Supernatural Religion, Vol. 2 (of 3) / An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation

ited in connection with the Synoptics, and ascertain what evidenc

reference to the fourth Gospel in the so-called

tle of Barnabas, in the reference to the brazen Serpent as

lar cannot be proved. Although this connection cannot be affirmed, since the author of the Epistle, in this passage as in many others, may be independent, yet it is justifiable to ascribe the greatest probability to its dependence on the passage in John, as the tendency o

examination of the context, however, we find that there is every reason to conclude that the reference to the brazen serpent is made direct to the Old Testament. The author who delights in typology is bent upon showing that the cross is prefigured in the Old Testament. He gives a number of instances, involv

ple were bit by serpents and died with the transgression of Eve by means of the serpent, he goes on to narrate minutely the story of Moses and the brazen serpent, and then winds up with the words: "Thou hast in this the glory of Jesus; that

lines, in which he states that "it has neither quotat

subsequently to affirm that Hermas makes "clear allusions to St. John;" which few

m;' but 'He himself toiled very much and suffered very much to cleanse our sins.... And so when he himself had cleansed the sins of the people, he showed them the paths of life by giving them the Law which he received from his. Father.'(2) He is 'a Rock

ay of access to the Lord; and no one shall en

h to compare these "striking analogies," nor does he produce any instances of similarity of language, or of the use of the same termino

e use the term Logos. Canon Westcott makes no mention of the fact that the doctrine of the Logos and of the pre-existence of Jesus was enunciated long before the composition of the fourth Gospel, with almost equal clearness and fulness, and that its development can be traced through the Septuagint translation, the "Proverbs o

n of such imaginary "analogies." We shall, however,

he vineyard, that is, he created the people and gave them to his Son: and the Son appointed his angels over them to keep them: and he himself cleansed their sins, having suffered many th

hole course of what is taught in the Epistles, and more especially the Epistle to the Hebrews. We may point out a few passages for comparis

plain, and the rock was higher than the mountains, rectangular so as to be able to hold the whole world, but that rock was old having a gate [---] hewn out of it, and the hewing out

The Son of God is older than all of his creation [---], so that he was a councillor with the Father in his work of creation; and for this is he old.' [---] 'And why is the gate new, Lord?' I said; 'Beca

kingdom of God unless he receive his holy name. If, therefore, you cannot enter into the City unless through its gate, so also,' he said, 'a man cannot enter in any other way into the kingdom of God than b

we need not point to the parable of the house built upon a rock in the first Gospel.(3) A more apt illustra

"For they drank of the Spiritual Rock accompanying them; but the Rock wa

is the declaration of Hermas. On the other hand, there are numerous passages, elsewhere, analogous to that in the Pastor of Hermas. Every one will remember the injunction in the Sermon on the Mount: Matth. vii. 13, 14. "Enter in through the strait gate [---], for wide is the gate [---], &c., 14. Because narrow is the gate [---] and straitened is the way which leadeth unto life,

old and the gate new [---] have

unt of the new Jer

. In Simil. ix. 13,

kingdom, not only

we must put on c

ays [---] spake to us in the Son whom he appointed heir [---](1) of all things, by whom he also made the worlds, 3. Who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his substance, upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made by himself a cleansing of our sins sat down at the right hand of Majesty on high, 4. Having become so much better than the angels,"(2) &c., &c; and if we take the differen

the Father in the work of creation, compare Heb. ii. 10, i.

nd supports the whole world." For the first phrase, compare 2 Tim. iv. 18, Heb. i. 8; and for th

t unnoticed. The attention called to it, however, may not be wasted in obser

hich, he considers, show the use of the fourth Gospel.(5) They are as fo

"And the bread that I will give is my flesh;" 54. "He who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life" [---]. Scholten has pointed out that the reference to Jesus as "born of the seed of David and Abraham" is not in the spirit of the fourth Gospel; and the use of [---] for the [---] of vi. 55, and [---]; instead of [---] are also opposed to the connectio

Tischendorf is in the Epistle to t

st the sound thereof but knowest not whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit;"(3) whilst the Epistle does not refer to the wind at all, but affirms that the Spirit of God does know whence it cometh, &c. The analogy in verse 20 is still more remote: "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be detected."(3) In 1 Cor. ii. 10, the sense is found more closely: "For the Spirit searcheth

Ephes. xiv.) 'Faith is our guide upward' [---], but love is the road that 'leads to God.' (Ad Eph. ix.) 'The Eternal [---] Word is the manifestation of God' (Ad Magn. viii.), 'the door by which we come to the Father' (Ad Philad. ix., cf. John x. 7), 'and without Him we have not the principle of true life' (Ad Trail, ix.: [---]. cf. Ad Eph. iii.: [---]. The true meat of the Christian is the 'bread of God, the bread of heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ,' and h

erences we have a

already referred, a few pages back,(2) to the image of the door. Here again it is obvious that there is a marked difference in the sense of the Epistle from that of the Gospel. In the latter Jesus is said to be the door into the Sheepfold;(3) whilst in the Epistle, he is the door into the Father, through which not only the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles enter, but also the Church itself. Such distant analogy cannot warrant the conclusion that the passage shows an

ut many equally

[---] of God,(4) "the heavenly incorruptible food of the soul," "the bread [---] from heaven." In one place he says: "and they who inquired what is the food of the soul... learnt at last that it is the Word of God, and the Divine Logos.... This is the heavenly nourishment, and it is mentioned in the holy Scriptures... saying, 'Lo

him that can run swiftly to strive with breathless eagerness towards the Divine Word who is above all things, the fountain of Wisdom, in order that by drinking of the stream, instead of death he may for his reward obtain eternal life"(2) It is the Logos who guides us to the Father, God "by the

e whole case might be stated and appreciated. The analogies are too distant to prove anything, but were they fifty times more close, they could do lit

istles follow the S

of the fourth Gosp

e anointing of Jesu

Mark ziy. 3 flf.;

have already stated the facts connected with the so-called Epistles of Ignatius,(1) and no one who has attentively examined them can fail to see that the testimon

l shorter Syriac version of "the three Epistles of Ignatius," convinced the majority of critics that even the shorter Greek version of seven Epistles must be condemned, and that whatever matter could be ascribed to Ignatius himself, if any, must be looked for in these three Epistles alone. The t

references to the fourth Gospel. Tischendorf, however, affirms that it is weighty testimo

he one is at the same time evidence for the other.(1) We shall hereafter consider the point of the common autho

alludes we subjoin, with the supp

to the Philippians. If this were really a quotation from the canonical Epistle, it would indeed be singular that, considering the supposed relations of Polycarp and John, the name of the apostle should not have been mentioned, and a quotation have been distinc

ut any weight as evidence for the use of either Epistle by the writer of the other. Moreover, it is clear that the writers refer to different classes of heretics. Polycarp attacks the Docet? who d

y the independent enunciation, with decided difference of language and sense, of a formula current in the Church, and that neither writer can be held to have originated the condemnation, in these words, of heresies which the Church had begun vehemently to oppose, and which were merely an application of ideas already well known, as we see from the expression of the Epistle in reference to the "Spirit of Antichrist, of which ye have heard that it cometh." Whether this phrase be an allusion to the Apocalypse xiii., or to 2

s before the argument we are

So far from there being any evidence that Polycarp knew the fourth Gospel, however, everything points to the opposite conclusion. About A.D. 154-155 we find him taking part in the Paschal controversy,(2) contradicting the statements of the fourth Gospel,(3) and supporting the Synoptic view, contending that the Christian festival should be celebrated on the 14th Nisan, the day on which he affirmed that the

herto, generally be

stigations referred

adoption of this ea

, therefore, proba

sion of Anicetus to

tschr. w. Theol.

John, for he represents that apostle as practically cont

s works indicate any acquaintance with the fourth Gospel comparatively easy. The detailed statements already made enable us without preliminary e

to St John are uncertain; but this, as has been already remarked, follows from the character of the fourth Gospel. It was unlikely that he should quote its peculiar teaching in apologetic writings addressed to Jews and heathens; and at

scantiness of the evid

rder fully and fairly to state the case which he puts forward, we shall quote his own words, but to avoid repetition we shall permit ourselves to interrupt him by remarks and by parallel passages from other writings for comparison with Justin. Tischendorf says: "The representation of the person of Christ altogether peculiar to John as it is given particularly in his Prolo

om the second Apology. "But his son, who alone is rig

great liberty in

reviating and other

ll therefore give hi

the Greek which Ti

s not, in most case

ges are t

when in the beginning he created an

[---]. Elsewhere (iii. 14) he is called "the Beginning of the Creation of God" [---]; and again in the same book (i. 5) he is "the first-begotten of the dead" [---]. In Heb. i 6 he is the "first-born" [---], as in Coloss. i. 15 he is "the first-born of every creature" [---]; and in 1 Cor. i. 24 we have: "Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God"[--

milar representations of the Logos, b

like God's "first begotten Word" [---],(2) and he adds, a few lines further on: "for the most ancient Word is the image of God" [---]. The high priest of God in the world is "the divine Word, his first-begotten son" [---].(3) Speaking of the

all and God the Lord, and Son, is the Word [---]; in what manner having

st) being in the form of God, deemed it not grasping to be equal with God, (7) But gave himself up, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men," &c. In Rom. viii. 3 we have: "God sending his own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin," &c. [---] It must be borne in mind that the terminolog

of the most high God the Father of the universe, but in that of the "Second God who is his Word" [---].(1) In another place t

he says:

them ";(1) and a few lines further on he explains the cities of refuge to be: "The Word of the Governor (of all things) and his creative and kingly power, for of these are the heavens and the whole world."(2) "The Logos of God is above all things in the

s abundantly illustrated this sentence, and may proceed to the next: "But since they did not know all thin

ses, and with a largeness of mind very uncommon in the early Church, and indeed, we might add, in any age, he believed Socrates and such philosophers to have been Christians, even although they had been considered Atheists.(3) As they did not of course know Christ to be the Logos, he makes the assertion just quoted. Now the o

r through the Word of God, Jesus Christ o

sh" simply, whilst Justin, representing a less advanced form, and more uncertain stage, of its development,

ame fact, as for instance: "But why through the power of the Word, according to

Spirit, therefore, and power of God (in reference to Luke i. 35: 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of

owever, so completely in agreement with the views of Philo,(4) and characteristic of a less developed form of the idea. W

l, in peculiar wise begotten of him as Word and Power [---], and afterwards became ma

cial reference (c. 100) to the passage which has a parallel in Luke i. 35, quoted

ctrine, and we must confine ourselves strictly to showing, in the most simple manner possible, that not only is there no evidence whatever that Justin derived his ideas regarding it from the fourth Gospel, but that, on t

7: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," uttered by the voice at the baptism, in ch. 103, in illustration of it; and in ch. 105 he arrives, in his exposition of it

uld probab

ferred to in regard to the fulfilment of this prophecy, and his birth as man through the Virgin. The phrase in Justin is quite different from that in the fourt

came man [---] through the Virgin," and Justin never once employs the pecu

y which represented God as holding personal intercourse with the Patriarchs, and communing face to face with the great leaders of Israel, had been outgrown, an increasing tendency set in to shroud the Divinity in impenetrable mystery, and to regard him as unapproachable and undiscernible by man. This led to the recognition o

s was not unknown. The personification of the idea was very rapidly effected, and in the Book of Proverbs, as well as in the later Apocrypha based upon it: the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, "Ecclesiasticus:" we find it in ever increasing clearness and concretion. In the School of Alexandria the active Jewish intellect eagerly occupied itself with the speculation, and in the writings of Philo especially we find the d

25. Before the mountains were settled, and before all the hills he begets me. 26. The Lord made the lands, both those which are uninhabited and the inhabited heights of the earth beneath the sky. 27. When he prepared the heavens I was present with him, and when he set his throne upon the winds, 28, and made strong the high clouds, and the deeps under the heaven made secure, 29, and made strong the foundati

way the son of Sirach makes Wisdom say (Ecclesiast. xxiv. 9): "He (the Most High) created me from the beginning before the world, and as long as the

ost direct way, accounting for the interposition of the divine Mediator in precisely the same manner as Philo, and expressing the views which had led the Seventy to modify the statement of the Hebrew original in their Greek translation. H

to Moses and the Patriarchs, and in which it is said that "God went up from Abraham,"(4) o

f the Patriarchs saw the Father at all, but they saw "him who was according to his will both his Son (being God) and the Angel, in that he ministered to his purpose, whom also he willed to be born man by the Virgin, who became fire when he spoke with Moses from the bush."(2) He refers throughout his writings to the various appearances of God to the Patriarchs, all of which h

ications of the Fat

I said, from the Scriptures that God begat before all of the creatures [---] a Beginning [---],(2) a certain rational Power [---] out of himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, then the Son, again Wisdom, again Angel, again God, and again Lord and Logos;" &c., and a little further on: "The Word of Wisdom will testify to me, who is

called Wisdom by Solomon, had been begotten of God before all created beings [---], both Beginning [---] and Offspring [---]," &C.(1) In another place after quoting the words: "No man knoweth the Father but the Son, nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal him," Justin continues: "Therefore he revealed to us all that we have by his grace understood out of the Scriptures, recognizing him to

f the Scriptures."(1) Now these representations, which are constantly repeated throughout Justin's writings, are quite opposed to the Spirit of the fourth Gospel, but are on the other hand equally common in the works of Philo, and many of them also to be found in the Philonian Epistle to the Hebrews. Taking the chief amongst them we may briefly illustrate them. The Logos as King, Justin avowedly derives from Ps. lxxii., in which he finds that reference is made to the "Everlasting King, that is to say Christ."(2) We find this represe

r on, he says: "very reasonably, therefore, he will assume the name of a King, being addressed as a Shepherd."(2) In another place,

rite representation of Philo, but is almost the leading idea of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in connection with the episode of Melchisedec, in whom also both Philo,(5) and Justin,(6) recognize the Logos. In the Epistle to

s of God, one of which is this world, in which the High Priest is the divine Word, his first-begotten Son" [---].(6) Elsewhere, speaking of the period for the return of fugitives, the death of the high priest, which taken literally would embarrass him in his allegory, Philo says: "For we maintain the High Priest not to

eferred,(2) calls the Logos the "Second God" [---].(3) In another passage he has: "But he calls the most ancient God his present Logos," &c. [---];(4) and a little further on, speaking of the inability of men to look on the Father himself: "thus they regard the image of God, his Angel Word, as himself" [---].(5) Elsewhere discussing the possibility of God's swearing by hims

ked, however, th

a very decided way, as it is in the works of Philo by the contrast of the begotten Logos with the unbegotten God. Justin speaks of the Word as "the first-born of the unbegotten God" [---],(2) and the distinctive appellation of the "unbegotten God" applied to the Father is most common throughout his writings.(3) We may in continuation of this remark point out another phrase of Justin which is continually repea

w from that of the fourth Gospe

the Word was with God, and the Word was God," a statement wh

apter reference is again made to passages quoted for the sake of proving: "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Apostle, being aforetime the Word and having appeared now in the form of fire, and now in the likeness of incorporeal beings;"(3) and he gives many illustrations.(4) The passages, however, in which the Logos is called Angel, are too numerous to be more fully dealt with here. It is scarcely necessary to

of Justin to other sources of the Logos doctrine, and never to the fourth Gospel, with which his tone and terminology do not agree. Everywhere in the writings of Philo we meet with the Logos as Angel. He speaks "of the Angel Word of God" in a sentence already quoted,(1) and elsewhere in a passage, one of many o

he Creator. The same is an intercessor on behalf of the ever wasting mortal to the immortal; he is also the ambassador of the Ruler to his subjects. And he rejoices in the gift, and the majesty of it he describes, saying: 'And I stood in the midst between the Lord and you' (Numbers xvi 48); being neither unbegotten like

d. In another place Justin explains that he is sometimes called a Man and human being, be

" § 28, that Philo mentions, among the many names of the Logos, that of "the Man according to (God's) image" [---],(2) or "the typical man"). If, however, we pass to the application of the Logos doctrine to Jesus, we have the strongest reason for inferring Justin's total independence of the fourth Gospel. We have already pointed out that the titl

[---].(3) In one instance he has [---],(4) and speaking of the Eucharist Justin once explains

g [---] of God before all created beings, as, for instance: "The Logos... who is the first offspring of God" [---];(2) and again, "and that this offspring was begotten of the Father absolutely before all creatures the Word was declaring" [---].(

s markedly different from, and in spirit sometimes opposed to, that of the fourth Gospel, and i

,(1) and of writings long antecedent to the fourth Gospel, and t

ist, but the voice of a preacher.' This is connected with John i. 20 and 23; for no other Evangelist has reported the first words in the Baptist's reply."(1) Now the passage in Justin, with its context, reads as follows: "For John sat by the Jordan [---] and preached the Baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle and raiment of camel's hair, and eating nothing but locusts and

e Dialogue would prevent even an apologist from advancing any claim to its dependence on that Gospel. In order to appreciate the natu

and actors in the episode. In Justin, it is evident that the hearers of John had received the impression that he was the Christ, and the Baptist becoming aware of it voluntarily disabused their minds of this idea. In the fourth Gospel the words of John are extracted from him ("he con

or instance, i. 15, "John beareth witness of him, and cried, saying: 'This was he of whom I said: He that cometh after me is become before me, because he was before me,'" &c. V. 19: "And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews s

ther writings combining the particulars as they occur in Justin. Luke iii. 15, reads: "And as the people were in expectation, and all mused in their hearts concerning John whether he were the Christ, 16. John answ

not derive his narrative from that source. We have already(1) fully discussed the peculiarities of Justin's account of the Baptist, and in the context to the very passage before us there are details quite foreign to our Gospels which show that Justin made use of another and different work. When Jesus stepped into the water to be baptized a

pels, therefore, and the evident conclusion to which any impartial mind must arrive is, that there is not only not the slightest ground for affirming that Justin quoted the pass

irst place he is speaking of the analogies in the life of Jesus with events believed in connection with mythological deities, and he says that he would appear to relate acts very similar to those attributed to ?sculapius when he says that Jesus "healed the lam

all kinds of marvellous cures and miracles to Jesus. It is moreover unreasonable to suppose that the only Gospel in which the cure of one born blind was narrated was that which is the fourth in our Canon. Such a miracle may have formed part of a dozen similar collections extant at the time of Justin, and in no case could such an allusion be recognized as evidence of the use of the fourth Gospel. But in the Dialogue, along with this remark, Justin couples the sta

ah xii. 10, with the same variation from the text of the Septuagin

book of the New Testament which Justin mentions, and with which, therefore, he was beyond any doubt well acquainted, Rev. i. 7: "Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him [---], and they which pierced [---] him, and all the tribes of the earth shall bewail him. Yea, Amen." This is a direct reference to the passage in Zech. xii. 10. It will be remembered that the quotation in the Gospel: "They shall look upon him whom they pierced," is made solely in reference t

imilarly adopted [---]. Ten important MSS., of the Septuagint, at least, have the reading of Justin and of the Apocalypse, and these MSS. likewise frequently agree with the other peculiarities of Justin's text. In all probability, as Credner, who long ago pointed out all these circumstances, conjectured, an emendation of the rendering of the LXX. had early been

Tischendorf is a passage in Apol. i.

acter of the two passages, we shall at o

by which apologists endeavour to

en the singular difference of the language of Justin, and the absence of the characteristic peculiarities of the Johannine Gospel. The double "verily, verily," which occurs twice even in these three verses, and constantly throughout the Gospel(1),

single linguistic trace by which the passage in Justin can be connected with the fourth Gospel. The fact that Justin knows nothing of the expres

ord [---], however, certainly cannot here be taken to signify anything but "from above"(l)-from God, from heaven,-and this is not only its natural meaning, but the term is several times used in other parts of the fourth Gospel, always with this same sense,(2) and there is nothing which warrants a different interpretation in this place. On the contrary, the sam

rth "of the Spirit" is the birth "from above," which

rd God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit they then make the washing with the water. For the Christ also said, 'unless ye be born again [---], ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven., Now that it is impossible for those who have once been born to go into the matrices of the parents is evident to all." And then he quotes Isaiah i. 16-20, "Wash you, make you clean, &c.," and then proceeds: "And regarding this (Baptism) we have been taught this reason. Since at our first birth we were born without our knowledge, and perforce, &c., and b

be born from above ("and of the Spirit"), not merely [---], but [---]. The word used by Justin is that which

o the Jews, and the Gentile convert admitted to a share in the benefits of the Messiah became a Jew by spiritual new birth. Justin in giving the words of Jesus clearly professed to make an exact quotation:(3) "For Christ also said: Unless ye be born again, &c." It must be remembered, however, that Justin is addressing the Roman emperors, who would not understand the expression that it was necessary to be "born agai

nguage and circumstance, simply because that Gospel happens to be the only one now surviving which contains particulars somewhat similar. The express quotation fundamentally differs from the fourth Gospel, and the natural explanation of Justin which follows is not a quotation at all, and likewise fundamentally differs from the Johannine parallel. Justin not only ignores the peculiar episode in the fourth Gospel in which the passage occurs, but neither here nor anywhere throughout his writings makes any mention of Nicodemus. The accident of survival

Son, and Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."(1) Here again we have both the [---], and the [---] as well as the reference only to water in the baptism, and this is strong confirmation of the existence of a version of the passage, different from the Johannine, from which Justin quotes. As both the author of the Clement

hat work, however, the passage would throw no light

at Gospel, although many of these, and many parts of the Johannine discourses of Jesus, would have been peculiarly suitable for his purpose. We have already pointed out the remarkable absence of any use of the expressions by which the Logos doctrine is stated in the prologue. We may now point out that Justin makes no reference whatever to any of the special miracles of the fourth Gospel. He is apparently quite ignorant even of the raising of Lazarus: on the other hand, he gives representations of the birth, life, and death of Jesus

ion is put into the mouth of Nathaniel (i. 49), which Justin ignores. Justin does not mention Nicodemus either in connection with the statement regarding the necessity of being "born from above," or with the entombment (xix. 39). He has the prayer and agony in the garden,(4) which the fourth Gospel excludes, as well as the cries on the cross, which that Gospel ignores. Then, according to Justin, the last supper takes place on the 14th Nisan,(5) whilst the fourth Gospel, ignoring the Passover and last supper, represents

en that on the day

ewise during the Pa

f. Dial. 70; Matt,