1 Eusebius, H. E., v. 5; Mosheim, Inst. Hist. Ecclee., Book i. cent. ii. part. i. ch. i. -- 9. Apollinaris states that in consequence of this miracle, the Emperor had bestowed upon the Legion the name of the "Thundering Legion." We cannot here discuss this subject, but the whole story ill.u.s.trates the rapidity with which a fiction is magnified into truth by religious zeal, and is surrounded by false circ.u.mstantial evidence. Cf. Tertullian, Apol. 5, ad Scapulam, 4; Dion Ca.s.sius, lib. 55; Scaliyer, Animadv. in Euseb., p. 223 f.; cf. Donaldson, Hist. Chr. Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 241 f.

{184}

should be pardoned, for ignorance does not admit of accusation, but requires instruction. And they say that the Lord, together with his disciples, ate the sheep [------] on the 14th Nisan, but himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread. And they state [------]

that Matthew says precisely what they have understood; hence their understanding of it is at variance with the law, and according to them the Gospels seem to contradict each other.""(1) The last sentence is interpreted as pointing out that the first synoptic Gospel is supposed to be at variance with our fourth Gospel. This fragment is claimed by Teschendorf(2) and others as evidence of the general acceptance at that time both of the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel. Canon Westcott, with obvious exaggeration, says: "The Gospels are evidently quoted as books certainly known and recognized; their authority is placed on the same footing as the Old Testament.:(3) The Gospels are referred to merely for the settlement of the historical fact as to the day on which the last Pa.s.sover had been eaten, a narrative of which they contained.

There are, however, very grave reasons for doubting the authenticity of the two fragments ascribed to

{185}

Apollinaris, and we must mention that these doubts are much less those of German critics, who, on the whole, either do not raise the question at all, or hastily dispose of it, than doubts entertained by orthodox Apologists, who see little ground for accepting them as genuine.(1) Eusebius, who gives a catalogue of the works of Apol-linaris which had reached him,(2) was evidently not acquainted with any writing of his on the Pa.s.sover. It is argued, however, that "there is not any sufficient ground for doubting the genuineness of these fragments "On Easter," in the fact that Eusebius mentions no such book by Apollinaris."(3) It is quite true that Eusebius does not pretend to give a complete list of these works, but merely says that there are many preserved by many, and that he mentions those with which he had met.(4) At the same time, entering with great interest, as he does, into the Paschal Controversy, and acquainted with the princ.i.p.al writings on the subject,(5) it would indeed have been strange had he not met with the work itself, or at least with some notice of it in the works of others. Eusebius gives an account of the writings of Melito and Apollinaris together. He was acquainted with the work of Melito on the Pa.s.sover, and quotes it,(6) and it is extremely improbable that he could have been ignorant of a treatise by his distinguished contemporary

3 Westcott, On the Canon, p. 198, note 3; cf. Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., p. 340 f. This is the only remark which Dr. Westcott makes as to any doubt of the authenticity of these fragments. Tischendorf does not mention a doubt at all.

{186}

on the same subject, had he actually written one. Not only, however, does Eusebius seem to know nothing of his having composed such a work, but neither do Theodoret,(1) Jerome,(2) nor Photius,(3) who refer to his writings, mention it; and we cannot suppose that it was referred to in the lost works of Irenaeus or Clement of Alexandria on the Pa.s.sover.

Eusebius, who quotes from them,(4) would in that case have probably mentioned the fact, as he does the statement by Clement regarding Melito"s work, or at least would have been aware of the existence of such a writing, and alluded to it when speaking of the works of Apollinaris.

This silence is equally significant whether we regard Apollinaris as a Quartodeciman or as a supporter of the views of Victor and the Church of Rome. On the one hand, Eusebius states that "all the churches of Asia"(5) kept the 14th Nisan, and it is difficult to believe that, had Apollinaris differed from this practice and, more especially, had he written against it, the name of so eminent an exception would not have been mentioned. The views of the Bishop of Hierapolis, as a prominent representative of the Asiatic Church, must have been quoted in many controversial works on the subject, and even if the writing itself had not come into their hands, Eusebius and others could scarcely fail to become indirectly acquainted with it. On the other hand, supposing Apollinaris to have been a Quartodeciman, whilst the ignorance of Eusebius and others regarding any contribution by him to the discussion is scarcely less remarkable, it is still more surprising that no allusion is made to

{187}

him by Polycrates(1) when he names so many less distinguished men of Asia, then pa.s.sed away, who kept the 14th Nisan, such as Thaseas of Eumenia, Sagoris of Laodicea, Papirius of Sardis, and the seven Bishops of his kindred, not to mention Polycarp of Smyrna and the Apostles Philip and John. He also cites Melito of Sardis: why does he not refer to Apollinaris of Hierapolis? If it be argued that he was still living, then why does Eusebius not mention him amongst those who protested against the measures of Victor of Rome?(2)

There has been much discussion as to the view taken by the writer of these fragments, Hilgenfeld and others(3) maintaining that he is opposed to the Quartodeciman party. Into this it is not necessary for us to enter, as our contention simply is that in no case can the authenticity of the fragments be established. Supposing them, however, to be directed against those who kept the 14th Nisan, how can it be credited that this isolated convert to the views of Victor and the Roman Church, could write of so vast and distinguished a majority of the Churches of Asia, including Polycarp and Melito, as "some who through ignorance raised contentions" on the point, when they really raised no new contention at all, but, as Polycrates represented, followed the tradition handed down to them from their Fathers, and authorized by the practice of the Apostle John himself?

None of his contemporaries nor writers about his own time seem to have known that Apollinaris wrote any work from which these fragments can have been taken, and there is absolutely no independent evidence that he

{188}

ever took any part in the Paschal controversy at all. The only ground we have for attributing these fragments to him is the Preface to the Paschal Chronicle of Alexandria, written by an unknown author of the seventh century, some five hundred years after the time of Apollinaris, whose testimony has rightly been described as "worth almost nothing."(1) Most certainly many pa.s.sages preserved by him are inauthentic,

and generally allowed to be so.(2) The two fragments have by some been conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria,(3) a writer of the third century, who composed a work on Easter, but there is no evidence on the point In any case, there is such exceedingly slight reason for attributing these fragments to Claudius Apollinaris, and so many strong grounds for believing that he cannot have written them, that they have no material value as evidence for the antiquity of the Gospels.

3.

We know little or nothing of Athenagoras. He is not mentioned by Eusebius, and our only information regarding him is derived from a fragment of Philip Sidetes, a writer of the fifth century, first published by

2 Dr. Donaldson rightly calls a fragment in the Chronicle ascribed to Melito, "unquestionably spurious." Hist. Chr.

Lit. and Doctr., iii. p. 231.

{189}

Dodwell.(1) Philip states that he was the first leader of the school of Alexandria during the time of Hadrian and Antoninus, to the latter of whom he addressed his Apology, and he further says that Clement of Alexandria was his disciple, and that Pantsenus was the disciple of Clement. Part of this statement we know to be erroneous, and the Christian History of Philip, from which the fragment is taken, is very slightingly spoken of both by Socrates(2) and Photius.(3) No reliance can be placed upon this information.(4)

The only works ascribed to Athenagoras are an Apology--called an Emba.s.sy, [------]--bearing the inscription: "The Emba.s.sy of Athenagoras the Athenian, a philosopher and a Christian, concerning Christians, to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, Armeniaci Sarmatici and, above all, philosophers"; and further, a Treatise: "On the Resurrection of the Dead," A quotation from the Apology by Methodius in his work on the Resurrection of the Body, is preserved by Epiphanius(5) and Photius,(6) and this, the mention by Philip Sidetes, and the inscription by an unknown hand, just quoted, are all the evidence we possess regarding the Apology. We have no evidence at all regarding the treatise on the Resurrection, beyond the inscription. The authenticity of neither, therefore, stands on very sure grounds.(7) The address of the Apology and internal evidence furnished by it, into which we need not go, show that it could not

{190}

have been written before a.d. 176--177, the date a.s.signed to it by most critics,(1) although there are many reasons for dating it some years later.

In the six lines which Tischendorf devotes to Athenagoras, he says that the Apology contains "several quotations from Matthew and Luke,"(2) without, however, indicating them. In the very few sentences which Canon Westcott vouchsafes to him, he says: "Athenagoras quotes the words of our Lord as they stand in St. Matthew four times, and appears to allude to pa.s.sages in St. Mark and St. John, But he nowhere mentions the name of an Evangelist."(3) Here the third Synoptic is not mentioned. In another place he says: "Athenagoras at Athens, and Theophilus at Antioch, make use of the same books generally, and treat them with the same respect;" and in a note: "Athenagoras quotes the Gospels of St Matthew and St. John."(4) Here it will be observed that also the Gospel of Mark is quietly dropped out of sight, but still the positive manner in which it is a.s.serted that Athenagoras quotes from "the Gospel of St. Matthew," without further explanation, is calculated to mislead. We shall refer to each of the supposed quotations.

Athenagoras not only does not mention any Gospel, but singularly enough he never once introduces the

{191}

name of "Christ" into the works ascribed to him, and all the "words of the Lord" referred to are introduced simply by the indefinite "he says,"

[------], and without any indication whatever of a written source.(1) The only exception to this is an occasion on which he puts into the mouth of "the Logos" a saying which is not found in any of our Gospels.

The first pa.s.sage to which Canon Westcott alludes is the following, which we contrast with the supposed parallel in the Gospel:--

It is scarcely possible to imagine a greater difference in language conveying a similar idea than that which exists between Athenagoras and the first Gospel, and the parallel pa.s.sage in Luke is in many respects still more distant. No echo of the words in Matthew has lingered in the ear of the writer, for he employs utterly different phraseology throughout, and nothing can be more certain

{192}

than the fact that there is not a linguistic trace in it of acquaintance with our Synoptics.

The next pa.s.sage which is referred to is as follows:

The same idea is continued in the next chapter, in which the following pa.s.sage occurs:

There is no parallel at all in the first Gospel to the phrase "and lend to them that lend to you," and in Luke vi. 34, the pa.s.sage reads: "and if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye?"

{193}

[------]; It is evident, therefore, that there are decided variations here, and that the pa.s.sage of Athenagoras does not agree with either of the Synoptics. We have seen the persistent variation in the quotations from the "Sermon on the Mount" which occur in Justin,(1) and there is no part of the discourses of Jesus more certain to have been preserved by living Christian tradition, or to have been recorded in every form of Gospel. The differences in these pa.s.sages from our Synoptic present the same features as mark the several versions of the same discourse in our first and third Gospels, and indicate a distinct source. The same remarks also apply to the next pa.s.sage:

The omission of [------], "with her," is not accidental, but is an important variation in the sense, which we have already met with in the Gospel used by Justin Martyr.(4) There is another pa.s.sage, in the next chapter, the parallel to which follows closely on this in the great Sermon as reported in our first Gospel, to which Canon Westcott does not refer, but which we must point out:

{104}

It is evident that the pa.s.sage in the Apology is quite different from that in the "Sermon on the Mount" in the first Synoptic. If we compare it with Matt. xix. 9, there still remains the express limitation [------], which Athenagoras does not admit, his own express doctrine being in accordance with the positive declaration in his text. In the immediate context, indeed, he insists that even to marry another wife after the death of the first is cloaked adultery. We find in Luke xvi. 18, the reading of Athenagoras,(3) but with important linguistic variations:

It cannot, obviously, be rightly affirmed that Athenagoras must have derived this from Luke, and the sense of the pa.s.sage in that Gospel, compared with the pa.s.sage in Matthew xix. 9, on the contrary, rather makes it certain that the reading of Athenagoras was derived from a source combining the language of the one and the thought of the other.