Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/845

Rh istin art yr. AUTHORSHIP]. (so far as the evidence of P-apias and Irenzeus can help us) unanswered and unanswerable. denied that the probability is that Papias did not know of its existence as an authoritative Gospel written by the son of Zebedee. For, had he known it, would he have had “nothing to say” about its origin, about the contrast between it and the Apocalypse, about the difference between it and the synoptic narrative, and about the interesting account of its composition given in the Mura- torian fragment and therefore current before 170 A.D.’! That Papias should have “nothing to say ” about Luke’s Gospel is intelligible, because the dedication to Theophilns speaks for itself; but why he should describe the origin of the First and Second Gospels and pass over the Fourth, where there was so much to describe and where a joint authorship was not only suggested by tradition but also by internal evidence (John xxi. 2-1), is by no means easy to explain. In the face of this silence we cannot attach nmch value to the evidence in Papias for the apostolic authorship, derived from the association of John with Matthew in the list of the apostles. Against that evidence, too, such as it is, must be set the fact that the only tradition detailed by Irenzeus as coming through Papias from John the disciple of the Lord is one quite unlike the tone of the Fourth Gospel. The latter negative at least neutralizes the first positive; and the scale is thus left unaltered, pressed heavily downwards against the apostolic authorship by the discrepancy of style (when the Gospel is compared with the Apocalypse) and by the extemal and internal evidence of joint authorship. Evidence has been drawn from the epistle of Barnabas, the “Shepherd ” of Hermas, the Ignatian letters, the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, the works of Justin, and the Clementine Homilies, to show that the authors of these writings used the Fourth Gospel (Vestcott, Canon, passim; S-anday, Gospels in the Second Cent-m°_z/, 273-298) ; and no candid mind can resist the proof that some of them knew and were influenced by the thoughts of the Fourth Gospel, while some even used its language. But it is by no means certain, indeed it is improbable, that they knew of it as a Gospel ; and it is still more improbable that they recognized it as aGospel written by “ the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Else, how comes it that J nst-in quotes Matthew about ﬁfty times and the Fourth Gospel once, or not at all? Moreover, the apparent quotations of the Fourth Gospel in the apostolic fathers show not so much the use of a document from the ﬁrst, as rather the influence of the common atmosphere of the Asian churches, the ﬂoating tradition of the Ephesian school, gradually merging into a deﬁnite document. Barnabas, for example, speaks of “water,” with a certain mystery, associating it with the “ cross” ; as also Justin seems to do, mentioning the cross and baptism in consecutive chapters (lx. lxi.) of his Idirst .1 ])0f(:5/y. But the Clementine Homilies, amplifying the mysterious efficacy of water, as being the origin of all things, and the direct recipient of the impulses of the Spirit (ch. xxiv.), give a loose quotation of J 0. iii. 5, which seems adapted for the Clementine context by being blended with the baptismal formulary previously mentioned by the writer in xxviii. 19 : “ For thus the prophet has sworn to us, saying, Verily I say to you, Unless ye be regenerated by living water into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.” It can scarcely be an accident that this same passage is the only passage from the Fourth Gospel quoted in the whole of thc works of Justin Martyr. .Ioreovcr, in J ustin also, as in the Clementine Homilies, it is not so much the Gospel as rather the substance of the Gospel that is given ; and this too in a shape not so developed as that which appears in the Fourth Gospel. GOSPELS 821 It is worth while to sketch the growth of this passage, for the Indeed it cannot be _ process is a typical one, and will illustrate many other theological developments. The doctrine of the new birth ﬁrst appears (but only in its germ) in the synoptic Gospels: “ Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall 11ot enter the kingdom of heaven" (Mat. xviii. 3: cf. Mk. x. 15; Lu. xviii. 17). But Jesus clearly did not mean that His disciples were to become like little children by becoming ignorant, foolish, or helpless; but only that they must trust the Father in heaven, as earthly children trust their earthly parents; in other words, that they must become children of the heavenly Father, and the1'cforc be born again with a heavenly birth. It was therefore a legitimate development of Christ’s teaching to remind Christians (1 Pet. i. 3, 23) that they had been “begotten or born again” (dua-yewﬁu); and Paul describes his converts as “bcgotten" (-yewﬁu) by himself in ('ln-is-t spiritually, distinguishing such a birth from the “ birth according to the flesh” (Gal. iv. 23, 29). It was inevitable that the Christians should early associate this spiritual birth with the rite of puriﬁcation or baptism, with which they would naturally (as John had done) introduce their converts into the church. But further, as soon as the need of this spiritual “ begetting ” became a part of the teaching of the church, it would have to be protected against the literalism of misrepresenting enemies and of dull unspiritual friends. Jews and Gentiles would argue, “ But it is impossible for a man who has once been born to enter a second time into his mother's womb.” This argumentative objection would therefore be naturally placed (in the minds of the teachers and catechists of the first century) side by side with the doctrine of Christ. One teacher, treating the subject dramatically, might put the objection into the mouth of an objector in the shape of dialogue; another might state the answer to the objection in his own person. With this explanation we shall at once understand that Justin, though appearing (in the course of an argument upon baptism) to quote the Fourth Gospel once only (whereas he quotes Matthew ﬁfty times), is not really quoting it, but only the floating tradition of the Ephesian elders, when he writes as follows :- Justin, A1301. 1., lxi. “For Christ said, Except ye be born again (a'ua-yeuuﬁu, Peter's word, 1 Pet. i. 3, '23), verily ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John iii. 3-5. “ Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man (-yeuuntifi duwﬂcu) be born again (or from above) he canno‘. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to re-enter the wombs of those that bare them is evident to alL" [Here the quotation terminates, without making any refer- ence to watch] see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto llim, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother‘s womb, and be born? J csus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a. man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enterinto the kingdom of God."‘ Note here the inexplicable omission—on the hypothesis that it is an omission. 'e must bear in mind that iii the preceding extract Justin is arguing for baptism by u'alc7'. How obvious then to quote the words of Christ Himself, “Except a man be born of icatcr and the Spirit,” &c. But Justin does no such thing. He gives as a reason for water-baptism the intention that men may not remain “ the children of necessity and ignorance,” which reason, he says, we have learned from the apostles. He also quotes, suit- ably enough, the saying of Isaiah, “ Wash you, make you clean.” Lastly, he quotes a. saying of Christ, and omits from it (supposing that he has the Fourth Gospel before him) the very words which tell with greatest force for him, and which indeed make all further argument unnecessary! It is possible, but most improbable, that Justin should quote Matthew ﬁfty times, and a Gospel which he knew to be written by the beloved disciple of the Lord only once; but it is more than improbable—it is inconccivable—that, in this single quotation, he should not only quote inaccurately, but omit the very words that were best adapted to support his argument. The probability is that J nstin’s quotation represents one stage, and the Fourth Gospel another stage, of the Christian doctrine of the new birth, and that the Ephesian “ usus ecclcsiasticus ” had not yet come to his knowledge, or, if it had, had not yet superseded the less developed tradition. The stages may be classified as follows: (1) Synoptists, “Except ye become as little children;” (2) Justin, “ Except ye be born again ;” (3) a third stage is implied in 1 Pet. i. 3, 23, and iii. 21, and it would run thus, " Except a man be born of the Spirit as well as water” (a protest against the Essenistic ovcrvaluing of ablutions, see also .S-ibg/llinc Books, iv. 164-174); (4) the inevitable transition hence was to the form in the Fourth Gospel, “ Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit.” Here the authority of the Ephcsian apostolic school arrested the develop- ment, which would else have issued in (5) the Clementine stage, “ Except ye be regenerated by living water into the name of Father, I The argument is not affected even tlioiuzh ve adopt in John iii. 3_the reading rluwycuuwif 57, which is unquestionably proved by the Latin renderings ‘ to have been a very em-l_v reading. .lll(‘ll.‘'(‘l‘ be the reading. Justinis 0mi5>l0ll- as an on‘.ission——reir.ains inexl licuble.