Supernatural Religion.

Vol. II.

by Walter Richard Ca.s.sels.

PART II.

CHAPTER V. THE CLEMENTINES--THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS

We must now as briefly as possible examine the evidence furnished by the apocryphal religious romance generally known by the name of "The Clementines," and a.s.suming, falsely of course,(1) to be the composition of the Roman Clement. The Clementines are composed of three princ.i.p.al works, the Homilies, Recognitions, and a so-called Epitome. The Homilies, again, are prefaced by a pretended epistle addressed by the Apostle Peter to James, and another from Clement. These Homilies were only known in an imperfect form till 1853, when Dressel(2) published a complete Greek text. Of the Recognitions we only possess a Latin translation by Rufinus (a.d. 402).

{2}

Although there is much difference of opinion regarding the claims to priority of the Homilies and Recognitions, many critics a.s.signing that place to the Homilies,(1) whilst others a.s.sert the earlier origin of the Recognitions,(2) all are agreed that the one is merely a version of the other, the former being embodied almost word for word in the latter, whilst the Epitome is a blending of the other two, probably intended to purge them from heretical doctrine. These works, however, which are generally admitted to have emanated from the Ebionitic party of the early Church,(3) are supposed to be based upon older Petrine writings, such as the "Preaching of Peter" [------], and the "Travels of Peter"

[------].(4)

{3}

It is not necessary for our purpose to go into any a.n.a.lysis of the character of the Clementines. It will suffice to say that they almost entirely consist of discussions between the Apostle Peter and Simon the Magician regarding the ident.i.ty of the true Mosaic and Christian religions. Peter follows the Magician from city to city for the purpose of exposing and refuting him, the one, in fact, representing Apostolic doctrine and the other heresy, and in the course of these discussions occur the very numerous quotations of sayings of Jesus and of Christian history which we have to examine.

The Clementine Recognitions, as we have already remarked, are only known to us through the Latin translation of Rufinus; and from a comparison of the evangelical quotations occurring in that work with the same in the Homilies, it is evident that Rufinus has a.s.similated them in the course of translation to the parallel pa.s.sages of our Gospels. It is admitted, therefore, that no argument regarding the source of the quotations can rightly be based upon the Recognitions, and that work may, consequently, be entirely set aside,(1) and the Clementine Homilies alone need occupy our attention.

We need scarcely remark that, unless the date at which these Homilies were composed can be ascertained, their value as testimony for the existence of our Synoptic Gospels is seriously affected. The difficulty of arriving at a correct conclusion regarding this point, great under almost any circ.u.mstances, is of course increased by the fact that the work is altogether apocryphal, and most certainly not held by any one to have

{4}

been written by the person whose name it bears. There is in fact nothing but internal evidence by which to fix the date, and that internal evidence is of a character which admits of very wide extension down the course of time, although a sharp limit is set beyond which it cannot mount upwards. Of external evidence there is almost none, and what little exists does not warrant an early date. Origen, it is true, mentions [------],(1) which, it is conjectured, may either be the same work as the [------], or Recognitions, translated by Rufinus, or related to it, and Epiphanius and others refer to [------];(2) but our Clementine Homilies are not mentioned by any writer before pseudo-Athanasius.(3) The work, therefore, can at the best afford no substantial testimony to the antiquity and apostolic origin of our Gospels. Hilgenfeld, following in the steps of Baur, arrives at the conclusion that the Homilies are directed against the Gnosticism of Marcion (and also, as we shall hereafter see, against the Apostle Paul), and he, therefore, necessarily a.s.signs to them a date subsequent to a.d.

160. As Reuss, however, inquires: upon this ground, why should a still later date not be named, since even Tertullian wrote vehemently against the same Gnosis.(4) There can be little doubt that the author was a representative of Ebionitic Gnosticism, which had once been the purest form of primitive Christianity, but later, through its own development, though still more through the rapid growth around it of Paulinian doctrine, had

{5}

a.s.sumed a position closely verging upon heresy. It is not necessary for us, however, to enter upon any exhaustive discussion of the date at which the Clementines were written; it is sufficient to show that there is no certain ground upon which a decision can be based, and that even an approximate conjecture can scarcely be reasonably advanced. Critics variously date the composition of the original Recognitions from about the middle of the second century to the end of the third, though the majority are agreed in placing them at least in the latter century.(1) They a.s.sign to the Homilies an origin at different dates within a period commencing about the middle of the second century, and extending to a century later.2

In the Homilies there are very numerous quotations

{6}

of sayings of Jesus and of Gospel history, which are generally placed in the mouth of Peter, or introduced with such formulae as: "The teacher said," "Jesus said," "He said," "The prophet said," but in no case does the author name the source from which these sayings and quotations are derived. That he does, however, quote from a written source, and not from tradition, is clear from the use of such expressions as "in another place [------](1) he has said," which refer not to other localities or circ.u.mstances, but another part of a written history.(2) There are in the Clementine Homilies upwards of a hundred quotations of sayings of Jesus or references to his history, too many by far for us to examine in detail here; but, notwithstanding the number of these pa.s.sages, so systematically do they vary, more or less, from the parallels in our canonical Gospels, that, as in the case of Justin, Apologists are obliged to have recourse to the elastic explanation, already worn so threadbare, of "free quotation from memory" and "blending of pa.s.sages"

to account for the remarkable phenomena presented. It must, however, be evident that the necessity for such an apology at all shows the insufficiency of the evidence furnished by these quotations. De Wette says: "The quotations of evangelical works and histories in the pseudo-Clementine writings, from their nature free and inaccurate, permit only an uncertain conclusion to be

{7}

drawn as to their written source."(1) Critics have maintained very different and conflicting views regarding that source. Apologists, of course, a.s.sert that the quotations in the Homilies are taken from our Gospels only.(2) Others ascribe them to our Gospels, with a supplementary apocryphal work: the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Gospel according to Peter.(3) Some, whilst admitting a subsidiary use of some of our Gospels, a.s.sert that the author of the Homilies employs, in preference, the Gospel according to Peter;(4) whilst others, recognizing also the similarity of the phenomena presented by these quotations with those of Justin's, conclude that the author does not quote our Gospels at all, but makes use of the Gospel according to Peter, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(5) Evidence permitting of such divergent conclusions manifestly cannot be of a decided character.

We may affirm, however, that few of those who are

{8}

willing to admit the use of our Synoptics by the author of the Homilies along with other sources, make that concession on the strength of the absolute isolated evidence of the Homilies themselves, but they are generally moved by antecedent views on the point. In an inquiry like that which we have undertaken, however, such easy and indifferent judgment would obviously be out of place, and the point we have to determine is not whether an author may have been acquainted with our Gospels, but whether he furnishes testimony that he actually was in possession of our present Gospels and regarded them as authoritative.

We have already mentioned that the author of the Clementine Homilies never names the source from which his quotations are derived. Of these very numerous quotations we must again distinctly state that only two or three, of a very brief and fragmentary character, literally agree with our Synoptics, whilst all the rest differ more or less widely from the parallel pa.s.sages in those Gospels. Some of these quotations are repeated more than once with the same persistent and characteristic variations, and in several cases, as we have already seen, they agree more or less closely with quotations of Justin from the Memoirs of the Apostles. Others, again, have no parallels at all in our Gospels, and even Apologists are consequently compelled to admit the collateral use of an apocryphal Gospel. As in the case of Justin, therefore, the singular phenomenon is presented of a vast number of quotations of which only one or two brief phrases, too fragmentary to avail as evidence, perfectly agree with our Gospels; whilst of the rest, which all vary more or less, some merely resemble combined pa.s.sages of two Gospels, others merely contain the sense, some

{9}

present variations likewise found in other writers or in various parts of the Homilies are repeatedly quoted with the same variations, and others are not found in our Gospels at all. Such phenomena cannot be fairly accounted for by any mere theory of imperfect memory or negligence. The systematic variation from our Synoptics, variation proved by repet.i.tion not to be accidental, coupled with quotations which have no parallels at all in our Gospels, more naturally point to the use of a different Gospel. In no case can the Homilies be accepted as furnishing evidence even of the existence of our Gospels.

As it is impossible here to examine in detail all of the quotations in the Clementine Homilies, we must content ourselves with this distinct statement of their character, and merely ill.u.s.trate briefly the different cla.s.ses of quotations, exhausting, however, those which literally agree with pa.s.sages in the Gospels. The most determined of recent Apologists do not afford us an opportunity of testing the pa.s.sages upon which they base their a.s.sertion of the use of our Synoptics, for they simply a.s.sume that the author used them without producing instances.(1)

The first quotation agreeing with a pa.s.sage in our Synoptics occurs in Hom. iii. 52: "And he cried, saying: Come unto me all ye that are weary," which agrees with the opening words of Matt. xi. 28, but the phrase does

1 Teschendorf only devotes a dozen linos, with a note, to the Clemontinos, and only in connection with our fourth Gospel, which shall hero-after have our attention. Wann wurden u. s. w., p. 90. In the same way Canon Westcott pa.s.ses them over in a short paragraph, merely a.s.serting the allusions to our Gospels to be "generally admitted," and only directly referring to one supposed quotation from Mark which we shall presently examine, and one which he affirms to be from the fourth Gospel. On the Canon, p. 251 f. [In the 4th edition he has enlarged his remarks, p. 282 ff.]

{10}

not continue, and is followed by the explanation: "that is, who are seeking the truth and not finding it."(1) It is evident, that so short and fragmentary a phrase cannot prove anything.(2)

The next pa.s.sage occurs in Hom. xviii. 15: "For Isaiah said: I will open my mouth in parables, and I will utter things that have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."(3) Now this pa.s.sage, with a slightly different order of words, is found in Matt. xiii. 35. After giving a series of parables, the author of the Gospel says (v. 34), "All these things spake Jesus unto the mult.i.tudes in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them; (v. 35) That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet (Isaiah), saying: I will open my mouth in parables, &c." There are two peculiarities which must be pointed out in this pa.s.sage. It is not found in Isaiah, but in Psalm lxxviii. 2,(4) and it presents a variation from the version of the lxx. Both the variation and the erroneous reference to Isaiah, therefore, occur also in the Homily. The first part of the sentence agrees with, but the latter part is quite different from, the Greek of the lxx., which reads: "I will utter problems from the beginning," [------].(5)

The Psalm from which the quotation is really taken is, by its superscription, ascribed to Asaph, who, in the Septuagint version of II.

Chronicles xxix. 30, is called a

{11}

prophet.(1) It was, therefore, early a.s.serted that the original reading of Matthew was "Asaph," instead of "Isaiah." Porphyry, in the third century, twitted Christians with this erroneous ascription by their inspired evangelist to Isaiah of a pa.s.sage from a Psalm, and reduced the Fathers to great straits. Eusebius, in his commentary on this verse of the Psalm, attributes the insertion of the words, "by the prophet Isaiah," to unintelligent copyists, and a.s.serts that in accurate MSS.

the name is not added to the word prophet. Jerome likewise ascribes the insertion of the name Isaiah for that of Asaph, which was originally written, to an ignorant scribe,(2) and in the commentary on the Psalms, generally, though probably falsely, ascribed to him, the remark is made that many copies of the Gospel to that day had the name "Isaiah," for which Porphyry had reproached Christians,(3) and the writer of the same commentary actually allows himself to make the a.s.sertion that Asaph was found in all the old codices, but ignorant men had removed it.(4) The fact is, that the reading "Asaph" for "Isaiah" is not found in any extant MS., and, although "Isaiah" has disappeared from all but a few obscure codices, it cannot be denied that the name anciently stood in the text.(5) In the Sinaitic Codex, which is probably the earliest MS. extant, and which is a.s.signed to the fourth century, "the prophet _Isaiah_" stands in the text by the first hand, but is erased by the second (b).

{12}

The quotation in the Homily, however, is clearly not from our Gospel.

It is introduced by the words "For Isaiah says:" and the context is so different from that in Matthew, that it seems most improbable that the author of the Homily could have had the pa.s.sage suggested to him by the Gospel. It occurs in a discussion between Simon the Magician and Peter.

The former undertakes to prove that the Maker of the world is not the highest G.o.d, and amongst other arguments he advances the pa.s.sage: "No man knew the Father, &c.," to show that the Father had remained concealed from the Patriarchs, &c., until revealed by the Son, and in reply to Peter he retorts, that if the supposition that the Patriarchs were not deemed worthy to know the Father was unjust, the Christian teacher was himself to blame, who said: "I thank thee, Lord of heaven and earth, that what was concealed from the wise thou hast revealed to suckling babes." Peter argues that in the statement of Jesus: "No man knew the Father, &c.," he cannot be considered to indicate another G.o.d and Father from him who made the world, and he continues: "For the concealed things of which he spoke may be those of the Creator himself; for Isaiah says: 'I will open my mouth, &c.' Do you admit, therefore, that the prophet was not ignorant of the things concealed,"(1) and so on. There is absolutely nothing in this argument to indicate that the pa.s.sage was suggested by the Gospel, but, on the contrary, it is used in a totally different way, and is quoted not as an evangelical text, but as a saying from the Old Testament, and treated in connection with the prophet himself, and not with its supposed fulfilment in Jesus. It may be remarked, that in the corresponding part of

{13}

the Recognitions, whether that work be of older or more recent date, the pa.s.sage does not occur at all. Now, although it is impossible to say how and where this erroneous reference to a pa.s.sage of the Old Testament first occurred, there is no reason for affirming that it originated in our first Synoptic, and as little for a.s.serting that its occurrence in the Clementine Homilies, with so different a context and object, involves the conclusion that their author derived it from the Gospel, and not from the Old Testament or some other source. On the contrary, the peculiar argument based upon it in the Homilies suggests a different origin, and it is very probable that the pa.s.sage, with its erroneous reference, was derived by both from another and common source.

Another pa.s.sage is a phrase from the "Lord's Prayer," which occurs in Hom. xix. 2: "But also in the prayer which he commended to us, we have it said: Deliver us from the evil one" [------]. It need scarcely be said, however, that few Gospels can have been composed without including this prayer, and the occurrence of this short phrase demonstrates nothing more than the mere fact, that the author of the Homilies was acquainted with one of the most universally known lessons of Jesus, or made use of a Gospel which contained it. There would have been cause for wonder had he been ignorant of it.

The only other pa.s.sage which agrees literally with our Gospels is also a mere fragment from the parable of the Talents, and when the other references to the same parable are added, it is evident that the quotation is not from our Gospels. In Hom. iii. 65, the address to the good servant is introduced: "Well done, good and faithful servant"

[------], which agrees

{14}

with the words in Matt. xxv. 21. The allusion to the parable of the talents in the context is perfectly clear, and the pa.s.sage occurs in an address of the Apostle Peter to overcome the modest scruples of Zaccheus, the former publican, who has been selected by Peter as his successor in the Church of Caesarea when he is about to leave in pursuit of Simon the Magician. Antic.i.p.ating the possibility of his hesitating to accept the office, Peter, in an earlier part of his address, however, makes fuller allusions to the same parable of the talents, which we must contrast with the parallel in the first Synoptic. "But if any of those present, having the ability to instruct the ignorance of men, shrink back from it, considering only his own ease, then let him expect to hear:"

[--Table--]