NEW TESTAMENT. 



35 



cannot mean a gospel like ours. Yet the same term is 

 used by a contemporary of Papias in the technical 

 souse of Scripture, as indeed was done by Paul in 

 Hum. iii. '2. We may add that these recent discov- 

 eries of Christian literature written in the early part of 

 the second century go far to establish the impossibility 

 of any author in that age having the ability to write 

 (or even edit) our Gospels. All this makes against 

 the theories which find in the synoptic Gospels matter 

 added or modified by later hands using a common 

 original source. 



The results of textual criticism come in as corrobo- 

 rative evidence (see below, II.). We now know from 

 mo-t abundant manuscript authority just how much 

 of alteration has taken place in tne New Testament 

 text during eighteen centuries. In the Gospels the 

 various readings are most numerous. But all the 

 variations in all the Gospels taken together do not con- 

 stitute a sufficient amount of variation to account ior 

 the differences between the synoptic narratives in a 

 single chipter. When once the Christians accepted 

 these, books they were carefully preserved from modi- 

 fication. How unlikely it is that there was some older 

 Gospel (truer than these, as is assumed) which, in- 

 stead of being carefully preserved, was edited by 

 various hands and the results palmed on the Christian 

 people as tne work of the reputed authors? If for 

 eighteen centuries believers have been careful of the 

 Gospel words, the earliest believers would not be 

 less so in the care of an original Gost>el. Hence it is 

 not probable that any original Gospel other than ours 

 ever existed and obtained currency. The early age of 

 the synoptic Gospels is more fully established now 

 than ever before, and the earlier the date of composi- 

 tion the more probable is their literary independence. 

 The arguments against their truthfulness from alleged 

 discrepancies need scarcely -be considered here. No 

 greater divergence in testimony exists than might be 

 exported from the different purpose, point ot view, 

 and emphasis. Absolute contradictions cannot be said 

 to exist. It is true then; remains an unsolved diffi- 

 culty in regard to the original lanuuaiie of the Gospel 

 of Matthew. The constant early tradition states that 

 it was first written in Hebrew; but only the present 

 Greek Gospel is cited by the same witne.-ses. and there 

 are marks of its being an original Greek work. The 

 tendency now is to accept our Gospel as the Greek 

 original, but the theory of a Hebrew original trans- 

 lated by Matthew himself would account for the two 

 classes of facts indicated above. Such a theory is far 

 more prohaUc than most of the solutions of the 

 synoptic problem. 



li. The Gt-Hiiiiifneia of tlie Fourth Gotpel. Dr. Ab- 

 bott doubts or denies that the apostle John was the 

 author of the Gospel tearing his name. (In the arti- 

 cle UKVKI.ATION will l>c found a discussion of the ob- 

 jections arising from the differences of style and lan- 

 guage between this (io.-pel and the Apocalypse.) To 

 deny the genuineness of this Gospel is a much 

 more serious matter than to hold certain literary and 

 critical views of the origin of the svnoptic Gospels. 

 Those Gospels do not assert their authors and author- 

 ity ; the I'ourth Gospel expressly claims to be written 

 by the beloved disciple, and frequently makes state- 

 ments and explanations with apostolic authority. The 

 alternative here, at all events, is : Is this book genuine 

 or is it a forgery? As Dr. Abbott has stated very 

 1'nlly his objections to the Johannean authorship, the 

 other side must now l>e given. 



A. Krti'nt'il. Eriilmcf.. The testimony is not only 

 unbroken, but more abundant and positive than in the 

 case of the synoptic- Gospels. Nor are we without 

 recent additions to this evidence. It was long known 

 tint Tatiaii (died A. I). \~'l) wrote- a I/nr>iiy cf Four 

 fin'fiflx (f)iiitffxnrnti) between 153 and 170. But as 

 the- work was lost it could not be proven that he used 

 the Gospel of John. Recently the discovery of an 

 Armenian translation of a commentary upon it by 



Ephraim the Syrian makes it certain that he used our 

 four Gospels. (The Armenian work was translated 

 into Latin in 184), but escaped general notice until 

 1876. Bince that date the text of Tatian's Harmony 

 has been largely reconstructed from it.) Shortly after 

 the middle of the second century the four Gospels 

 were so widely known and accepted by Christians that 

 a harmony of the four narratives was prepared. This 

 proves that all four had been received for some time. 

 Indeed, there are no indications of any serious objec- 

 tions to the Johannean authorship of the Fourth Gos- 

 pel in the second century. The Alogi were a handful 

 of eccentric persons with extravagant views about the 

 New Testament, and their doubts have no weight 

 whatever. The testimony of Irenaeus (Bishop of 

 Lyons, A. D. 178) is specific and ample as to the Johan- 

 nean authorship and general acceptance. It would 

 seem probable, therefore, that a book accepted as the 

 work of the apostle John by Tatian (between 150 and 

 170) would be known to Justin Martyr, who was the 

 teacher of Tatian. The interval of time between the 

 Apnlitfft/ of Justin (A. D. 138-147) and the Dititessaron 

 of Tatian is not long. At the date of the latter the 

 Gospel of John was everywhere accepted. How 

 could a forgery have gained currency between the date 

 of Justin's Apology and the appearance of the Dia- 

 tetataroH f Dr. E. A. Abbott, in the Barr/ANNICA, 

 makes a full and plausible argument against Justin's 

 knowledge and use of the Gospel of John. But Prof. 

 Ezra Abbot, the distinguished Unitarian Biblical 

 scholar in Harvard University, published as his last 

 work a small volume on The Authorship of the. Fourth 

 Gospel: External Evidences, which fully, fairly, and 

 with an affluence of citation, answers every objection 

 raised in the BaiTANNiCA. The argument cannot be 

 given in detail, but as this most valuable and learned 

 monoL'raph is not properly known, it is well to cite in 

 full the summing up of the case respecting Justin 

 Martyr's knowledge of this Gospel. "We find,'' 

 Prof. Ezra Abbot says, " ( 1 ) That the general reception 

 of our Four Gospels as sacred books throughout the 

 Christian world in the time of Irenaeus makes it almost 

 certain that the 'Memoirs called Gospels, composed 

 by Apostles and their companions,' which were used by 

 his early contemporary, Justin Martyr, and were read in 

 the Christian churches of his day as the authoritative 

 records of Christ's life and teaching, were the same 

 hooks; (2) That this presumption is confirmed by the 

 actual use which Justin made of all our Gospels, 

 though he has mainly followed, as was natural, the 

 Gospel of Matthew, and his direct citations from the 

 Gospel of John, and references to it, are few ; (3) That 

 it is still further strengthened, in respect to the Gospel 

 of John, by the evidence of its use between the time 

 of Justin and that of Irenaeus, both by the Catholic 

 Christians and the Gnostics, and especially by its in- 

 clusion in Tatian's Diatesxnron ; (4) That of the two 

 principal assumptions on which the counter-argument is 

 founded, one [that Justin's description of the manner 

 of the teaching of Jesus shows that he did not know 

 the Fourth Gospel] is demonstrably false, and the other 

 [that if he used it at all he would have used it more] 

 baseless ; and (5) That the particular objections to the 

 view that Justin included the Gospel of John in his 

 ' Memoirs ' are of very little weight. We are author- 

 i/.c-il then. I believe, to regard it in the highest degree 



Srobable. if not morally certain, that in the time of 

 ustin Martyr the Fourth Gospel was generally re- 

 ceived as the work of the apostle John" (Author- 

 ship, etc., pp. 79, 80). The learning of Ezra Abbot 

 is evinced in his treatment of this question ; his can- 

 dor is transparent, and of theological bias there could 

 be no suspicion in his case. 



But it can be claimed that the Gnostic sects flourish- 

 ing during the lifetime of Justin Martyr accepted 

 and used the Fourth Gospel as the work of the apos- 

 tle John. The evidence from Hippolytus seems quite 

 clear that Basilides and Valentinus before the middle 



