A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's Essays Part 7

Regarding the first point Dr. Lightfoot a.s.serts:

"The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St. Paul, for instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews that they had the keeping of 'the oracles of G.o.d' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we suppose that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures by this expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books of Genesis, of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of G.o.d?

Would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of the creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 _sq._), of the wanderings in the wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 _sq._), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21 _sq._)? Does not the main part of his argument in the very next chapter (Rom. iv.) depend more on the narrative of G.o.d's dealings than His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of G.o.d' (v. 12), his meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the Divine teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts of the Old Testament. But if the language of the New Testament writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with their contemporary Philo. In one place, he speaks of the words in Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the _narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15: 'The Lord G.o.d set a mark upon Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.' [125:3] From this and other pa.s.sages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a Scripture. Similarly Clement of Rome writes: 'Ye know well the sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of G.o.d;' [125:4] and immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12 _sq._, Exod. x.x.xii. 7 _sq._, of which the point is not any Divine precept or prediction, but _the example of Moses_. A few years later Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of the Lord." [126:1]

He then goes on to refer to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Basil, but I need not follow him to these later writers, but confine myself to that which I have quoted.

"When Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans iii. 2, 'They were entrusted with the oracles of G.o.d,' can he mean anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures, including the historical books?" argues Dr. Lightfoot. I maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does not refer to a collection of writings at all, but to the communications or revelations of G.o.d, and, as the context shows, probably more immediately to the Messianic prophecies. The advantage of the Jews, in fact, according to Paul here, was that to them were first communicated the Divine oracles: that they were made the medium of G.o.d's utterances to mankind. There seems almost an echo of the expression in Acts vii. 38, where Stephen is represented as saying to the Jews of their fathers on Mount Sinai, "who received living oracles ([Greek: logia zonta]) to give unto us." Of this nature were the "oracles of G.o.d" which were entrusted to the Jews. Further, the phrase: "the first principles of the oracles of G.o.d" (Heb. v. 12), is no application of the term to narrative, as Dr. Lightfoot affirms, however much the author may ill.u.s.trate his own teaching by Old Testament history; but the writer of the Epistle clearly explains his meaning in the first and second verses of his letter, when he says: "G.o.d having spoken to the fathers in time past in the prophets, at the end of these days spake unto us in His Son." Dr. Lightfoot also urges that Philo applies the term "oracle" ([Greek: logion]) to the _narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15, &c. The fact is, however, that Philo considered almost every part of the Old Testament as allegorical, and held that narrative or descriptive phrases veiled Divine oracles. When he applies the term "oracle" to any of these it is not to the narrative, but to the Divine utterance which he believes to be mystically contained in it, and which he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagant manner of Alexandrian typologists. Dr. Lightfoot does not refer to the expression of 1 Pet. iv. 11, "Let him speak as the oracles of G.o.d"

([Greek: hos logia Theou]), which shows the use of the word in the New Testament. He does point out the pa.s.sage in the "Epistle of Clement of Rome," than which, in my opinion, nothing could more directly tell against him. "Ye know well the sacred Scriptures and have studied the oracles of G.o.d." The "oracles of G.o.d" are pointedly distinguished from the sacred Scriptures, of which they form a part. These oracles are contained in the "sacred Scriptures," but are not synonymous with the whole of them. Dr. Lightfoot admits that we cannot say how much "Polycarp" included in the expression: "pervert the oracles of the Lord," but I maintain that it must be referred to the teaching of Jesus regarding "a resurrection and a judgment," and not to historical books.

In replying to Dr. Lightfoot's chapter on the Silence of Eusebius, I have said all that is necessary regarding the other Gospels in connection with Papias. Papias is the most interesting witness we have concerning the composition of the Gospels. He has not told us much, but he has told us more than any previous writer. Dr. Lightfoot has not scrupled to discredit his own witness, however, and he is quite right in suggesting that no great reliance can be placed upon his testimony. It comes to this: We cannot rely upon the correctness of the meagre account of the Gospels supposed to have been written by Mark and Matthew, and we have no other upon which to fall back. Regarding the other two Gospels, we have no information whatever from Papias, whether correct or incorrect, and altogether this Father does little or nothing towards establis.h.i.+ng the credibility of miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation.

V.

_MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--POLYCRATES._

Throughout the whole of these essays, Dr. Lightfoot has shown the most complete misapprehension of the purpose for which the examination of the evidence regarding the Gospels in early writings was undertaken in _Supernatural Religion_, and consequently he naturally misunderstands and misrepresents its argument from first to last. This becomes increasingly evident when we come to writers, whom he fancifully denominates: "the later school of St. John." He evidently considers that he is producing a very destructive effect, when he demonstrates from the writings, genuine or spurious, of such men as Melito of Sardis, Claudius Apollinaris and Polycrates of Ephesus, or from much more than suspected doc.u.ments like the Martyrdom of Polycarp, that towards the last quarter of the second century they were acquainted with the doctrines of Christianity and, as he infers, derived them from our four Gospels. He really seems incapable of discriminating between a denial that there is clear and palpable evidence of the existence and authors.h.i.+p of these particular Gospels, and denial that they actually existed at all. I do not suppose that there is any critic, past or present, who doubts that our four Gospels had been composed and were in wide circulation during this period of the second century. It is a very different matter to examine what absolute testimony there is regarding the origin, authenticity, and trustworthiness of these doc.u.ments, as records of miracles and witnesses for the reality of Divine Revelation.

I cannot accuse myself of having misled Dr. Lightfoot on this point by any obscurity in the statement of my object, but, as he and other apologists have carefully ignored it, and systematically warped my argument, either by accident or design, I venture to quote a few sentences from _Supernatural Religion_, both to justify myself and to restore the discussion to its proper lines.

In winding up the first part of the work, which was princ.i.p.ally concerned with the antecedent credibility of miracles, I said:--

"Now it is apparent that the evidence for miracles requires to embrace two distinct points: the reality of the alleged facts, and the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced by supernatural agency ... In order, however, to render our conclusion complete, it remains for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be any special evidence regarding the alleged facts ent.i.tling the Gospel miracles to exceptional attention. If, instead of being clear, direct, the undoubted testimony of known eye-witnesses free from superst.i.tion and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly to estimate the alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts have none of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation will be easy and conclusive." [130:1]

Before commencing the examination of the evidence for the Gospels, I was careful to state the principles upon which I considered it right to proceed. I said:

"Before commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date, authors.h.i.+p, and character of the Gospels, it may be well to make a few preliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons of criticism. We shall make no attempt to establish any theory as to the date at which any of the Gospels was actually written, but simply examine all the testimony which is extant, with the view of ascertaining _what is known of these works and their authors, certainly and distinctly, as distinguished from what is merely conjectured or inferred_ ... We propose, therefore, as exhaustively as possible, to search all the writings of the early Church for information regarding the Gospels, and to examine even the alleged indications of their use ... It is still more important that we should constantly bear in mind that a great number of Gospels existed in the early Church which are no longer extant, and of most of which even the names are lost. We need not here do more than refer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement of the author of the third Gospel: 'Forasmuch as many ([Greek: polloi]) took in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the things which have been accomplish among us,' &c. It is, therefore, evident that before our third synoptic was written many similar works were already in circulation. Looking at the close similarity of large portions of the three synoptics, it is almost certain that many of the writings here mentioned bore a close a.n.a.logy to each other and to our Gospels, and this is known to have been the case, for instance, amongst the various forms of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews.' When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with quotations closely resembling, or, we may add, even identical, with pa.s.sages which are found in our Gospels, the source of which, however, is not mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated, _the similarity or even ident.i.ty cannot by any means be admitted as proof that the quotation is necessarily from our Gospels, and not from some other similar work now no longer extant_, and more especially not when, in the same writings, there are other quotations from sources different from our Gospels.... But whilst similarity to our Gospels in pa.s.sages quoted by early writers from unnamed sources cannot _prove_ the use of our Gospels, variation from them would suggest or prove a different origin, _and at least it is obvious that anonymous quotations which do not agree with our Gospels cannot in any case necessarily indicate their existence_ ... It is unnecessary to add that, in proportion as we remove from Apostolic times without positive evidence of the existence and authenticity of our Gospels, so does the value of their testimony dwindle away.

Indeed, requiring, as we do, clear, direct and irrefragable evidence of the integrity, authenticity, and historical character of these Gospels, doubt or obscurity on these points must inevitably be fatal to them as sufficient testimony--if they could, under any circ.u.mstances, be considered sufficient testimony--for miracles and a direct Divine Revelation like ecclesiastical Christianity."

[132:1]

Dr. Lightfoot must have been aware of these statements, since he has made the paragraph on the silence of ancient writers the basis of his essay on the silence of Eusebius, and has been so particular in calling attention to any alteration I have made in my text; and it might have been better if, instead of cheap sneers on every occasion in which these canons have been applied, he had once for all stated any reasons which he can bring forward against the canons themselves. The course he has adopted, I can well understand, is more convenient for him and, after all, with many it is quite as effective.

It may be well that I should here again ill.u.s.trate the necessity for such canons of criticism as I have indicated above, and which can be done very simply from our own Gospels:

"Not only the language but the order of a quotation must have its due weight, and we have no right to dismember a pa.s.sage and, discovering fragmentary parallels in various parts of the Gospels, to a.s.sert that it is compiled from them and not derived, as it stands, from another source. As an ill.u.s.tration, let us for a moment suppose the 'Gospel according to Luke' to have been lost, like the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' and so many others. In the works of one of the Fathers we discover the following quotation from an unnamed evangelical work: 'And he said unto them ([Greek: elegen de pros autous]): 'The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he would send forth labourers into his harvest. Go your ways ([Greek: hupagete]): behold, I send you forth as lambs ([Greek: arnas]) in the midst of wolves.' Following the system adopted in regard to Justin and others, apologetic critics would of course maintain that this was a compilation from memory of pa.s.sages quoted from our first Gospel--that is to say, Matt ix, 37: 'Then saith he unto his disciples ([Greek: tote legei tois mathetais autou]), The harvest,'

&c.; and Matt. x. 16: 'Behold, I ([Greek: ego]) send you forth as sheep' ([Greek: probata]) in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore,'

&c., which, with the differences which we have indicated, agree. It would probably be in vain to argue that the quotation indicated a continuous order, and the variations combined to confirm the probability of a different source, and still more so to point out that, although parts of the quotation, separated from their context, might, to a certain extent, correspond with scattered verses in the first Gospel, such a circ.u.mstance was no proof that the quotation was taken from that and from no other Gospel. The pa.s.sage, however, is a literal quotation from Luke x. 2-3, which, as we have a.s.sumed, had been lost.

"Again, still supposing the third Gospel no longer extant, we might find the following quotation in a work of the Fathers: 'Take heed to yourselves ([Greek: eautois]) of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy ([Greek: hetis estin hupocrisis]). For there is nothing covered up ([Greek: sunkekalummenon]) which shall not be revealed, and hid, which shall not be known.' It would, of course, be affirmed that this was evidently a combination of two verses of our first Gospel quoted almost literally, with merely a few very immaterial slips of memory in the parts we note, and the explanatory words, 'which is hypocrisy,' introduced by the Father, and not a part of the quotation at all. The two verses are Matt. xvi. 6, 'Beware and take heed ([Greek: hopate kai]) of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees ([Greek: kai Saddoukaion]), and Matt. x. 26, '... for ([Greek: gar]) there is nothing covered ([Greek: kekalummenon]) that shall not be revealed, and hid, that shall not be known.' The sentence would, in fact, be divided as in the case of Justin, and each part would have its parallel pointed out in separate portions of the Gospel. How wrong such a system is--and it is precisely that which is adopted with regard to Justin--is clearly established by the fact that the quotation, instead of being such a combination, is simply taken as it stands from the 'Gospel according to Luke,' xii. 1-2." [133:1]

"If we examine further, however, in the same way, quotations which differ merely in language, we arrive at the very same conclusion.

Supposing the third Gospel to be lost, what would be the source a.s.signed to the following quotation from an unnamed Gospel in the work of one of the Fathers? 'No servant ([Greek: oudeis oiketes]) can serve two lords, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve G.o.d and Mammon.' Of course the pa.s.sage would be claimed as a quotation from memory of Matt. vi. 24, with which it perfectly corresponds, with the exception of the addition of the second word, [Greek: oiketes], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an evident and very natural amplification of the simple [Greek: oudeis] of the first Gospel. Yet this pa.s.sage, only differing by the single word from Matthew, is a literal quotation from the Gospel according to Luke xvi. 13. Or, to take another instance, supposing the third Gospel to be lost, and the following pa.s.sage quoted, from an unnamed source, by one of the Fathers: 'Beware ([Greek: prosechete]) of the Scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love ([Greek: philounton]) greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts; which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater d.a.m.nation.' This would, without hesitation, be declared a quotation from memory of Mark xii. 38-40, from which it only differs in a couple of words. It is, however, a literal quotation of Luke xx.

46-47, yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic critics that possibly, not to say probably, the pa.s.sage was not derived from Mark, but from a lost Gospel. To quote one more instance, let us suppose the 'Gospel according to Mark' no longer extant, and that in some early work there existed the following pa.s.sage: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye ([Greek: trumalias]) of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of G.o.d.' This of course would be claimed as a quotation from memory of Matt. xix. 24, with which it agrees with the exception of the subst.i.tution of [Greek: trupematos] for [Greek: trumalias]. It would not the less have been an exact quotation from Mark x. 25."

[134:1]

Ill.u.s.trations of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied, and to anyone who has studied the three synoptics, with their similarities and variations, and considered the probable mode of their compilation, it must be apparent that, with the knowledge that very many other Gospels existed (Luke i. 1), which can only very slowly have disappeared from circulation, it is impossible for anyone with a due appreciation of the laws of evidence to a.s.sert that the use of short pa.s.sages similar to others in our Gospels actually proves that they must have been derived from these alone, and cannot have emanated from any other source. It is not necessary to deny that they may equally have come from the Gospels, but the inevitable decision of a judicial mind, seriously measuring evidence, must be that they do not absolutely prove anything.

Coming now more directly to the essay on "The later school of St. John,"

it is curious to find Dr. Lightfoot setting in the very foreground the account of Polycarp's martyrdom, without a single word regarding the more than suspicious character of the doc.u.ment, except the remark in a note that "the objections which have been urged against this narrative are not serious." [135:1] They have been considered so by men like Keim, Schurer, Lipsius, and Holtzmann. The account has too much need to be propped up itself to be of much use as a prop for the Gospels.

Dr. Lightfoot points out that an "idea of literal conformity to the life and Pa.s.sion of Christ runs through the doc.u.ment," [135:2] and it is chiefly on the fact that "most of the incidents have their counterparts in the circ.u.mstances of the Pa.s.sion, as recorded by the synoptic evangelists alone or in common with St. John," that he relies, in referring to the martyrdom. I need scarcely reply that not only, on account of the very doubtful character of the doc.u.ment, is it useless to us as evidence, but because it does not name a single Gospel, much less add anything to our knowledge of their authors.h.i.+p and trustworthiness. I shall have more to say regarding Dr. Lightfoot in connection with this doc.u.ment further on.

The same remark applies to Melito of Sardis. I have fully discussed [135:3] the evidence which he is supposed to contribute, and it is unnecessary for me to enter into it at any length here, more especially as Dr. Lightfoot does not advance any new argument. He has said nothing which materially alters the doubtful position of many of the fragments attributed to this Father. In any case the use which Dr. Lightfoot chiefly makes of him as a witness is to show that Melito exhibits full knowledge of the details of evangelical history as contained in the four canonical Gospels. Waiving all discussion of the authenticity of the fragments, and accepting, for the sake of argument, the a.s.serted acquaintance with evangelical history which they display, I simply enquire what this proves? Does anyone doubt that Melito of Sardis, in the last third of the second century, must have been thoroughly versed in Gospel history, or deny that he might have possessed our four Gospels? The only thing which is lacking is actual proof of the fact. Melito does not refer to a single Gospel by name. He does not add one word or one fact to our knowledge of the Gospels or their composers. He does not, indeed, mention any writing of the New Testament.

If his words regarding the "Books of the Old Testament" imply "a corresponding Christian literature which he regarded as the books of the New Testament," [136:1] which I deny, what is gained? Even in that case "we cannot," as Dr. Lardner frankly states, "infer the names or the exact number of those books." As for adding anything to the credibility of miracles, such an idea is not even broached by Dr. Lightfoot, and yet if he cannot do this the only purpose for which his testimony is examined is gone. The elaborate display of vehemence in discussing the authenticity of fragments of his writings merely distracts the attention of the reader from the true issue if, when to his own satisfaction, Dr. Lightfoot cannot turn the evidence of Melito to greater account. [136:2]

Nor is he much more fortunate in the case of Claudius Apollinaris, [137:1] whose "Apology" may be dated about A.D. 177-180. In an extract preserved in the _Paschal Chronicle_, regarding the genuineness of which all discussion may, for the sake of argument, be waived here, the writer in connection with the Paschal Festival says that "they affirm that Matthew represents" one thing "and, on their showing, the Gospels seem to be at variance with one another." [137:2] If, therefore, the pa.s.sage be genuine, the writer seems to refer to the first synoptic, and by inference to the fourth Gospel. He says nothing of the composition of these works, and he does nothing more than merely show that they were accepted in his time. This may seem a good deal when we consider how very few of his contemporaries do as much, but it really contributes nothing to our knowledge of the authors, and does not add a jot to their credibility as witnesses for miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation.

With regard to Polycrates of Ephesus I need say very little. Eusebius preserves a pa.s.sage from a letter which he wrote "in the closing years of the second century," [137:3] when Victor of Rome attempted to force the Western usage with respect to Easter on the Asiatic Christians. In this he uses the expression "he that leaned on the bosom of the Lord,"

which occurs in the fourth Gospel. Nothing could more forcibly show the meagreness of our information regarding the Gospels than that such a phrase is considered of value as evidence for one of them. In fact the slightness of our knowledge of these works is perfectly astounding when the importance which is attached to them is taken into account.

VI.

_THE CHURCHES OF GAUL._

A severe persecution broke out in the year A.D. 177, under Marcus Aurelius, in the cities of Vienne and Lyons, on the Rhone, and an account of the martyrdoms which then took place was given in a letter from the persecuted communities, addressed "to the brethren that are in Asia and Phrygia." This epistle is in great part preserved to us by Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 1), and it is to a consideration of its contents that Dr. Lightfoot devotes his essay on the Churches of Gaul. But for the sake of ascertaining clearly what evidence actually exists of the Gospels, it would have been of little utility to extend the enquiry in _Supernatural Religion_ to this doc.u.ment, written nearly a century and a half after the death of Jesus, but it is instructive to show how exceedingly slight is the information we possess regarding those doc.u.ments. I may at once say that no writing of the New Testament is directly referred to by name in this epistle, and consequently any supposed quotations are merely inferred to be such by their similarity to pa.s.sages found in these writings. With the complete unconsciousness which I have pointed out that Dr. Lightfoot affects regarding the object and requirements of my argument, Dr. Lightfoot is, of course, indignant that I will not accept as conclusive evidence the imperfect coincidences which alone he is able to bring forward. I have elsewhere fully discussed these, [140:1] and I need only refer to some portions of his essay here.

"Of Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told that, though young; he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias ([Greek: sunexisousthai te tou presbuterou Zacharious marturia]), for verily ([Greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless_.' Here we have the same words, and in the same order, which are used of Zacharias and Elizabeth in St. Luke (i. 6): 'and Zacharias, his father, was filled with the Holy Ghost.'" [140:2]

Dr. Lightfoot very properly dwells on the meaning of the expression "the testimony of Zacharias" ([Greek: te Zachariou marturia]), which he points out "might signify either 'the testimony borne to Zacharias,'

_i.e._ his recorded character, or 'the testimony borne by Zacharias,'

_i.e._ his martyrdom." By a vexatious mistake in reprinting, "to" was accidentally subst.i.tuted for "by" in my translation of this pa.s.sage in a very few of the earlier copies of my sixth edition, but the error was almost immediately observed and corrected in the rest of the edition.

Dr. Lightfoot seizes upon the "to" in the early copy which I had sent to him, and argues upon it as a deliberate adoption of the interpretation, whilst he takes me to task for actually arguing upon the rendering "by" in my text. Very naturally a printer's error could not extend to my argument. The following is what I say regarding the pa.s.sage in my complete edition:

"The epistle is an account of the persecution of the Christian community of Vienne and Lyons, and Vettius Epagathus is the first of the martyrs who is named in it: [Greek: marturia] was at that time the term used to express the supreme testimony of Christians-- martyrdom--and the epistle seems here simply to refer to the martyrdom, the honour of which he shared with Zacharias. It is, we think, highly improbable that, under such circ.u.mstances, the word [Greek: marturia] would have been used to express a mere description of the character of Zacharias given by some other writer."

This is the interpretation which is adopted by Tischendorf, Hilgenfeld, and many eminent critics.

It will be observed that the saying that he had "walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless," which is supposed to be taken from Luke i. 6, is there applied to Zacharias and Elizabeth, the father and mother of John the Baptist, but the Gospel does not say anything of this Zacharias having suffered martyrdom. The allusion in Luke xi. 51 (Matt. xxiii. 35) is almost universally admitted to be to another Zacharias, whose martyrdom is related in 2 Chron. xxiv. 21.

"Since the epistle, therefore, refers to the martyrdom of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, when using the expressions which are supposed to be taken from our third synoptic, is it not reasonable to suppose that those expressions were derived from some work which likewise contained an account of his death, which is not found in the synoptic? When we examine the matter more closely we find that, although none of the canonical gospels except the third gives any narrative of the birth of John the Baptist, that portion of the Gospel in which are the words we are discussing cannot be considered an original production by the third Synoptist, but, like the rest of his work, is merely a composition based upon earlier written narratives. Ewald, for instance, a.s.signs the whole of the first chapters of Luke (i. 5-ii. 40) to what he terms 'the eighth recognisable book.'" [141:1]

No apologetic critic pretends that the author of the third Gospel can have written this account from his own knowledge or observation. Where, then, did he get his information? Surely not from oral tradition limited to himself. The whole character of the narrative, even apart from the prologue to the Gospel, and the composition of the rest of the work, would lead us to infer a written source.

"The fact that other works existed at an earlier period in which the history of Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, was given, and in which not only the words used in the epistle were found, but also the martyrdom, is in the highest degree probable, and, so far as the history is concerned, this is placed almost beyond doubt by the 'Protevangelium Jacobi,' which contains it. Tischendorf, who does not make use of this epistle at all as evidence for the Scriptures of the New Testament, does refer to it, and to this very allusion in it to the martyrdom of Zacharias, as testimony to the existence and use of the 'Protevangelium Jacobi,' a work whose origin he dates so far back as the first three decades of the second century, and which he considers was also used by Justin, as Hilgenfeld had already observed. Tischendorf and Hilgenfeld, therefore, agree in affirming that the reference to Zacharias which we have quoted indicates acquaintance with a Gospel different from our third synoptic."

[142:1]

Such being the state of the case, I would ask any impartial reader whether there is any evidence here that these few words, introduced without the slightest indication of the source from which they were derived, must have been quoted from our third Gospel, and cannot have been taken from some one of the numerous evangelical works in circulation before that Gospel was written. The reply of everyone accustomed to weigh evidence must be that the words cannot even prove the existence of our synoptic at the time the letter was written.

"But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the third Gospel in this way" (proceeds Dr. Lightfoot), "what will he say to those with the Acts? In this same letter of the Gallican Churches we are told that the sufferers prayed for their persecutors 'like Stephen, the perfect martyr, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.'" Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them another Acts, containing words identical with our Acts, just as he supposes them to have had another Gospel, containing words identical with our Third Gospel? Or, will he allow this account to have been taken from Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter case, if they had the second treatise, which bears the name of St.

Luke, in their hands, why should they not have had the first also?"