| Kirby's blog and sundry essays about early Christianity. |
Christian Origins is dedicated to publishing articles distinguished by their attention to detail and reasoned approach. A gamut of viewpoints are presented in essays by laymen and scholars. Send an e-mail to Peter Kirby with ideas for an article or book review. Thanks! |
The Outer Evidence as to
the Authorship and Authority of the Gospels
Originally appeared in The Theosophical Review 28 (May 1901): 237-248.
by G. R. S. Mead
Turning next to the external evidence with regard to the authorship and authority
of our four Gospels, the subject may be most conveniently treated under the
two headings of statements and quotations or alleged quotations.
Neither in the genuine Pauline Letters, our earliest historic documents, nor
in any other Epistle of the N.T., nor in the earliest extra-canonical documents
attributed to Clemens Romanus and Barnabas, nor in the Didache, are written
Gospels mentioned or implied. From the dedication of the Third Gospel, however,
we learn, as we have already seen, that there were at that time "many"
written Gospels current. Lk. further implies that their diversity "was
calculated to obscure 'the certainty concerning the things wherein' the Christian
catechumen was instructed"; he further implies that the apostles "delivered"
these things, that is, presumably taught them orally, as distinguished from
the "many" who wrote and were not apostles. That this was the actual
state of affairs is strikingly confirmed by what we have said of the Marcionite
movement, which arose about 140-150 A.D. There was at this time no historical
certainty in the matter.
We now come to the statements of Papias, a bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis, in
the first half of the second century, who wrote in Greek five books called "Exposition(s)
of the Lord's Logia." As the statements of Papias are the earliest external
evidence as to authorship, and as they are not by any means so confirmatory
of later Church tradition as might be expected, they have been subjected to
the most searching criticism; every single phrase has been microscopically dissected
and the keywords interpreted in very various and contradictory fashions, according
to the commentator's point of view.
With regard to the title of the treatise, "exegesis" may mean simply
a "setting forth," though it may also include the idea of "interpretation."
By "Logia" may be meant simply "Words of the Lord," or they
may also include Acts of the Lord; and by "of the Lord," some contend,
may be meant O.T. prophetical utterances only, and not the Words of Jesus.
With regard to these statements of Papias, it should be noted that they are
quotations made by Eusebius (c. 325 A.D.), and that the acceptance of their
accuracy depends upon our estimate of this Church Father's trustworthiness.
This has been called into question on innumerable points by hosts of critics;
Dr. Abbott, however, considers him "a most careful and conscientious writer."
Papias's work itself has disappeared.
The passages which are supposed by Eusebius to refer to our Mk. and Mt. are
as follows (in the translation of the Rev. V. H. Stanton, D.D., Ely Professor
of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, the writer of the article "Gospels"
in the new Dictionary of the Bible, for Dr. Abbott only gives the Greek
text, with some critical remarks on its interpretation):
"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately—not,
however, in order—as many as he remembered of the things either spoken or done
by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor attended on Him, but afterwards,
as I said, (attended on) Peter, who used to give his instructions according
to what was required, but not as giving an orderly exposition of the Lord's
Words. So that Mark made no mistake in writing down some things as he recalled
them. For he paid heed to one point, namely, not to leave out any of the things
he had heard, or to say anything false in regard to them."
The statement as to Matthew which Eusebius says was made by Papias, runs:
"Matthew, however, wrote the Logia in the Hebrew tongue, and every man
interpreted them as he was able."
In the former passage, the translation "Mark made no mistake" is
rightly rejected by Dr. Abbott; it can only mean "committed no fault "—that
is to say "Papias is defending Mark against the very natural objection
that he did not do the apostle justice in writing down oral and casual teaching"
in a permanent form.
Now as Eusebius promises to record all that ecclesiastical writers have
said about the canonical Scriptures, Papias in all probability said nothing
about Lk. and Jn. Did Papias, however, know of these Gospels? This must ever
remain a mere question of opinion; and not only so, but the assumption by Eusebius
that Papias refers to our Mk. and Mt. is equally a mere question of opinion,
for it is denied by many, for many reasons, and especially on the ground that
our Mk. does set things down "in order," though perhaps not in chronological
order, and that Mt. is not a translation but a compilation and partly based
on the "embedded" document in Mk.
Dr. Abbott, however, merely comes to the moderate conclusion that " Lk. and Jn. were not recognised by Papias as on a level with Mk. and Mt."
In any case the question of the date of Papias becomes one of prime importance.
Now the only important evidence bearing on this subject is a quotation from
Eusebius, who, in rejecting the opinion of Irenaeus (at the end of the second
century) that Papias was a "hearer of John" the apostle, quotes from
the preface of Papias.
Dr. Abbott gives the text only, but Professor Schmiedel, in his article on
"John," gives the following translation (omitting certain intercalated
words of a debatable nature):
"But as many things also as I once well learned from the mouths of the
elders, and well committed to memory, I shall not hesitate to set down [or commit
to writing] for thee, together with the interpretations [appropriate to them],
guaranteeing their truth. For I took pleasure not, as the many do, in those
who speak much, but in those that teach the things that are true; nor in those
who bring to remembrance the foreign commandments, but in those who bring to
remembrance the commandments that were given by the Lord to faith, and have
come to us from the truth itself. But if anywhere anyone also should come who
had companied with the elders I ascertained the sayings [or words] of the elders
[as to this]—what Andrew or what Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas
or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord [had
said], and what Aristion and John the elder, the disciples of the Lord, say.
For I supposed that the things [to be derived] from books were not of such profit
to me as the things [derived] from the living and abiding utterance."
According to his own account, Papias is not only not proved to have been a
"hearer" of John the apostle, but not even of Aristion or John the
elder. The greatest puzzle is that contemporaries of Papias, Aristion and John
the elder, are called "disciples of the Lord." This, as Lightfoot
says, "involves a chronological difficulty," a difficulty so great
that the only solution Dr. Abbott can suggest is to expunge the words as an
interpolation. This is indeed a cutting of the Gordian knot, and will certainly
never be accepted by those who see in these words a precious scrap of evidence
as to the extended meaning of the term "disciples of the Lord," a
term applied not only to those who personally knew Jesus in the flesh, but also
to those who stood in some special relation to the Master after his death. And
if this was the historical fact, as we hold, it follows not only that Aristion
and John the elder were not contemporaries of Jesus, but also that the other
"disciples" were also not all necessarily contemporaries.
The curious selection of the names of the disciples by Papias is explained by Dr. Abbott on the hypothesis that there were already in existence writings attributed to these names, writings which Papias did not believe to be really theirs.
This quotation from Papias, however, gives us little evidence as to his date,
unless we assume the generally received view as to the meaning of "disciples
of the Lord." On the contrary, we are told by Eusebius that Papias flourished
in the time of Polycarp (died about 165). The general consensus of opinion,
then, given by Dr. Stanton, assigns the probable date of Papias's work to about
A.D. 140; but Dr. Abbott would make it about 115-130 A.D., while Professor Harnack
gives it as 145-160 A.D. It is, however, important to notice that the whole
enquiry has so far been based on the assumption that "disciples of the
Lord" must mean nothing else than those who had known Jesus in the flesh,
whereas we find in the Gnostic so-called Pistis Sophia treatise the "disciples"
speaking to Jesus of "Paul our brother," who avowedly only knew the
Master after the death of His body.
We next come to the writings of Justin Martyr (cir. 145-149). Justin
constantly appeals to certain documents which he calls "Memoirs of the
Apostles." On the word Memoirs Dr. Abbott writes: "There is a considerable
probability that the word was in regular use to denote the Memoirs or Anecdotes
about the apostles; first 'repeated' by their immediate interpreters or pupils;
then committed to writing by some of them in the form of gospels; and lastly
accepted by Justin as Memoirs written by the apostles about Christ."
As we have a number of quotations cited by Justin from these Memoirs, there
has been a fierce war of criticism on the subject, the one side trying to prove
Justin's acquaintance with our Gospels, the other denying it. Here, however,
we are concerned with statements about these Gospels rather than with quotations,
and it must be confessed that in spite of all his industry Dr. Abbott can deduce
no satisfactorily clear statement. As to the miraculous conception and other
such matters, however, Justin's view is "that Christ after his resurrection
'appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them' everything relating
to himself." This reminds us of the exceedingly important statement of
Clemens Alexandrinus: "To James the Just and John and Peter was the Gnosis
delivered by the Lord after the Resurrection. These delivered it to the rest
of the apostles, and the rest to the Seventy"—thus preserving the tradition
of the gradual development of the inner school from the original ordering into
three, into one of twelve and subsequently into one of seventy, or, as we believe,
by stages represented by 3, 7, 12 and 72.
We pass next to the famous Muratorian Fragment, a barbarous Latin translation
of some earlier Greek text; its date is purely conjectural but it is generally
assigned to about 170 A.D. This fragment presumably mentioned all four Gospels,
for after a few concluding words relating to another book, it begins by speaking
of "the third book of the Gospel—(the book) according to Luke."
Luke is here called a physician, is supposed to have been a follower of Paul,
and is said to have written in his own name, and according to his own private
judgment (ex opinione). As criticism (we shall see further on) has to
reject this ascription of our third Gospel to Luke, the subordinate question
which here arises is whether or not this statement was not born of conflict
with the Marcionite claims, for Marcion asserted that his Gospel was based on
the Gospel of Paul, while later Church Fathers asserted that it was a "mutilation"
of our Lk. Marcion's Gospel apparently treated of the ministry only, beginning:
"He went down to Capernaum."
The Muratorian account of the genesis of the Fourth Gospel is, however, far
more explicit. This is said to have been written down by a certain John, who
was "of the disciples." His "fellow-disciples and his bishops"
had apparently urged him to write a Gospel, but John hesitated to accept the
responsibility, and proposed that they should all fast together for three days,
and tell one another if anything were revealed to them. On the same night it
is revealed to Andrew, who is "of the apostles," that while all revised
John should write down all things in his own name.
But our Jn. does not write in his own name. Setting this point, however, aside
we are introduced to a circle of people who seek authority in visions! We have
disciples, bishops, and an apostle gathered in conclave; and we may even conclude
that John, so far from being the highest in rank (or surely he would be also
honoured with the title of apostle), is doubtful of his own powers or of his
authority to attempt so important an undertaking, and can only be persuaded
to do so when the apostle of the company receives a direct revelation on the
matter. We shall see the importance of this tradition in the sequel.
Passing next to Irenaeus (about 185 A.D.) we come to the first formulation
of the generally received tradition as to the Four. Irenaeus would have it that
John was the personal disciple of Jesus, and wrote his Gospel at Ephesus. Matthew
published his Gospel in Hebrew "while Peter and Paul in Rome were preaching
and founding the Church." Mark handed down in writing what Peter used to
preach; Luke "set down in a book what Paul was in the habit of preaching."
It is hardly necessary to add that it is just the statements of Irenaeus which
modern scientific research calls into question; with regard to Mt. and Mk. Irenaeus
evidently based himself on Papias.
There is little that will help us in Clement of Alexandria (cir. 195
A.D.) except the statement that the genealogies were written first, that is,
before our Mt. and Lk.
He, however, hands on a version of the tradition as to John which removes the
"stumbling-block" of the fuller and more naïve Muratorian account.
For he says: "John, last of all, reflecting that the earthly aspect [lit.,
the bodily things] had been set forth in the Gospels, at the instigation of
his pupils [or it may be his associates], by a special impulse of the spirit,
composed a spiritual Gospel."
Clement carries on the Papias-tradition of the dependence of Mk. on the Petrine teaching, and so also does Origen.
And here our investigation of external statements as to origin can cease, for,
as Dr. Abbott says: "Later writers have no further evidence, and can but
exemplify the tendency of tradition, even among honest and able men, to exaggerate
or to minimise, in the supposed interests of a good cause."
We next come to the important question of quotations which are supposed to
prove the existence of our present four Gospels. First, with regard to quotations
from books which were written prior to Justin (150 A.D.).
Paul in his Letters, the earliest historical documents of Christendom, quotes
nothing that is found in our Gospels. One saying alone is found in Mt. and Lk.,
but this saying (as well as other sayings quoted by Paul but not found in our
Gospels) is also found in an ancient document called the Didache. This
absolutely astonishing fact has never received any satisfactory explanation.
The hypothesis that Paul and the Didache probably used an antecedent
tradition, does not help us to understand why the later Synoptists base themselves
on a totally different collection or collections of the Logia.
Similarly, the Epistle of James, which is of an early, though uncertain date,
"though permeated with doctrine similar to the Sermon on the Mount,"
contains "more and closer parallels" to the Didache and Barnabas.
There is nothing to show any knowledge of our actual Gospels.
That, however, there may have been in circulation various collections of the
public Sayings, differing considerably from one another, is quite credible.
Dr. Abbott thinks the new-found Logia of Behnesa (Oxyrhynchus fragment) an example
of such an early "manual"; after bringing forward some strong points
in favour of their antiquity, he concludes that "these and many other considerations
indicate that these Logia are genuine sayings of Jesus, ignored or suppressed
because of the 'dangerous' tendency of some of them, and the obscurity of others."
Now, of the six decipherable Sayings which this scrap of the most ancient MS.
of any Christian document known to us contains, only one is familiar to us from
the Canonical Gospels, two contain new matter and important variants, and three
are entirely new. The leaf we possess bears the number 18. So that if we reckon
8 Sayings to a leaf (two of the Sayings in our leaf being undecipherable), the
collection must have contained at least 144 Sayings; and if the percentage
of "new" Sayings to canonically known or partially known Sayings was
as high as in the solitary leaf which has reached us, at least half of the Sayings-materials
has been lost to us, and may have contained doctrines which would necessitate
an entire revision of the general view of original Christian doctrine.
So again with regard to the Letter of Clement of Rome (about 95 A.D., though
some place the date later, it being purely conjectural), the passage cited to
prove acquaintance with our Mt. and Lk., when compared with Polycarp and Clement
of Alexandria, "shows pretty conclusively that these writers had in mind
some other tradition than that of the Synoptists."
The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is a composite document
of widely disputed date. It is generally assumed, however, that 80-110 are the
termini. It consists of two parts, the "Two Ways," in which
precepts of the Lord are inculcated, but no appeal is made to any "Words"
or "Gospel." This part is considered by many to be taken from the
Jewish teaching of the same name. The latter part appeals to both "Sayings"
and a "Gospel." On this point Dr. Abbott flatly contradicts himself.
First he says: "The 'Gospel' meant is probably Mt." But "so far
as this little book is concerned, the 'Gospel' might consist of a version of
the Sermon on the Mount and the Precepts to the Twelve. On the Second Advent,
the writer mentions 'the Signs of Truth' with such apparent independence of
Mt. as to make it doubtful whether, in the context, the resemblances to Mt.
indicate quotations from Mt."
The Epistle of Barnabas, assigned by the very conservative Lightfoot to 70-79
A.D., but placed by others later, shows no acquaintance with the Canonical Gospels.
The interesting point about this ancient Letter is that Barnabas, or whoever
was the writer, "anticipates" Jn.
The fragment of The Great Apophasis, or Announcement, attributed to
"Simon Magus," an early Gnostic document, and assigned by Lightfoot
to the close of the first century, contains certain phrases which "make
it probable that Jn. had Simon in view when he composed his Gospel." But
this is the purest conjecture.
Ignatius, whose date is given as before 110 A.D., quotes a few short sentences
found in our Mt. and once a phrase peculiar to Mk., but there is nothing to
show that he quotes directly from our Mt. or Mk.; it is more probable that he
is drawing from one or more of their "sources." Dr. Abbott, however,
in this uncertainty, takes the conservative position.
The short Letter of Polycarp (which is given by Dr. Abbott the date 110 A.D.,
but which should certainly be dated far later) can hardly afford us any grounds
of definite conjecture; but in so far as any conclusion can be drawn from it,
Dr. Abbott is of opinion that Polycarp knew "the 'Gospel' of Mk. and Mt.,"
following the same tendency he has already manifested in the question of Ignatius.
With regard to the fragments of Papias the only quotation which can be adduced
as bearing on the question, "leads to the inference that Papias is not
quoting and misinterpreting Jn." as is claimed by conservative criticism,
"but quoting and interpreting, in accordance with tradition, a Logion of
which Jn. gives a different version." The Logion was probably originally
derived from the Book of Enoch.
The fragments of the Gnostic doctor, Basilides (117-138 A.D.) afford us no
evidence of his recognition of our Gospels as authoritative.
Marcion, about 140, as we have seen, rejected all other Gospels and adopted
a Gospel-account in many things resembling our Lk. Dr. Abbott, supporting the
later Tertullian's charge that Marcion falsified Lk. in favour of his anti-Jewish
views, points out, as it has often been pointed out before, "that the omissions
and alterations which he (Marcion) would have had to make in Jn. are trifling
as compared with those he was forced to introduce into Lk." From this hypothesis
Dr. Abbott concludes that "in 125-135 A.D.," the date he assigns to
Marcion's Gospel, though this seems to us somewhat too early, "Lk. had
come into prominence as a recognised Gospel in Marcion's region, but that Jn.
was not yet equally prominent." It is, however, very evident that we are
here in the full ocean of hypothesis and conjecture, and can set our feet on
no rock of proved historical fact.
From the few acknowledged fragments of Valentinus, the successor of Basilides,
we have nothing to show that he recognised our Gospels. This brings us to the
middle of the second century, and presumably all but the absolutely irreconcilables
will acknowledge the existence of our Gospels after that date.
We have seen above the leanings of Dr. Abbott in one or two particulars to
the conservative position; it is, therefore, somewhat surprising to find him
summing up the quotation evidence before Justin in the following manner: "Thus
up to the middle of the second century, though there are traces of Johannine
thought and tradition, and immature approximations to the Johannine Logos-Doctrine,
yet in some writers (e.g., Barnabas and Simon), we find rather what Jn. develops,
or what Jn. attacks, than anything which imitates Jn., and in others (e.g.,
Polycarp, Ignatius, and Papias) mere war cries of the time, or phrases of a
Logos-doctrine still in flux, or apocalyptic traditions of which Jn. gives a
more spiritual and perhaps a truer version. There is nothing to prove, or even
suggest, that Jn. was recognised as a gospel. Many of these writers, however,
are known to us by extracts so short and slight that inference from them is
very unsafe."
But in all this summary no reference to Mk., Mt., or Lk.! Why this omission,
when it is just the date of the Synoptic writings which are generally considered
of the greater importance in this enquiry?
Passing to Justin Martyr; the evidence as to quotations found in his writings
(145-149 A.D.) is especially valuable owing to its greater richness. Dr. Abbott
concludes that Justin knew the Synoptic writings but not Jn. But the knowledge
by Justin of the Synoptics has been hotly contested both because of the great
freedom with which Justin treats the alleged quotations, and also because of
several statements he makes on important points which prove conclusively that
Justin used other accounts of the nativity and baptism than those in Mt. and
Lk. The wide variation also of Justin's quotations from the present text of
the Synoptics shows either quotations from memory, or that the original text
of the first three Gospels differed very greatly from our present text.
It is, however, difficult to believe that Justin did not know our gospels,
for his pupil Tatian (150-180 A.D.) not only knew all of them, but composed
a Harmony of the Four, placing Jn. on the same level with the rest. It may be
that Justin would have nothing to do with Jn. because of its mystical nature,
for Justin was a great literalist.
Reviewing then the evidence adduced from quotations or alleged quotations,
we may conclude with very great safety that all our four Gospels were in circulation
after 150. Prior to that date, however, we find nothing to prove the acceptance
of Jn., and with regard to the date of the Synoptists we see that the question
is very debatable, and that up to at least 110 A.D., there is absolutely nothing
to prove their existence. The apparently inferior authority of Lk. also rests
on such slender evidence that to our mind it is not made out, and therefore
its later date than our Mt. and Mk. not established.
The non-recognition of Jn., however, seems to be governed by doctrinal considerations
rather than by lateness of composition. And the conflicting views of critics
as to the dates of the Synoptics based on the testimony of quotations are chiefly
owing to the want of accurate distinction between what would prove the existence
of our actual compilations, and what simply points to the existence of one or
more of their "sources."
We will next review the present position of the Synoptical problem as set forth by Professor Schmiedel.
|
