejected, and all of them point out so +indirect an argument for his knowledge of the Gospel as the statement of +Eusebius that Papias made use of the first Epistle of John. Indeed, on +neither side is the passage introduced into the controversy at all; and +whilst so many conclude positively that Papias was not acquainted with +the fourth Gospel, the utmost that is argued by the majority of +apologetic critics is, that his ignorance of it is not actually proved. +Those who go further and urge the supposed use of the Epistle as +testimony in favour of his also knowing the Gospel would only too gladly +have produced this passage, if they could have maintained it as taken +from the work of Papias. It would not be permissible to assume that any +of the writers to whom we refer were ignorant of the existence of the +passage, because they are men thoroughly acquainted with the subject +generally, and most of them directly refer to the article of Zeller in +which the quotation is discussed. + +This is an instance in which Dr. Lightfoot has the "misfortune to +dispute not a few propositions, which most critics are agreed in +maintaining." I have no objection to his disputing anything. All +that I suggest desirable in such a case is some indication that there +is anything in dispute, which, I submit, general readers could scarcely +discover from the statements of Dr. Westcott or the remarks of +Dr. Lightfoot. Now in regard to myself, in desiring to avoid what +I objected to in others, I may have gone to the other extreme. But +although I perhaps too carefully avoided any indication as to who +says "that there is this distinction of dwelling," &c., I did what +was possible to attract attention to the actual indirect construction, +a fact which must have been patent, as Dr. Lightfoot says, to a "fairly +trained schoolboy." I doubly indicated, by a mark and by adding a note, +the commencement of the sentence, and not only gave the original below, +but actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai +de ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos], for the express purpose of +showing the construction. That I did not myself mistake the point +is evident, not only from this, but from the fact that I do not make +any objection to the translations of Tischendorf and Dr. Westcott, +beyond condemning the _unmarked_ introduction of precise words, and +that I proceed to argue that "the presbyters," to whom the passage +is referred, are in no case necessarily to be associated with the +work of Papias, which would have been mere waste of time had I intended +to maintain that Irenaeus quoted direct from the Gospel. An observation +made to me regarding my note on Dr. Westcott, showed me that I had +been misunderstood, and led me to refer to the place again. I immediately +withdrew the note which had been interpreted in a way very different +from what I had intended, and at the same time perceiving that my +argument was obscure and liable to the misinterpretation of which +Dr. Lightfoot has made such eager use, I myself at once recast it +as well as I could within the limits at my command, [8:1] and this +was already published before Dr. Lightfoot's criticism appeared, +and before I had any knowledge of his articles. [8:2] + +With regard to Tischendorf, however, the validity of my objection is +practically admitted in the fullest way by Dr. Lightfoot himself. +"Tischendorf's words," he says, "are 'und deshalb, sagen sie, habe der +Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,' +because the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact +that the words were not Irenaeus's own without this addition." Writing +of a brother apologist of course he apologetically adds: "But he has not +altered any idea which the original contains." [9:1] I affirm, on the +contrary, that he has very materially altered an idea--that, in fact, he +has warped the whole argument, for Dr. Lightfoot has mercifully omitted +to point out that the words just quoted are introduced by the distinct +assertion "that Irenaeus quotes even out of the mouth of the presbyters, +those high authorities of Papias." The German apologist, therefore, not +giving the original text, not saying a word of the adverse judgment of +most critics, after fully rendering the construction of Irenaeus by the +"habe," quietly inserts "say they," in reference to these "high +authorities of Papias," without a hint that these words are his own. +[9:2] + +My argument briefly is, that there is no ground for asserting that the +passage in question, with its reference to "many mansions," was derived +from the presbyters of Papias, or from his book, and that it is not a +quotation from a work which quotes the presbyters as quoting these +words, but one made more directly by Irenaeus--not directly from the +Gospel, but probably from some contemporary, and representing nothing +more than the exegesis of his own day. + +The second point of Canon Lightfoot's attack is in connection with +a discussion of the date of Celsus. Dr. Lightfoot quotes a passage +from Origen given in my work, [10:1] upon which he comments as follows: +"On the strength of the passage so translated, our author supposes +that Origen's impression concerning the date of Celsus had meanwhile +been 'considerably modified,' and remarks that he now 'treats him +as a contemporary.' Unfortunately, however, the tenses, on which +everything depends, are freely handled in this translation. Origen +does not say 'Celsus _has promised_,' but 'Celsus _promises_ ([Greek: +epangellomenon])--_i.e._, in the treatise before him, Origen's knowledge +was plainly derived from the book itself. And, again, he does not say +'If he _has not fulfilled_ his promise to write,' but 'If he _did not +write_ as he undertook to do' ([Greek: _egrapsen huposchomenos_]); +nor 'If he _has commenced and finished_,' but 'If he _commenced and +finished_' ([Greek:_arxamenos sunetelese_]). Thus Origen's language +itself here points to a past epoch, and is in strict accordance with +the earlier passages in his work." [10:2] These remarks, and the +triumphant exclamation of Dr. Lightfoot at the close that here +"an elaborate argument is wrecked on this rock of grammar," convey +a totally wrong impression of the case. + +The argument regarding this passage in Origen occurs in a controversy +between Tischendorf and Volkmar, the particulars of which I report; +[10:3] and to avoid anticipation of the point, I promise to give the +passage in its place, which I subsequently do. All the complimentary +observations which Dr. Lightfoot makes upon the translation actually +fall upon the head of his brother apologist, Tischendorf, whose +rendering, as he so much insists upon it, I merely reproduce. The +manner in which Tischendorf attacks Volkmar in connection with this +passage forcibly reminds me of the amenities addressed to myself +by Dr. Lightfoot, who seems unconsciously to have caught the trick +of his precursor's scolding. Volkmar had paraphrased Origen's words +in a way of which his critic disapproved, and Tischendorf comments +as follows: "But here again we have to do with nothing else than a +completely abortive fabrication, a certificate of our said critic's +poverty. For the assertion derived from the close of the work of Origen +rests upon gross ignorance or upon intentional deception. The words +of Origen to his patron Ambrosius, who had prompted him to the composition +of the whole apology, run as follows" [and here I must give the German]: +"'Wenn dass Celsus versprochen hat' [_has promised_] 'jedenfalls in +seinem gegen das Christenthum gerichteten und von Origenes widerlegten +Buche) noch eine andere Schrift nach dieser zu verfassen, worin u.s.w.' +'Wenn er nun diese zweite Schrift trotz seines Versprechens nicht +geschrieben hat' [_has not written_], 'so genuegt es uns mit diesen +acht Buechern auf seine Schrift geantwortet zu haben. Wenn er aber auch +jene unternommen und vollendet hat' [_has undertaken and completed_], +'so treib das Buch auf und schicke es, damit wir auch darauf antworten,'" +&c. [11:1] Now this translation of Tischendorf is not made carelessly, +but deliberately, for the express purpose of showing the actual words +of Origen, and correcting the version of Volkmar; and he insists upon +these tenses not only by referring to the Greek of these special phrases, +but by again contrasting with them the paraphrase of Volkmar. [11:2] +Whatever disregard of tenses and "free handling" of Origen there +may be here, therefore, are due to Tischendorf, who may be considered +as good a scholar as Dr. Lightfoot, and not a less zealous apologist. + +Instead of depending on the "strength of the passage so translated," +however, as Canon Lightfoot represents, my argument is independent of +this or any other version of Origen's words; and, in fact, the point +is only incidentally introduced, and more as the view of others than +my own. I point out [12:1] that Origen evidently knows nothing of his +adversary: and I add that "it is almost impossible to avoid the +conviction that, during the time he was composing his work, his +impressions concerning the date and identity of his opponent became +considerably modified." I then proceed to enumerate some of the reasons. +In the earlier portion of his first book (i. 8), Origen has heard that +his Celsus is the Epicurean of the reign of Hadrian and later, but a +little further on (i. 68), he confesses his ignorance as to whether he +is the same Celsus who wrote against magic, which Celsus the Epicurean +actually did. In the fourth book (iv. 36) he expresses uncertainty as to +whether the Epicurean Celsus had composed the work against Christians +which he is refuting, and at the close of his treatise he treats him as +a contemporary, for, as I again mention, Volkmar and others assert, +on the strength of the passage in the eighth book and from other +considerations, that Celsus really was a contemporary of Origen. I +proceed to argue that, even if Celsus were the Epicurean friend of +Lucian, there could be no ground for assigning to him an early date; +but, on the contrary, that so far from being an Epicurean, the Celsus +attacked by Origen evidently was a Neo-Platonist. This, and the +circumstance that his work indicates a period of persecution against +Christians, leads to the conclusion, I point out, that he must be dated +about the beginning of the third century. My argument, in short, +scarcely turns upon the passage in Origen at all, and that which renders +it incapable of being wrecked is the fact that Celsus never mentions the +Gospels, and much less adds anything to our knowledge of their authors, +which can entitle them to greater credit as witnesses for the reality of +Divine Revelation. + +I do not intend to bandy many words with Canon Lightfoot regarding +translations. Nothing is so easy as to find fault with the rendering of +passages from another language, or to point out variations in tenses and +expressions, not in themselves of the slightest importance to the main +issue, in freely transferring the spirit of sentences from their natural +context to an isolated position in quotation. Such a personal matter as +Dr. Lightfoot's general strictures, in this respect, I feel cannot +interest the readers of this Review. I am quite ready to accept +correction even from an opponent where I am wrong, but I am quite +content to leave to the judgment of all who will examine them in a fair +spirit the voluminous quotations in my work. The 'higher criticism,' in +which Dr. Lightfoot seems to have indulged in this article, scarcely +rises above the correction of an exercise or the conjugation of a verb. +[13:1] + +I am extremely obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for pointing out two clerical +errors which had escaped me, but which have been discovered and +magnified by his microscopic criticism, and thrown at my head by his +apologetic zeal. The first is in reference to what he describes as +"a highly important question of Biblical criticism." In speaking, +_en passant_, of a passage in John v. 3, 4, in connection with the +"Age of Miracles," the words "it is argued that" were accidentally +omitted from vol. i. p. 113, line 19, and the sentence should read, +"and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation." [14:1] +In vol. ii. p. 420, after again mentioning the rejection of the passage, +I proceed to state my own personal belief that the words must have +Originally stood in the text, because v. 7 indicates the existence of +such a context. The second error is in vol. ii. p. 423, line 24, +in which "only" has been substituted for "never" in deciphering my MS. +Since this is such a _common-place_ of "apologists," as Dr. Lightfoot +points out, surely he might have put a courteous construction upon +the error, instead of venting upon me so much righteous indignation. +I can assure him that I do not in the slightest degree grudge him +the full benefit of the argument that the fourth Gospel never once +distinguishes John the Baptist from the Apostle John by the addition +[Greek: ho Baptistes]. [15:1] + +I turn, however, to a more important matter. Canon Lightfoot attacks +me in no measured terms for a criticism upon Dr. Westcott's mode of +dealing with a piece of information regarding Basilides. He says-- + + "Dr. Westcott writes of Basilides as follows:-- + + "'At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, who, + as well as St. Mark, was "an interpreter of St. Peter."' ('Canon,' + p. 264) + + "The inverted commas are given here as they appear in Dr. Westcott's + book. It need hardly be said that Dr. Westcott is simply illustrating + the statement of Basilides that Glaucias was an interpreter of + St. Peter by the similar statement of Papias and others that St. Mark + was an interpreter of the same apostle--a very innocent piece of + information, one would suppose. On this passage, however, our author + remarks-- + + "'Now we have here again an illustration of the same misleading + system which we have already condemned, and shall further refer to, + in the introduction after "Glaucias" of the words "_who, as well as + St. Mark, was_ an interpreter of St. Peter." The words in italics + are the gratuitous addition of Canon Westcott himself, and can only + have been inserted for one of two purposes--(1) to assert the fact + that Glaucias was actually an interpreter of Peter, as tradition + represented Mark to be; or (2) to insinuate to unlearned readers + that Basilides himself acknowledged Mark as well as Glaucias as the + interpreter of Peter. We can hardly suppose the first to have been + the intention, and we regret to be forced back upon the second, and + infer that the temptation to weaken the inferences from the appeal + of Basilides to the uncanonical Glaucias, by coupling with it the + allusion to Mark, was, unconsciously, no doubt, too strong for the + apologist.' ('S.R.' i. p. 459) + + "Dr. Westcott's honour may safely be left to take care of itself. + It stands far too high to be touched by insinuations like these. + I only call attention to the fact that our author has removed + Dr. Westcott's inverted commas, and then founded on the passage + so manipulated a charge of unfair dealing, which could only be + sustained in their absence, and which even then no one but himself + would have thought of." [16:1] + +In order to make this matter clear, I must venture more fully to +quote Dr. Westcott's statements regarding Basilides. Dr. Westcott +says: "Since Basilides lived on the verge of the Apostolic times, +it is not surprising that he made use of other sources of Christian +doctrine besides the canonical books. The belief in Divine Inspiration +was still fresh and real; and Eusebius relates that he set up imaginary +prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph (Parchor)--'names to strike terror +into the superstitious'--by whose writings he supported his peculiar +views. At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, +who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter;' [16:2] +and he also made use of certain 'Traditions of Matthias,' which +claimed to be grounded on 'private intercourse with the Saviour.' +[16:3] It appears, moreover, that he himself published a gospel--a +'Life of Christ,' as it would perhaps be called in our days, or +'The Philosophy of Christianity'--but he admitted the historic truth +of all the facts contained in the canonical gospels, and used them +as Scripture. For, in spite of his peculiar opinions, the testimony +of Basilides to our 'acknowledged' books is comprehensive and clear. +In the few pages of his writings which remain, there are certain +references to the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, &c." +And in a note Dr. Westcott adds, "The following examples will be +sufficient to show his mode of quotation, &c." [17:1] + +Not a word of qualification or doubt is added to these extraordinary +statements, for a full criticism of which I must beg the reader to +be good enough to refer to _Supernatural Religion_, ii. pp. 41-54. +Setting aside here the important question as to what the "gospel" +of Basilides--to which Dr. Westcott gives the fanciful names of a +"Life of Christ," or "Philosophy of Christianity," without a shadow +of evidence--really was, it could scarcely be divined, for instance, +that the statement that Basilides "admitted the historic truth of +all the facts contained in the canonical gospels" rests solely upon +a sentence in the work attributed to Hippolytus, to the effect that, +after his generation, all things regarding the Saviour--according +to the _followers_ of Basilides--occurred in the same way as they +are written in the Gospels. Again, it could scarcely be supposed +by an ordinary reader that the assertion that Basilides used the +"canonical gospels"--there certainly were no "canonical" gospels +in his day--"as Scripture," that his testimony to our 'acknowledged' +books is comprehensive and clear, and that "in the few pages of +his writings which remain there are certain references" to those +gospels, which show "his method of quotation," is not based upon +any direct extracts from his writings, but solely upon passages +in an epitome by Hippolytus of the views of the school of Basilides, +not ascribed directly to Basilides himself, but introduced by a +mere indefinite [Greek: phesi]. [17:2] Why, I might enquire in the +vein of Dr. Lightfoot, is not a syllable said of all this, or of +the fact, which completes the separation of these passages from +Basilides, that the Gnosticism described by Hippolytus is not that +of Basilides, but clearly of a later type; and that writers of that +period, and notably Hippolytus himself, were in the habit of putting, +as it might seem, by the use of an indefinite "he says," sentiments +into the mouth of the founder of a sect which were only expressed +by his later followers? As Dr. Lightfoot evidently highly values +the testimony of Luthardt, I will quote the words of that staunch +apologist to show that, in this, I do not merely represent the views of +a heterodox school. In discussing the supposed quotations from the +fourth Gospel, which Dr. Westcott represents as "certain references" +to it by Basilides himself, Luthardt says: "But to this is opposed +the consideration that, as we know from Irenaeus, &c., the original +system of Basilides had a dualistic character, whilst that of the +'Philosophumena' is pantheistic. We must recognise that Hippolytus, +in the 'Philosophumena,' not unfrequently makes the founder of a sect +responsible for that which in the first place concerns his disciples, +so that from these quotations only the use of the Johannine Gospel +in the school of Basilides is undoubtedly proved, but not on the +part of the founder himself." [18:1] + +It is difficult to recognise in this fancy portrait the Basilides +regarding whom a large body of eminent critics conclude that he did +not know our Gospels at all, but made use of an uncanonical work, +supplemented by traditions from Glaucias and Matthias; but, as if the +heretic had not been sufficiently restored to the odour of sanctity, +the additional touch is given in the passage more immediately before +us. Dr. Westcott conveys the information contained in the single +sentence of Clement of Alexandria, [Greek: kathaper ho Basileides +kan Glaukian epigraphetai didaskalon, hos auchousin autoi, ton Petrou +hermenea], [19:1] in the following words; and I quote the statement +exactly as it has stood in my text from the very first, in order +to show the inverted commas upon which Dr. Lightfoot lays so much +stress as having been removed. In mentioning this fact Canon Westcott +says: "At the same time he appealed to the authority of Glaucias, +who, as well as St. Mark, was 'an interpreter of St. Peter.' [19:2] +Now we have here, again, an illustration," &c.; and then follows the +passage quoted by Dr. Lightfoot. The positive form given to the words +of Clement, and the introduction of the words "as well as St. Mark," +seem at once to impart a full flavour of orthodoxy to Basilides +which I do not find in the original. I confess that I fail to see +any special virtue in the inverted commas; but as Dr. Lightfoot does, +let me point out to him that he commences his quotation--upon the +strength of which he accuses me of "manipulating" a passage, and +then founding upon it a charge of unfair dealing--immediately after +the direct citation from Dr. Westcott's work, in which those inverted +commas are given. The words they mark are a quotation from Clement, +and in my re-quotation a few lines lower down they are equally well +indicated by being the only words not put in italics. The fact is, +that Dr. Lightfoot has mistaken and misstated the whole case. He +has been so eagerly looking for the mote in my eye that he has failed +to perceive the beam which is in his own eye. It is by this wonderful +illustration that he "exemplifies the elaborate looseness which +pervades the critical portion of this (my) book." [19:3] It rather +exemplifies the uncritical looseness which pervades his own article. + +Dr. Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that "Dr. Westcott's honour may +safely be left to take care of itself." It would have been much better +to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble it by such +advocacy. If anything could check just or generous expression, it would +be the tone adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but nevertheless I again say, in +the most unreserved manner, that neither in this instance nor in any +other have I had the most distant intention of attributing "corrupt +motives" to a man like Dr. Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognise, +and for whose earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost +that I have at any time intended to point out is that, utterly +possessed as he is by orthodox views in general, and of the canon in +particular, he sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and +unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements which +should be more impartially made. + +Dr. Lightfoot will not even give me credit for fairly stating the +arguments of my adversaries. "The author," he says, "does indeed single +out from time to time the weaker arguments of 'apologetic' writers, and +on these he dwells at great length; but their weightier facts and lines +of reasoning are altogether ignored by him, though they often occur in +the same books, and even in the same contexts which he quotes." [20:1] +I am exceedingly indebted to Dr. Lightfoot for having had compassion +upon my incapacity to distinguish these arguments, and for giving me +"samples" of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of apologists +which I have ignored. + +The first of these with which he favours me is in connection with +an anachronism in the epistle ascribed to Polycarp, Ignatius being +spoken of in chapter thirteen as living, and information requested +regarding him "and those who are with him;" whereas in an earlier +passage he is represented as dead. Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me:-- +"Why, then, does he not notice the answer which he might have found +in any common source of information, that when the Latin version +(the Greek is wanting here) 'de his qui cum eo sunt' is re-translated +into the original language, [Greek: tois sun auto], the 'anachronism' +altogether disappears?" [21:1] As Dr. Lightfoot does not apparently +attach much weight to my replies, I venture to give my reasons for +not troubling my readers with this argument in words which, I hope, +may find more favour with him. Dr. Donaldson, in his able work on +"Christian Literature and Doctrine," says: "In the ninth chapter +Ignatius is spoken of as a martyr, an example to the Philippians +of patience ... In the thirteenth chapter Polycarp requests information +with regard to 'Ignatius and those with him.' These words occur +only in the Latin translation of the epistle. To get rid of the +difficulty which they present, it has been supposed that the words +'de his qui cum eo sunt' are a wrong rendering of the Greek [Greek: +peri ton met' autou]. And then the words are supposed to mean, +'concerning Ignatius (of whose death I heard, but of which I wish +particulars) and those who _were_ with him.' But even the Greek could +not be forced into such a meaning as this; and, moreover, there is +no reason to impugn the Latin translation, except the peculiar difficulty +presented by a comparison with the ninth chapter." [21:2] Dr. Lightfoot, +however, does impugn it. It is apparently his habit to impugn +translations. He accuses the ancient Latin translator of freely handling +the tenses of a Greek text which the critic himself has never seen. +Here it is Dr. Lightfoot's argument which is "wrecked upon this rock +of grammar." + +The next example of the "weightier facts and lines of reasoning" of +apologists which I have ignored is as follows:-- + + "Again, when he devotes more than forty pages to the discussion + of Papias, why does he not even mention the view maintained by + Dr. Westcott and others (and certainly suggested by a strict + interpretation of Papias' own words), that this father's object, in + his 'Exposition,' was not to construct a new evangelical narrative, + but to interpret and to illustrate by oral tradition one already + lying before him in written documents? This view, if correct, + entirely alters the relation of Papias to the written Gospels; and + its discussion was a matter of essential importance to the main + question at issue." [22:1] + +I reply that the object of my work was not to discuss views advanced +without a shadow of evidence, contradicted by the words of Papias +himself, and absolutely incapable of proof. My object was the much +more practical and direct one of ascertaining whether Papias affords +any evidence with regard to our Gospels which could warrant our +believing in the occurrence of miraculous events for which they +are the principal testimony. Even if it could be proved, which it +cannot be, that Papias actually had "written documents" before him, +the cause of our Gospels would not be one jot advanced, inasmuch +as it could not be shown that these documents were our Gospels; +and the avowed preference of Papias for tradition over books, so +clearly expressed, implies anything but respect for any written +documents with which he was acquainted. However important such a +discussion may appear to Dr. Lightfoot in the absence of other evidence, +it is absolutely devoid of value in an enquiry into the reality of +Divine Revelation. + +The next "sample" of these ignored "weightier facts and lines of +reasoning" given by Dr. Lightfoot is the following: + + "Again, when he reproduces the Tuebingen fallacy respecting 'the + strong prejudice' of Hegesippus against St. Paul, and quotes the + often-quoted passage from Stephanus Gobarus, in which this writer + refers to the language of Hegesippus condemning the use of the + words, 'Eye hath not seen,' &c., why does he not state that these + words were employed by heretical teachers to justify their rites of + initiation, and consequently 'apologetic' writers contend that + Hegesippus refers to the words, not as used by St. Paul, but as + misapplied by these heretics? Since, according to the Tuebingen + interpretation, this single notice contradicts everything else which + we now of the opinions of Hegesippus, the view of 'apologists' + might, perhaps, have been worth a moment's consideration." [23:1] + +I reply, why does this punctilious objector omit to point out that I +merely mention the anti-Pauline interpretation incidentally in a single +sentence, [23:2] and after a few words as to the source of the quotation +in Cor. ii. 9, I proceed: "This, however, does not concern us here, and +we have merely to examine 'the saying of the Lord,' which Hegesippus +opposes to the passage, 'Blessed are your eyes,'" &c., this being, in +fact, the sole object of my quotation from Stephanus Gobarus? Why does +he not also state that I distinctly refer to Tischendorf's denial that +Hegesippus was opposed to Paul? And why does he not further state that, +instead of being the "single notice" from which the view of the +anti-Pauline feelings of Hegesippus is derived, that conclusion is based +upon the whole tendency of the fragments of his writings which remain? +It was not my purpose to enter into any discussion of the feeling +against Paul entertained by a large section of the early Church. What I +have to say upon that subject will appear in my examination of the Acts +of the Apostles. + +"And again," says Dr. Lightfoot, proceeding with his samples of ignored +weightier lines of reasoning, + + "in the elaborate examination of Justin Martyr's evangelical + quotations ... our author frequently refers to Dr. Westcott's book + to censure it, and many comparatively insignificant points are + discussed at great length. Why, then, does he not once mention + Dr. Westcott's argument founded on the looseness of Justin Martyr's + quotations from the Old Testament as throwing some light on the + degree of accuracy which he might be expected to show in quoting the + Gospels? A reader fresh from the perusal of _Supernatural Religion_ + will have his eyes opened as to the character of Justin's mind when + he turns to Dr. Westcott's book, and finds how Justin interweaves, + misnames, and misquotes passages from the Old Testament. It cannot + be said that these are unimportant points." [24:1] + +Now the fact is, that in the first 105 pages of my examination of +Justin Martyr I do not once refer in my text to Dr. Westcott's work; +and when I finally do so it is for the purposes of discussing what +seemed to me a singular argument, demanding a moment's attention. +[24:2] Dr. Westcott, whilst maintaining that Justin's quotations are +derived from our Gospels, argues that only in seven passages out of the +very numerous citations in his writings "does Justin profess to give +the exact words recorded in the 'Memoirs.'" [24:3] The reason why I do +not feel it at all necessary to discuss the other views of Dr. Westcott +here mentioned is practically given in the final sentence of a note +quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, [24:4] which sentence he has thought it right +to omit. The note is as follows, and the sentence to which I refer is +put in italics: "For the arguments of apologetic criticism, the reader +may be referred to Canon Westcott's work 'On the Canon,' pp. 112-139. +Dr. Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations +are different from the text of our Gospels, but he accounts for his +variations on grounds which are purely imaginary. _It is evident that +so long as there are such variations to be explained away, at least no +proof of identity is possible_." [24:5] It will be observed that +although I do not discuss Dr. Westcott's views, I pointedly refer those +who desire to know what the arguments on the other side are to his +work. Let me repeat, once for all, that my object in examining the +writings of the Fathers is not to form theories and conjectures as to +what documents they may possibly have used, but to ascertain whether +they afford any positive evidence regarding our existing Gospels, which +can warrant our believing, upon their authority, the miraculous +contents of Christianity. Any argument that, although Justin, for +instance, never once names any of our Gospels, and out of very numerous +quotations of sayings of Jesus very rarely indeed quotes anything which +has an exact parallel in those Gospels, yet he may have made use of our +Gospels, because he also frequently misquotes passages from the Old +Testament, is worthless for the purpose of establishing the reality of +Divine Revelation. From the point of view of such an enquiry, I +probably go much further into the examination of Justin's "Memoirs" +than was at all necessary. + +Space, however, forbids my further dwelling on these instances, +regarding which Dr. Lightfoot says: "In every instance which I have +selected"--and to which I have replied--"these omitted considerations +vitally affect the main question at issue." [25:1] If Dr. Lightfoot had +devoted half the time to mastering what "the main question at issue" +really is, which he has wasted in finding minute faults in me, he might +have spared himself the trouble of giving these instances at all. If +such considerations have vital importance, the position of the question +may easily be understood. Dr. Lightfoot, however, evidently seems to +suppose that I can be charged with want of candour and of fulness, +because I do not reproduce every shred and tatter of apologetic +reasoning which divines continue to flaunt about after others have +rejected them as useless. He again accuses me, in connection with the +fourth Gospel, of systematically ignoring the arguments of "apologetic" +writers, and he represents my work as "the very reverse of full and +impartial." "Once or twice, indeed," he says, "he fastens on passages +from such writers, that he may make capital of them; but their main +arguments remain wholly unnoticed." [26:1] I confess that I find it +somewhat difficult to distinguish between those out of which I am said +to "make capital" and those which Dr. Lightfoot characterises as "their +main arguments," if I am to judge by the "samples" of them which he +gives me. For instance, [26:2] he asks why, when asserting that the +Synoptics clearly represent the ministry of Jesus as having been limited +to a single year, and his preaching as confined to Galilee and +Jerusalem, whilst the fourth Gospel distributes the teaching of Jesus +between Galilee, Samaria, and Jerusalem, makes it extend over three +years, and refers to three passovers spent by Jesus at Jerusalem: + +"Why then," he asks, + + "does he not add that 'apologetic' writers refer to such passages as + Matt. xiii. 37 (comp. Luke xiii. 34), 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem ... + _how often_ would I have gathered thy children together'? Here the + expression 'how often,' it is contended, obliges us to postulate + other visits, probably several visits, to Jerusalem, which are not + recorded in the Synoptic Gospels themselves. And it may be suggested + also that the twice-repeated notice of time in the context of St. + Luke, 'I do cures _to-day and to-morrow, and the third day_ I shall + be perfected,' 'I must walk _to-day and to-morrow and the day + following_,' points to the very duration of our Lord's ministry, as + indicated by the fourth Gospel. If so, the coincidence is the more + remarkable because it does not appear that St. Luke himself, while + wording these prophetic words, was aware of their full historical + import." [27:1] + +Now it might have struck Dr. Lightfoot that if anyone making an enquiry +into the reality of Divine Revelation were obliged, in order to escape +charges of want of candour, fulness, and impartiality, or insinuations +of ignorance, to reproduce and refute all apologetic arguments like +this, the duration of modern life would scarcely suffice for the task; +and "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world +itself could not contain all the books that should be written." It is +very right that anyone believing it valid should advance this or any +other reasoning in reply to objections, or in support of opinions; but +is it not somewhat unreasonable vehemently to condemn a writer for not +exhausting himself, and his readers, by discussing pleas which are not +only unsound in themselves, but irrelevant to the direct purpose of his +work? I have only advanced objections against the Johannine authorship +of the fourth Gospel, which seem to me unrefuted by any of the +explanations offered. + +Let me now turn to more important instances. Dr. Lightfoot asks: "Why, +when he is endeavouring to minimise, if not deny, the Hebraic character +of the fourth Gospel, does he wholly ignore the investigations of +Luthardt and others, which (as 'apologists' venture to think) show that +the whole texture of the language the fourth Gospel is Hebraic?" [27:2] +Now my statements with regard to the language of the Apocalypse and +fourth Gospel are as follows. Of the Apocalypse I say: "The language in +which the book is written is the most Hebraistic Greek of the New +Testament;" [28:1] and further on: "The barbarous Hebraistic Greek and +abrupt, inelegant diction are natural to the unlettered fisherman of +Galilee." [28:2] Of the Gospel I say: "Instead of the Hebraistic Greek +and harsh diction which might be expected from the unlettered and +ignorant [28:3] fisherman of Galilee, we find, in the fourth Gospel, the +purest and least Hebraistic Greek of any of the Gospels (some parts of +the third synoptic, perhaps, alone excepted), and a refinement and +beauty of composition whose charm has captivated the world," &c. [28:4] +In another place I say: "The language in which the Gospel is written, as +we have already mentioned, is much less Hebraic than that of the other +Gospels, with the exception, perhaps, of parts of the Gospel according +to Luke, and its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost +invariably the case with Hellenistic Greek; but its composition is +distinguished by peculiar smoothness, grace, and beauty, and in this +respect it is assigned the first rank amongst the Gospels." [28:5] I +believe that I do not say another word as to the texture of the language +of the fourth Gospel, and it will be observed that my remarks are almost +wholly limited to the comparative quality of the Greek of the fourth +Gospel, on the one hand, and the Apocalypse and Synoptics on the other, +and that they do not exclude Hebraisms. The views expressed might be +supported by numberless authorities. As Dr. Lightfoot accuses me of +"wholly ignoring" the results at which Luthardt and others have arrived, +I will quote what Luthardt says of the two works: "The difference of the +_language_, as well in regard to grammar and style as to doctrine, is, +of course, in a high degree remarkable ... As regards _grammar_, the +Gospel is written in correct, the Apocalypse in incorrect Greek." He +argues that this is a consequence of sovereign freedom in the latter, +and that from the nature of the composition the author of the Apocalypse +wrote in an artificial style, and could both have spoken and written +otherwise. "The errors are not errors of ignorance, but intentional +emancipations from the rules of grammar" (!), in imitation of ancient +prophetic style. Presently he proceeds: "If, then, on the one hand, the +Apocalypse is written in worse Greek and less correctly than its author +was able to speak and write, the question, on the hand, is, whether the +Gospel is not in too good Greek to be credited to a born Jew and +Palestinian." Luthardt maintains "that the style of the Gospel betrays +the born Jew, and certainly not the Greek," but the force which he +intends to give to all this reasoning is clearly indicated by the +conclusion at which he finally arrives, that "the linguistic gulf +between the Gospel and the Apocalypse is not impassable." [29:1] This +result from so staunch an apologist, obviously to minimise the Hebraic +character of the Apocalypse, is not after all so strikingly different +from my representation. Take again the opinion of so eminent an +apologist as Bleek: "The language of the Apocalypse in its whole +character is beyond comparison harsher, rougher, looser, and presents +grosser incorrectness than any other book of the New Testament, whilst +the language of the Gospel is certainly not pure Greek, but is beyond +comparison more grammatically correct." [29:2] I am merely replying, +to the statements of Dr. Lightfoot, and not arguing afresh regarding +the language of the fourth Gospel, or I might produce very different +arguments and authorities, but I may remark that the critical dilemma +which I have represented, in reviewing the fourth Gospel, is not merely +dependent upon linguistic considerations, but arises out of the +aggregate and conflicting phenomena presented by the Apocalypse on the +one hand and the Gospel on the other. + +Space only allows of my referring to one other instance. [30:1] Dr. +Lightfoot says-- + + "If by any chance he condescends to discuss a question, he takes + care to fasten on the least likely solution of 'apologists' (_e.g._ + the identification of Sychar and Shechem), [30:2] omitting + altogether to notice others." + +In a note Dr. Lightfoot adds:-- + + "Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar + with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not + mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted that + there was no such place (as Sychar, [Greek: Suchar]), and apologetic + ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' _This is + altogether untrue_. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages in + the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar or + Sichar);' see Neubauer, 'La Geographie du Talmud,' p. 169 f. Our + author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch, ('_Zeitschr. + J. Luth. Theol._,' 1856, p. 240 f.) _He cannot have read the + article, for these Talmudic references are its main purport_." + [30:3] + +I may perhaps be allowed to refer, first, to the two sentences which +I have taken the liberty of putting in italics. If it be possible +for an apologist to apologise, an apology is surely due to the readers +of the "Contemporary Review," at least, for this style of criticism, +to which, I doubt not, they are as little accustomed as I am myself. +There is no satisfying Dr. Lightfoot. I give him references, and +he accuses me of "literary browbeating" and "subtle intimidation;" +I do not give references, and he gives me the lie. I refer to the +article of Delitzsch in support of my specific statement that he +rejects the identification of Sychar with Sichem, and apparently +because I do not quote the whole study Dr. Lightfoot courteously +asserts that I cannot have read it. [31:1] + +My statement [31:2] is, that it is admitted that there was no such place +as Sychar--I ought to have added, "except by apologists who never admit +anything"--but I thought that in saying: "and apologetic ingenuity is +severely taxed to explain the difficulty," I had sufficiently excepted +apologists, and indicated that many assertions and conjectures are +advanced by them for that purpose. I mention that the conjecture which +identifies Sychar and Sichem is rejected by some, refer to Credner's +supposition that the alteration may be due to some error committed by a +secretary in writing down the Gospel from the dictation of the Apostle, +and that Sichem is meant, and I state the "nickname" hypothesis of +Hengstenberg and others. It is undeniable that, with the exception of +some vague references in the Talmud to a somewhat similar, but not +identical, name, the locality of which is quite uncertain, no place +bearing, or having borne, the designation of Sychar is known. The +ordinary apologetic theory, as Dr. Lightfoot may find "in any common +source of information,"--Dr. Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," for +instance--is the delightfully comprehensive one: "Sychar was either a +name applied to the town of Shechem, or it was an independent place." +This authority, however, goes clean against Dr. Lightfoot's assertion, +for it continues: "The first of these alternatives is now almost +universally accepted." Lightfoot [32:1] considered Sychar a mere +alteration of the name Sichem, both representing the same place. +He found a reference in the Talmud to "_Ain Socar_," and with great +hesitation he associated the name with Sychar. "May we not venture" +to render it "the well of Sychar"? And after detailed extracts and +explanations he says: "And now let the reader give us his judgment +as to its name and place, whether it doth not seem to have some relation +with our 'well of Sychar.' It may be disputed on either side." Wieseler, +who first, in more recent times, developed the conjectures of Lightfoot, +argues: "In the first place, there can be no doubt that by [Greek: +Suchar] Sichem is meant," and he adds, a few lines after: "Regarding +this there is no controversy amongst interpreters." He totally rejects +the idea of such in alteration of the name occurring in translation, +which he says is "unprecedented." He therefore concludes that in +[Greek: Suchar] we have _another_ name for Sichem. He merely submits +this, however, as "a new hypothesis to the judgment of the reader," +[32:2] which alone shows the uncertainty of the suggestion. Lightfoot +and Wieseler are substantially followed by Olshausen, [32:3] De Wette, +[32:4] Hug, [32:5] Bunsen, [32:6] Riggenbach, [32:7] Godet, [32:8] +and others. Bleek, [32:9] in spite of the arguments of Delitzsch and +Ewald, and their Talmudic researches, considers that the old town +of Sichem is meant. Delitzsch, [32:10] Ewald, [32:11] Lange, [32:12] +Meyer, [32:13] and others think that Sychar was near to, but distinct +from, Sichem. Luecke [33:1] is very undecided. He recognises the +extraordinary difference in the name Sychar. He does not favourably +receive Lightfoot's arguments regarding an alteration of the name of +Sichem, nor his conjectures as to the relation of the place mentioned +in the Talmud to Sichem, which he thinks is "very doubtful," and he +seems to incline rather to an accidental corruption of Sichem into +Sychar, although he feels the great difficulties in the way of such +an explanation. Ewald condemns the "Talmudische Studien" of Delitzsch +as generally more complicating than clearing up difficulties, and +his views as commonly incorrect, and, whilst agreeing with him that +Sychar cannot be the same place as Sichem, he points out that the +site of the _valley of the_ well of the Talmud is certainly doubtful. +[33:2] He explains his own views, however, more clearly in another +place:-- + + "That this (Sychar) cannot be the large, ancient Sikhem, which, at + the time when the Gospel was written, was probably already generally + called _Neapolis_ in Greek writings, has been already stated; it is + the place still called with an altered Arabic name _Al 'Askar_, east + of Naplus. It is indeed difficult to prove that Sychar could stand + for Sikhem, either through change of pronunciation, or for any other + reason, and the addition [Greek: legomene] does not indicate, here any + more than in xi. 54, so large and generally known a town as Sikhem. + or Flavia Neapolis." [33:3] + +Mr. Sanday, [33:4] of whose able work Dr. Lightfoot directly speaks, +says:-- + + "The name Sychar is not the common one, Sichem, but is a mock title + (='liar' or 'drunkard') that was given to the town by the Jews. + [33:5] This is a clear reminiscence of the vernacular that the + Apostle spoke in his youth, and is a strong touch of nature. It is + not quite certain that the name Sychar has this force, but the + hypothesis is in itself more likely than, &c.... It is not, + however, by any means improbable that Sychar may represent, not + Sichem, but the modern village Askar, which is somewhat nearer to + Jacob's Well." + +To quote one of the latest "travellers and apologists," Dr. Farrar says: +"From what the name Sychar is derived is uncertain. The word [Greek: +legomenos] in St. John seems to imply a sobriquet. It may be 'a lie,' +'drunken,' or 'a sepulchre.' Sychar may possibly have been a village +nearer the well than Sichem, on the site of the village now called El +Askar." [34:1] As Dr. Lightfoot specially mentions Neubauer, his opinion +may be substantially given in a single sentence: "La Mischna mentionne +un endroit appele 'la plaine d'En-Sokher,' qui est peut-etre le Sychar +de l'Evangile." He had a few lines before said: "Il est donc plus +logique de ne pas identifier Sychar avec Sichem." [34:2] Now, with +regard to all these theories, and especially in so far as they connect +Sychar with El Askar, let me quote a few more words in conclusion, from +a "common source of information:"-- + + "On the other hand there is an etymological difficulty in the way of + this identification. _'Askar_ begins with the letter 'Ain, which + Sychar does not appear to have contained; a letter too stubborn and + enduring to be easily either dropped or assumed in a name ... These + considerations have been stated not so much with the hope of leading + to any conclusion on the identity of Sychar, which seems hopeless, + as with the desire to show that the ordinary explanation is not + nearly so obvious as it is usually assumed to be." [34:3] + +Mr. Grove is very right. + +I have been careful only to quote from writers who are either +"apologetic," or far from belonging to heterodox schools. Is it not +perfectly clear that no place of the name of Sychar can be reasonably +identified? The case, in fact, simply stands thus:--As the Gospel +mentions a town called Sychar, apologists maintain that there must have +been such a place, and attempt by various theories to find a site for +it. It is certain, however, that even in the days of St. Jerome there +was no real trace of such a town, and apologists and travellers have +not since been able to discover it, except in their own imaginations. + +With regard to the insinuation that the references given in my notes +constitute a "subtle mode of intimidation" and "literary browbeating," +Canon Lightfoot omits to say that I as fully and candidly refer to those +who maintain views wholly different from my own, as to those who support +me. It is very possible, considering the number of these references, +that I may have committed some errors, and I can only say that I shall +very thankfully receive from Dr. Lightfoot any corrections which he may +be good enough to point out. Instead of intimidation and browbeating, +my sole desire has been to indicate to all who may be anxious further +to examine questions in debate, works in which they may find them +discussed. It is time that the system of advancing apologetic opinions +with perfect assurance, and without a hint that they are disputed by +anyone, should come to an end, and that earnest men should be made +acquainted with the true state of the case. As Dr. Mozley rightly and +honestly says: "The majority of mankind, perhaps, owe their belief +rather to the outward influence of custom and education than to any +strong principle of faith within; and it is to be feared that many, +if they came to perceive how wonderful what they believed was, would +not find their belief so easy and so matter-of-course a thing as +they appear to find it." [36:1] + +I shall not here follow Dr. Lightfoot into his general remarks +regarding my 'conclusions,' nor shall I proceed, in this article, to +discuss the dilemma in which he attempts to involve me through his +misunderstanding and consequent misstatement, of my views regarding the +Supreme Being. I am almost inclined to think that I can have the +pleasure of agreeing with him in one important point, at least, before +coming to a close. When I read the curiously modified statement that I +have "studiously avoided committing myself to a belief in a universal +Father, or a moral Governor, or even in a Personal God," it seems clear +to me that the _Supernatural Religion_ about which Dr. Lightfoot has +been writing cannot be my work, but is simply a work of his own +imagination. That work cannot possibly have contained, for instance, +the chapter on "Anthropomorphic Divinity," [36:2] in which, on the +contrary, I studiously commit myself to very decided disbelief in such +a "Personal God" as he means. In no way inconsistent with that chapter +are my concluding remarks, contrasting with the spasmodic Jewish +Divinity a Supreme Being manifested in the operation of invariable +laws--whose very invariability is the guarantee of beneficence and +security. If Dr. Lightfoot, however, succeeded in convicting me of +inconsistency in those final expressions, there could be no doubt which +view must logically be abandoned, and it would be a new sensation to +secure the approval of a divine by the unhesitating destruction of the +last page of my work. + +Dr. Lightfoot, again, refers to Mr. Mill's "Three Essays on Religion," +but he does not appear to have very deeply studied that work. I confess +that I do not entirely agree with some views therein expressed, and I +hope that, hereafter, I may have an opportunity of explaining what they +are; but I am surprised that Dr. Lightfoot has failed to observe how +singularly that great Thinker supports the general results of +_Supernatural Religion_, to the point even of a frequent agreement +almost in words. If Dr. Lightfoot had studied Mill a little more +closely, he would not have committed the serious error of arguing: +"Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the first +part, the second and third are altogether superfluous. It is somewhat +strange, therefore, that more than three-fourths of the whole work +should be devoted to this needless task." [37:1] Now my argument in the +first part is not that miracles are impossible--a thesis which it is +quite unnecessary to maintain--but the much more simple one that +miracles are _antecedently_ incredible. Having shown that they are so, +and appreciated the true nature of the allegation of miracles, and the +amount of evidence requisite to establish it, I proceed to examine the +evidence which is actually produced in support of the assertion that, +although miracles are antecedently incredible, they nevertheless took +place. Mr. Mill clearly supports me in this course. He states the main +principle of my argument thus: "A revelation, therefore, cannot be +proved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of +supernatural facts. And we have to consider, whether it is possible to +prove supernatural facts, and if it is, what evidence is required to +prove them." [37:2] Mr. Mill decides that it is possible to prove the +occurrence of a supernatural fact, if it actually occurred, and after +showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, he says: +"Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive +evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words, +the positive evidences of miracles. And I have already admitted that +this evidence might conceivably have been such as to make the exception +equally certain with the rule." [38:1] Mr. Mill's opinion of the +evidence actually produced is not flattering, and may be compared with +my results: + + "But the evidence of miracles, at least to Protestant Christians, is + not, in our day, of this cogent description. It is not the evidence + of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand, + but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. And even in + the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts + asserted on their alleged testimony are not of the transcendent + character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the + impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be + little room for doubt. On the contrary, the recorded miracles are, + in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely + difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are + hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by + human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature." [38:2] + +It is to substantiate the statements made here, and, in fact, to +confirm the philosophical conclusion by the historical proof, that I +enter into an examination of the four Gospels, as the chief witnesses +for miracles. To those who have already ascertained the frivolous +nature of that testimony it may, no doubt, seem useless labour to +examine it in detail; but it is scarcely conceivable that an +ecclesiastic who professes to base his faith upon those records should +represent such a process as useless. In endeavouring to place me on the +forks of a dilemma, in fact, Dr. Lightfoot has betrayed that he +altogether fails to appreciate the question at issue, or to comprehend +the position of miracles in relation to philosophical and historical +enquiry. Instead of being "altogether superfluous," my examination of +witnesses, in the second and third parts, has more correctly been +represented by able critics as incomplete, from the omission of the +remaining documents of the New Testament. I foresaw, and myself to some +degree admitted, the justice of this argument; [39:1] but my work being +already bulky enough, I reserved to another volume the completion of +the enquiry. + +I cannot close this article without expressing my regret that so much +which is personal and unworthy has been introduced into the discussion +of a great and profoundly important subject. Dr. Lightfoot is too able +and too earnest a man not to recognise that no occasional errors or +faults in a writer can really affect the validity of his argument, and +instead of mere general and desultory efforts to do some damage to me, +it would be much more to the purpose were he seriously to endeavour to +refute my reasoning. I have no desire to escape hard hitting or to avoid +fair fight, and I feel unfeigned respect for many of my critics who, +differing _toto coelo_ from my views, have with vigorous ability +attacked my arguments without altogether forgetting the courtesy due +even to an enemy. Dr. Lightfoot will not find me inattentive to +courteous reasoning, nor indifferent to earnest criticism, and, whatever +he may think, I promise him that no one will be more ready respectfully +to follow every serious line of argument than the author of +_Supernatural Religion_. + + + + + +II. + +_THE SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS--THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES._ [Endnote 40:1] + + +This work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but +both in this country and in America and elsewhere it has been subjected +to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of +opinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to +review some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to express +my gratitude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed +generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its +completion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my +conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the +courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must +necessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such a +course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not +diminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments. + +There are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of +argument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have +objected that, if I had succeeded in establishing the proposition +advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have +been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is +only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now +I contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the +philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to +completeness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation +is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently +incredible. The counter-allegation is that, although miracles may be +antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is, +therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent +incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that +certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical enquiry +into the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third +parts. Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until +other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume. ... + +The second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has +frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to +prove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of +the second century. This error is of course closely connected with that +which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how +anyone who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of +the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The +fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the +Gospels. The evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that, +so far from their affording sufficient testimony to warrant belief in +the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently +incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the +Gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to +have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and +truth. This is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish +some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument +has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at +the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as +evidence. In a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear +and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for +the canonical Gospels falls very far short even of ordinary +requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of +serious consideration. + +It has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special +gospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in +existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief +as the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without +shaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however, +totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superstitious +belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the +sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectors +urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual +occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out +of a mass of false miracles which are reported but never really took +place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superstitious +age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful +investigation, have written an account of them, and other persons, +equally ignorant and superstitious, have believed them. I venture +to say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referring +can have realised the nature of the question at issue, and the +relation of miracles to the order of nature. + +The last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the +statement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences +precisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how, +if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four +Gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the +second century, and quoted as authoritative documents by such writers as +Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account +for this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature +in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready +acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment +regard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that century +either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which +concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but +the beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements of +Irenaeus and later Fathers, like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian and +Origen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except as +personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are +shown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct +trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses +for miracles. + +After having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced +against this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the +truth of its conclusions. The best and most powerful reasons which able +divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main +argument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by +inference, shown it to be unassailable. Very many of those who have +professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically +attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth +defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an assault, have +shown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicable +breach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in reference +to the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in no +sense of my own individual share in its maintenance. + +I must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who, +with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most +elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and +official zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot +and Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my +book. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of +course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in +reply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has +assailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred, +although I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so +in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of +hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or +error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main +argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr. +Lightfoot, or indicated by Dr. Westcott, might be withdrawn without at +all weakening my position. These objections, I may say, refer solely to +details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent +against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed +against notes and passing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such +words as "misstatements" and "misrepresentations" along the line may +have given it a formidable appearance and malicious effect, which render +it worth while once for all to meet it in detail. + + +The first point to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by +Dr. Lightfoot regarding the "SILENCE OF EUSEBIUS." [45:1] I had called +attention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers, +under certain conditions; [45:2] and I might, omitting his curious +limitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as +singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "In one province more +especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence +occupies a prominent place." Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this +"mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will +not be at all ambiguous." I might again agree with him, but that +unambiguous response can scarcely be pronounced very satisfactory for +the Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only +the eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere +that, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or +say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous evidence that +they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and +authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present +at least, limited to Eusebius. + +The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole +of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete +blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal +works and other indications, they are not evidence against them, I +supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of +Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their +lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not +contain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary +that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main +argument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has +expended upon the preparation of his attack, the space devoted to it, +and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose +that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot +says, after quoting the passages in which I appeal to the silence of +Eusebius:-- + + "This indeed is the fundamental assumption which lies at the basis + of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how + much of the argument falls to pieces if this basis should prove to + be unsound. A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his + foundations first, and assured himself of their strength, before he + piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether + neglected to do." [46:1] + +Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his +belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:-- + + "If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part + of the argument in _Supernatural Religion_ has crumbled to pieces." + [46:2] + +I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must +allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the +importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the +representations made in the above passages are a very strange +exaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with +criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and +strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever, +and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after an +amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that +vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion, +proved that I have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an +inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it +was. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument +which is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding +some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be +withdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is +to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers +regarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of +three writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not +find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works +mentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing +Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in +this does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact +that Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these writers +contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have +we any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection of +Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius +warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these +writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical +books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend +to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was +the purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements, +which I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose +that I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any +kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand? +Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and +Dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The +reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement +Dr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of _Supernatural +Religion_ would be affected even if he established much more than he has +asserted. + +We may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He +carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared +intention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention +or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of +the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words, +merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his +statement into three paragraphs. He says: + + "Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two classes of writings + in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the passage. + + "(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any + ancient writer _employs_ any book belonging to their class ([Greek: + tines hopoiais kechrentai]); + + "(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books, he only + professes to mention them when such a writer has something to _tell + about them_ ([Greek: tina peri ton endiathekon eiretai]). Any + _anecdote_ of interest respecting them, as also respecting the + others ([Greek: ton me toiouton]), will be recorded. + + "(3) But in their case he nowhere leads us to expect that he will + allude to mere _quotations_, however numerous and however precise." + [48:1] + +In order to dispose of the only one of these points upon which we +can differ, I will first refer to the third. Did Eusebius intend to +point out mere quotations of the books which he considered +undisputed? As a matter of fact, he actually did point such out in +the case of the 1st Epistle of Peter and the 1st Epistle of John, +which he repeatedly and in the most emphatic manner declared to be +undisputed. [49:1] This is admitted by Dr. Lightfoot. That he +omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in +the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to +the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down +as much to oversight as intention. On the other hand, that he did +mention disputed books is evidence only that he not only pledged +himself to do so, but actually fulfilled his promise. Although much +might be said upon this point, therefore, I consider it of so little +importance that I do not intend to waste time in minutely discussing +it. If my assertions with regard to the silence of Eusebius likewise +include the supposition that he proposed to mention mere quotations +of the "undisputed" books, they are so far from limited to this very +subsidiary testimony that I should have no reluctance in waiving it +altogether. Even if the most distinct quotations of this kind had +occurred in the lost works of the three writers in question, they +could have proved nothing beyond the mere existence of the book +quoted, at the time that work was written, but would have done +nothing to establish its authenticity and trustworthiness. In the +evidential destitution of the Gospels, apologists would thankfully +have received even such vague indications; indeed there is scarcely +any other evidence, but something much more definite is required to +establish the reality of miracles and Divine Revelation. If this +point be, for the sake of argument, set aside, what is the position? +We are not entitled to infer that there were no quotations from the +Gospels in the works of Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of +Corinth, because Eusebius does not record them; but, on the other +hand, we are still less entitled to infer that there were any. + +The only inference which I care to draw from the silence of Eusebius +is precisely that which Dr. Lightfoot admits that, both from his +promise and practice, I am entitled to deduce: when any ancient +writer "has something to _tell about_" the Gospels, "any _anecdote_ +of interest respecting them," Eusebius will record it. This is the +only information of the slightest value to this work which could +be looked for in these writers. So far, therefore, from producing +the destructive effect upon some of the arguments of _Supernatural +Religion_, upon which he somewhat prematurely congratulates himself, +Dr. Lightfoot's elaborate and learned article on the silence of +Eusebius supports them in the most conclusive manner. + + Before proceeding to speak more directly of the three writers under + discussion, it may be well to glance a little at the procedure of + Eusebius, and note, for those who care to go more closely into the + matter, how he fulfils his promise to record what the Fathers have + to tell about the Gospels. I may mention, in the first place, that + Eusebius states what he himself knows of the composition of the + Gospels and other canonical works. [50:1] Upon two occasions he + quotes the account which Clement of Alexandria gives of the + composition of Mark's Gospel, and also cites his statements + regarding the other Gospels. [50:2] In like manner he records the + information, such as it is, which Irenaeus has to impart about the + four Gospels and other works, [50:3] and what Origen has to say + concerning them. [50:4] Interrogating extant works, we find in fact + that Eusebius does not neglect to quote anything useful or + interesting regarding these books from early writers. Dr. Lightfoot + says that Eusebius "restricts himself to the narrowest limits which + justice to his subject will allow," and he illustrates this by the + case of Irenaeus. He says: "Though he (Eusebius) gives the principal + passage in this author relating to the Four Gospels (Irenaeus, + _Adv. Haer._ iii. 1, 1) he omits to mention others which contain + interesting statements directly or indirectly affecting the + question, _e.g._ that St. John wrote his Gospel to counteract the + errors of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans (Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._ iii. + 11, 1)." [51:1] I must explain, however, that the "interesting + statement" omitted, which is not in the context of the part quoted, + is not advanced as information derived from any authority, but only + in the course of argument, and there is nothing to distinguish it + from mere personal opinion, so that on this ground Eusebius may well + have passed it over. Dr. Lightfoot further says: "Thus too when he + quotes a few lines alluding to the unanimous tradition of the + Asiatic Elders who were acquainted with St. John, [51:2] he omits + the context, from which we find that this tradition had an important + bearing on the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, for it declared + that Christ's ministry extended much beyond a single year, thus + confirming the obvious chronology of the Fourth Gospel against the + apparent chronology of the Synoptists." [51:3] Nothing, however, + could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to + represent any discordance between the Gospels, or to support the one + at the expense of the others. On the contrary, he enters into an + elaborate explanation in order to show that there is no discrepancy + between them, affirming, and supporting his view by singular + quotations, that it was evidently the intention of the three + Synoptists only to write the doings of the Lord for one year after + the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and that John, having the + other Gospels before him, wrote an account of the period not + embraced by the other evangelists. [51:4] Moreover, the + extraordinary assertions of Irenaeus not only contradict the + Synoptics, but also the Fourth Gospel, and Eusebius certainly could + not have felt much inclination to quote such opinions, even although + Irenaeus seemed to base them upon traditions handed down by the + Presbyters who were acquainted with John. + +It being, then, admitted that Eusebius not only pledges himself to +record when any ancient writer has something to "tell about" the +undisputed canonical books, but that, judged by the test of extant +writings which we can examine, he actually does so, let us see the +conclusions which we are entitled to draw in the case of the only three +writers with regard to whom I have inferred anything from the "silence +of Eusebius." + +I need scarcely repeat that Eusebius held HEGESIPPUS in very high +estimation. He refers to him very frequently, and he clearly shows that +he not only valued, but was intimately acquainted with, his writings. +Eusebius quotes from the work of Hegesippus a very long account of the +martyrdom of James; [52:1] he refers to Hegesippus as his authority for +the statement that Simeon was a cousin ([Greek: anepsios]) of Jesus, +Cleophas his father being, according to that author, the brother of +Joseph; [52:2] he confirms a passage in the Epistle of Clement by +reference to Hegesippus; [52:3] he quotes from Hegesippus a story +regarding some members of the family of Jesus, of the race of David, who +were brought before Domitian; [52:4] he cites his narrative of the +martyrdom of Simeon, together with other matters concerning the early +Church; [52:5] in another place he gives a laudatory account of +Hegesippus and his writings; [52:6] shortly after he refers to the +statement of Hegesippus that he was in Rome until the episcopate of +Eleutherus, [52:7] and further speaks in praise of his work, mentions +his observation on the Epistle of Clement, and quotes his remarks about +the Church in Corinth, the succession of Roman bishops, the general +state of the Church, the rise of heresies, and other matters. [52:8] I +mention these numerous references to Hegesippus as I have noticed them +in turning over the pages of Eusebius, but others may very probably have +escaped me. Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works +were used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these +was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a +single remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate +inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is, that Hegesippus +did not say anything about them. I may simply add that, as that, as +Eusebius quotes the account of Matthew and Mark from Papias, a man of +whom he expresses something like contempt, and again refers to him in +confirmation of the statement of the Alexandrian Clement regarding the +composition of Mark's Gospel, [53:1] it would be against all reason, as +well as opposed to his pledge and general practice, to suppose that +Eusebius would have omitted to record any information given by +Hegesippus, a writer with whom he was so well acquainted and of whom he +speaks with so much respect. + + I have said that Eusebius would more particularly have quoted + anything with regard to the Fourth Gospel, and for those who care to + go more closely into the point my reasons may be briefly given. No + one can read Eusebius attentively without noting the peculiar care + with which he speaks of John and his writings, and the substantially + apologetic tone which he adopts in regard to them. Apart from any + doubts expressed regarding the Gospel itself, the controversy as to + the authenticity of the Apocalypse and second and third Epistles + called by his name, with which Eusebius was so well acquainted, and + the critical dilemma as to the impossibility of the same John having + written both the Gospel and Apocalypse, regarding which he so fully + quotes the argument of Dionysius of Alexandria, [53:2] evidently + made him peculiarly interested in the subject, and his attention to + the fourth Gospel was certainly not diminished by his recognition of + the essential difference between that work and the three Synoptics. + The first occasion on which he speaks of John, he records the + tradition that he was banished to Patmos during the persecution + under Domitian, and refers to the Apocalypse. He quotes Irenaeus in + support of this tradition, and the composition of the work at the + close of Domitian's reign. [54:1] He goes on to speak of the + persecution under Domitian, and quotes Hegesippus as to a command + given by that Emperor to slay all the posterity of David, [54:2] as + also Tertullian's account, [54:3] winding up his extracts from the + historians of the time by the statement that, after Nerva succeeded + Domitian, and the Senate had revoked the cruel decrees of the + latter, the Apostle John returned from exile in Patmos and, + according to ecclesiastical tradition, settled at Ephesus. [54:4] He + states that John, the beloved disciple, apostle and evangelist, + governed the Churches of Asia after the death of Domitian and his + return from Patmos, and that he was still living when Trajan + succeeded Nerva, and for the truth of this he quotes passages from + Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. [54:5] He then gives an account + of the writings of John, and whilst asserting that the Gospel must + be universally acknowledged as genuine, he says that it is rightly + put last in order amongst the four, of the composition of which he + gives an elaborate description. It is not necessary to quote his + account of the fourth Gospel and of the occasion of its composition, + which he states to have been John's receiving the other three + Gospels, and, whilst admitting their truth, perceiving that they did + not contain a narrative of the earlier history of Christ. For this + reason, being entreated to do so, he wrote an account of the doings + of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison. After some very + extraordinary reasoning, Eusebius says that no one who carefully + considers the points he mentions can think that the Gospels are at + variance with each other, and he conjectures that John probably + omitted the genealogies because Matthew and Luke had given them. + [54:6] Without further anticipating what I have to say when speaking + of Papias, it is clear, I think, that Eusebius, being aware of, and + interested in, the peculiar difficulties connected with the writings + attributed to John, not to put a still stronger case, and quoting + traditions from later and consequently less weighty authorities, + would certainly have recorded with more special readiness any + information on the subject given by Hegesippus, whom he so + frequently lays under contribution, had his writings contained any. + +In regard to PAPIAS the case is still clearer. We find that Eusebius +quotes his account of the composition of Gospels by Matthew and Mark, +[55:1] although he had already given a closely similar narrative +regarding Mark from Clement of Alexandria, and appealed to Papias in +confirmation of it. Is it either possible or permissible to suppose +that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels, he would not +have enquired about them from the Presbyters and recorded their +information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if +Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of +the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it? +Certainly not; and Dr. Lightfoot's article proves it. Eusebius had not +only pledged himself to give such information, and does so in every case +which we can test, but he fulfil it by actually quoting what Papias had +to say about the Gospels. Even if he had been careless, his very +reference to the first two Gospels must have reminded him of the claims +of the rest. There are, however, special reasons which render it still +more certain that had Papias had anything to tell about the Fourth +Gospel,--and if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge he must have +had something, to tell about it,--Eusebius would have recorded it. The +first quotation he makes from Papias is the passage in which the Bishop +of Hierapolis states the interest with which he had enquired about the +words of the Presbyters, "what John or Matthew or what any other of the +disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, +disciples of the Lord, say." [55:2] Eusebius observes, and particularly +points out, that the name of John is twice mentioned in the passage, the +former, mentioned with Peter, James, and Matthew, and other Apostles, +evidently being, he thinks, the Evangelist, and the latter being clearly +distinguished by the designation of Presbyter. Eusebius states that this +proves the truth of the assertion that there were two men of the name of +John in Asia, and that two tombs were still shown at Ephesus bearing the +name of John. Eusebius then proceeds to argue that probably the second +of the two Johns, if not the first, was the man who saw the Revelation. +What an occasion for quoting any information bearing at all on the +subject from Papias, who had questioned those who had been acquainted +with both! His attention is so pointedly turned to John at the very +moment when he makes his quotations regarding Matthew and Mark, that I +am fully warranted, both by the conclusions of Dr. Lightfoot and the +peculiar circumstances of the case, in affirming that the silence of +Eusebius proves that Papias said nothing about either the third or +fourth Gospels. + +I need not go on to discuss Dionysius of Corinth, for the same reasoning +equally applies to his case. I have, therefore, only a few more words +to say on the subject of Eusebius. Not content with what he intended +to be destructive criticism, Dr. Lightfoot valiantly proceeds to the +constructive and, "as a sober deduction from facts," makes the following +statement, which he prints in italics: "_The silence of Eusebius +respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in +its favour_." [56:1] Now, interpreted even by the rules laid down by +Dr. Lightfoot himself, what does this silence really mean? It means, +not that the early writers about whom he is supposed to be silent are +witnesses about anything connected with the Fourth Gospel, but simply +that if Eusebius noticed and did not record the mere use of that Gospel +by anyone, he thereby indicates that he himself, in the fourth century, +classed it amongst the undisputed books, the mere use of which he does +not undertake to mention. The value of his opinion at so late a date is +very small. + + +Professor Lightfoot next makes a vehement attack upon me in connection +with "THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES," [57:1] which is equally abortive and +limited to details. I do not intend to complain of the spirit in which +the article is written, nor of its unfairness. On the whole I think that +readers may safely he left to judge of the tone in which a controversy +is carried on. Unfortunately, however, the perpetual accusation of +misstatement brought against me in this article, and based upon minute +criticism into which few care to follow, is apt to leave the impression +that it is well-founded, for there is the very natural feeling in most +right minds that no one would recklessly scatter such insinuations. It +is this which alone makes such an attack dangerous. Now in a work like +this, dealing with so many details, it must be obvious that it not +possible altogether to escape errors. A critic or opponent is of course +entitled to point these out, although, if he be high-minded or even +alive to his own interests, I scarcely think that he will do so in a +spirit of unfair detraction. But in doing this a writer is bound to be +accurate, for if he be liberal of such accusations and it can be shown +that his charges are unfounded, they recoil with double force upon +himself. I propose, therefore, as it is impossible for me to reply to +all such attacks, to follow Professor Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott, with +some minuteness in their discussion of my treatment of the Ignatian +Epistles, and once for all to show the grave misstatements to which +they commit themselves. + +Dr. Lightfoot does not ignore the character of the discussion upon +which he enters, but it will be seen that his appreciation of its +difficulty by no means inspires him with charitable emotions. He says: +"The Ignatian question is the most perplexing which confronts the +student of earlier Christian history. The literature is voluminous; the +considerations involved are very wide, very varied, and very intricate. +A writer, therefore, may well be pardoned if he betrays a want of +familiarity with this subject. But in this case the reader naturally +expects that the opinions at which he has arrived will be stated with +some diffidence." [58:1] My critic objects that I express my opinions +with decision. I shall hereafter justify this decision, but I would +here point out that the very reasons which render it difficult for +Dr. Lightfoot to form a final and decisive judgment on the question +make it easy for me. It requires but little logical perception to +recognize that Epistles, the authenticity of which it is so difficult +to establish, cannot have much influence as testimony for the Gospels. +The statement just quoted, however, is made the base of the attack, +and war is declared in the following terms: + + "The reader is naturally led to think that a writer would not use + such very decided language unless he had obtained a thorough mastery + of his subject; and when he finds the notes thronged with references + to the most recondite sources of information, he at once credits the + author with an 'exhaustive' knowledge of the literature bearing upon + it. It becomes important therefore to enquire whether the writer + shows that accurate acquaintance with the subject, which justifies + us in attaching weight to his dicta as distinguished from his + arguments." [59:1] + +This sentence shows the scope of the discussion. My dicta, however, play +a very subordinate part throughout, and even if no weight be attached to +them--and I have never desired that any should be--my argument would not +be in the least degree affected. + +The first point attacked, like most of those subsequently assailed, is +one of mere critical history. I wrote: "The strongest internal, as well +as other evidence, into which space forbids our going in detail, has led +(1) the majority of critics to recognize the Syriac version as the most +genuine form of the letters of Ignatius extant, and (2) this is admitted +by most of those who nevertheless deny the authenticity of any of the +epistles." [59:2] + +Upon this Dr. Lightfoot remarks:-- + + "No statement could be more erroneous as a summary of the results + of the Ignatian controversy since the publication of the Syriac + epistles than this." [59:1] + +It will be admitted that this is pretty "decided language" for one +who is preaching "diffidence." When we come to details, however, +Dr. Lightfoot admits: "Those who maintain the genuineness of the +Ignatian Epistles in one or other of the two forms, may be said to +be almost evenly divided on this question of priority." He seems to +consider that he sufficiently shows this when he mentions five or +six critics on either side; but even on this modified interpretation +of my statement its correctness may be literally maintained. To the +five names quoted as recognising the priority of the Syriac Epistles +may be added those of Milman, Boehringer, de Pressense, and Dr. Tregelles, +which immediately occur to me. But I must ask upon what ground he +limits my remark to those who absolutely admit the genuineness? I +certainly do not so limit it, but affirm that a majority prefer the +three Curetonian Epistles, and that this majority is made up partly +of those who, denying the authenticity of any of the letters, still +consider the Syriac the purest and least adulterated form of the +Epistles. This will be evident to anyone who reads the context. With +regard to the latter (2) part of the sentence, I will at once say +that "most" is a slip of the pen for "many," which I correct in this +edition. [60:1] Many of those who deny or do not admit the authenticity +prefer the Curetonian version. The Tuebingen school are not unanimous +on the point, and there are critics who do not belong to it. Bleek, +for instance, who does not commit himself to belief, considers the +priority of the Curetonian "im hoechsten Grade wahrscheinlich." Volkmar, +Lipsius, and Rumpf prefer them. Dr. Lightfoot says: + + "The case of Lipsius is especially instructive, as illustrating this + point. Having at one time maintained the priority and genuineness of + the Curetonian letters, he has lately, if I rightly understand him, + retracted his former opinion on both questions alike." [60:2] + +Dr. Lightfoot, however, has not, rightly understood him. Lipsius has +only withdrawn his opinion that the Syriac letters are authentic, but, +whilst now asserting that in all their forms the Ignatian Epistles are +spurious, he still maintains the priority of the Curetonian version. He +first announced this change of view emphatically in 1873, when he added: +"An dem relativ groessern Alter der syrischen Textgestalt gegenueber der +kuerzeren griechischen halte ich uebrigens nach wie vor fest." [61:1] In +the very paper to which Dr. Lightfoot refers, Lipsius also again says +quite distinctly: "Ich bin noch jetzt ueberzeugt, dass der Syrer in +zahlreichen Faellen den relativ urspruenglichsten Text bewahrt hat (vgl. +meine Nachweise in 'Niedner's Zeitschr.' S. 15ff)." [61:2] With regard +to the whole of this (2) point, it must be remembered that the only +matter in question is simply a shade of opinion amongst critics who deny +the authenticity of the Ignatian Epistles in all forms. + +Dr. Lightfoot, however, goes on "to throw some light upon this point" by +analysing my "general statement of the course of opinion on this subject +given in an earlier passage." [61:3] The "light" which he throws seems +to pass through so peculiar a medium, that I should be much rather +tempted to call it darkness. I beg the reader to favour me with his +attention to this matter, for here commences a serious attack upon the +accuracy of my notes and statements, which is singularly full of error +and misrepresentation. The general statement referred to and quoted is +as follows:-- + + "These three Syriac epistles have been subjected to the severest + scrutiny, and many of the ablest critics have pronounced them to be + the only authentic Epistles of Ignatius, whilst others, who do not + admit that even these are genuine letters emanating from Ignatius, + prefer them to the version of seven Greek epistles, and consider + them the most ancient form of the letters which we possess.(1) As + early as the sixteenth century, however, the strongest doubts were + expressed regarding the authenticity of any of the epistles ascribed + to Ignatius. The Magdeburg Centuriators first attacked them, and + Calvin declared (p. 260) them to be spurious,[^1] an opinion fully + shared by Chemnitz, Dallaeus, and others; and similar doubts, + more or less definite, were expressed throughout the seventeenth + century,(2) and onward to comparatively recent times,(3) although + the means of forming a judgment were not then so complete as now. + That the epistles were interpolated there was no doubt. Fuller + examination and more comprehensive knowledge of the subject have + confirmed earlier doubts, and a large mass of critics recognise + that the authenticity of none of these epistles can be established, + and that they can only be considered later and spurious + compositions.(4)" [62:1] + +In the first note (1) on p. 259 I referred to Bunsen, Bleek, Boehringer, +Cureton, Ewald, Lipsius, Milman, Ritschl, and Weiss, and Dr. Lightfoot +proceeds to analyse my statements as follows: and I at once put his +explanation and my text in parallel columns, italicising parts of both +to call more immediate attention to the point: + + THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT. + | +_Many of the ablest critics have | "These references, it will be +pronounced them to be the only | observed, are given to illustrate +authentic Epistles of Ignatius, | _more immediately_, though perhaps +whilst others_ who do not admit | not solely, the statement that +that even these are genuine letters | writers '_who do not admit that +emanating from Ignatius, _still | even these_ (the Curetonian +prefer them_ to the version of | Epistles) _are genuine letters +seven Greek Epistles, _and consider | emanating from Ignatius, still +them the most ancient form of the | prefer them_ to the version of +letters_ which we possess. | seven Greek Epistles, and consider + | them the most ancient form of the + | letters which we possess.'" [62:2] + + +It must be evident to anyone who reads the context [62:3] that in this +sentence I am stating opinions expressed in favour of the Curetonian +Epistles, and that the note, which is naturally put at the end of that +sentence, must be intended to represent this favourable opinion, whether +of those who absolutely maintain the authenticity or merely the relative +priority. Dr. Lightfoot quietly suppresses, in his comments, the main +statement of the text which the note illustrates, and then "throws +light" upon the point by the following remarks:-- + + THE TRUTH. | DR. LIGHTFOOT'S STATEMENT. + | +_Cureton, Bunsen, Boehringer, Ewald, | "The reader, therefore, will +Milman, Ritschl_, and _Weiss_ | hardly be prepared to hear that +maintain both the priority and | not one of these nine writers +genuineness of the Syriac Epistles. | condemns the Ignatian letters +_Bleek_ will not commit himself to a | as spurious. Bleek alone leaves +distinct recognition of the letters | leaves the matter in some +in any form. Of the Vossian | uncertainty while inclining to +Epistles, he says: "Aber auch die | Bunsen's view; the other eight +Echtheit dieser Recension ist | distinctly maintain the +keineswegs sicher." He considers the | genuineness of the Curetonian +priority of the Curetonian "in the | letters." [63:1] +highest degree probable." | + | +_Lipsius_ rejects all the Epistles, | +as I have already said, but | +maintains the priority of the | +Syriac. | + + +Dr. Lightfoot's statement, therefore, is a total misrepresentation of +the facts, and of that mischievous kind which does most subtle injury. +Not one reader in twenty would take the trouble to investigate, but +would receive from such positive assertions an impression that my note +was totally wrong, when in fact it is literally correct. + +Continuing his analysis, Dr. Lightfoot fights almost every inch of the +ground in the very same style. He cannot contradict my statement that so +early as the sixteenth century the strongest doubts were expressed +regarding the authenticity of any of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, +and that the Magdeburg Centuriators attacked them, and Calvin declared +them to be spurious, [64:1] but Dr. Lightfoot says: "The criticisms of +Calvin more especially refer to those passages which were found in the +Long Recension alone." [64:2] Of course only the Long Recension was at +that time known. Rivet replies to Campianus that Calvin's objections +were not against Ignatius but the Jesuits who had corrupted him. [64:3] +This is the usual retort theological, but as I have quoted the words of +Calvin the reader may judge for himself. Dr. Lightfoot then says: + + "The clause which follows contains a direct misstatement. Chemnitz + did not fully share the opinion that they were spurious; on the + contrary, he quotes them several times as authoritative; but he says + that they 'seem to have been altered in many places to strengthen + the position of the Papal power, &c.'" [64:4] + +Pearson's statement here quoted must be received with reserve, for +Chemnitz rather speaks sarcastically of those who quote these Epistles +as evidence. In treating them as ancient documents or speaking of parts +of them with respect, Chemnitz does nothing more than the Magdeburg +Centuriators, but this is a very different thing from directly ascribing +them to Ignatius himself. The Epistles in the "Long Recension were +before Chemnitz both in the Latin and Greek forms. He says of them: +"... multas habent non contemnendas sententias, praesertim sicut Graece +leguntur. Admixta vero sunt et alia non pauca, quae profecto non +referunt gravitatem Apostolicam. Adulteratas enim jam esse illas +epistolas, vel inde colligitur." He then shows that quotations in +ancient writers purporting to be taken from the Epistles of Ignatius +are not found in these extant Epistles at all, and says: "De Epistolis +igitur illis Ignatii, quae nunc ejus titulo feruntur, merito dubitamus: +transformatae enim videntur in multis locis, ad stabiliendum statum +regni Pontificii." [65:1] Even when he speaks in favour of them he +"damns them with faint praise." The whole of the discussion turns upon +the word "fully," and is an instance of the minute criticism of my +critic, who evidently is not directly acquainted with Chemnitz. A shade +more or less of doubt or certainty in conveying the impression received +from the words of a writer is scarcely worth much indignation. + +Dr. Lightfoot makes a very detailed attack upon my next two notes, and +here again I must closely follow him. My note (2) p. 260 reads as +follows: + + "(2) By Bochartus, Aubertin, Blondel, Basnage, Casaubon, Cocus, + Humfrey, Rivetus, Salmasius, Socinus (Faustus), Parker, Petau, &c. + &c.; cf. Jacobson, 'Patr. Apost.' i. p. xxv; Cureton, 'Vindiciae + Ignatianae,' 1846, appendix." + +Upon this Dr. Lightfoot makes the following preliminary remarks:-- + + "But the most important point of all is the purpose for which they + are quoted. 'Similar doubts' could only, I think, be interpreted + from the context as doubts 'regarding the authenticity of any of the + Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.'" [65:2] + +As Dr. Lightfoot, in the first sentence just quoted, recognises what is +"the most important point of all," it is a pity that, throughout the +whole of the subsequent analysis of the references in question, he +persistently ignores my very careful definition of "the purpose for +which they are quoted." It is difficult, without entering into minute +classifications, accurately to represent in a few words the opinions of +a great number of writers, and briefly convey a fair idea of the course +of critical judgment. Desirous, therefore, of embracing a large +class--for both this note and the next, with mere difference of epoch, +illustrate the same statement in the text--and not to overstate the case +on my own side, I used what seemed to me a very moderate phrase, +decreasing the force of the opinion of those who positively rejected the +Epistles, and not unfairly representing the hesitation of those who did +not fully accept them. I said, then, in guarded terms--and I italicise +the part which Dr. Lightfoot chooses to suppress--that "similar _doubts, +more or less definite_," were expressed by the writers referred to. + +Dr. Lightfoot admits that Bochart directly condemns one Epistle, and +would probably have condemned the rest also; that Aubertin, Blondel, +Basnage, R. Parker, and Saumaise actually rejected all; and that Cook +pronounces them "either supposititious or shamefully corrupted." So +far, therefore, there can be no dispute. I will now take the rest in +succession. Dr. Lightfoot says that Humfrey "considers that they have +been interpolated and mutilated, but he believes them genuine in the +main." Dr. Lightfoot has so completely warped the statement in the +text, that he seems to demand nothing short of a total condemnation of +the Epistles in the note, but had I intended to say that Humfrey and +all of these writers definitely rejected the whole of the Epistles I +should not have limited myself to merely saying that they expressed +"_doubts_ more or less definite," which Humfrey does. Dr. Lightfoot +says that Socinus "denounces corruptions and anachronisms, but so far +as I can see does not question a nucleus of genuine matter." His very +denunciations, however, are certainly the expression of "doubts, more +or less definite." "Casaubon, far from rejecting them altogether," +Dr. Lightfoot says, "promises to defend the antiquity of some of the +Epistles with new arguments." But I have never affirmed that he +"rejected them altogether." Casaubon died before he fulfilled the +promise referred to, so that we cannot determine what arguments he +might have used. I must point out, however, that the antiquity does not +necessarily involve the authenticity of a document. With regard to +Rivet the case is different. I had overlooked the fact that in a +subsequent edition of the work referred to, after receiving Archbishop +Usher's edition on of the Short Recension, he had given his adhesion +to "that form of the Epistles." [67:1] This fact is also mentioned by +Pearson, and I ought to have observed it. [67:2] Petau, the last of +the writers referred to, says: "Equidem haud abnuerim epistolas illius +varie interpolatas et quibusdam additis mutatas, ac depravatas fuisse: +tum aliquas esse supposititias: verum nullas omnino ab Ignatio +Epistolas esse scriptas, id vero nimium temere affirmari sentio." He +then goes on to mention the recent publication of the Vossian Epistles +and the version of Usher, and the learned Jesuit Father has no more +decided opinion to express than: "ut haec prudens, ac justa suspicio +sit, illas esse genuinas Ignatii epistolas, quas antiquorum consensus +illustribus testimoniis commendatas ac approbatas reliquit." [67:3] + +The next note (3), p. 260, was only separated from the preceding for +convenience of reference, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes and comments upon it +as follows:-- + + "The next note (3), p. 260, is as follows:--"'[Wotton, _Praef. + Clem. R. Epp._ 1718]; J. Owen, _Enquiry into Original Nature, &c., + Evang. Church, Works_, ed. Russel, 1826, vol. xx. p. 147; Oudin, + _Comm. de Script. Eccles._ &c. 1722, p. 88; Lampe, _Comm. analyt. ex + Evang. Joan._ 1724, i. p. 184; Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, + ii. p. 68 f.; Beausobre, _Hist. Crit. de Manichee_, &c. 1734, i. + p. 378, note 3; Ernesti, _N. Theol. Biblioth._ 1761, ii. p. 489; + [Mosheim, _De Rebus Christ._ p. 159 f.]; Weismann, _Introd. in + Memorab. Eccles._ 1745, i. p. 137; Heumann, _Conspect. Reipub. Lit._ + 1763, p. 492; Schroeckh, _Chr. Kirchengesch._ 1775, ii. p. 341; + Griesbach, _Opuscula Academ._ 1824, i. p. 26; Rosenmueller, _Hist. + Interpr. Libr. Sacr. in Eccles._ 1795, i. p. 116; Semler, _Paraphr. + in Epist II. Petri._ 1784, _Praef._; Kestner, _Comm. de Eusebii H.E. + condit._ 1816, p. 63; Henke, _Allg. Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1818, i. + p. 96; Neander, _K.G._ 1843, ii. p. 1140 [cf. i. p. 327, Anm. 11; + Baumgarten-Crusius, _Lehrb. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1832, p. 83; cf. + _Comp. chr. Dogmengesch._ 1840, p. 79; [Niedner, _Gesch. chr. K._ + p. 196; Thiersch, _Die K. im ap. Zeit._ p. 322; Hagenbach, _K.G._ i. + p. 115 f.]; cf. _Cureton, Vind. Ign. Append._; Ziegler, _Versuch + eine prag. Gesch. d. kirchl. Verfassungsformen, u.s.w._ 1798, p. 16; + J.E.C. Schmidt, _Versuch ueb. d. gedopp. Recens. d. Br. S. Ignat._, + in Henke's _Mag. f. Rel. Phil. u.s.w._ [1795; cf. _Biblioth. f. + Krit. u.s.w., N.T._ i. p 463 ff. _Urspr. kath. Kirche_, II. i. + p. 1 f.]; _Handbuch Chr. K.G._ i. p. 200.' + + "The brackets are not the author's, but my own. + + "This is doubtless one of those exhibitions of learning which have + made such a deep impression on the reviewers. Certainly, as it + stands, this note suggests a thorough acquaintance with all the + by-paths of the Ignatian literature, and seems to represent the + gleanings of many years' reading. It is important to observe, + however, that every one of these references, except those which I + have included in brackets, is given in the appendix to Cureton's + 'Vindiciae Ignatianae,' where the passages are quoted in full. Thus + two-thirds of this elaborate note might have been compiled in ten + minutes. Our author has here and there transposed the order of the + quotations, and confused it by so doing, for it is chronological in + Cureton. But what purpose was served by thus importing into his + notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted references? And, if he thought + fit to do so, why was the key-reference to Cureton buried among the + rest, so that it stands in immediate connection with some additional + references on which it has no bearing?" [68:1] + +I do not see any special virtue in the amount of time which might +suffice, under some circumstances, to compile a note, although it is +here advanced as an important point to observe, but I call attention to +the unfair spirit in which Dr. Lightfoot's criticisms are made. I ask +every just-minded reader to consider what right any critic has to +insinuate, if not directly to say, that, because some of the references +in a note are also given by Cureton, I simply took them from him, and +thus "imported into my notes a mass of borrowed and unsorted +references," and further to insinuate that I "here and there transposed +the order" apparently to conceal the source? This is a kind of +criticism which I very gladly relinquish entirely to my high-minded and +reverend opponent. Now, as full quotations are given in Cureton's +appendix, I should have been perfectly entitled to take references from +it, had I pleased, and for the convenience of many readers I distinctly +indicate Cureton's work, in the note, as a source to be compared. The +fact is, however, that I did not take the references from Cureton, but +in every case derived them from the works themselves, and if the note +"seems to represent the gleanings of many years' reading," it certainly +does not misrepresent the fact, for I took the trouble to make myself +acquainted with the "by-paths of Ignatian literature." Now in analysing +the references in this note it must be borne in mind that they +illustrate the statement that "_doubts, more or less definite_," +continued to be expressed regarding the Ignatian Epistles. I am much +obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for drawing my attention to Wotton. His name +is the first in the note, and it unfortunately was the last in a list +on another point in my note-book, immediately preceding this one, and +was by mistake included in it. I also frankly give up Weismann, whose +doubts I find I had exaggerated, and proceed to examine Dr. Lightfoot's +further statements. He says that Thiersch uses the Curetonian as +genuine, and that his only doubt is whether he ought not to accept the +Vossian. Thiersch, however, admits that he cannot quote either the +seven or the three Epistles as genuine. He says distinctly: "These +three Syriac Epistles lie under the suspicion that they are not an +older text, but merely an epitome of the seven, for the other notes +found in the same MS. seem to be excerpts. But on the other hand, the +doubts regarding the genuineness of the seven Epistles, in the form in +which they are known since Usher's time, are not yet entirely removed. +For no MS. has yet been found which contains _only_ the seven Epistles +attested by Eusebius, a MS. such as lay before Eusebius." [70:1] +Thiersch, therefore, does express "doubts, more or less definite." +Dr. Lightfoot then continues: "Of the rest a considerable number, as, +for instance, Lardner, Beausobre, Schroeckh, Griesbach, Kestner, Neander, +and Baumgarten-Crusius, _with different degrees of certainty or +uncertainty_, pronounce themselves in favour of a genuine nucleus." +[70:2] The words which I have italicised are a mere paraphrase of my +words descriptive of the doubts entertained. I must point out that a +leaning towards belief in a genuine "nucleus" on the part of some of +these writers, by no means excludes the expression of "_doubts, more or +less definite_," which is all I quote them for. I will take each name +in order. + +_Lardner_ says: "But whether the smaller (Vossian Epistles) themselves + are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a + question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens + of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have + shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult + question." The opinion which he expresses finally is merely: + "it appears to me _probable_, that they are _for the main part_ + the genuine epistles of Ignatius." + +_Beausobre_ says: "Je ne veux, ni defendre, ni combattre l'authenticite + des _Lettres de St. Ignace_. Si elles ne sont pas veritables, elles + ne laissent pas d'etre fort anciennes; et l'opinion, qui me paroit + la plus raisonnable, est que les plus pures ont ete interpolees." + +_Schroeckh_ says that along with the favourable considerations for + the shorter (Vossian) Epistles, "many doubts arise which make them + suspicious." He proceeds to point out many grave difficulties, and + anachronisms which cast doubt both on individual epistles and upon + the whole, and he remarks that a very common way of evading these + and other difficulties is to affirm that all the passages which + cannot be reconciled with the mode of thought of Ignatius are + interpolations of a later time. He concludes with the pertinent + observation: "However probable this is, it nevertheless remains as + difficult to prove which are the interpolated passages." In fact it + would be difficult to point out any writer who more thoroughly + doubts, without definitely rejecting, all the Epistles. + +_Griesbach_ and _Kestner_ both express "doubts more or less definite," + but to make sufficient extracts to illustrate this would occupy + too much space. + +_Neander._--Dr. Lightfoot has been misled by the short extract from + the English translation of the first edition of Neander's History + given by Cureton in his Appendix, has not attended to the brief + German quotation from the second edition, and has not examined the + original at all, or he would have seen that, so far from pronouncing + "in favour of a genuine nucleus," Neander might well have been + classed by me amongst those who distinctly reject the Ignatian + Epistles, instead of being moderately quoted amongst those who + merely express doubt. Neander says: "As the account of the martyrdom + of Ignatius is very suspicious, so also the Epistles which suppose + the correctness of this suspicious legend do not bear throughout the + impress of a distinct individuality, and of a man of that time who + is addressing his last words to the communities. A hierarchical + purpose is not to be mistaken." In an earlier part of the work he + still more emphatically says that, "in the so-called Ignatian + Epistles," he recognises a decided "design" (_Absichtlichkeit_), and + then he continues: "As the tradition regarding the journey of + Ignatius to Rome, there to be cast to the wild beasts, seems to me + for the above-mentioned reasons very suspicious, his Epistles, which + presuppose the truth of this tradition, can no longer inspire me + with faith in their authenticity." [72:1] He goes on to state + additional grounds for disbelief. + +_Baumgarten-Crusius_ stated in one place, in regard to the seven + Epistles, that it is no longer possible to ascertain how much of the + extant may have formed part of the original Epistles, and in a note + he excepts only the passages quoted by the Fathers. He seems to + agree with Semler and others that the two Recensions are probably + the result of manipulations of the original, the shorter form being + more in ecclesiastical, the longer in dogmatic, interest. Some years + later he remarked that enquiries into the Epistles, although not yet + concluded, had rather tended towards the earlier view that the + Shorter Recension was more original than the Long, but that even the + shorter may have suffered, if not from manipulations + (_Ueberarbeitungen_), from interpolations. This very cautious + statement, it will be observed, is wholly relative, and does not in + the least modify the previous conclusion that the original material + of the letters cannot be ascertained. + +Dr. Lightfoot's objections regarding these seven writers are thoroughly +unfounded, and in most cases glaringly erroneous. + +He proceeds to the next "note (4)" with the same unhesitating vigour, +and characterises it as "equally unfortunate." Wherever it has been +possible, Dr. Lightfoot has succeeded in misrepresenting the "purpose" +of my notes, although he has recognised how important it is to ascertain +this correctly, and in this instance he has done so again. I will +put my text and his explanation, upon the basis of which he analyses +the note, in juxtaposition, italicising part of my own statement +which he altogether disregards:-- + + | DR. LIGHTFOOT. + | +"Further examination and more | "References to twenty authorities +comprehensive knowledge of the | are then given, as belonging to +subject have confirmed earlier | the 'large mass of critics' who +doubts, and a large mass of critics | recognise that the Ignatian +recognise _that the authenticity of | Epistles 'can only be considered +none_ of these Epistles _can be | later and spurious compositions.'" +established_, and that they can | [73:1] +only be considered later and | +spurious compositions." | + + +There are here, in order to embrace a number of references, two +approximate states of opinion represented: the first, which leaves the +Epistles in permanent doubt, as sufficient evidence is not forthcoming +to establish their authenticity; and the second, which positively +pronounces them to be spurious. Out of the twenty authorities referred +to, Dr. Lightfoot objects to six as contradictory or not confirming +what he states to be the purpose of the note. He seems to consider that +a reservation for the possibility of a genuine substratum which cannot +be defined invalidates my reference. I maintain, however, that it does +not. It is quite possible to consider that the authenticity of the +extant letters cannot be established without denying that there may +have been some original nucleus upon which these actual documents may +have been based. I will analyse the six references. + +_Bleek._--Dr. Lightfoot says: "Of these Bleek (already cited in a + previous note) expresses no definite opinion." + + Dr. Lightfoot omits to mention that I do not refer to Bleek + directly, but by "Cf." merely request consideration of his opinions. + I have already partly stated Bleek's view. After pointing out some + difficulties, he says generally: "It comes to this, that the origin + of the Ignatian Epistles themselves is still very doubtful." He + refuses to make use of a passage because it is only found in the + Long Recension, and another which occurs in the Shorter Recension he + does not consider evidence, because, first, he says, "The + authenticity of this Recension also is by no means certain," and, + next, the Cureton Epistles discredit the others. "Whether this + Recension (the Curetonian) is more original than the shorter Greek + is certainly not altogether certain, but ... in the highest degree + probable." In another place he refuses to make use of reminiscences + in the "Ignatian Epistles," "because it is still very doubtful how + the case stands as regards the authenticity and integrity of these + Ignatian Epistles themselves, in the different Recensions in which + we possess them." [75:1] In fact he did not consider that their + authenticity could be established. I do not, however, include him + here at all. + +_Gfroerer._--Dr. Lightfoot, again, omits to state that I do not cite + this writer like the others, but by a "Cf." merely suggest a + reference to his remarks. + +_Harless_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "avows that he must 'decidedly + reject with the most considerable critics of older and more + recent times' the opinion maintained by certain persons that + the Epistles are 'altogether spurious,' and proceeds to treat a + passage as genuine because it stands in the Vossian letters as well + as in the Long Recension." + + This is a mistake. Harless quotes a passage in connection with + Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians with the distinct remark: "In this + case the disadvantage of the uncertainty regarding the Recensions is + _in part_ removed through the circumstance that both Recensions have + the passage." He recognises that the completeness of the proof that + ecclesiastical tradition goes back beyond the time of Marcion is + somewhat wanting from the uncertainty regarding the text of + Ignatius. He did not, in fact, venture to consider the Ignatian + Epistles evidence even for the first half of the second century. + +_Schliemann_, Dr. Lightfoot states, "says that 'the external testimonies + oblige him to recognise a genuine substratum,' though he is not + satisfied with either existing recension." + + Now what Schliemann says is this: "Certainly neither the Shorter and + still less the Longer Recension in which we possess these Epistles + can lay claim to authenticity. Only if we must, nevertheless, + without doubt suppose a genuine substratum," &c. In a note he adds: + "The external testimonies oblige me to recognise a genuine + substratum--Polycarp already speaks of the same in Ch. xiii. of his + Epistle. But that in their present form they do not proceed from + Ignatius the contents sufficiently show." + +_Hase_, according to Dr. Lightfoot, "commits himself to no opinion." + + If he does not deliberately and directly do so, he indicates what + that opinion is with sufficient clearness. The Long Recension, he + says, bears the marks of later manipulation, and excites suspicion + of an invention in favour of Episcopacy, and the shorter text is not + fully attested either. The Curetonian Epistles with the shortest and + least hierarchical text give the impression of an epitome. "But even + if no authentic kernel lay at the basis of these Epistles, yet they + would be a significant document at latest out of the middle of the + second century." These last words are a clear admission of his + opinion that the authenticity cannot be established. + +_Lechler_ candidly confesses that he commenced with a prejudice in + favour of the authenticity of the Epistles in the Shorter Recension, + but on reading them through, he says that an impression unfavourable + to their authenticity was produced upon him which he had not been + able to shake off. He proceeds to point out their internal + improbability, and other difficulties connected with the supposed + journey, which make it "still more improbable that Ignatius himself + can really have written these Epistles in this situation." Lechler + does not consider that the Curetonian Epistles strengthen the case; + and although he admits that he cannot congratulate himself on the + possession of "certainty and cheerfulness of conviction" of the + inauthenticity of the Ignatian Epistles, he at least very clearly + justifies the affirmation that the authenticity cannot be + established. + +Now what has been the result of this minute and prejudiced attack upon +my notes? Out of nearly seventy critics and writers in connection with +what is admitted to be one of the most intricate questions of Christian +literature, it appears that--much to my regret--I have inserted one name +totally by accident, overlooked that the doubts of another had been +removed by the subsequent publication of the Short Recension and +consequently erroneously classed him, and I withdraw a third whose +doubts I consider that I have overrated. Mistakes to this extent in +dealing with such a mass of references, or a difference of a shade more +or less in the representation of critical opinions, not always clearly +expressed, may, I hope, be excusable, and I can truly say that I am only +too glad to correct such errors. On the other hand, a critic who attacks +such references, in such a tone, and with such wholesale accusations of +"misstatement" and "misrepresentation," was bound to be accurate, and I +have shown that Dr. Lightfoot is not only inaccurate in matters of fact, +but unfair in his statements of my purpose. I am happy, however, to be +able to make use of his own words and say: "I may perhaps have fallen +into some errors of detail, though I have endeavoured to avoid them, but +the main conclusions are, I believe, irrefragable." [78:1] + +There are further misstatements made by Dr. Lightfoot to which I must +briefly refer before turning to other matters. He says, with +unhesitating boldness: + + "One highly important omission is significant. There is no mention, + from first to last, of the Armenian version. Now it happens that + this version (so far as regards the documentary evidence) _has been + felt to be the key to the position, and around it the battle has + raged fiercely since its publication_. One who (like our author) + maintains the priority of the Curetonian letters, was especially + bound to give it some consideration, for it furnishes the most + formidable argument to his opponents. This version was given to the + world by Petermann in 1849, the same year in which Cureton's later + work, the _Corpus Ignatianum_, appeared, and therefore was unknown + to him. Its _bearing occupies a more or less prominent place in all, + or nearly all, the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian + question during the last quarter of a century. This is true of + Lipsius and Weiss and Hilgenfeld and Uhlhorn, whom he cites, not + less than of Merx and Denzinger and Zahn, whom he neglects to cite_." + [78:2] + +Now first as regards the facts. I do not maintain the priority of the +Curetonian Epistles in this book myself; indeed I express no personal +opinion whatever regarding them which is not contained in that general +declaration of belief, the decision of which excites the wrath of my +diffident critic, that the Epistles in no form have "any value as +evidence for an earlier period than the end of the second or beginning +of the third century, even if they have any value at all." I merely +represent the opinion of others regarding those Epistles. Dr. Lightfoot +very greatly exaggerates the importance attached to the Armenian +version, and I call special attention to the passages in the above +quotation which I have taken the liberty of italicising. I venture +to say emphatically that, so far from being considered the "key +of the position," this version has, with some exceptions, played +a most subordinate and insignificant part in the controversy, and +as Dr. Lightfoot has expressly mentioned certain writers, I will +state how the case stands with regard to them. Weiss, Lipsius, Uhlhorn, +Merx, and Zahn certainly "more or less prominently" deal with them. +Denzinger, however, only refers to Petermann's publication, which +appeared while his own _brochure_ was passing through the press, +in a short note at the end, and in again writing on the Ignatian +question, two years after, [79:1] he does not even allude to the +Armenian version. Beyond the barest historical reference to Petermann's +work, Hilgenfeld does not discuss the Armenian version at all. So +much for the writers actually mentioned by Dr. Lightfoot. + +As for "the writers who have specially discussed the Ignatian question +during the last quarter of a century:" Cureton apparently did not think +it worth while to add anything regarding the Armenian version of +Petermann after its appearance; Bunsen refutes Petermann's arguments +in a few pages of his "Hippolytus;" [79:2] Baur, who wrote against +Bunsen and the Curetonian letters, and, according to Dr. Lightfoot's +representation, should have found this "the most formidable argument" +against them, does not anywhere, subsequent to their publication, even +allude to the Armenian Epistles; Ewald, in a note of a couple of lines, +[79:3] refers to Petermann's Epistles as identical with a post-Eusebian +manipulated form of the Epistles which he mentions in a sentence in his +text; Dressel devotes a few unfavourable lines to them; [80:1] Hefele +[80:2] supports them at somewhat greater length; but Bleek, Volkmar, +Tischendorf, Boehringer, Scholten, and others have not thought them +worthy of special notice; at any rate none of these nor any other +writers of any weight have, so far as I am aware, introduced them into +the controversy at all. + +The argument itself did not seem to me of sufficient importance to drag +into a discussion already too long and complicated, and I refer the +reader to Bunsen's reply to it, from which, however, I may quote the +following lines: + + "But it appears to me scarcely serious to say: there are the Seven + Letters in Armenian, and I maintain, they prove that Cureton's text + is an incomplete extract, because, I think, I have found some Syriac + idioms in the Armenian text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply + proves, according to ordinary logic, that the Seven Letters must + have once been translated into Syriac. But how can it prove that the + Greek original of this supposed Syriac version is the genuine text, + and not an interpolated and partially forged one?" [80:3] + +Dr. Lightfoot blames me for omitting to mention this argument, on the +ground that "a discussion which, while assuming the priority of the +Curetonian letters, ignores this version altogether, has omitted a vital +problem of which it was bound to give an account." Now all this is sheer +misrepresentation. I do not assume the priority of the Curetonian +Epistles, and I examine all the passages contained in the seven Greek +Epistles which have any bearing upon our Gospels. + +Passing on to another point, I say: + + "Seven Epistles have been selected out of fifteen extant, all + equally purporting to be by Ignatius, simply because only that + number were mentioned by Eusebius." [81:1] + +Another passage is also quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, which will be found a +little further on, where it is taken for facility of reference. Upon +this he writes as follows:-- + + "This attempt to confound the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius + with the other confessedly spurious Epistles, as if they presented + themselves to us with the same credentials, ignores all the + important facts bearing on the question. (1) Theodoret, a century + after Eusebius, betrays no knowledge of any other Epistles, and + there is no distinct trace of the use of the confessedly spurious + Epistles till late in the sixth century at the earliest. (2) The + confessedly spurious Epistles differ widely in style from the seven + Epistles, and betray the same hand which interpolated the seven + Epistles. In other words, they clearly formed part of the Long + Recension in the first instance. (3) They abound in anachronisms + which point to an age later than Eusebius, as the date of their + composition." [81:2] + +Although I do not really say in the above that no other pleas are +advanced in favour of the seven Epistles, I contend that, reduced to +its simplest form, the argument for that special number rests mainly, +if not altogether, upon their mention by Eusebius. The very first +reason (1) advanced by Dr. Lightfoot to refute me is a practical +admission of the correctness of my statement, for the eight Epistles +are put out of court because even Theodoret, a century after Eusebius, +does not betray any knowledge of them, but the "silence of Eusebius," +the earlier witness, is infinitely more important, and it merely +receives some increase of significance from the silence of Theodoret. +Suppose, however, that Eusebius had referred to any of them, how +changed their position would have been! The Epistles referred to would +have attained the exceptional distinction which his mention has +conferred upon the rest.. The fact is, moreover, that, throughout the +controversy, the two divisions of Epistles are commonly designated the +"prae-" and "post-Eusebian," making him the turning-point of the +controversy. Indeed, further on, Dr. Lightfoot himself admits: "The +testimony of Eusebius first differentiates them." [82:1] The argument +(2 and 3) that the eight rejected Epistles betray anachronisms and +interpolations, is no refutation of my statement, for the same +accusation is brought by the majority of critics against the Vossian +Epistles. + +The fourth and last argument seems more directly addressed to a second +paragraph quoted by Dr. Lightfoot, to which I refer above, and which +I have reserved till now, as it requires more detailed notice. It is +this:-- + + "It is a total mistake to suppose that the seven Epistles mentioned + by Eusebius have been transmitted to us in any special way. These + Epistles are mixed up in the Medicean and corresponding ancient + Latin MSS. with the other eight Epistles, universally pronounced to + be spurious, without distinction of any kind, and all have equal + honour." [82:2] + +I will at once give Dr. Lightfoot's comment on this, in contrast with +the statement of a writer equally distinguished for learning and +orthodoxy--Dr. Tregelles:-- + + DR. LIGHTFOOT. | DR. TREGELLES. + | +(4) "It is not strictly true that | "It is a mistake to think of _seven_ +the seven Epistles are mixed up | Ignatian Epistles in Greek having +with the confessedly spurious | been _transmitted_ to us, for no +Epistles. In the Greek and Latin | such seven exist, except through +MSS., as also in the Armenian | their having been selected by +version, the spurious Epistles | _editors_ from the Medicean MS. +come after the others; and the | which contains so much that +circumstance, combined with the | is confessedly spurious;--a fact +facts already mentioned, plainly | which some who imagine a +shows that they were a later | diplomatic transmission of +addition, borrowed from the Long | _seven_ have overlooked." [83:2] +Recension to complete the body | +of Ignatian letters." [83:1] | + + +I will further quote the words of Cureton, for, as Dr. Lightfoot +advances nothing but assertions, it is well to meet him with the +testimony of others rather than the mere reiteration of my own +statement. Cureton says: + + "Again, there is another circumstance which will naturally lead us + to look with some suspicion upon the recension of the Epistles of + St. Ignatius, as exhibited in the Medicean MS., and in the ancient + Latin version corresponding with it, which is, that the Epistles + presumed to be the genuine production of that holy Martyr are mixed + up with others, which are almost universally allowed to be spurious. + Both in the Greek and Latin MSS. all these are placed upon the same + footing, and no distinction is drawn between them; and the only + ground which has hitherto been assumed for their separation has been + the specification of some of them by Eusebius and his omission of + any mention of the others." [83:3] + + "The external evidence from the testimony of manuscripts in favour + of the rejected Greek Epistles, with the exception of that to the + Philippians, is certainly greater than that in favour of those which + have been received. They are found in all the manuscripts, both + Greek and Latin, in the same form; while the others exhibit two + distinct and very different recensions, if we except the Epistle to + Polycarp, in which the variations are very few. Of these two + recensions the shorter has been most generally received: the + circumstance of its being shorter seems much to have influenced its + reception; and the text of the Medicean Codex and of the two copies + of the corresponding Latin version belonging to Caius College, + Cambridge, and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has been adopted ... + In all these there is no distinction whatever drawn between the + former and latter Epistles: all are placed upon the same basis; and + there is no ground whatever to conclude either that the arranger of + the Greek recension or the translator of the Latin version esteemed + one to be better or more genuine than another. Nor can any prejudice + result to the Epistles to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, and to + Hero, from the circumstance of their being placed after the others + in the collection; for they are evidently arranged in chronological + order, and rank after the rest as having been written from Philippi, + at which place Ignatius is said to have arrived after he had + despatched the previous Letters. So far, therefore, as the evidence + of all the existing copies, Latin as well as Greek, of both the + recensions is to be considered, it is certainly in favour of the + rejected Epistles, rather than of those which have been retained." + [84:1] + +Proceeding from counter-statements to actual facts, I will very briefly +show the order in which these Epistles have been found in some of the +principal MSS. One of the earliest published was the ancient Latin +version of eleven Epistles edited by J. Faber Stapulensis in 1498, which +was at least quoted in the ninth century, and which in the subjoined +table I shall mark A, [84:2] and which also exhibits the order of Cod. +Vat. 859, assigned to the eleventh century. [84:3] The next (B) is a +Greek MS. edited by Valentinus Pacaeus in 1557, [84:4] and the order at +the same time represents that of the Cod. Pal. 150. [84:5] The third +(C) is the ancient Latin translation, referred to above, published +by Archbishop Usher. [84:6] The fourth (D) is the celebrated Medicean +MS. assigned to the eleventh century, and published by Vossius in 1646. +[84:7] This also represents the order of the Cod. Casanatensis G.V. 14. +[84:8] I italicise the rejected Epistles: + + A. | B. | C. | D. | + FABER STAP. | VAL. PACAEUS. | USHER | VOSSIUS. | + | | | | + 1. Trallians | _Mar. Cass._ | Smyrn. | Smyrn. | + 2. Magn. | Trallians | Polycarp | Polycarp | + 3. _Tarsians_ | Magnes. | Ephes. | Ephes. | + 4. _Philip._ | _Tarsians_ | Magnes. | Magnes. | + 5. Philad. | _Philip. | Philad. | Philad. | + 6. Smyrn. | Philad. | Trallians | Trallians | + 7. Polycarp | Smyrn. | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | _Mar. ad. Ign._ | + 8. _Antioch._ | Polycarp | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | _Ign. ad. Mar._ | + 9. _Hero_ | _Antioch. | _Tarsians_ | _Tarsians_ | + 10. Ephes. | _Hero_ | _Antioch._ | | + 11. Romans | Ephes. | _Hero_ | | + 12. | Romans | _Mart. Ign._ | | + 13. | | Romans | | + +I have given the order in MSS. containing the "Long Recension" as well +as the Vossian, because, however much some may desire to exclude them, +the variety of arrangement is notable, and presents features which have +an undeniable bearing upon this question. Taking the Vossian MS., it is +obvious that, without any distinction whatever between the genuine and +the spurious, it contains three of the false Epistles, and _does not +contain the so-called genuine Epistle to the Romans at all_. The Epistle +to the Romans, in fact, is, to use Dr. Lightfoot's own expression, +"embedded in the Martyrology," which is as spurious as any of the +epistles. This circumstance alone would justify the assertion which +Dr. Lightfoot contradicts. + +I must now, in order finally to dispose of this matter of notes, turn +for a short time to consider objections raised by Dr. Westcott. Whilst I +have to thank him for greater courtesy, I regret that I must point out +serious errors into which he has fallen in his statements regarding my +references, which, as matters of fact, admit of practical test. Before +proceeding to them I may make one or two general observations. +Dr. Westcott says:-- + + "I may perhaps express my surprise that a writer who is quite + capable of thinking for himself should have considered it worth his + while to burden his pages with lists of names and writings, + arranged, for the most part, alphabetically, which have in very many + cases no value whatever for a scholar, while they can only oppress + the general reader with a vague feeling that all 'profound' critics + are on one side. The questions to be discussed must be decided by + evidence and by argument and not by authority." [86:1] + +Now the fact is that hitherto, in England, argument and evidence have +almost been ignored in connection with the great question discussed in +this work, and it has practically been decided by the authority of the +Church, rendered doubly potent by force of habit and transmitted +reverence. The orthodox works usually written on the subject have, to a +very great extent, suppressed the objections raised by a mass of learned +and independent critics, or treated them as insignificant, and worthy of +little more than a passing word of pious indignation. At the same time, +therefore, that I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to decide these +questions by evidence and argument, in opposition to mere ecclesiastical +authority, I refer readers desirous of further pursuing the subject to +works where they may find them discussed. I must be permitted to add, +that I do not consider I uselessly burden my pages by references to +critics who confirm the views in the text or discuss them, for it is +right that earnest thinkers should be told the state of opinion, and +recognise that belief is not so easy and matter-of-course a thing as +they have been led to suppose, or the unanimity quite so complete as +English divines have often seemed to represent it. Dr. Westcott, +however, omits to state that I as persistently refer to writers who +oppose, as to those who favour, my own conclusions. + +Dr. Westcott proceeds to make the accusation which I now desire to +investigate. He says: + + "Writers are quoted as holding on independent grounds an opinion + which is involved in their characteristic assumptions. And more than + this, the references are not unfrequently actually misleading. One + example will show that I do not speak too strongly." [87:1] + +Dr. Westcott has scrutinised this work with great minuteness, and, as I +shall presently explain, he has selected his example with evident care. +The idea of illustrating the vast mass of references in these volumes by +a single instance is somewhat startling but to insinuate that a supposed +contradiction pointed out in one note runs through the whole work, as he +does, if I rightly understand his subsequent expressions, is scarcely +worthy of Dr. Westcott, although I am sure he does not mean to be +unfair. The example selected is as follows: + + "'It has been demonstrated that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at + all, but suffered martyrdom in Antioch itself on the 20th December, + A.D. 115,(3) when he was condemned to be cast to wild beasts in the + amphitheatre, in consequence of the fanatical excitement produced by + the earthquake which took place on the 13th of that month.(4)" + [87:2] + + "'The references in support of these statements are the following:-- + + "'(3) Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tueb. Zeitschr. f. Theol._ 1838, H.3, + p. 155, Anm.; Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, &c. p. 185; Bleek, _Einl. + N.T._ p. 144; Guericke, _Handbuch, K.G._ i. p. 148; Hagenbach, + _K.G._ i. p. 113 f.; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19; Mayerhoff, + _Einl. petr. Schr._ p. 79; Scholten, _Die aelt. Zeugnisse_, pp. 40, + 50 f.; Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52; _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. + pp. 121 f., 136. + + "'(4) Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f.; + _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff.; Baur, _Ursp. d. Episc. Tueb. Zeitschr. f. + Theol._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f.; _Gesch. chr. Kirche,_ 1863, i. + p. 440, Amn. 1; Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i, p. 19; Scholten, _Die + aelt. Zeugnisse_, p. 51 f.; cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajans u.s.w._ + 1840, p. 253 f.; Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Vaeter_, p, 214.'" + +Upon this Dr. Westcott remarks: + + Such an array of authorities, drawn from different schools, cannot + but appear overwhelming; and the fact that about half of them are + quoted twice over emphasises the implied precision of their + testimony as to the two points affirmed." [88:1] + +Dr. Westcott however, has either overlooked or omitted to state the fact +that, although some of the writers are quoted twice, the two notes +differ in almost every particular, many of the names in note 3 being +absent from note 4, other names being inserted in the latter which do +not appear in the former, an alteration being in most cases made in the +place referred to, and the order in which the authorities are placed +being significantly varied. For instance, in note 3, the reference to +Volkmar is the last, but it is the first in note 4; whilst a similar +transposition of order takes place in his works, and alterations are +made in the pages. The references in note 3, in fact, are given for the +date occurring in the course of the sentence, whilst those in note 4, +placed at the end, are intended to support the whole statement which is +made. I must, however, explain an omission, which is pretty obvious, but +which I regret may have misled Dr. Westcott in regard to note 3, +although it does not affect note 4. Readers are probably aware that +there has been, amongst other points, a difference of opinion not only +as to the place, but also the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius. I have +in every other case carefully stated the question of date, and my +omission in this instance is, I think, the only exception in the book. +The fact is, that I had originally in the text the words which I now add +to the note: "The martyrdom has been variously dated about A.D. 107, or +115-116. but whether assigning the event to Rome or to Antioch a +majority of critics of all shades of opinion have adopted the later +date." Thinking it unnecessary, under the circumstances, to burden the +text with this, I removed it with the design of putting the statement at +the head of note 3, with reference to "A.D. 115" in the text, but +unfortunately an interruption at the time prevented the completion of +this intention, as well as the addition of some fuller references to the +writers quoted, which had been omitted, and the point, to my infinite +regret, was overlooked. The whole of the authorities in note 3, +therefore, do not support the apparent statement of martyrdom in +Antioch, although they all confirm the date, for which I really referred +to them. With this explanation, and marking the omitted references +[89:1] by placing them within brackets, I proceed to analyse the two +notes in contrast with Dr. Westcott's statements. + + NOTE 3, FOR THE DATE A.D. 115-116. + + DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS. | THE TRUTH. + | + | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tueb. + | Zeitschr._ 1838, H.3 (p. 149, + | Anm.) Baur states as the date of + | the Parthian war, and of Trajan's + | visit to Rome, "during which the + | above order" (the sentence against + | Ignatius) is said to have been + | given, A.D. 115 and not 107. + | +"1. Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tueb. | _Ibid._ p. 155, Anm. +Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. 3. p. 155, | +Anm. In this note, which is too | After showing the extreme +long to quote, _there is nothing_, | improbability of the circumstances +so far as I see, _in any way | under which the letters to the +bearing_ upon the history [90:1] | Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp are said +except a passing supposition 'wenn | to have been written, Baur points +... Ignatius im J. 116 an ihn | out the additional difficulty in +[Polycarp] ... schrieb ...' | regard to the latter that, if + | [Polycarp] died in A.D. 167 in his + | 86th year, and Ignatius wrote to him + | as already Bishop of Smyrna in A.D. + | 116, he must have become bishop at + | least in his 35th year, and + | continued so for upwards of half + | a century. The inference is clear + | that if Ignatius died so much + | earlier as A.D. 107 it involves + | the still greater improbability + | that Polycarp must have become + | Bishop of Smyrna at latest in his + | 26th year, which is scarcely to be + | maintained, and the later date is + | thus obviously supported. + | + | (Ibid. _Gesch. christl. Kirche_, + | i. p. 440, Anm. 1.) + | + | Baur supports the assertion that + | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in + | Antioch, A.D. 115. + | +"2. Bretschneider, _Probabilia_, x. | The same. +p. 185. 'Pergamus ad Ignatium '_qui | +circa annum cxvi obiisse dicitur_.' | + | +"3. Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144 | Bleek, _Einl. N.T._ p. 144. +[p. 142 ed. 1862] '... In den | +Briefen des Ignatius Bischofes von | Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Rome +Antiochien, der unter Trajan gegen | under Trajan, A.D. 115. +115 _zu Rom_ als Maertyrer starb.' | + | +"4. Guericke, _Handb. K.G._ i. | Guericke, _Handbuch K.G._ i. p. 148. +p. 148 [p. 177 ed. 3, 1838, the | +edition which I have used]. | Ignatius was sent to Rome, under +'Ignatius, Bischoff von Antiochien | Trajan, A.D. 115, and was destroyed +(Euseb. "H.E." iii. 36), _welcher_ | by lions in the Coliseum, A.D. 116. +wegen seines standhaften | +Bekenntnisses Christi _unter Trajan | +115 _nach Rom gefuehrt, und hier 116 | +im Colosseum von Loewen zerrissen | +wurde_ (vgl. Sec. 23, i.)' [where | +the same statement is repeated]. | + | +"5. Hagenbach, K.G. i. 113 f. [I | Hagenbach, _K.G._ 1869, p. 113. f. +have not been able to see the book | +referred to, but in his Lectures | "He (Ignatius) may have filled his +'Die christliche Kirche der drei | office about 40 years when the +ersten Jahrhunderte," [91:1] 1853 | Emperor, in the year 115 (according +(pp. 122 ff.), Hagenbach mentions | to others still earlier), came to +the difficulty which has been felt | Antioch. It was during his war +as to the execution at Rome, while | against the Parthians." [Hagenbach +an execution at Antioch might have | states some of the arguments for and +been simpler and more impressive, | against the martyrdom in Antioch, +and then quotes Gieseler's solution, | and the journey to Rome, the former +and passes on with 'Wie dem such | of which he seems to consider more +sei.'] | probable.] + | +"6. Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._ i. p. 19. +p. 19. 'All [the Epistles of | +Ignatius] are posterior to Ignatius | The same as opposite. +himself, who was not thrown to the | +wild beasts in the amphitheatre at | These "peremptory statements" are +Rome by command of Trajan, but at | of course based upon what is +Antioch on December 20, A.D. 115. | considered satisfactory evidence, +The Epistles were written after | though it may not be adduced here. +150 A.D.' [For these peremptory | +statements no authority whatever is | +adduced]. | + | +"7. Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._ | Mayerhoff, _Einl. petr. Schr._ +p. 79. '... Ignatius, _der | p. 79. +spaetestens 117 zu Rom den | +Maertyrertod litt ..._' | Ignatius suffered martyrdom in Rome + | at latest A.D. 117. + | +"8. Scholten, _Die aelt. Zeugnisse_, | Scholten, _Die aelt. Zeugnisse_, +p. 40, mentions 115 as the year of | p. 40, states A.D. 115 as the date +Ignatius' death: p. 50 f. The | of Ignatius' death. At p. 50 he +Ignatian letters are rejected | repeats this statement, and gives +partly 'weil sie eine Maertyrerreise | his support to the view that his +des Ignatius nach Rom melden, deren | martyrdom took place in Antioch on +schon frueher erkanntes | the 20th December, A.D. 115. +ungeschichtliches Wesen durch | +Volkmar's nicht ungegruendete | +Vermuthung um so wahrscheinlicher | +wird. Darnach scheint naemlich | +Ignatius nicht zu Rom auf Befehl | +des sanftmuethigen Trajans, sondern | +zu Antiochia selbst, in Folge eines | +am dreizehnten December 115 | +eingetretenen Erdbebens, als Opfer | +eines aberglaeubischen Volkswahns am | +zwanzigsten December dieses Jahres | +im Amphitheater den wilden Thieren | +zur Beute ueberliefert worden zu | +sein.' | + | +"9. Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 | Volkmar, _Der Ursprung_, p. 52, +[p. 52 ff.] [92:1] [This book I | affirms the martyrdom at Antioch, +have not been able to consult, but | 20th December, 115. +from secondary references I gather | +that it repeats the arguments given | +under the next reference.] | + | +"10. Volkmar, Haindb. _Einl. Apocr._ | Ibid. _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ +pp. 121 f., 136. 'Ein Haupt der | p. 121 f., affirms the martyrdom +Gemeinde zu Antiochia, Ignatius, | at Antioch, 20th December, 115. +wurde, waehrend Trajan dortselbst | +ueberwinterte, am 20. December den | +Thieren vorgeworfen, in Folge der | +durch das Erdbeben vom 13. December | +115 gegen die [Greek: atheoi] | +erweckten Volkswuth, ein Opfer | +zugleich der Siegesfeste des | +Parthicus, welche die Judith- | +Erzaehlung (i. 16) andeutet, Dio | +(c. 24 f.; vgl. c. 10) voraussetzt | +...' | + | +"P. 136. The same statement is | Ibid. p. 136. The same +repeated briefly." [93:1] | statement, with fuller + | chronological evidence. + +It will thus be seen that the whole of these authorities confirm the +later date assigned to the martyrdom, and that Baur, in the note in +which Dr. Westcott finds "nothing in any way bearing upon the history +except a passing supposition," really advances a weighty argument for it +and against the earlier date, and as Dr. Westcott considers, rightly, +that argument should decide everything, I am surprised that he has not +perceived the propriety of my referring to arguments as well as +statements of evidence. + +To sum up the opinions expressed, I may state that whilst all the nine +writers support the later date, for which purpose they were quoted, +three of them (Bleek, Guericke, and Mayerhoff) ascribe the martyrdom to +Rome, one (Bretschneider) mentions no place, one (Hagenbach) is +doubtful, but leans to Antioch, and the other four declare for the +martyrdom in Antioch. Nothing, however, could show more conclusively the +purpose of note 3, which I have explained, than this very contradiction, +and the fact that I claim for the general statement in the text, +regarding the martyrdom in Antioch itself in opposition to the legend of +the journey to and death in Rome, only the authorities in note 4, which +I shall now proceed to analyse in contrast with Dr. Westcott's +statements, and here I beg the favour of the reader's attention. + + NOTE 4. + + DR. WESTCOTT'S STATEMENTS. | THE TRUTH. + | +1. Volkmar: see above. | Volkmar, _Handbuch Einl. Apocr._ + | i. pp. 121 ff., 136 f. + | + | It will be observed on turning to + | the passage "above" (10), to which + | Dr. Westcott refers, that he quotes + | a single sentence containing merely + | a concise statement of facts, and + | that no indication is given to the + | reader that there is anything beyond + | it. At p. 136 "the same statement + | is repeated briefly." Now either + | Dr. Westcott, whilst bringing a most + | serious charge against my work, based + | upon this "one example," has actually + | not taken the trouble to examine my + | reference to "pp. 121 ff., 136 f.," + | and p. 50 ff., to which he would + | have found himself there directed, + | or he has acted towards me with a + | want of fairness which I venture to + | say he will be the first to regret, + | when he considers the facts. + | + | Would it be divined from the words + | opposite, and the sentence "above," + | that Volkmar enters into an elaborate + | argument, extending over a dozen + | closely printed pages, to prove that + | Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, + | but suffered martyrdom in Antioch + | itself on the 20th December, A.D. 115, + | probably as a sacrifice to the + | superstitious fury of the people + | against the [Greek: atheoi], excited + | by the earthquake which occurred on + | the thirteenth of that month? I shall + | not here attempt to give even an + | epitome of the reasoning, as I shall + | presently reproduce some of the + | arguments of Volkmar and others in a + | more condensed and consecutive form. + | + | Ibid. _Der Ursprung_, p. 52 ff. + | + | Volkmar repeats the affirmations which + | he had fully argued in the above + | work and elsewhere. + | +2. "Baur, _Ursprung d. Episc., | Baur, _Urspr. d. Episc., Tueb. +Tueb. Zeitschr._ 1838, ii. H. 3, | Zeitschr._ 1838, H. 3, p. 149 f. +p. 149 f. | + | +"In this passage Baur discusses | Baur enters into a long and minute +generally the historical | examination of the historical +character of the martyrdom, which | character of the martyrdom of +he considers, as a whole, to be | Ignatius, and of the Ignatian +'doubtful and incredible.' To | Epistles, and pronounces the whole +establish this result he notices | to be fabulous, and more especially +the relation of Christianity to | the representation of his sentence +the Empire in the time of Trajan, | and martyr-journey to Rome. He +which he regards as inconsistent | shows that, while isolated cases of +with the condemnation of Ignatius;| condemnation to death, under +and the improbable circumstances | occurred during Trajan's reign may +of the journey. The personal | justify the mere tradition that he +characteristics, the letters, the | suffered martyrdom, there is no +history of Ignatius, are, in his | instance recorded in which a +opinion, all a mere creation of | Christian was condemned to be sent +the imagination. The utmost he | to Rome to be cast to the beasts; +allows is that he may have | that such a sentence is opposed to +suffered martyrdom." (P. 169.) | all historical data of the reign of + | Trajan, and to all that is known of + | his character and principles; and + | that the whole of the statements + | regarding the supposed journey + | directly discredit the story. The + | argument is much too long and + | elaborate to reproduce here, but I + | shall presently make use of some + | parts of it. + | +"3. Baur, _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, | "Ibid., _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, 1863, +1863, i. p. 440, Anm. 1. | i. p. 440, Anm. 1. + | +"'Die Verurtheilung _ad bestias_ | "The reality is 'wohl nur' that in +und die Abfuehrung dazu nach Rom | the year 115, when Trajan wintered +... mag auch unter Trajan nichts | in Antioch, Ignatius suffered +zu ungewoehnliches gewesen sein, | martyrdom in Antioch itself, as a +aber ... bleibt ie Geschichte | sacrifice to popular fury +seines Maertyrerthums auch nach | consequent on the earthquake of +der Vertheidigung derselben von | that year. The rest was developed +Lipsius ... hoechst | out of the reference to Trajan for +unwahrscheinlich. Das Factische | the glorification of martyrdom." +ist wohl nur dass Ignatius im J. | +115, als Trajan in Antiochien | +ueberwinterte, in Folge des | +Erdbebens in diesem Jahr, in | +Antiochien selbst als ein Opfer | +der Volkswuth zum Maertyrer | +wurde.' | + | +4. Davidson: see above. | Davidson, _Introd. N.T._, p. 19. + | + | "All (the Epistles) are posterior + | to Ignatius himself, who was not + | thrown to the wild beasts in the + | amphitheatre at Rome by command of + | Trajan, but at Antioch, on December + | 20th, A.D. 115." + | +5. Scholten: see above. | Scholten, _Die aelt. Zeugnisse_, + | p. 51 f. The Ignatian Epistles are + | declared to be spurious for various + | reasons, but partly "because they + | mention a martyr-journey of Ignatius + | to Rome, the unhistorical character + | of which, already earlier recognised + | (see Baur, _Urspr. des Episc._ 1838, + | p. 147 ff., _Die Ign. Briefe_, 1848; + | Schwegler, _Nachap. Zeitalt._ ii. + | p. 159 ff.; Hilgenfeld, _Apost. + | Vaeter_, p. 210 ff.; Reville, + | _Le Lien_, 1856, Nos. 18-22), is + | made all the more probable by + | Volkmar's not groundless conjecture. + | According to it Ignatius is reported + | to have become the prey of wild beasts + | on the 20th December, 115, not in the + | amphitheatre in Rome by the order of + | the mild Trajan, but in Antioch + | itself, as the victim of superstitious + | popular fury consequent on an + | earthquake which occurred on the + | 13th December of that year." + | +6. "Francke, _Zur Gesch. | "Cf. Francke, _Zur Gesch. Trajan's_, +Trajan's_, 1840 [1837], p. 253 f. | 1840. This is a mere comparative +[A discussion of the date of the | reference to establish the important +beginning of Trajan's Parthian | point of the date of the Parthian +war, which he fixes in A.D. 115, | war and Trajan's visit to Antioch. +but he decides nothing directly | Dr. Westcott omits the "Cf." +as to the time of Ignatius' | +martyrdom.] | + | +7. "Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Vaeter_, | Hilgenfeld, _Die ap. Vaeter_, p. 214 +p. 214 [pp. 210 ff.] Hilgenfeld | ff. Hilgenfeld strongly supports +points out the objections to the | Baur's argument which is referred to +narrative in the Acts of the | above, and while declaring the +Martyrdom, the origin of which he | whole story of Ignatius, and more +refers to the period between | especially the journey to Rome, +Eusebius and Jerome: setting | incredible, he considers the mere +aside this detailed narrative he | fact that Ignatius suffered +considers the historical character| martyrdom the only point regarding +of the general statements in the | which the possibility has been made +letters. The mode of punishment | out. He shows [97:1] that the +by a provincial governor causes | martyrology states the 20th +some difficulty: 'bedenklicher,' | December as the day of Ignatius' +he continues, 'ist jedenfalls der | death, and that his remains were +andre Punct, die Versendung nach | buried at Antioch, where they still +Rom.' Why was the punishment not | were in the days of Chrysostom and +carried out at Antioch? Would it | Jerome. He argues from all that is +be likely that under an Emperor | known of the reign and character of +like Trajan a prisoner like | Trajan, that such a sentence from +Ignatius would be sent to Rome to | the Emperor himself is quite +fight in the amphitheatre? The | unsupported and inconceivable. A +circumstances of the journey as | provincial Governor might have +described are most improbable. | condemned him ad bestias, but in +The account of the persecution | any case the transmission to Rome +itself is beset by difficulties. | is more doubtful. He shows, +Having set out these objections | however, that the whole story is +he leaves the question, casting | inconsistent with historical facts, +doubt (like Baur) upon the whole | and the circumstances of the +history, and gives no support to | journey incredible. It is +the bold affirmation of a | impossible to give even a sketch of +martyrdom 'at Antioch on the 20th | this argument, which extends over +December, A.D. 115.'" | five long pages, but although + | Hilgenfeld does not directly refer + | to the theory of the martyrdom in + | Antioch itself, his reasoning + | forcibly points to that conclusion, + | and forms part of the converging + | trains of reasoning which result in + | that "demonstration" which I + | assert. I will presently make use + | of some of his arguments. + +At the close of this analysis Dr. Westcott sums up the result as follows: + + "In this case, therefore, again, Volkmar alone offers any arguments + in support of the statement in the text; and the final result of the + references is, that the alleged 'demonstration' is, at the most, + what Scholten calls 'a not groundless conjecture.'" [98:1] + +It is scarcely possible to imagine a more complete misrepresentation of +the fact than the assertion that "Volkmar alone offers any arguments in +support of the statement in the text," and it is incomprehensible upon +any ordinary theory. My mere sketch cannot possibly convey an adequate +idea of the elaborate arguments of Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld, but +I hope to state their main features, a few pages on. With regard to +Dr. Westcott's remark on the "alleged 'demonstration,'" it must be +evident that when a writer states anything to be "demonstrated" he +expresses his own belief. It is impossible to secure absolute unanimity +of opinion, and the only question in such a case is whether I refer +to writers, in connection with the circumstances which I affirm to +be demonstrated, who advance arguments and evidence bearing upon it. +A critic is quite at liberty to say that the arguments are insufficient, +but he is not at liberty to deny that there are any arguments at all +when the elaborate reasoning of men like Volkmar, Baur, and Hilgenfeld +is referred to. Therefore, when he goes on to say: + + "It seems quite needless to multiply comments on these results. + Anyone who will candidly consider this analysis will, I believe, + agree with me in thinking that such a style of annotation, which + runs through the whole work, is justly characterised as frivolous + and misleading"--[99:1] + +Dr. Westcott must excuse my retorting that, not my annotation, but his +own criticism of it, endorsed by Professor Lightfoot, is "frivolous and +misleading," and I venture to hope that this analysis, tedious as it has +been, may once for all establish the propriety and substantial accuracy +of my references. + +As Dr. Westcott does not advance any further arguments of his own in +regard to the Ignatian controversy, I may now return to Dr. Lightfoot, +and complete my reply to his objections; but I must do so with extreme +brevity, as I have already devoted too much space to this subject, and +must now come to a close. To the argument that it is impossible to +suppose that soldiers such as the "ten leopards" described in the +Epistles would allow a prisoner, condemned to wild beasts for professing +Christianity, deliberately to write long epistles at every stage of his +journey, promulgating the very doctrines for which he was condemned, as +well as to hold the freest intercourse with deputations from the various +Churches, Dr. Lightfoot advances arguments, derived from Zahn, regarding +the Roman procedure in cases that are said to be "known." These cases, +however, are neither analogous, nor have they the force which is +assumed. That Christians imprisoned for their religious belief should +receive their nourishment, while in prison, from friends, is anything +but extraordinary, and that bribes should secure access to them in many +cases, and some mitigation of suffering, is possible. The case of +Ignatius, however, is very different. If the meaning of [Greek: oi kai +euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] be that, although receiving bribes, +the "ten leopards" only became more cruel, the very reverse of the +leniency and mild treatment ascribed to the Roman procedure is described +by the writer himself as actually taking place, and certainly nothing +approaching a parallel to the correspondence of pseudo-Ignatius can be +pointed out in any known instance. The case of Saturus and Perpetua, +even if true, is no confirmation, the circumstances being very +different; [100:1] but in fact there is no evidence whatever that the +extant history was written by either of them, [100:2] but on the +contrary, I maintain, every reason to believe that it was not. + +Dr. Lightfoot advances the instance of Paul as a case in point of a +Christian prisoner treated with great consideration, and who "writes +letters freely, receives visits from his friends, communicates with +Churches and individuals as he desires." [101:1] It is scarcely possible +to imagine two cases more dissimilar than those of pseudo-Ignatius and +Paul, as narrated in the "Acts of the Apostles," although doubtless the +story of the former has been framed upon some of the lines of the +latter. Whilst Ignatius is condemned to be cast to the wild beasts as a +Christian, Paul is not condemned at all, but stands in the position of a +Roman citizen, rescued from infuriated Jews (xxiii. 27), repeatedly +declared by his judges to have done nothing worthy of death or of bonds +(xxv. 25, xxvi. 31), and who might have been set at liberty but that he +had appealed to Caesar (xxv. 11 f., xxvi. 32). His position was one +which secured the sympathy of the Roman soldiers. Ignatius "fights with +beasts from Syria even unto Rome," and is cruelly treated by his "ten +leopards," but Paul is represented as receiving very different +treatment. Felix commands that his own people should be allowed to come +and minister to him (xxiv. 23), and when the voyage is commenced it is +said that Julius, who had charge of Paul, treated him courteously, and, +gave him liberty to go to see his friends at Sidon (xxvii. 3). At Rome +he was allowed to live by himself with a single soldier to guard him +(xxviii. 16), and he continued for two years in his own hired house +(xxviii. 28). These circumstances are totally different from those under +which the Epistles of Ignatius are said to have been written. + +"But the most powerful testimony," Dr. Lightfoot goes on to say, "is +derived from the representations of a heathen writer." [101:2] The case +of Peregrinus, to which he refers, seems to me even more unfortunate +than that of Paul. Of Peregrinus himself, historically, we really know +little or nothing, for the account of Lucian is scarcely received as +serious by anyone. [102:1] Lucian narrates that this Peregrinus Proteus, +a cynic philosopher, having been guilty of parricide and other crimes, +found it convenient to leave his own country. In the course of his +travels he fell in with Christians and learnt their doctrines, and, +according to Lucian, the Christians soon were mere children in his +hands, so that he became in his own person "prophet, high-priest, and +ruler of a synagogue," and further "they spoke of him as a god, used him +as a lawgiver, and elected him their chief man." [102:2] After a time he +was put in prison for his new faith, which Lucian says was a real +service to him afterwards in his impostures. During the time he was in +prison he is said to have received those services from Christians which +Dr. Lightfoot quotes. Peregrinus was afterwards set at liberty by the +Governor of Syria, who loved philosophy, [102:3] and travelled about, +living in great comfort at the expense of the Christians, until at last +they quarrelled in consequence, Lucian thinks, of his eating some +forbidden food. Finally, Peregrinus ended his career by throwing himself +into the flames of a funeral pile during the Olympian games. An +earthquake is said to have taken place at the time; a vulture flew out +from the pile crying out with a human voice; and, shortly after, +Peregrinus rose again and appeared clothed in white raiment, unhurt by +the fire. + +Now this writing, of which I have given the barest sketch, is a direct +satire upon Christians, or even, as Baur affirms, "a parody of the +history of Jesus." [102:4] There are no means of ascertaining that any +of the events of the Christian career of Peregrinus were true, but it is +obvious that Lucian's policy was to exaggerate the facility of access to +prisoners, as well as the assiduity and attention of the Christians to +Peregrinus, the ease with which they were duped being the chief point of +the satire. + +There is another circumstance which must be mentioned. Lucian's account +of Peregrinus is claimed by supporters of the Ignatian Epistles as +evidence for them. [103:1] "The singular correspondence in this +narrative with the account of Ignatius, combined with some striking +coincidences of expression," they argue, show "that Lucian was +acquainted with the Ignatian history, if not with the Ignatian letters." +These are the words of Dr. Lightfoot, although he guards himself, in +referring to this argument, by the words "if it be true," and does not +express his own opinion; but he goes on to say: "At all events it is +conclusive for the matter in hand, as showing that Christian prisoners +were treated in the very way described in these epistles." [103:2] On +the contrary, it is in no case conclusive of anything. If it were true +that Lucian employed, as the basis of his satire, the Ignatian Epistles +and Martyrology, it is clear that his narrative cannot be used as +independent testimony for the truth of the statements regarding the +treatment of Christian prisoners. On the other hand, as this cannot be +shown, his story remains a mere satire with very little historical +value. Apart from all this, however, the case of Peregrinus, a man +confined in prison for a short time, under a favourable governor, and +not pursued with any severity, is no parallel to that of Ignatius +condemned _ad bestias_ and, according to his own express statement, +cruelly treated by the "ten leopards;" and further the liberty of +pseudo-Ignatius must greatly have exceeded all that is said of +Peregrinus, if he was able to write such epistles, and hold such free +intercourse as they represent. + +I will now, in the briefest manner possible, indicate the arguments of +the writers referred to in the note [104:1] attacked by Dr. Westcott, +in which he cannot find any relevancy, but which, in my opinion, +demonstrate that Ignatius was not sent to Rome at all, but suffered +martyrdom in Antioch itself. The reader who wishes to go minutely into +the matter must be good enough to consult the writers there cited, and +I will only sketch the case here, without specifically indicating the +source of each argument. Where I add any particulars I will, when +necessary, give my authorities. The Ignatian Epistles and martyrologies +set forth that, during a general persecution of Christians, in Syria at +least, Ignatius was condemned by Trajan, when he wintered in Antioch +during the Parthian War, to be taken to Rome and cast to wild beasts in +the amphitheatre. Instead of being sent to Rome by the short sea voyage, +he is represented as taken thither by the long and incomparably more +difficult land route. The ten soldiers who guard him are described by +himself as only rendered more cruel by the presents made to them to +secure kind treatment for him, so that not in the amphitheatre only, but +all the way from Syria to Rome, by night and day, by sea and land, he +"fights with beasts." Notwithstanding this severity, the martyr freely +receives deputations from the various Churches, who, far from being +molested, are able to have constant intercourse with him, and even to +accompany him on his journey. He not only converses with these freely, +but he is represented as writing long epistles to the various Churches, +which, instead of containing the last exhortations and farewell words +which might be considered natural from the expectant martyr, are filled +with advanced views of Church government, and the dignity of the +episcopate. These circumstances, at the outset, excite grave suspicions +of the truth of the documents and of the story which they set forth. + +When we enquire whether the alleged facts of the case are supported by +historical data, the reply is emphatically adverse. All that is known +of the treatment of Christians during the reign of Trajan, as well as +of the character of the Emperor, is opposed to the supposition that +Ignatius could have been condemned by Trajan himself, or even by a +provincial governor, to be taken to Rome and there cast to the beasts. +It is well known that under Trajan there was no general persecution of +Christians, although there may have been instances in which prominent +members of the body were either punished or fell victims to popular +fury and superstition. [105:1] An instance of this kind was the martyrdom +of Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, reported by Hegesippus. He was not +condemned _ad bestias_, however, and much less deported to Rome for the +purpose. Why should Ignatius have been so exceptionally treated? In +fact, even during the persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, although +Christians in Syria were frequently enough cast to the beasts, there is +no instance recorded in which anyone condemned to this fate was sent to +Rome. Such a sentence is quite at variance with the clement character of +Trajan and his principles of government. Neander, in a passage quoted by +Baur, says: "As he (Trajan), like Pliny, considered Christianity mere +fanaticism, he also probably thought that if severity were combined +with clemency, if too much noise were not made about it, the open +demonstration not left unpunished but also minds not stirred up by +persecution, the fanatical enthusiasm would most easily cool down, and +the matter by degrees come to an end." [106:1] This was certainly the +policy which mainly characterised his reign. Now not only would this +severe sentence have been contrary to such principles, but the agitation +excited would have been enormously increased by sending the martyr a +long journey by land through Asia, and allowing him to pass through some +of the principal cities, hold constant intercourse with the various +Christian communities, and address long epistles to them. With the +fervid desire for martyrdom then prevalent, such a journey would have +been a triumphal progress, spreading everywhere excitement and +enthusiasm. It may not be out of place, as an indication of the results +of impartial examination, to point out that Neander's inability to +accept the Ignatian Epistles largely rests on his disbelief of the whole +tradition of this sentence and martyr-journey. "We do not recognise the +Emperor Trajan in this narrative" (the martyrology), he says, "therefore +cannot but doubt everything which is related by this document, as well +as that, during this reign, Christians can have been cast to the wild +beasts." [106:2] + +If, for a moment, we suppose that, instead of being condemned by Trajan +himself, Ignatius received his sentence from a provincial governor, +the story does not gain greater probability. It is not credible that +such an official would have ventured to act so much in opposition +to the spirit of the Emperor's government. Besides, if such a governor +did pronounce so severe a sentence, why did he not execute it in +Antioch? Why send the prisoner to Rome? By doing so he made all the +more conspicuous a severity which was not likely to be pleasing to the +clement Trajan. The cruelty which dictated a condemnation _ad bestias_ +would have been more gratified by execution on the spot, and there is +besides no instance known, even during the following general persecution, +of Christians being sent for execution in Rome. The transport to Rome +is in no case credible, and the utmost that can be admitted is, that +Ignatius, like Simeon of Jerusalem, may have been condemned to death +during this reign, more especially if the event be associated with +some sudden outbreak of superstitious fury against the Christians, +to which the martyr may at once have fallen a victim. We are not +without indications of such a cause operating in the case of Ignatius. + +It is generally admitted that the date of Trajan's visit to Antioch is +A.D. 115, when he wintered there during the Parthian War. An earthquake +occurred on the 13th December of that year, which was well calculated to +excite popular superstition. It may not be out of place to quote here +the account of the earthquake given by Dean Milman, who, although he +mentions a different date, and adheres to the martyrdom in Rome, still +associates the condemnation of Ignatius with the earthquake. He says: +"Nevertheless, at that time there were circumstances which account with +singular likelihood for that sudden outburst of persecution in Antioch +... At this very time an earthquake, more than usually terrible and +destructive, shook the cities of the East. Antioch suffered its most +appalling ravages--Antioch, crowded with the legionaries prepared for +the Emperor's invasion of the East, with ambassadors and tributary kings +from all parts of the East. The city shook through all its streets; +houses, palaces, theatres, temples fell crashing down. Many were killed: +the Consul Pedo died of his hurts. The Emperor himself hardly escaped +through a window, and took refuge in the Circus, where he passed some +days in the open air. Whence this terrible blow but from the wrath of +the Gods, who must be appeased by unusual sacrifices? This was towards +the end of January; early in February the Christian Bishop, Ignatius, +was arrested. We know how, during this century, at every period of +public calamity, whatever that calamity might be, the cry of the +panic-stricken Heathens was, 'The Christians to the lions!' It maybe +that, in Trajan's humanity, in order to prevent a general massacre by +the infuriated populace, or to give greater solemnity to the sacrifice, +the execution was ordered to take place, not in Antioch, but in Rome." +[108:1] I contend that these reasons, on the contrary, render execution +in Antioch infinitely more probable. To continue, however: the +earthquake occurred on the 13th, and the martyrdom of Ignatius took +place on the 20th December, just a week after the earthquake. His +remains, as we know from Chrysostom and others, were, as an actual fact, +interred at Antioch. The natural inference is that the martyrdom, the +only part of the Ignatian story which is credible, occurred not in Rome +but in Antioch itself, in consequence of the superstitious fury against +the [Greek: atheoi] aroused by the earthquake. + +I will now go more into the details of the brief statements I have just +made, and here we come for the first time to John Malalas. In the first +place he mentions the occurrence of the earthquake on the 13th December. +I will quote Dr. Lightfoot's own rendering of his further important +statement. He says:-- + + "The words of John Malalas are: The same king Trajan was residing + in the same city (Antioch) when the visitation of God (_i.e._ the + earthquake) occurred. And at that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop + of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek: + emarturese]) before him ([Greek: epi autou]); for he was + exasperated against him, because he reviled him.'" [109:1] + +Dr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement. +He argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters, +and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece +of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere +may record stupid traditions. [109:2] If the narrative of foolish +stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything +else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the Fathers are +disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so. Dr. Lightfoot +also assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced +by Volkmar "receives no countenance from the story of Malalas, who +gives a wholly different reason--the irritating language used to +the Emperor." [109:3] On the other hand, it in no way contradicts +it, for Ignatius can only have "reviled" Trajan when brought before +him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by +the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the +Bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of Malalas +is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the +main, of course, directly supports it. Then Dr. Lightfoot actually +makes use of the following extraordinary argument:-- + + "But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is + capable of easy explanation. He has probably misinterpreted some + earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation. + The words [Greek: marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used + especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense, + including other modes of witnessing to the faith: the expression + [Greek: epi Traianou] again is ambiguous and might denote either + 'during the reign of Trajan,' or 'in the presence of Trajan.' A + blundering writer like Malalas might have stumbled over either + expression." [110:1] + +This is a favourite device. In case his abuse of poor Malalas should not +sufficiently discredit him, Dr. Lightfoot attempts to explain away his +language. It would be difficult indeed to show that the words [Greek: +marturein, marturia], already used in that sense in the New Testament, +were not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius +which Malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express +martyrdom, when applied to such a case, as Dr. Lightfoot indeed has in +the first instance rendered the phrase. Even Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so +implicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points. +"The [Greek: epi autou] together with [Greek: tote] can only signify +'coram Trajano' ('in the presence of Trajan'), and [Greek: emarturaese] +only the execution." [110:2] Let anyone simply read over Dr. Lightfoot's +own rendering, which I have quoted above, and he will see that such +quibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, Malalas seems +excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority. + +That the statement of Malalas does not agree with the reports of the +Fathers is no real objection, for we have good reason to believe that +none of them had information from any other source than the Ignatian +Epistles themselves, or tradition. Eusebius evidently had not. Irenaeus, +Origen, and some later Fathers tell us nothing about him. Jerome and +Chrysostom clearly take their accounts from these sources. Malalas is +the first who, by his variation, proves that he had another and +different authority before him, and in abandoning the martyr-journey to +Rome, his account has infinitely greater apparent probability. Malalas +lived at Antioch, which adds some weight to his statement. It is +objected that so also did Chrysostom, and at an earlier period, and yet +he repeats the Roman story. This, however, is no valid argument against +Malalas. Chrysostom was too good a churchman to doubt the story of +Epistles so much tending to edification, which were in wide circulation, +and had been quoted by earlier Fathers. It is in no way surprising that, +some two centuries and a half after the martyrdom, he should quietly +have accepted the representations of the Epistles purporting to have +been written by the martyr himself, and that their story should have +shaped the prevailing tradition. + +The remains of Ignatius, as we are informed by Chrysostom and Jerome, +long remained interred in the cemetery of Antioch, but finally--in the +time of Theodosius, it is said--were translated with great pomp and +ceremony to a building which--such is the irony of events--had +previously been a Temple of Fortune. The story told, of course, is that +the relics of the martyr had been carefully collected in the Coliseum +and carried from Rome to Antioch. After reposing there for some +centuries, the relics, which are said to have been transported from Rome +to Antioch, were, about the seventh century, carried back from Antioch +to Rome. [111:1] The natural and more simple conclusion is that, instead +of this double translation, the bones of Ignatius had always remained in +Antioch, where he had suffered martyrdom, and the tradition that they +had been brought back from Rome was merely the explanation which +reconciled the fact of their actually being in Antioch with the legend +of the Ignatian Epistles. + +The 20th of December is the date assigned to the death of Ignatius in +the Martyrology, [112:1] and Zahn admits that this interpretation is +undeniable [112:2] Moreover, the anniversary of his death was celebrated +on that day in the Greek Churches and throughout the East. In the Latin +Church it is kept on the 1st of February. There can be little doubt that +this was the day of the translation of the relics to Rome, and this was +evidently the view of Ruinart, who, although he could not positively +contradict the views of his own Church, says: "Ignatii festum Graeci +vigesima die mensis Decembris celebrant, quo ipsum passum, fuisse Acta +testantur; Latini vero die prima Februarii, an ob aliquam sacrarum ejus +reliquiarum translationem? plures enim fuisse constat." [112:3] Zahn +[112:4] states that the Feast of the translation in later calendars was +celebrated on the 29th January, and he points out the evident ignorance +which prevailed in the West regarding Ignatius. [112:5] + +On the one hand, therefore, all the historical data which we possess +regarding the reign and character of Trajan discredit the story that +Ignatius was sent to Rome to be exposed to beasts in the Coliseum; and +all the positive evidence which exists, independent of the Epistles +themselves, tends to establish the fact that he suffered martyrdom in +Antioch. On the other hand, all the evidence which is offered for the +statement that Ignatius was sent to Rome is more or less directly based +upon the representations of the letters, the authenticity of which is in +discussion, and it is surrounded with improbabilities of every kind. And +what is the value of any evidence emanating from the Ignatian Epistles +and martyrologies? There are three martyrologies which, as Ewald says, +are "the one more fabulous than the other." There are fifteen Epistles +all equally purporting to be by Ignatius, and most of them handed down +together in MSS., without any distinction. Three of these, in Latin +only, are universally rejected, as are also other five Epistles, of +which there are Greek, Latin, and other versions. Of the remaining seven +there are two forms, one called the Long Recension and another shorter, +known as the Vossian Epistles. The former is almost unanimously rejected +as shamefully interpolated and falsified; and a majority of critics +assert that the text of the Vossian Epistles is likewise very impure. +Besides these there is a still shorter version of three Epistles only, +the Curetonian, which many able critics declare to be the only genuine +letters of Ignatius, whilst a still greater number, both from internal +and external reasons, deny the authenticity of the Epistles in any form. +The second and third centuries teem with pseudonymic literature, but I +venture to say that pious fraud has never been more busy and conspicuous +than in dealing with the Martyr of Antioch. The mere statement of the +simple and acknowledged facts regarding the Ignatian Epistles is ample +justification of the assertion, which so mightily offends Dr. Lightfoot, +that "the whole of the Ignatian literature is a mass of falsification +and fraud." Even my indignant critic himself has not ventured to use as +genuine more than the three short Syriac letters [114:1] out of this +mass of forgery, which he rebukes me for holding so cheap. Documents +which lie under such grave and permanent suspicion cannot prove +anything. As I have shown, however, the Vossian Epistles, whatever the +value of their testimony, so far from supporting the claims advanced in +favour of our Gospels, rather discredit them. + +I have now minutely followed Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Westcott in their +attacks upon me in connection with Eusebius and the Ignatian Epistles, +and I trust that I have shown once for all that the charges of +"misrepresentation" and "misstatement," so lightly and liberally +advanced, far from being well-founded, recoil upon themselves. It is +impossible in a work like this, dealing with such voluminous materials, +to escape errors of detail, as both of these gentlemen bear witness, but +I have at least conscientiously endeavoured to be fair, and I venture to +think that few writers have ever more fully laid before readers the +actual means of judging of the accuracy of every statement which has +been made. + + + + + +III. + +_POLYCARP OF SMYRNA._ + + +In my chapter on Polycarp I state the various opinions expressed by +critics regarding the authenticity of the Epistle ascribed to him, and +I more particularly point out the reasons which have led many to decide +that it is either spurious or interpolated. + +That an Epistle of Polycarp did really exist at one time no one doubts, +but the proof that the Epistle which is now extant was the actual +Epistle written by Polycarp is not proven. Dr. Lightfoot's essay of +course assumes the authenticity, and seeks to establish it. A large part +of it is directed to the date which must be assigned to it on that +supposition, and recent researches seem to establish that the martyrdom +of Polycarp must be set some two years earlier than was formerly +believed. The _Chronicon_ of Eusebius dates his death A.D. 166 or 167, +and he is said to have been martyred during the proconsulship of Statius +Quadratus. M. Waddington, in examining the proconsular annals of Asia +Minor, with the assistance of newly-discovered inscriptions, has decided +that Statius Quadratus was proconsul in A.D. 154-155, and if Polycarp +was martyred during his proconsulship it would follow that his death +must have taken place in one of those years. + +Having said so much in support of the authenticity of the Epistle of +Polycarp, and the earlier date to be assigned to it, it might have been +expected that Dr. Lightfoot would have proceeded to show what bearing +the epistle has upon the evidence for the existence of the Gospels and +their sufficiency as testimony for the miracles which those Gospels +record. He has not done so, however, for he is in such haste to find +small faults with my statements, and disparage my work, that, having +arrived at this point, he at once rushes off upon this side issue, and +does not say one word that I can discover regarding any supposed use of +Gospels in the Epistle. For a complete discussion of analogies which +other apologists have pointed out I must refer to _Supernatural +Religion_ itself; [116:1] but I may here state the case in the strongest +form for them. It is asserted that Polycarp in this Epistle uses +expressions which correspond more or less closely with some of those in +our Gospels. It is not in the least pretended that the Gospels are +referred to by name, or that any information is given regarding their +authorship or composition. If, therefore, the use of the Gospels could +be established, and the absolute authenticity of the Epistle, what could +this do towards proving the actual performance of miracles or the +reality of Divine Revelation? The mere existence of anonymous Gospels +would be indicated, and though this might be considered a good deal in +the actual evidential destitution, it would leave the chief difficulty +quite untouched. + + + + + +IV. + +_PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS._ + + +Dr. Lightfoot has devoted two long chapters to the evidence of Papias, +although with a good deal of divergence to other topics in the second. +I need not follow him minutely here, for I have treated the subject +fully in _Supernatural Religion_, [117:1] to which I beg leave to +refer any reader who is interested in the discussion; and this is +merely Dr. Lightfoot's reply. I will confine myself here to a few +words on the fundamental question at issue. + +Papias, in the absence of other testimony, is an important witness of +whom theologians are naturally very tenacious, inasmuch as he is the +first writer who mentions the name of anyone who was believed to have +written a Gospel. It is true that what he says is of very little +weight, but, since no one else had said anything at all on the point, +his remarks merit attention which they would not otherwise receive. + +Eusebius states that, in his last work [117:2], "Exposition of the Lord's +Oracles" ([Greek: Logion kuriakon exegesis]), Papias wrote as follows: + + "And the elder said this also: 'Mark, having become the interpreter + of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, + without, however, recording in order what was either said or done + by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; + but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted his + instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of + giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [or discourses] + ([Greek: all' ouch hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion] + or [Greek: logon).' So, then, Mark made no mistake while he thus + wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his + one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any + false statement therein." [118:1] + +The first question which suggests itself is: Does the description here +given correspond with the Gospel "according to Mark" which we now +possess? Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed "without +recording in order what was either said or done by Christ"? A negative +answer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar +enquiries, and the application of the Presbyter's words to it has +consequently been denied by them. It does not follow from this that +there has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring to +a work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it. +However, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of +argument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the +value of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our +second Gospel. + +In the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, who +is said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the +circumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but that +he merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter. +It is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy +of Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false +statement, but this does not add much value to his record. No one +supposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately invented +what he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can +be received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker. +The testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition, +confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to +attest miraculous pretensions. The tradition that Mark derived his +information from the preaching of Peter is not supported by internal +evidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability. +Because some person, whose very identity is far from established, says +so, is not strong evidence of the fact. It was the earnest desire of +the early Christians to connect Apostles with the authorship of the +Gospels, and as Mark is represented as the interpreter of Peter, so +Luke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely with +Paul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reason +whatever for believing that Paul ever saw Jesus. Comparison of the +contents of the first three Gospels, moreover, not only does not render +more probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic as +it lies before us, but is really opposed to it. Into this I shall not +here go. + +Setting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicability +of the tradition recorded by Papias regarding the Gospel said to have +been written by Mark, I simply appeal to those who have rightly +appreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is required +as to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himself +seen nor heard Jesus. It is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closer +examination of the supposed evidence. + + "But concerning Matthew the following statement is made [by Papias]: + 'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the Oracles + in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.'" + [119:1] + +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 zonta]) 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: hos 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 mathetais autou]), The harvest,' + &c.; and Matt. x. 16: 'Behold, I ([Greek: ego]) 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: hetis 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 Saddoukaion]), 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 oiketes]) + 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: oiketes], 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: + philounton]) 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: trupematos] 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, Schuerer, 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 te 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: te 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' hopos]), 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' hopos] 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:-- + + "On examining the _Diatessaron_ as translated into Latin from this + Arabic, we find in by far the greater portion of it, from the Sermon + on the Mount to the Last Supper (Sec.Sec. 30-134) that Tatian, like his + brother harmonist Ammonius, took St. Matthew as the basis of his + work ... St. Mark, as might be expected, runs parallel with St. + Matthew in the _Diatessaron_, and is in a few cases the source out + of which incidents have been incorporated. St. Luke, on the other + hand, is employed by Tatian, as also in a lesser degree is St. John, + in complete defiance of chronological order." [149:1] + +This is not quite so different from the description of the _Diatessaron_ +of Ammonius, which Dr. Lightfoot quotes:-- + + "He placed side by side with the Gospel according to Matthew the + corresponding passages of the other Evangelists, so that as a + necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was + destroyed so far as regards the order (texture) of reading." [149:2] + +The next witness cited is Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, writing about A.D. +453, and I need not quote the well-known passage in which he describes +the suppression of some 200 copies of Tatian's work in his diocese, +which were in use "not only among persons belonging to his sect, but +also among those who follow the Apostolic doctrine," who did not +perceive the heretical purpose of a book in which the genealogies and +other passages showing the Lord to have been born of the seed of David +after the flesh were suppressed. It is a fact, however, which even Zahn +points out, that, in the alleged _Diatessaron_ of Ephraem, these +passages are not all excised, but still remain part of the text, [150:1] +as they also do in the Arabic translation. This is the only definite +information which we possess of the contents of the _Diatessaron_ beyond +the opening words, and it does not tally with the recently discovered +works. + +I need not further discuss here the statement of Epiphanius that some +called Tatian's _Diatessaron_ the Gospel according to the Hebrews. +Epiphanius had not seen the work himself, and he leaves us in the same +ignorance as to its character. + +It is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regarding +the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. As Dr. Donaldson said long ago: "We should +not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it +told us something reliable about itself." [150:2] + +We may now come to the documents recently published. The MS. of the +Armenian version of the commentary ascribed to Ephraem is dated A.D. +1195, and Moesinger declares that it is translated from the Syriac, of +which it is said to retain many traces. [150:3] He states that in the +judgment of the Mechitarist Fathers the translation dates from about the +fifth century, [150:4] but an opinion on such a point can only be +received with great caution. The name of Tatian is not mentioned as the +author of the "Harmony," and the question is open as to whether the +authorship of the commentary is rightly ascribed to Ephraem Syrus. In +any case there can be no doubt that the Armenian work is a translation. + +The Arabic work published by Ciasca, and supposed to be a version of +Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, is derived from two manuscripts, one +belonging to the Vatican Library and the other forwarded to Rome from +Egypt by the Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. The latter MS. +states, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an Arabic +translation of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, made from the Syriac by the +presbyter Abu-l-Pharag Abdullah Ben-at-Tib, who is believed to have +flourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one of +these notes the name of the scribe who wrote the Syriac copy is given, +which leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the end +of the ninth century. A note in the Vatican MS. also ascribes the +original work to Tatian. These notes constitute the principal or only +ground for connecting Tatian's name with the "Harmony." + +So little is known regarding the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian that even the +language in which it was written is matter of vehement debate. The name +would, of course, lead to the conclusion that it was a Greek +composition, and many other circumstances support this, but the mere +fact that it does not seem to have been known to Greek Fathers, and +that it is very doubtful whether any of them, with the exception of +Theodoret, had ever seen it, has led many critics to maintain that it +was written in Syriac. Nothing but circumstantial evidence of this can +be produced. This alone shows how little we really know of the +original. The recently discovered works, being in Arabic and Armenian, +even supposing them to be translations from the Syriac and that the +_Diatessaron_ was composed in Syriac, can only indirectly represent the +original, and they obviously labour under fatal disability in regard to +a restoration of the text of the documents at the basis of the work. +Between doubtful accuracy of rendering and evident work of revision, +the original matter cannot but be seriously disfigured. + +It is certain that the name of Tatian did not appear as the author of +the _Diatessaron_. [152:1] This is obvious from the very nature of the +composition and its object. We have met with three works of this +description and it is impossible to say how many more may not have +existed. As the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certain +that, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, the +first idea of anyone meeting with such a Harmony must have been that it +was the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. What means could there be of +correcting it and positively ascertaining the truth? It is not as if +such a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of style +and invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of Gospels already +current, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely in +details of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible its +authorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence of +an arranger's name? + +An illustration of all this is aptly supplied in the case of Victor of +Capua, and I will allow Dr. Lightfoot himself to tell the story. + + "Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an + anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels, and began in consequence + to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in Eusebius of + such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed to the + canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the + _Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that + the work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in + favour of the latter, because it does not give St. Matthew + continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists, as + Eusebius states Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in + the preface to this anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin + dress. + + "There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the + authorship; for though the work is constructed on the same general + plan as Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke + i. 1, and it does contain the genealogies. It belongs, therefore, + at least in its present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius." + [153:1] + +How this reasoning would have fallen to the ground had the Harmonist, as +he might well have done in imitation of Tatian, commenced with the +words, "In the beginning was the Word"! The most instructive part is +still to come, however, for although in May 1887 Dr. Lightfoot says: +"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship," +&c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to +the newly-discovered works, he adds: "On the relation of Victor's +_Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of +Tatian_ ... See Hemphill's _Diatessaron_." [153:2] On turning to +Professor Hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is +discovered:-- + + "It will be remembered that Victor, Bishop of Capua, in the year + 543, found a Latin Harmony or compilation of the four Gospels + without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at + once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. I have + already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of Eusebius, he + was led to ascribe his discovery to Tatian. This conclusion was + generally traversed by Church writers, and Victor was supposed to + have made a mistake. He is now, however, proved to have been a + better judge than his critics, for, as Dr. Wace was the first to + point out, a comparison of this Latin Harmony with the Ephraem + fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve + to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed _pari + passu_." [153:3] + +But how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothing +could more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about +such works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally right +about the reading _Diapente_? + +I have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing +how little we know of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and, I may add, of the +Commentary of Ephraem Syrus and the work on which it is based. It is not +at present necessary to examine more closely the text of either of the +recently published works, but, whilst leaving them to be tried by time, +I may clearly state what the effect on my argument would be on the +assumption made by Dr. Lightfoot that we have actually recovered the +_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and that it is composed upon a text more or +less corresponding with our four Gospels. Neither in the "Harmony" +itself nor in the supposed Commentary of Ephraem Syrus is the name of +any of the Evangelists mentioned, and much less is there any information +given as to their personality, character, or trustworthiness. If these +works were, therefore, the veritable _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and the +Commentary of Ephraem upon it, the Gospels would not be rendered more +credible as the record of miracles nor as witnesses for the reality of +Divine Revelation. + + * * * * * + +It may not be uninstructive if I take the liberty of quoting here some +arguments of Dr. Lightfoot regarding the authenticity of the "Letter of +the Smyrnaens," giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. [154:1] + + "The miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters as an + objection to the genuineness of the document. Yet, considering all + the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised + at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the + supernatural in the narrative. Compared with records of early + Christian martyrs, or with biographies of mediaeval saints, or with + notices of religious heroes at any great crisis, even in the more + recent history of the Church--as, for instance, the rise of + Jesuitism or of Wesleyanism--this document contains nothing which + ought to excite a suspicion as to its authenticity. + + "The one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty, is + the dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. Yet even this + might be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances + it would be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery. + But it will be shown hereafter (p. 627) that there are excellent + reasons for regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which + had no place in the original document. Beyond this we have the voice + from heaven calling to Polycarp in the stadium to play the man (Sec. + 9). But the very simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism. + The brethren present heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker. + This was the sole ground for the belief that it was not a human + utterance. Again, there is the arching of the fire round the martyr + like a sail swelled by the wind (Sec. 15). But this may be explained + as a strictly natural occurrence, and similar phenomena have been + witnessed more than once on like occasions, notably at the + martyrdoms of Savonarola and of Hooper. Again, there is the sweet + scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre (Sec. 15); but + this phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether from the + fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us constantly. In + another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the persecutions + at Vienne and Lyons, a little more than twenty years later, we are + told (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1, Sec. 35) that the heroic martyrs, as they + stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet + odour of Christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had + been anointed with material ointment' ([Greek: hoste enious doxai + kai muro kosmiko kechristhai autous]). Yet there was no pyre and no + burning wood here, so that the imagination of the bystanders must + have supplied the incident. Indeed, this account of the Gallican + martyrs, indisputably written by eye-witnesses, contains many more + startling occurrences than the record of Polycarp's fate. + + "More or less closely connected with the miraculous element is the + _prophetic insight_ attributed to Polycarp. But what does this + amount to? It is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered was + accomplished and will be accomplished' (Sec. 16). But the future tense, + 'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not + the statement of a fact. We may, indeed, accept this qualification + as clear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his + forebodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. The only example + of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his + burning pillow, which suggested to him that he would undergo + martyrdom by fire. But what more natural than this presentiment, + when persecution was raging around him and fire was a common + instrument of death? I need not stop here to discuss how far a + prescience may be vouchsafed to God's saints. Even 'old experience' + is found to be gifted with 'something like prophetic strain.' It is + sufficient to say here again that it would be difficult to point to + a single authentic biography of any Christian hero--certainly of any + Christian hero of the early centuries--of whom some incident at + least as remarkable as this prophecy, if prophecy it can be called, + is not recorded. Pontius, the disciple and biographer of Cyprian, + relates a similar intimation which preceded the martyrdom of his + master, and adds: 'Quid hac revelatione manifestius? quid hac + dignatione felicius? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque + postmodum subsecuta sunt.' (_Vit. et Pass. Cypr._ 12, 13)" [156:1] + +I am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, written +long after the essays on _Supernatural Religion_, as it presents +Dr. Lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunity +of congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towards +freedom which it exhibits. I quite agree with him that the presence of +supernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against the +authenticity of an early Christian writing, but the promptitude with +which he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away into +naturalism, is worthy of Professor Huxley. He now understands, without +doubt, the reason why I demand such clear and conclusive evidence of +miracles, and why I refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous and +insufficient testimony. In fact, he cannot complain that I feel bound to +explain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of which +he has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing but +very sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated the +imagination and devout reverence of early Christians to such mistakes, +I resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations. + + + + + +VIII. + +CONCLUSIONS. + + +We have seen that Divine Revelation could only be necessary or +conceivable for the purpose of communicating to us something which we +could not otherwise discover, and that the truth of communications which +are essentially beyond and undiscoverable by reason cannot be attested +in any other way than by miraculous signs distinguishing them as Divine. +It is admitted that no other testimony could justify our believing the +specific Revelation which we are considering, the very substance of +which is supernatural and beyond the criticism of reason, and that its +doctrines, if not proved to be miraculous truths, must inevitably be +pronounced "the wildest delusions." "By no rational being could a just +and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing +announcements." + +On examining the alleged miraculous evidence for Christianity as Divine +Revelation, however, we find that, even if the actual occurrence of the +supposed miracles could be substantiated, their value as evidence would +be destroyed by the necessary admission that miracles are not limited to +one source and are not exclusively associated with truth, but are +performed by various spiritual Beings, Satanic as well as Divine, and +are not always evidential, but are sometimes to be regarded as delusive +and for the trial of faith. As the doctrines supposed to be revealed are +beyond Reason, and cannot in any sense be intelligently approved by the +human intellect, no evidence which is of so doubtful and inconclusive a +nature could sufficiently attest them. This alone would disqualify the +Christian miracles for the duty which miracles alone are capable of +performing. + +The supposed miraculous evidence for the Divine Revelation, moreover, is +not only without any special Divine character, being avowedly common +also to Satanic agency, but it is not original either in conception or +details. Similar miracles are reported long antecedently to the first +promulgation of Christianity, and continued to be performed for +centuries after it. A stream of miraculous pretension, in fact, has +flowed through all human history, deep and broad as it has passed +through the darker ages, but dwindling down to a thread as it has +entered days of enlightenment. The evidence was too hackneyed and +commonplace to make any impression upon those before whom the Christian +miracles are said to have been performed, and it altogether failed to +convince the people to whom the Revelation was primarily addressed. The +selection of such evidence for such a purpose is much more +characteristic of human weakness than of Divine power. + +The true character of miracles is at once betrayed by the fact that +their supposed occurrence has thus been confined to ages of ignorance +and superstition, and that they are absolutely unknown in any time or +place where science has provided witnesses fitted to appreciate and +ascertain the nature of such exhibitions of supernatural power. There +is not the slightest evidence that any attempt was made to investigate +the supposed miraculous occurrences, or to justify the inferences so +freely drawn from them, nor is there any reason to believe that the +witnesses possessed, in any considerable degree, the fulness of +knowledge and sobriety of judgment requisite for the purpose. No +miracle has yet established its claim to the rank even of apparent +reality, and all such phenomena must remain in the dim region of +imagination. The test applied to the largest class of miracles, +connected with demoniacal possession, discloses the falsity of all +miraculous pretension. + +There is no uncertainty as to the origin of belief in supernatural +interference with nature. The assertion that spurious miracles have +sprung up round a few instances of genuine miraculous power has not a +single valid argument to support it. History clearly demonstrates that, +wherever ignorance and superstition have prevailed, every obscure +occurrence has been attributed to supernatural agency, and it is freely +acknowledged that, under their influence, 'inexplicable' and +'miraculous' are convertible terms. On the other hand, in proportion as +knowledge of natural laws has increased, the theory of supernatural +interference with the order of nature has been dispelled and miracles +have ceased. The effect of science, however, is not limited to the +present and future, but its action is equally retrospective, and +phenomena which were once ignorantly isolated from the sequence of +natural cause and effect are now restored to their place in the unbroken +order. Ignorance and superstition created miracles; knowledge has for +ever annihilated them. + +To justify miracles, two assumptions are made: first, an Infinite +Personal God; and second, a Divine design of Revelation, the execution +of which necessarily involves supernatural action. Miracles, it is +argued, are not contrary to nature, or effects produced without adequate +causes, but on the contrary are caused by the intervention of this +Infinite Personal God for the purpose of attesting and carrying out the +Divine design. Neither of the assumptions, however, can be reasonably +maintained. + +The assumption of an Infinite Personal God: a Being at once limited and +unlimited, is a use of language to which no mode of human thought can +possibly attach itself. Moreover, the assumption of a God working +miracles is emphatically excluded by universal experience of the order +of nature. The allegation of a specific Divine cause of miracles is +further inadequate from the fact that the power of working miracles is +avowedly not limited to a Personal God, but is also ascribed to other +spiritual Beings, and it must, consequently, always be impossible to +prove that the supposed miraculous phenomena originate with one and not +with the other. On the other hand, the assumption of a Divine design of +Revelation is not suggested by antecedent probability, but is derived +from the very Revelation which it is intended to justify, as is likewise +the assumption of a Personal God, and both are equally vicious as +arguments. The circumstances which are supposed to require this Divine +design, and the details of the scheme, are absolutely incredible and +opposed to all the results of science. Nature does not countenance any +theory of the original perfection and subsequent degradation of the +human race, and the supposition of a frustrated original plan of +creation, and of later impotent endeavours to correct it, is as +inconsistent with Divine omnipotence and wisdom as the proposed +punishment of the human race and the mode devised to save some of them +are opposed to justice and morality. Such assumptions are essentially +inadmissible, and totally fail to explain and justify miracles. + +Whatever definition be given of miracles, such exceptional phenomena +must at least be antecedently incredible. In the absence of absolute +knowledge, human belief must be guided by the balance of evidence, and +it is obvious that the evidence for the uniformity of the order of +nature, which is derived from universal experience, must be enormously +greater than can be the testimony for any alleged exception to it. On +the other hand, universal experience prepares us to consider mistakes of +the senses, imperfect observation and erroneous inference as not only +possible, but eminently probable on the part of the witnesses of +phenomena, even when they are perfectly honest and truthful, and more +especially so when such disturbing causes as religious excitement and +superstition are present. When the report of the original witnesses only +reaches us indirectly and through the medium of tradition, the +probability of error is further increased. Thus the allegation of +miracles is discredited, both positively by the invariability of the +order of nature, and negatively by the fallibility of human observation +and testimony. The history of miraculous pretension in the world and the +circumstances attending the special exhibition of it which we are +examining suggest natural explanations of the reported facts which +wholly remove them from the region of the supernatural. + +When we proceed to examine the direct witnesses for the Christian +miracles, we do not discover any exceptional circumstances neutralising +the preceding considerations. On the contrary, we find that the case +turns not upon miracles substantially before us, but upon the mere +narratives of miracles said to have occurred over eighteen hundred years +ago. It is obvious that, for such narratives to possess any real force +and validity, it is essential that their character and authorship should +be placed beyond all doubt. They must proceed from eye-witnesses capable +of estimating aright the nature of the phenomena. Our four Gospels, +however, are strictly anonymous works. The superscriptions which now +distinguish them are undeniably of later origin than the works +themselves and do not proceed from the composers of the Gospels. Of the +writers to whom these narratives are traditionally ascribed only two are +even said to have been apostles, the alleged authors of the second and +third Synoptics neither having been personal followers of Jesus nor +eye-witnesses of the events they describe. Under these circumstances, we +are wholly dependent upon external evidence for information regarding +the authorship and trustworthiness of the four canonical Gospels. + +In examining this evidence, we proceeded upon clear and definite +principles. Without forming or adopting any theory whatever as to the +date or origin of our Gospels, we simply searched the writings of the +Fathers, during a century and a half after the events in question, for +information regarding the composition and character of these works and +even for any certain traces of their use, although, if discovered, these +could prove little beyond the mere existence of the Gospels used at the +date of the writer. In the latter and minor investigation, we were +guided by canons of criticism, previously laid down, which are based +upon the simplest laws of evidence. We found that the writings of the +Fathers, during a century and a half after the death of Jesus, are a +complete blank so far as any evidence regarding the composition and +character of our Gospels is concerned, unless we except the tradition +preserved by Papias, after the middle of the second century, the details +of which fully justify the conclusion that our first and second +Synoptics, in their present form, cannot be the works said to have been +composed by Matthew and Mark. There is thus no evidence whatever +directly connecting any of the canonical Gospels with the writers to +whom they are popularly attributed, and later tradition, of little or no +value in itself, is separated by a long interval of profound silence +from the epoch at which they are supposed to have been composed. With +one exception, moreover, we found that, during the same century and a +half, there is no certain and unmistakable trace even of the anonymous +use of any of our Gospels in the early Church. This fact, of course, +does not justify the conclusion that none of these Gospels was actually +in existence during any part of that time, nor have we anywhere +suggested such an inference, but strict examination of the evidence +shows that there is no positive proof that they were. The exception to +which we refer is Marcion's Gospel, which was, we think, based upon our +third Synoptic, and consequently must be accepted as evidence of the +existence of that work. Marcion, however, does not give the slightest +information as to the authorship of the Gospel, and his charges against +it of adulteration cannot be considered very favourable testimony as to +its infallible character. The canonical Gospels continue to the end +anonymous documents of no evidential value for miracles. They do not +themselves pretend to be inspired histories, and they cannot escape from +the ordinary rules of criticism. Internal evidence does not modify the +inferences from external testimony. Apart from continual minor +contradictions throughout the first three Gospels, it is impossible to +reconcile the representations of the Synoptics with those of the fourth +Gospel. They mutually destroy each other as evidence. They must be +pronounced mere narratives compiled long after the events recorded, by +unknown persons who were neither eye-witnesses of the alleged miraculous +occurrences nor hearers of the statements they profess to report. They +cannot be accepted as adequate testimony for miracles and the reality of +Divine Revelation. + +Applying similar tests to the Acts of the Apostles we arrived at similar +results. Acknowledged to be composed by the same author who produced the +third Synoptic, that author's identity is not thereby made more clear. +There is no evidence of the slightest value regarding its character, +but, on the other hand, the work itself teems to such an extent with +miraculous incidents and supernatural agency that the credibility of the +narrative requires an extraordinary amount of attestation to secure for +it any serious consideration. When the statements of the author are +compared with the emphatic declarations of the Apostle Paul and with +authentic accounts of the development of the early Christian Church, it +becomes evident that the Acts of the Apostles, as might have been +supposed, is a legendary composition of a later day, which cannot be +regarded as sober and credible history, and rather discredits than tends +to establish the reality of the miracles with which its pages so +suspiciously abound. + +The remaining books of the New Testament Canon required no separate +examination, because, even if genuine, they contain no additional +testimony to the reality of Divine Revelation, beyond the implied belief +in such doctrines as the Incarnation and Resurrection. It is +unquestionable, we suppose, that in some form or other the Apostles +believed in these miracles, and the assumption that they did so +supersedes the necessity for examining the authenticity of the Catholic +Epistles and Apocalypse. In like manner, the recognition as genuine of +four Epistles of Paul, which contain his testimony to miracles, renders +it superfluous to discuss the authenticity of the other letters +attributed to him. + +The general belief in miraculous power and its possession by the Church +is brought to a practical test in the case of the Apostle Paul. After +elaborate consideration of his letters, we came to the unhesitating +conclusion that, instead of establishing the reality of miracles, the +unconscious testimony of Paul clearly demonstrates the facility with +which erroneous inferences convert the most natural phenomena into +supernatural occurrences. + +As a final test, we carefully examined the whole of the evidence for the +cardinal dogmas of Christianity, the Resurrection and Ascension of +Jesus. First taking the four Gospels, we found that their accounts of +these events are not only full of legendary matter, but even contradict +and exclude each other and, so far from establishing the reality of such +stupendous miracles, they show that no reliance is to be placed on the +statements of the unknown authors. Taking next the testimony of Paul, +which is more important as at least authentic and proceeding from an +Apostle of whom we know more than of any other of the early missionaries +of Christianity, we saw that it was indefinite and utterly insufficient. +His so-called "circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the +belief in the Resurrection rested" consists merely of vague and +undetailed hearsay, differing, so far as it can be compared, from the +statements in the Gospels, and without other attestation than the bare +fact that it is repeated by Paul, who doubtless believed it, although he +had not himself been a witness of any of the supposed appearances of the +risen Jesus which he so briefly catalogues. Paul's own personal +testimony to the Resurrection is limited to a vision of Jesus, of which +we have no authentic details, seen many years after the alleged miracle. +Considering the peculiar and highly nervous temperament of Paul, of +which he himself supplies abundant evidence, there can be no hesitation +in deciding that this vision was purely subjective, as were likewise, in +all probability, the appearances to the excited disciples of Jesus. The +testimony of Paul himself, before his imagination was stimulated to +ecstatic fervour by the beauty of a spiritualised religion, was an +earnest denial of the great Christian dogma, emphasised by the active +persecution of those who affirmed it; and a vision, especially in the +case of one so constituted, supposed to be seen many years after the +fact of the Resurrection had ceased to be capable of verification, is +not an argument of convincing force. We were compelled to pronounce the +evidence for the Resurrection and Ascension absolutely and hopelessly +inadequate to prove the reality of such stupendous miracles, which must +consequently be unhesitatingly rejected. There is no reason given, or +even conceivable, why allegations such as these, and dogmas affecting +the religion and even the salvation of the human race, should be +accepted upon evidence which would be declared totally insufficient in +the case of any common question of property or title before a legal +tribunal. On the contrary, the more momentous the point to be +established, the more complete must be the proof required. + +If we test the results at which we have arrived by general considerations, +we find them everywhere confirmed and established. There is nothing +original in the claim of Christianity to be regarded as Divine Revelation, +and nothing new either in the doctrines said to have been revealed, +or in the miracles by which it is alleged to have been distinguished. +There has not been a single historical religion largely held amongst +men which has not pretended to be divinely revealed, and the written +books of which have not been represented as directly inspired. There +is not a doctrine, sacrament, or rite of Christianity which has not +substantially formed part of earlier religions; and not a single +phase of the supernatural history of the Christ, from his miraculous +conception, birth and incarnation to his death, resurrection, and +ascension, which has not had its counterpart in earlier mythologies. +Heaven and hell, with characteristic variation of details, have held +an important place in the eschatology of many creeds and races. The +same may be said even of the moral teaching of Christianity, the elevated +precepts of which, although in a less perfect and connected form, had +already suggested themselves to many noble minds and been promulgated +by ancient sages and philosophers. That this Enquiry into the reality +of Divine Revelation has been limited to the claim of Christianity +has arisen solely from a desire to condense it within reasonable bounds, +and confine it to the only Religion in connection with which it could +practically interest us now. + +There is nothing in the history and achievements of Christianity which +can be considered characteristic of a Religion Divinely revealed for the +salvation of mankind. Originally said to have been communicated to a +single nation, specially selected as the peculiar people of God, for +whom distinguished privileges were said to be reserved, it was almost +unanimously rejected by that nation at the time and it has continued to +be repudiated by its descendants, with singular unanimity, to the +present day. After more than eighteen centuries, this Divine scheme of +salvation has not obtained even the nominal adhesion of more than a +third of the human race, and if, in a census of Christendom, distinction +could now be made of those who no longer seriously believe in it as +Supernatural Religion, Christianity would take a much lower numerical +position. Sakya Muni, a teacher only second in nobility of character to +Jesus, who, like him, proclaimed a system of elevated morality, has even +now almost twice the number of followers, although his missionaries +never sought converts in the West. [168:1] Considered as a scheme +Divinely devised as the best, if not only, mode of redeeming the human +race and saving them from eternal damnation, promulgated by God himself +incarnate in human form, and completed by his own actual death upon the +cross for the sins of the world, such results as these can only be +regarded as practical failure, although they may not be disproportionate +for a system of elevated morality. + +We shall probably never be able to determine how far the great Teacher +may through his own speculations or misunderstood spiritual utterances +have suggested the supernatural doctrines subsequently attributed to +him, and by which his whole history and system soon became transformed; +but no one who attentively studies the subject can fail to be struck by +the absence of such dogmas from the earlier records of his teaching. It +is to the excited veneration of the followers of Jesus, however, that we +owe most of the supernatural elements so characteristic of the age and +people. We may look in vain even in the synoptic Gospels for the +doctrines elaborated in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of Ephesus. +The great transformation of Christianity was effected by men who had +never seen Jesus, and who were only acquainted with his teaching after +it had become transmuted by tradition. The fervid imagination of the +East constructed Christian theology. It is not difficult to follow the +development of the creeds of the Church, and it is certainly most +instructive to observe the progressive boldness with which its dogmas +were expanded by pious enthusiasm. The New Testament alone represents +several stages of dogmatic evolution. Before his first followers had +passed away the process of transformation had commenced. The disciples, +who had so often misunderstood the teaching of Jesus during his life, +piously distorted it after his death. His simple lessons of meekness and +humility were soon forgotten. With lamentable rapidity, the elaborate +structure of ecclesiastical Christianity, following stereotyped lines of +human superstition and deeply coloured by Alexandrian philosophy, +displaced the sublime morality of Jesus. Doctrinal controversy, which +commenced amongst the very Apostles, has ever since divided the unity of +the Christian body. The perverted ingenuity of successive generations of +churchmen has filled the world with theological quibbles, which have +naturally enough culminated of late in doctrines of Immaculate +Conception and Papal Infallibility. + +It is sometimes affirmed, however, that those who proclaim such +conclusions not only wantonly destroy the dearest hopes of humanity, but +remove the only solid basis of morality; and it is alleged that, before +existing belief is disturbed, the iconoclast is bound to provide a +substitute for the shattered idol. To this we may reply that speech or +silence does not alter the reality of things. The recognition of Truth +cannot be made dependent on consequences, or be trammelled by +considerations of spurious expediency. Its declaration in a serious and +suitable manner to those who are capable of judging can never be +premature. Its suppression cannot be effectual, and is only a +humiliating compromise with conscious imposture. In so far as morality +is concerned, belief in a system of future rewards and punishments, +although of an intensely degraded character, may, to a certain extent, +have promoted observance of the letter of the law in darker ages and +even in our own; but it may, we think, be shown that education and +civilisation have done infinitely more to enforce its spirit. How far +Christianity has promoted education and civilisation, we shall not here +venture adequately to discuss. We may emphatically assert, however, that +whatever beneficial effect Christianity has produced has been due, not +to its supernatural dogmas, but to its simple morality. Dogmatic +Theology, on the contrary, has retarded education and impeded science. +Wherever it has been dominant, civilisation has stood still. Science has +been judged and suppressed by the light of a text or a chapter of +Genesis. Almost every great advance which has been made towards +enlightenment has been achieved in spite of the protest or the anathema +of the Church. Submissive ignorance, absolute or comparative, has been +tacitly fostered as the most desirable condition of the popular mind. +"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not +enter into the kingdom of heaven," has been the favourite text of +Doctors of Divinity with a stock of incredible dogmas difficult of +assimilation by the virile mind. Even now, the friction of theological +resistance is a constant waste of intellectual power. The early +enunciation of so pure a system of morality, and one so intelligible to +the simple as well as profound to the wise, was of great value to the +world; but, experience being once systematised and codified, if higher +principles do not constrain us, society may safely be left to see morals +sufficiently observed. It is true that, notwithstanding its fluctuating +rules, morality has hitherto assumed the character of a Divine +institution, but its sway has not, in consequence, been more real than +it must be as the simple result of human wisdom and the outcome of +social experience. The choice of a noble life is no longer a theological +question, and ecclesiastical patents of truth and uprightness have +finally expired. Morality, which has ever changed its complexion and +modified its injunctions according to social requirements, will +necessarily be enforced as part of human evolution, and is not dependent +on religious terrorism or superstitious persuasion. If we are disposed +to say: _Cui bono?_ and only practise morality, or be ruled by right +principles, to gain a heaven or escape a hell, there is nothing lost, +for such grudging and calculated morality is merely a spurious imitation +which can as well be produced by social compulsion. But if we have ever +been really penetrated by the pure spirit of morality, if we have in any +degree attained that elevation of mind which instinctively turns to the +true and noble and shrinks from the baser level of thought and action, +we shall feel no need of the stimulus of a system of rewards and +punishments in a future state which has for so long been represented as +essential to Christianity. + +As to the other reproach, let us ask what has actually been destroyed by +such an enquiry pressed to its logical conclusion. Can Truth by any +means be made less true? Can reality be melted into thin air? The +Revelation not being a reality, that which has been destroyed is only an +illusion, and that which is left is the Truth. Losing belief in it and +its contents, we have lost absolutely nothing but that which the +traveller loses when the mirage, which has displayed cool waters and +green shades before him, melts swiftly away. There were no cool +fountains really there to allay his thirst, no flowery meadows for his +wearied limbs; his pleasure was delusion, and the wilderness is blank. +Rather the mirage with its pleasant illusion, is the human cry, than the +desert with its barrenness. Not so, is the friendly warning; seek not +vainly in the desert that which is not there, but turn rather to other +horizons and to surer hopes. Do not waste life clinging to +ecclesiastical dogmas which represent no eternal verities, but search +elsewhere for truth which may haply be found. What should we think of +the man who persistently repulsed the persuasion that two and two make +four from the ardent desire to believe that two and two make five? Whose +fault is it that two and two do make four and not five? Whose folly is +it that it should be more agreeable to think that two and two make five +than to know that they only make four? This folly is theirs who +represent the value of life as dependent on the reality of special +illusions, which they have religiously adopted. To discover that a +former belief is unfounded is to change nothing of the realities of +existence. The sun will descend as it passes the meridian whether we +believe it to be noon or not. It is idle and foolish, if human, to +repine because the truth is not precisely what we thought it, and at +least we shall not change reality by childishly clinging to a dream. + +The argument so often employed by theologians that Divine Revelation is +necessary for man, and that certain views contained in that Revelation +are required by our moral consciousness, is purely imaginary and derived +from the Revelation which it seeks to maintain. The only thing +absolutely necessary for man is Truth; and to that, and that alone, must +our moral consciousness adapt itself. Reason and experience forbid the +expectation that we can acquire any knowledge otherwise than through +natural channels. We might as well expect to be supernaturally nourished +as supernaturally informed. To complain that we do not know all that we +desire to know is foolish and unreasonable. It is tantamount to +complaining that the mind of man is not differently constituted. To +attain the full altitude of the Knowable, whatever that may be, should +be our earnest aim, and more than this is not for humanity. We may be +certain that information which is beyond the ultimate reach of Reason is +as unnecessary as it is inaccessible. Man may know all that man requires +to know. + +We gain more than we lose by awaking to find that our Theology is human +invention and our eschatology an unhealthy dream. We are freed from the +incubus of base Hebrew mythology, and from doctrines of Divine +government which outrage morality and set cruelty and injustice in the +place of holiness. If we have to abandon cherished anthropomorphic +visions of future Blessedness, the details of which are either of +unseizable dimness or of questionable joy, we are at least delivered +from quibbling discussions of the meaning of [Greek: aionios], and our +eternal hope is unclouded by the doubt whether mankind is to be tortured +in hell for ever and a day, or for a day without the ever. At the end of +life there may be no definite vista of a Heaven glowing with the light +of apocalyptic imagination, but neither will there be the unutterable +horror of a Purgatory or a Hell lurid with flames for the helpless +victims of an unjust but omnipotent Creator. To entertain such libellous +representations at all as part of the contents of "Divine Revelation," +it was necessary to assert that man was incompetent to judge of the ways +of the God of Revelation, and must not suppose him endowed with the +perfection of human conceptions of justice and mercy, but submit to call +wrong right and right wrong at the foot of an almighty Despot. But now +the reproach of such reasoning is shaken from our shoulders, and returns +to the Jewish superstition from which it sprang. + +As myths lose their might and their influence when discovered to be +baseless, the power of supernatural Christianity will doubtless pass +away, but the effect of the revolution must not be exaggerated, although +it cannot here be fully discussed. If the pictures which have filled for +so long the horizon of the Future must vanish, no hideous blank can +rightly be maintained in their place. We should clearly distinguish +between what we know and know not, but as carefully abstain from +characterising that which we know not as if it were really known to us. +That mysterious Unknown or Unknowable is no cruel darkness, but simply +an impenetrable distance into which we are impotent to glance, but which +excludes no legitimate speculation and forbids no reasonable hope. + + + + + +[ENDNOTES] + + +[1:1] Originally published in the _Fortnightly Review_, January 1, 1875. + +[4:1] _On the Canon_, p. 65. + +[4:2] _Ibid._ p. 61, note 2. + +[4:3] At the end of this note Dr. Westcott adds, "Indeed, from the +similar mode of introducing the story of the vine, which is afterwards +referred to Papias, it is reasonable to conjecture that this +interpretation is one from Papias' _Exposition_." + +[4:4] _Reliq. Sacrae_, i. p. 10 f. + +[4:5] _Lehre Pers. Christ_, i. p. 217 f., Anm. 56, p. 218, Anm, 62. + +[5:1] _Theol. Jahrb. _1845, p. 593, Anm. 2; cf. 1847, p. 160, Anm. 1. + +[5:2] _Synops. Evang._, Proleg. xxxi. + +[5:3] _Komm. Ev. des Johannes_, p. 6 f. + +[5:4] _Die Zeugn. Ev. Joh._ p. 116 f. + +[5:5] _Basilides_, p. 110 f. + +[5:6] _Zeitschr. fuer wiss. Theol._ 1867, p. 186, Anm. 1, 1868, p. 219, +Anm. 4; cf. 1865, p. 334 f., "Die Evangelien," p. 339, Anm. 4. + +[6:1] _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 72. + +[6:2] _Th. Stud. u. Krit._ 1866, p. 674. + +[6:3] _Intro. N.T._ ii. p. 424 f. + +[6:4] _Ibid._ ii. p. 372. + +[8:1] The work was all printed, and I could only reprint the sheet with +such alterations as could be made by omissions and changes at the part +itself. + +[8:2] Dr. Lightfoot makes use of my second edition. + +[9:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 4, n. 1; _Essays on S.R._ +p. 4, n. 4. + +[9:2] Professor Hofstede de Groot, in advancing this passage after the +example of Tischendorf, carefully distinguishes the words which he +introduces, referring it to the presbyters, by placing them within +brackets. + +[10:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 231 f. + +[10:2] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 5 f.; _Essays on S.R._ p. 7. + +[10:3] _S.R._ ii. 228 ff. + +[11:1] _Wann wurden_, u.s.w., p. 73 f. + +[11:2] The translation in Scholten's work is substantially the same as +Tischendorf's, except that he has "promises" for "has promised," which +is of no importance. Upon this, however, Scholten argues that Celsus is +treated as a contemporary. + +[12:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 229 ff. + +[13:1] I may here briefly refer to one or two instances of translation +attacked by Dr. Lightfoot. He sneers at such a rendering as [Greek: ho +logos edelou], "Scripture declares," introducing an isolated phrase +from Justin Martyr (ii. 296). The slight liberty taken with the tense is +surely excusable in such a case, and for the rest I may point out that +Prudentius Maranus renders the words "... scripturam declarare," and +Otto "... effatum declarare." They occur in reference to passages from +the Old Testament quoted in controversy with a Jew. The next passage is +[Greek: kata korrhes propelakizein], which Dr. Lightfoot says is +rendered "to inflict a blow on one side," but this is not the case. The +phrase occurs in contrasting the words of Matt. v. 39, [Greek: all' +hostis se rhapisei epi ten dexian sou siagona, strepson auto kai ten +allen], with a passage in Athenagoras, [Greek: alla tois men kan kata +korrhes prospelakizosi, kai to eteron paiein parechein tes kephales +meros]. In endeavouring to convey to the English reader some idea of +the linguistic difference, I rendered the latter (ii. 193), "but to +those who inflict a blow on the one side, also to present the other +side, _of the head_," &c., inserting the three Greek words after +"side," to explain the suspension of sense, and the merging, for the +sake of brevity, the double expression in the words I have italicised. +Dr. Lightfoot represents the phrase as ending at "side." The passage +from Tertullian was quoted almost solely for the purpose of showing the +uncertainty, in so bold a writer, of the expression "videtur," for which +reason, although the Latin is given below, the word was introduced into +the text. It was impossible for anyone to _mistake_ the tense and +meaning of "quem caederet," but I ventured to paraphrase the words and +their context, instead of translating them. In this sentence, I may say, +the "mutilation hypothesis" is introduced, and thereafter Tertullian +proceeds to press against Marcion his charge of mutilating the Gospel +of Luke, and I desired to contrast the doubt of the "videtur" with the +assurance of the subsequent charge. I had imagined that no one could +have doubted that Luke is represented as one of the "Commentatores." + +[14:1] I altered "certainly" to "probably" in the second edition, +as Dr. Lightfoot points out, in order to avoid the possibility of +exaggeration; but my mind was so impressed with the certainty that +I had clearly shown I was merely, for the sake of fairness, reporting +the critical judgment of others, that I did not perceive the absence +of the words given above. + +[15:1] Dr. Lightfoot is mistaken in his ingenious conjecture of my +having been misled by the "nur" of Credner; but so scrupulous a critic +might have mentioned that I not only refer to Credner for this argument, +but also to _De Wette_, who has "... dass er _nie_ Joh. dem Tauefer wie +der Synoptiker den Beinamen [Greek: ho Baptistes] giebt" (_Einl. N.T._ +p. 230), and to _Bleek_, who says, "nicht ein einziges Mal" (_Beitraege_, +p. 178, and _Einl. N.T._ p. 150), which could not be misread. + +[16:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 15; _Essays on S.R._ p. 21 f. + +[16:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17-106. Dr. Westcott gives the above +reference, but does not quote the passage. + +[16:3] Dr. Westcott quotes the passage relative to Matthias. + +[17:1] _Canon_, p. 255 f. + +[17:2] The same remarks apply to the two passages, pointed out by +Tischendorf, from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius. + +[18:1] Luthardt, _Der Johann. Ursprung des viert. Evang._ 1874, p. 85 f. + +[19:1] _Strom._ vii. 17, Sec. 106. + +[19:2] _Canon_, p. 255. + +[19:3] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 16 [_Essays_, p. 22]. + +[20:1] _Contemporary Review_, December, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11]. + +[21:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11]. + +[21:2] _A Crit. History of Chr. Lit. and Doctrine_, i. 184 f. I do not +refer to the numerous authors who enforce this view. + +[22:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 [_ibid._ p. 11 f.] + +[23:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 11]. + +[23:2] _S.R._ i. p. 441. + +[24:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 8 f. [_ibid._ p. 12 f.] + +[24:2] _S.R._ i. p. 387 ff. + +[24:3] _Canon_, p. 112 f. + +[24:4] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9, note [_ibid._ p. 12, n. 4]. + +[24:5] _S.R._ i. p. 360, note 1. Dr. Lightfoot, of course, "can hardly +suppose" that "I had read the passage to which I refer." + +[25:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13]. + +[26:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 9 [_ibid._ p. 13]. + +[26:2] I cannot go through every instance, but I may briefly say that +such a passage as "Ye are of your father the devil" and the passage +Matt. xi. 27 _seq_. are no refutation whatever of my statement of the +contrast between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics; and that the +allusion to Paul's teaching in the Apocalypse is in no way excluded even +by his death. Regarding the relations between Paul and the "pillar" +Apostles, I hope to speak hereafter. I must maintain that my argument +regarding the identification of an eye-witness (ii. p. 444 ff.) +sufficiently meets the reasoning to which Dr. Lightfoot refers. + +[27:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 11 f. [_ibid._ p. 16]. + +[27:2] _Ibid._ p. 10 [_ibid._ p. 14]. + +[28:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 402. + +[28:2] _Ibid._ ii. p. 406. + +[28:3] See Acts iv. 13. + +[28:4] _S.R._ ii. p. 410. + +[28:5] _Ibid._ ii, p. 413. + +[29:1] _Der Johann. Ursp. des viert. Evang._ 1874, pp. 204-7. + +[29:2] _Einl. N.T._ p. 625. + +[30:1] In regard to one other point, I may say that, so far from being +silent about the presence of a form of the Logos doctrine in the +Apocalypse with which Dr. Lightfoot reproaches me, I repeatedly point +out its existence, as, for instance, _S.R._ ii. pp. 255, 273, 278, &c., +and I also show its presence elsewhere, my argument being that the +doctrine not only was not originated by the fourth Gospel, but that it +had already been applied to Christianity in N.T. writings before the +composition of that work. + +[30:2] _S.R._ ii. 421. + +[30:3] _Contemporary Review_, 12 f. [_ibid._ p. 17 f.] + +[31:1] Dr. Lightfoot will find the passage to which I refer, more +especially p. 241, line 4, commencing with the words, "Nur zwei neuere +Ausleger ahnen die einfache Wahrheit." + +[31:2] _S.R._ 421 f. + +[32:1] _Works_, ed. Pitman, x. 339 f.; _Horae et Talm._ p. 938. + +[32:2] _Chron. Synopse d. vier. Evv._ p. 256, Anm. 1. + +[32:3] _Bibl. Comm., Das. Ev. n. Joh._, umgearb. Ebrard ii. 1, p. 122 f. + +[32:4] _Kurzgef. ex. Handbuch N.T._ i. 3, p. 84. + +[32:5] _Einl. N.T._ ii. 194 f. Hug more strictly applies the name to +the sepulchre where the bones of Joseph were laid (Josh. xxiv. 32). + +[32:6] _Bibelwerk_, iv. 219. + +[32:7] _Die Zeugnisse_, p. 21. + +[32:8] _Comm. sur l'Ev. de St. Jean_, i. p. 475 f. + +[32:9] _Einl. N.T._ p. 211. + +[32:10] _Zeitschr. gesammt. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche_, 1856, p. 240 ff. + +[32:11] _Die Joh. Schriften_, i. p. 181, Anm. 1; _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ +viii. p. 255 f.; cf. _Gesch. v. Isr._ v. p. 348, Anm. 1. + +[32:12] _Das Ev. Joh._ p. 107. + +[32:13] _Comm. Ev. n. Joh._ p. 188 f. + +[33:1] _Comm. Ev. des Joh._ i. p. 577 f. + +[33:2] _Jahrb. bibl. Wiss._ viii. p. 255 f. + +[33:3] _Die Joh. Schr._ i. p. 181, Anm. 1. + +[33:4] _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, 1872, p. 92. + +[33:5] Mr. Sanday adds in a note here: "This may perhaps be called the +current explanation of the name. It is accepted as well by those who +deny the genuineness of the Gospel as by those who maintain it. Cf. +Keim, i. 133. But there is much to be said for the identification with +El Askar, &c." _Authorship and Hist. Char. of Fourth Gospel_, p. 93, +note 1. + +[34:1] _Life of Christ_, i. p. 206, note 1. + +[34:2] _La Geographie du Tulmud_, p. 170. + +[34:3] Smith's _Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. p. 1395 f. + +[36:1] _Bampton Lect._ 1865, 2nd edit. p. 4. + +[36:2] _S.R._ i. p. 61 ff. + +[37:1] _Contemporary Review_, p. 19 [_ibid._ p. 26 f.] + +[37:2] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 216 f. + +[38:1] _Three Essays on Religion_, p. 234. + +[38:2] _Ibid._ p. 219. + +[39:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 477. + +[40:1] This appeared as the Preface to the 6th edition. + +[45:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 1 ff. (_Ibid._ p. 32 ff.) + +[45:2] _S.R._ i. p. 212. + +[46:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 172 [_ibid._ p. 36]. + +[46:2] _Ibid._ p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51]. + +[48:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 173 [_ibid._ p. 38]. + +[49:1] I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ i. +p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr. Lightfoot much trouble. I used +the word "quotation" in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and +not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this +edition I have made my meaning clear. + +[50:1] Cf. _H.E._ iii. 3, 4, 18, 24, 25, &c. &c. + +[50:2] _Ibid._ ii. 15, vi. 14. + +[50:3] _Ibid._ v. 8. + +[50:4] _Ibid._ vi. 25. + +[51:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 181 [_ibid._ p. 48]. + +[51:2] By a slip of the pen Dr. Lightfoot refers to Irenaeus, _Adv. +Haer._ iii. 3, 4. It should be ii. 22, 5. + +[51:3] _Ibid._ p. 181. + +[51:4] _H.E._ iii, 24. + +[52:1] _H.E._ ii. 23. + +[52:2] _Ibid._ iii. 11. + +[52:3] _Ibid._ 16. + +[52:4] _Ibid._ 19, 20. + +[52:5] _Ibid._ 32. + +[52:6] _Ibid._ iv. 8. + +[52:7] _Ibid._ 11. + +[52:8] _Ibid._ iv. 22. + +[53:1] _H.E._ ii. 15. + +[53:2] _Ibid._ vii. 25. + +[54:1] _H.E._ iii. 18. + +[54:2] _Ibid._ 19, 20. + +[54:3] _Ibid._ 20. + +[54:4] _Ibid._ 20. + +[54:5] _Ibid._ 23. + +[54:6] _Ibid._ 24. + +[55:1] I am much obliged to Dr. Lightfoot for calling my attention to +the accidental insertion of the words "and the Apocalypse" (_S.R._ i. +p. 433). This was a mere slip of the pen, of which no use is made, and +the error is effectually corrected by my own distinct statements. + +[55:2] _H.E._ iii. 39. + +[56:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51]. + +[57:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 337 ff. [_ibid._ p. 59 +ff.] + +[58:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 339 [_ibid._ p. 62]. + +[59:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 340 [_ibid._ p. 63]. + +[59:2] _S.R._ i. p. 263 f. I have introduced numbers for facility of +reference. + +[60:1] Dr. Lightfoot says in this volume: "The reading 'most' is +explained in the preface to that edition as a misprint" (p. 63, n. 2). +Not so at all. "A slip of the pen" is a very different thing. + +[60:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 341 [_ibid._ p. 64]. + +[61:1] _Ueber d. Urspr. u.s.w. des Christennamens_, p. 7, Anm. 1. + +[61:2] _Zeitschr. wiss. Theol._ 1874, p. 211, Anm. 1. I should have +added that the priority which Lipsius still maintains is that of the +text, as Dr. Lightfoot points out in his _Apostolic Fathers_ (part ii. +vol. i. 1885, p. 273, n. 1), and not of absolute origin; but this +appears clearly enough in the quotations I have made. + +[61:3] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 841 [_ibid._ p. 65]. + +[62:1] _S.R._ i. p. 259 f. + +[62:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p, 65 f.] + +[62:3] _S.R._ i. p. 259. + +[63:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. In a note Dr. +Lightfoot states that my references to Lipsius are to his earlier works, +where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian +Epistles. Certainly they are so: but in the right place, two pages +further on, I refer to the writings in which he rejects the +authenticity, whilst still maintaining his previous view of the priority +of these letters [_ibid._ p. 66]. + +[64:1] Calvin's expressions are: "Nihil naeniis illis, quae sub Ignatii +nomine editae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum +impudentia, qui talibus larvis ad fallendum se instruunt" (_Inst. Chr. +Rel._ i. 13, Sec. 39). + +[64:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342. + +[64:3] _Op. Theolog._ 1652, 11, p. 1085. + +[64:4] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 342 [_ibid._ p. 66]. +Dr. Lightfoot refers to Pearson's _Vindiciae Ignat._ p. 28 (ed. Churton). + +[65:1] _Exam. Concilii Tridentim_, 1614, i. p. 85 (misprinted 89). + +[65:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 [_ibid._ p. 67]. + +[67:1] _Critici Sacri_, lib. ii cap. 1; _Op. Theolog._ 1652, ii. p. 1086. + +[67:2] _Vind. Ignat._ 1672, p. 14 f.; Jacobson, _Patr. Apost._ i. +p. xxxviii. + +[67:3] _Op de Theolog. Dogmat., De Eccles. Hierarch._ v. 8 Sec. 1, edit. +Venetiis, 1757, vol. vii. + +[68:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 343 f. [_ibid._ p. 67 f.] + +[70:1] _Die Kirche im ap. Zeit._ p. 322. + +[70:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 344 f. [_ibid._ p. 69.] + +[72:1] _K.G._ 1842, 1. p. 327, Anm. 1. + +[73:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 345 [_ibid._ p. 69]. + +[75:1] _Einl. N.T._ pp. 144 f., 233. + +[78:1] _Contemporary Review_, January 1875, p. 183 [_ibid._ p. 51]. + +[78:2] _Ibid._, February 1875, p. 346 [_ibid._ p. 71]. + +[79:1] _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1851, p. 389 ff. + +[79:2] _Hippolytus and his Age_, 1852, i. p. 60, note, iv. p. vi ff. + +[79:3] _Gesch. d. V. Isr._ vii. p. 321, Anm. 1. + +[80:1] _Patr. Apost. Proleg._ 1863, p. xxx. + +[80:2] _Patr. Apost._ ed. 4th, 1855. In a review of Denzinger's work in +the _Theolog. Quartalschrift_, 1849, p. 683 ff., Hefele devotes eight +lines to the Armenian version (p. 685 f.) + +[80:3] _Hippolytus_, 1852, i. p. 60, note. Cf. iv. p. vi ff. + +[81:1] _S.R._ i. p. 264. + +[81:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72]. + +[82:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 348 [_ibid._ p. 74]. + +[82:2] _S.R._ i. p. 265. + +[83:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 347 [_ibid._ p. 72 f.] +Dr. Lightfoot makes the following important admission in a note: "The +Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is +embedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection +in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before +the MS. of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles +come together, and _are followed_ by the confessedly spurious Epistles +in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are +together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn, +_Ignatius von Antiochien_, p. 111." + +[83:2] Note to Horne's _Int. to the Holy Scriptures_, 12th ed. 1869, iv. +p. 332, note 1. The italics are in the original. + +[83:3] _The Ancient Syrian Version_, &c. 1845, p. xxiv f. + +[84:1] _Corpus Ignat._ p. 338. + +[84:2] _Ibid._ p. ii. + +[84:3] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvi. + +[84:4] Cureton, _Corp. Ign._ p. iii. + +[84:5] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lvii f. + +[84:6] Cureton, _Corp. Ignat._ p. vii f. + +[84:7] _Ibid._ p. xi; Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. xxxi; cf. p. lxii; +Jacobson, _Patr. Ap._ i. p. lxxiii; Vossius, _Ep. gen. S. Ign. Mart._, +Amstel. 1646. + +[84:8] Dressel, _Patr. Ap._ p. lxi. + +[86:1] "A Few Words on 'Supernatural Religion,'" pref. to _Hist. of the +Canon_, 4th ed. 1874, p. xix. + +[87:1] "A Few Words on 'S.R.,'" preface to _Hist. of Canon_, 4th ed. +p. xix f. + +[87:2] _S.R._ i. p. 268. + +[88:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xx. + +[89:1] These consist only of an additional page of Baur's work first +quoted, and a reference to another of his works quoted in the second +note, but accidentally left out of note 3. + +[90:1] I take the liberty of putting these words in italics to call +attention to the assertion opposed to what I find in the note. + +[91:1] It is the same work, I believe, subsequently published in an +extended form. The work I quote is entitled _Kirchengeschichte der +ersten sechs Jahrhunderte_, dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage, 1869, and is +part of a course of lectures carrying the history to the nineteenth +century. + +[92:1] I do not know why Dr. Westcott adds the 'ff' to my reference, +but I presume it is taken from note 4, where the reference is given to +'p. 52 ff.' This shows how completely he has failed to see the different +object of the two notes. + +[93:1] _On the Canon_, Pref. 4th ed. p. xxi f. + +[97:1] P. 213. + +[98:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p. xxiv. Dr. Westcott adds, in a +note, "It may be worth while to add that in spite of the profuse display +of learning in connection with Ignatius, I do not see even in the second +edition any reference to the full and elaborate work of Zahn." I might +reply to this that my MS. had left my hands before Zahn's work had +reached England, but, moreover, the work contains nothing new to which +reference was necessary. + +[99:1] _On the Canon_, Preface, 4th ed. p xxv. + +[100:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 137 ff.; cf. Baronius, _Mart. Rom._ +1631, p. 152. + +[100:2] Cf. Lardner, _Credibility_, &c., _Works_, iii. p. 3. + +[101:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 349 [_ibid._ p. 75]. + +[101:2] _Ibid._ p. 350 [_ibid._ p. 76]. + +[102:1] There are grave reasons for considering it altogether +inauthentic. Cf. Cotterill, _Peregrinus Proteus_, 1879. + +[102:2] _De Morte Peregr._ 11. + +[102:3] _Ibid._ 14. + +[102:4] _Gesch. chr. Kirche_, i. p. 410 f. + +[103:1] See, for instance, Denzinger, _Ueber die Aechtheit d. bish. +Textes d. Ignat. Briefe_, 1849, p. 87 ff.; Zahn, _Ignatius v. Ant._, +1873, p. 517 ff. + +[103:2] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 350 f. [_ibid._ p. 77]. + +[104:1] _S.R._ i. p. 268, note 4. + +[105:1] Dean Milman says: "Trajan, indeed, is absolved, at least by the +almost general voice of antiquity, from the crime of persecuting the +Christians." In a note he adds: "Excepting of Ignatius, probably of +Simeon of Jerusalem, there is no authentic martyrdom in the reign of +Trajan."--_Hist. of Christianity_, 1867, ii. p. 103. + +[106:1] _K.G._ 1842, i. p. 171. + +[106:2] _Ibid._ i. p. 172, Anm. + +[108:1] _Hist. of Christianity_, ii. p. 101 f. + +[109:1] P. 276 (ed. Bonn). _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 352 +[_ibid._ p. 79]. + +[109:2] _Ibid._ p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 80]. + +[109:3] _Ibid._ p. 352 [_ibid._ p. 79 f.]. + +[110:1] _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 353 f. [_ibid._ p. 81]. + +[110:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 66, Anm. 3. + +[111:1] I need not refer to the statement of Nicephorus that these +relics were first brought from Rome to Constantinople and afterwards +translated to Antioch. + +[112:1] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ pp. 59, 69. + +[112:2] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p, 68. + +[112:3] Ruinart, _Acta Mart._ p. 56. Baronius makes the anniversary of +the martyrdom 1st February, and that of the translation 17th December. +(_Mart. Rom._ pp. 87, 766 ff.) + +[112:4] _Ignatius v. Ant._ p. 27, p. 68, Anm. 2. + +[112:5] There is no sufficient evidence for the statement that, in +Chrysostom's time, the day dedicated to Ignatius was in June. The mere +allusion, in a Homily delivered in honour of Ignatius, that "recently" +the feast of St. Pelagia (in the Latin Calendar 9th June) had been +celebrated, by no means justifies such a conclusion, and there is +nothing else to establish it. + +[114:1] _St. Paul's Ep. to the Philippians_, 3rd ed. 1873, p. 232, note. +Cf. _Contemporary Review_, February 1875, p. 358 f. (_Ibid._ p. 88) + +[116:1] Complete ed. i. p. 277 f. All the references which I give in +these essays must be understood as being to the complete edition. + +[117:1] i. p. 443 ff. + +[117:2] [PG Transcriber's note: probably a misprint for "lost work"] + +[118:1] This rendering is quoted from Dr. Lightfoot's _Essays_, p. 163. + +[119:1] _Essays_, p. 167 f. + +[120:1] _Essays_, p. 170. + +[121:1] _Ibid._ p. 169. + +[122:1] _Essays_, p. 170. + +[122:2] _Ibid._ p. 170. + +[122:3] _Ibid._ p. 170. + +[123:1] _Ibid._ p. 152. + +[124:1] Vol. i. p. 463 f. + +[124:2] _Ibid._ p. 171. + +[124:3] _Ibid._ p. 172 f. + +[124:4] i. p. 463 f. + +[125:1] _Ibid._ p. 173. + +[125:2] i. 236 ff. + +[125:3] Note. + +[125:4] Note. + +[126:1] _Clem. Rom._ Sec. 53, Sec. 45; ibid. 173 f. + +[130:1] I. p. 210 f. + +[132:1] I. p. 213 ff. I have italicised a few phrases. + +[133:1] _S.R._ i. 259 ff. See further illustrations here. + +[134:1] _S.R._ i. p. 363 f. + +[135:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 221, n. 7. + +[135:2] _Ibid._ p. 220. + +[135:3] _Ibid._ ii. p. 169 f. + +[136:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 226. + +[136:2] In discussing the authenticity of fragments ascribed to Melito, +Dr. Lightfoot quoted, as an argument from _Supernatural Religion_ the +following words: "They have, in fact, no attestation whatever except +that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown and which, therefore, +is worthless." The passage appeared thus in the _Contemporary Review_, +and now is again given in the same form in the present volume. I presume +that the passage which Dr. Lightfoot intends to quote is: "They have +no attestation whatever, except that of the Syriac translator, who is +unknown, and which is, therefore, worthless" (_S.R._ ii. p. 181). If +Dr. Lightfoot, who has so much assistance in preparing his works for the +press, can commit such mistakes, he ought to be a little more charitable +to those who have none. + +[137:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 182 ff. + +[137:2] _Ibid._ p. 239. + +[137:3] _Ibid._ p. 248. + +[140:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 198 ff., iii. 24 ff. + +[140:2] _Ibid._ 255. + +[141:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200. + +[142:1] _S.R._ ii. p. 200 f. + +[143:1] _S.R._ iii. p. 257 + +[143:2] _Ibid._ p. 25 f. + +[144:1] _Ibid._, p. 259. + +[145:1] II. pp. 144 ff., 372 ff. + +[146:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 29. (_Ibid._ p. 227 f.) + +[146:2] I need not quote the references which Dr. Lightfoot gives in a +note. + +[146:3] _Ibid._ p. 278. + +[147:1] _Unters. N.T. Kanons_, 1881, p. 15 f. + +[147:2] _On the Canon_, 1875, p. 318, n. 3. Cf. 1881, p. 322, n. 3. + +[147:3] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, 1888, p. xiv. + +[147:4] _Ibid._ p. 279. + +[148:1] Dr. Lightfoot's rendering, p, 280. Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. +p. 159 sq. + +[148:2] _Ibid._ p. 280 f. + +[149:1] _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxx. + +[149:2] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne.) The translation is by +Dr. Lightfoot (_l.c._ p. 281, n. 1). + +[150:1] Zahn, _Tatian's Diatessaron_, 1881, p. 70 f. + +[150:2] _Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr._ iii. p. 26. + +[150:3] Moesinger, _Evang. Concor. Expositio_, 1876, p. x f. + +[150:4] _Ibid._ p. xi. + +[152:1] Zahn, _l.c._ p. 38. + +[153:1] _Ibid._ p. 286. + +[153:2] _Ibid._ p. 288. The italics are mine. + +[153:3] Hemphill, _The Diatessaron of Tatian_, p. xxiv. + +[154:1] I have already referred to this document further back, p. 136. + +[156:1] Lightfoot, _Apostolic Fathers_, part ii. 1885, p. 598 ff. + +[168:1] By recent returns the number of the professors of different +religions is estimated as follows: + + Parsees 150,000 + Sikhs 1,200,000 + Jews 7,000,000, being about 1/2 per cent. + of the whole. + Greek Catholics 75,000,000 " 6 " " + Roman Catholics 152,000,000 " 12 " " + Other Christians 100,000,000 " 8 " " + Hindus 160,000,000 " 13 " " + Muhammedans 155,000,000 " 12 1/2 " " + Buddhists 500,000,000 " 40 " " + Not included in the above 100,000,000 " 8 " " + ----------- + 1,250,350,000 + +We have taken these statistics, which are approximately correct, from an +excellent little work recently published by the Society for the +Propagation of Christian Knowledge--_Buddhism_, by T.W. Rhys Davids, p. 6. + + + + + +INDEX. + + +Acts of the Apostles, evidence for, 142 f., 164 +Addai, Doctrine of, 147 +Ammonius, _Diatessaron_ of, 148 +Anger, 5 +Antioch, earthquake at, in A.D. 115, 107 f. +Aphthonius; see Elias of Salamia +Apocalypse, allusion to Paul in, 26, n. 2; language of, 27 ff. +Apollinaris, Claudius; date, 137; evidence for Gospels, 137 +Aristion, 55 +Ascension, evidence for, 165 +Aubertin, 65, 66 +Aucher, 145 + +Baronius, 112 n. 3 +Bar-Salibi, Dionysius, 147 f. +Basnage, 65, 66 +Baumgarten-Crusius, 70, 72 +Baur, does not allude to Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 79; + date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 f.; place of his martyrdom, 95 ff.; + on Peregrinus Proteus, 102 +Beausobre, 70, 71 +Bleek, 7, 32, 60, 62, 68, 74, 80, 90, 93 +Blondel, 65, 66 +Bochart, 65, 66 +Boehringer, 59, 62, 63, 80 +Bunsen, 32, 62, 63, 79 + +Calvin, 64 +Campianus, 64 +Casaubon, 65, 67 +Celsus, Origen on, 10 ff., 146 +Centuriators, Magdeburg, 64 +Chemnitz, 62, 64, 65 +Christianity, claim to be Divine Revelation, not original, 166 f.; + history and achievements opposed to this claim, 167 f.; + census of religions, 168 n. 1; transformation of, 169 f. +Chrysostom, 108, 110, 111 f. +Ciasca, alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 145, 150 f. +Clement of Alexandria, on Basilides, 18 f. +Cleophas, 52 +Cook, 65, 66 +Criticism, attitude towards, 1 +Cureton, 62, 63, 65, 68 ff., 79, 83 f. +Curetonian version of Ignatian Epistles, 59 ff., 67 ff., 74 ff., 80 f. + +Dallaeus, 62 +Davidson, Dr., on passage of Irenaeus, 6; date of martyrdom of + Ignatius, 91; place of the martyrdom, 96 +Delitzsch, 30, 31, 32 +Denzinger, 78, 79, 80 n. 2, 103 n. 1 +Diatessaron of Ammonius, 148 ff., 152 ff. +Diatessaron of Elias of Salamia, 148 ff. +Diatessaron of Tatian, 145 ff.; alleged Armenian version of Ephraem's + commentary on it, 145 f.; Latin translation by Aucher and + Moesinger, 145 f.; Arabic version of, translated by Ciasca, 145 f.; + Eusebius on it, 146 f.; did Eusebius directly know it? 146 f.; + Bar-Salibi on it, 147 f.; Theodoret suppresses it, 149 f.; the + genealogies of Jesus said to be excised, 149 f.; not all suppressed + in Armenian and Arabic works, 150; called 'Gospel according to the + Hebrews,' 150; Epiphanius had not seen it, 150; we could not identify + it, 150; Arabic version of Ciasca, 150 f.; said to be translated + from Syriac, 151; its date, 151; ascribed in notes to Tatian, 151; + original language of Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 151 f.; Gospel texts + in alleged versions affected by repeated translation, 151 f.; name of + Tatian not on original work, 152; could it be identified? 152 ff.; + case of Victor of Capua, 152 ff.; was he mistaken? 153 f.; Dr. Wace + says: No, 153; value of evidence if alleged versions be genuine, 154 +Dionysius of Corinth, 56 +Doctrine of Addai, 147 +Donaldson, Dr., on Epistle of Polycarp, 21; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 150 +Dorner, 4 +Dressel, 79 + +Ebrard, 7 +Elias of Salamia, his _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; he finds fault with Canons + of Eusebius, 148 +Ephraem Syrus, his Commentary on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; + date, 148; alleged Armenian version of his Commentary, 145; date + of the MS., 150; translated from Syriac, 150; evidence, 150 f.; + Tatian's name not mentioned, 150; value as evidence if genuine, 154 +Epiphanius, 150 +Eusebius, on Papias, 7; silence of, 45 f.; my only inference from silence + of, 50 f.; procedure of, 50 f.; his references to Hegesippus, 52 ff.; + his references to John, 53 ff.; on Claudius Apollinaris, 137; + on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f.; + on _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, 148 f.; his Epistle to Carpianus, + 148 f., 152 +Ewald, 32, 33, 62, 63, 79, 141 + +Farrar, Dr., 34 +Francke, 97 + +Gfroerer, 7, 75 +Glaucias, 15, 18, 19, +Gobarus, Stephanus, 23 +Godet, 32 +Gospel, the Fourth, contrast with Synoptics, 26 f., 26 n. 2; + Hebraic character of its language, 27 ff.; + Eusebius regarding it, 49, 51, 53 f., 55 ff.; + evidence to it of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; + alleged evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; + alleged evidence of Polycrates 137; + supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 144; + Tatian's _Diatessaron_ said to begin with it, 147 f.; + insufficiency of evidence for it, 162 ff.; + its contents cannot be reconciled with Synoptics, 163 f. +Gospels, Justin's use of, 24 f.; evidence of alleged quotations, 24 f.; + object in examining evidence for, 37 ff., 41 ff.; numerous Gospels + circulating in early Church, 131 f.; anonymous quotations not + necessarily from canonical, 131 ff.; illustrations of this, 132 ff.; + evidence of Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; evidence of Melito of + Sardis, 135 f.; evidence of Claudius Apollinaris, 137; evidence of + Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 141 ff.; principles on which evidence + is examined, 162; insufficiency of evidence for, 162 ff. +Greet, Hofstede de, 5, 9 n. 2 +Grove, 34 +Guericke, 7, 90 f., 93 + +Hadrian, 12 +Hagenbach, 91, 93 +Harless, 75 +Hase, 76 +Hebrews, Gospel according to the, 122 f., 123, 150 +Hefele, 80 +Hegesippus, his attitude to Paul, 23; references to him by Eusebius, + 52 ff.; on Simeon, 52 +Hemphill, Professor, did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_? + 146 f.; on Arabic _Diatessaron_, 149; it takes Matthew as basis, 149; + its substantial identity with Victor's _Diatessaron_, 153 +Hengstenberg, 31 +Hilgenfeld, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 f.; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79; + place and date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 97 ff.; on Papias and + Matthew's Hebrew "Oracles," 122; Protevangelium Jacobi, 142; + Eusebius on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 146 f. +Hippolytus, 17 f. +Holtzmann, 135, 147 +Hug, 32 +Humfrey, 66 + +Ignatius, Epistle of Polycarp regarding him, 20 ff.; date and place of + his martyrdom, 87, 94 ff.; his alleged martyr-journey, 94 ff.; + his treatment during it, 99 f.; compared with Paul's journey, 100 f.; + compared with case of Peregrinus, 101 ff.; reasons opposed to + martyr-journey to Rome, and for martyrdom in Antioch, 104 ff.; + remains of Ignatius, 111 ff.; martyrologies, 112 f. +Ignatian Epistles, Dr. Lightfoot on, 57 ff.; critics on priority of + Syriac version, 59 ff., long recension, 64 ff.; Vossian Epistles, + 67 ff.; version of Ussher, 67; Armenian version, 78 ff.; Eusebian + Epistles, 80 ff.; their order in MSS., 82 ff.; their value as + evidence, 113 f. +Irenaeus, 3 ff. + +Jacobson, 65 +Jerome, 110 f. +John, references of Eusebius, 53 ff.; Papias and Presbyters on, 55 f.; + double use of name, 55 f. +Justin Martyr, his quotations, 28 ff. + +Keim, 135 +Kestner, 70, 71 +Kirchhofer, 7 + +Lange, 32 +Lardner, 70, 136 +Lechler, 76 f. +Lightfoot, 32, 33 +Lightfoot, Dr., objectionable style of criticism, 1 f., 3, 7 f., + 13 n. 1, 14 f., 15 n. 1, 20, 21, 23 f., 24 n. 5, 25 f., 27, 30 f., + 36, 44 f., 46 f., 57 ff., 68 ff.; 73 ff., 144; on a passage of + Irenaeus, 3 ff.; discussion of date of Celsus, 9 ff.; Dr. Westcott + on Basilides, 15 ff.; weightier arguments of apologists, 20 ff.; + on Epistle of Polycarp, 20 f., object of Papias' work, 22; on + Hegesippus and Apostle Paul, 22 f.; on Justin Martyr's quotations, + 23 ff.; on duration of ministry of Jesus, 26 f.; on Hebraic character + of language of the Fourth Gospel, 27 ff.; identification of Sychar, + 30 ff.; on argument of S.R., 36 ff.; on silence of Eusebius, 45 ff.; + the intention of Eusebius, 44 f.; procedure of Eusebius, 50 f.; + silence of Eusebius as evidence for Fourth Gospel, 56 f.; on + Ignatian Epistles, 57 ff.; on view of Lipsius, 60 f.; misstatements + regarding references in S.R., 61 ff.; differentiation of Ignatian + Epistles, 80 ff.; their position in MSS., 82 ff.; on martyr-journey + and treatment of Ignatius, 99 f.; compared with Apostle Paul's, + 100 f.; compared with case of Peregrinus Proteus, 101 ff.; on + John Malalas, 108 ff.; on Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of his + Epistle, 115; does not examine alleged quotations of Gospels, 116; + on Papias of Hierapolis, 117 ff.; Papias on Mark, 117 f.; Papias on + Matthew, 119 ff.; on accuracy of Papias, 120 ff.; translation of + Hebrew Oracles of Matthew, 121 f.; on Gospel according to the + Hebrews, 122 f.; on nature of Oracles of Matthew, 124 ff.; can + Oracles include narrative? 125 f.; his misapprehension of argument + of S.R., 129 ff.; on Martyrdom of Polycarp, 135; on Melito of + Sardis, 135 f.; erroneous quotation from S.R., 136, n. 2; on + Claudius Apollinaris, 137 f.; on Polycrates of Ephesus, 137; on + Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 139 ff.; on the "testimony of Zacharias," + 140 ff.; alleged reference to Acts, 142 f.; alleged reference + to Fourth Gospel, 144; Tatian's Diatessaron, 145 f.; on Eusebius's + mention of it, 146 f.; did he directly know it? 146; on Doctrine + of Addai, 147; it mentions Tatian's Diatessaron, 147; Dionysius + Bar-Salibi on Tatian's _Diatessaron_, 147 f.; on _Diatessaron_ of + Ammonius, 148; quite different from Tatian's work, 148 f.; + similarity to Arabic version asserted by Hemphill, 149; case of + Victor of Capua, 152 f.; Victor must have been mistaken, 153 f.; + Victor not mistaken after all, 153; on Letter of the Smyrnaens, + 154 ff.; a short way with its miraculous elements, 154 f.; + practically justifies procedure of "Supernatural Religion," 156 +Lipsius, on Ignatian Epistles, 60 f., 63, 78, 79; on Martyrdom of + Polycarp, 135 +Logia, meaning of, in N.T., 124 ff. +Logos doctrine in Apocalypse, 30 n. 1 +Lucian, 12, 101 f. +Luke, Gospel according to, supposed reference to it in Epistle of Vienne + and Lyons, 141 f.; its use in _Diatessaron_, 149, 153 +Luthardt, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Basilides, 18; on language of + Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 28 ff. + +Magdeburg Centuriators, 64 +Malalas, John, on martyrdom of Ignatius, 108 ff. +Marcus Aurelius, 105 f. +Mark, Presbyters and Papias on, 117 f.; not eye-witness but interpreter + of Peter, 118 f.; value of his Gospel as evidence, 118 f.; use in + _Diatessaron_, 149 +Matthew, Presbyters and Papias on, 55 f., 119 ff.; wrote oracles in + Hebrew, 119 ff.; when translated, 121 ff.; use in _Diatessaron_ + of Ammonius, 148; also in that of Tatian, 149 f. +Matthias, 16, 18 +Mayerhoff, 91, 93 +Melito of Sardis, 135 f. +Merx, 78, 79 +Meyer, on passage of Irenaeus, 5, 82 +Mill, on miracles, 36 ff. +Milman, 59, 62, 63, 105 n. 1, 107 f. +Moesinger, Ephraem's Commentary, 145 f., 150 +Mozley, on belief, 35 f. + +Neander, 70, 71 f., 105 f. +Neubauer, 30, 34 +Nicephorus, 111 n. 1 + +Olshausen, 7, 32 +"Oracles," meaning of, 124 ff. +Origen, on Celsus, 10 f. + +Papias of Hierapolis, alleged quotations from him, 3 ff.; object of + his work, 22; references of Eusebius to him, 54 ff.; words of + the Presbyters, 55 f.; double reference to "John," 55 f.; he had + nothing to tell of Fourth Gospel, 55 ff.; on Mark's Gospel, 117 ff.; + on Matthew's Hebrew Oracles, 119 f.; value of his evidence for the + Gospels, 127 f. +Parker, 65, 66 +Paul, Apostle, his treatment as prisoner compared to that of Ignatius, + 100 f.; unconscious testimony regarding the supernatural, 165; + his testimony for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f. +Pearson, 67 +Peregrinus Proteus, 102 ff. +Perpetua, Saturus and, 100 +Petau, 65, 67 +Petermann, 78 ff. +Phillips, 147 +Polycarp of Smyrna, 115 f.; date of martyrdom, 115 +Polycarp, Martyrdom of, 135, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot's short way with + the miraculous elements, 154 f. +Polycrates of Ephesus, date, 137; evidence for Fourth Gospel, 137 +Pressense, de, 60 +Protevangelium Jacobi, 142 +Quadratus, Statius, date of proconsulship, 115 + +"Religion, Supernatural," argument of, 36 ff., 40 ff., 129 ff.; canons + of criticism, 130 ff.; the "testimony of Zacharias," Epistle of + Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff.; was Eusebius directly acquainted with + Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 146 f.; argument of S.R. practically + justified by Dr. Lightfoot, 154 ff.; conclusions of, 157 ff.; + evidence of Divine Revelation which is necessary, 157; miracles + as evidence destroyed by doubtful source, 157 f.; miraculous evidence + not original, 158 f., stream of miraculous pretension, 158; true + character of miracles betrayed, 158 f.; origin of belief in + supernatural interference, 159; assumptions to justify miracles, + 159 f.; an Infinite Personal God, 159 f.; Divine design of + Revelation, 160; miracles antecedently incredible, 160 f.; + evidence for the Christian miracles, 161 f.; principles upon which + evidence examined, 162; evidence for Gospels, 162 f.; evidence for + Acts, 164; the remaining books of New Testament, 164 f.; evidence + of Paul, 165; evidence for Resurrection and Ascension, 165 f.; + results tested by general considerations, 166 ff.; claim of + Christianity to be Divinely revealed not original, 166 f.; + history and achievements of Christianity opposed to it, 167 f.; + census of religions, 168 n. 1; how far the Great Teacher was + misunderstood, 168 f.; transformation of Christianity, 169 f.; + alleged objections to disturbing belief, 169 f.; objections not + valid, 170 f.; argument that Divine Revelation is necessary to + man, 172 f.; we gain more than we lose by finding our theology + to be mere human inventions, 173 f. +Resurrection, evidence for, 165 f. +Reuss, 147 +Riggenbach, on passage of Irenaeus, 5; on Sychar, 32 +Ritschl, 62, 63 +Rivet, 64, 65, 67 +Routh, on passage of Irenaeus, 4 +Ruinart, anniversary of Ignatius, 112 +Rumpf, 60 + +Sanday, 33 +Saumaise, 65, 66 +Schleimann, 75 f. +Scholten, 11 n. 2, 80, 91 f., 96 f., 147 +Schroeckh, 70, 71 +Schuerer, 135 +Shechem, 30 ff. +Simeon, 52, 105 f. +Smyrnaens, Letter of, 154 ff.; Dr. Lightfoot as a sceptical critic, 154 f. +Socinus, 65 +Stephen, 142 f. +Sychar, 30 ff. +Synoptics, contrasted with Fourth Gospel, 26 f. + +Tatian's _Diatessaron_: see Diatessaron +Theodoret, the Ignatian Epistles, 81 +Thiersch, 7, 70 +Tholuck, 7 +Tischendorf, on passage of Irenaeus, 3 ff.; passage of Celsus, 11 ff.; + does not notice Armenian version of Ignatian Epistles, 80; + "testimony of Zacharias," in Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 142; + it is a reference to the Protevangelium Jacobi, 142 +Trajan, in connection with the martyrdom of Ignatius, 89 ff., 105 ff. +Tregelles, 60, 82 f. + +Uhlhorn, 78, 79 +Ussher, 67 + +Vienne and Lyons, Epistle of, 139 ff.; date, 139; the "testimony of + Zacharias," 140 f.; alleged quotations of Acts, 142 ff.; value of + evidence, 143; Dr. Lightfoot on fragrance of the martyrs, 155 +Volkmar, on Celsus, 10 ff.; on Ignatian Epistles, 60; does not notice + Armenian version, 80; date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 92 f.; place + of martyrdom, 94 ff. +Vossian Epistles of Ignatius, 67 f. + +Wace, Dr., 153 +Waddington, 115 +Weiss, 62, 63, 78, 79 +Weissmann, 69 f. +Westcott, Dr., criticisms on, 3 f.; on Papias, 4; on Basilides, 15 ff.; + on Justin Martyr's quotations, 23 ff.; on "Supernatural Religion," + 44 f.; misstatements regarding notes, 85 ff.; was Eusebius directly + acquainted with Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147 +Wette, de, 7, 15 n. 1, 32 +Wieseler, 31, 32 +Wotton, 68, 69 + +Zacharias, the testimony of, Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, 140 ff. +Zahn, on passage of Irenaeus, 6; on Ignatian Epistles, 78, 79, 99 n. 1, + 101; on John Malalas, 110, date of martyrdom of Ignatius, 112; + did Eusebius directly know Tatian's _Diatessaron_? 147; passages + regarding descent of Jesus from David not all excised from alleged + Armenian version, 150 +Zeller, on passage of Irenaeus, 5 + + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays +by Walter R. Cassels + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A REPLY TO DR. LIGHTFOOT'S ESSAYS *** + +***** This file should be named 13433.txt or 13433.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/1/3/4/3/13433/ + +Produced by David Ross <davidross@despammed.com> and Freethought +Archives <freethought@despammed.com> + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/13433.zip b/old/13433.zip Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..b0a02e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/13433.zip |