Video Lecture 20: Luke 22:43-44: Jesus in Gethsemane

 

The 20th video lecture in the series Introduction to NT Textual Criticism is accessible at YouTube and at Bitchute.  This lecture is 32 minutes long.  Here's an extract:

            Justin Martyr, who was martyred in the 160s, used this text in his composition Dialogue With Trypho, chapter 103.  Commenting on Psalm 22, verse 14, he wrote, “In the memoirs which, I say, were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying.”

             Reckoning that the Gospel of Luke was not written before the early 60s, this implies that Justin’s copy of the Gospel of Luke was separated from the autograph of the Gospel of Luke by less than a century.

            About two decades after Justin, Irenaeus wrote the Third Book of his composition Against Heresies.  In the 22^nd chapter, Irenaeus used Luke 22:44, mentioning that if Jesus had taken nothing of Mary, that is, if He had not experienced a physical human nature, he would not have eaten food harvested from the earth, He would not have become hungry, or weary, “Nor would He have sweated great drops of blood.” 

            Irenaeus’ contemporary Tatian included Luke 22:43-44 in his Diatessaron, around the year 172.  Around the year 360, as Ephrem Syrus composed his commentary on the Diatessaron, he also mentioned the detail about Jesus’ sweat becoming like drops of blood. 

            Also, in Ephrem’s Carmina Nisibena, in Hymn 35, part 18, Ephrem pictures the devil saying about Jesus, “While He was praying I saw Him and was glad, because He changed color and was afraid:  His sweat was as drops of blood, because He felt that His day had come.”

            In the early 200s, the writer Hippolytus referred to Luke 22:44, near the beginning of chapter 18 of Against Noetus.  In the course of giving examples of the contrast between Jesus’ divinity and humanity, Hippolytus wrote that “In agony He sweats blood, and is strengthened by an angel.”

            The first patristic writer to mention manuscripts that do not support Luke 22:43-44 is Hilary of Poitiers.  Around 350, in Book 10 of his Latin composition De Trinitate, in part 41, Hilary wrote, “We cannot overlook that in very many Greek and Latin codices nothing is recorded about the angel’s coming, and the sweat like blood.” 

            Despite acknowledging such manuscripts, Hilary does not offer a judgment on whether the passage has been omitted in the copies where it is absent, or interpolated in the copies in which it is found.  He seems to have been less concerned about reaching a correct verdict on the textual question and more concerned about promoting correct theology.

            He said that heretics should not be encourage by the idea that Jesus’ weakness is confirmed by the need for an angel to strengthen Him, and that His sweat should not be construed as a sign of weakness.  And like Irenaeus, he points out that the bloody sweat demonstrated the reality of Jesus’ physical body.  When he states, “We are forced to the conclusion that all this happened on our account.” He seems content to use the text.

            In 374, Epiphanius of Salamis made some very interesting statements about Luke 22:43-44.  In Panarion 19:4, he quoted these verses an example of passages that Arians use to show that Jesus sometimes needed assistance from others, or that He was inferior to the Father:  “And it says in the Gospel according to Luke, ‘There appeared an angel of the Lord strengthening Him when He was in agony, and He sweat; and His sweat was as it were drops of blood, when He went out to pray before His betrayal.” 

            It should be noticed that Epiphanius quoted verse 43 with the reading “angel of the Lord.”  

            In Panarion 61, Epiphanius used the passage again in the same way.  He used the passage for doctrinal purposes, and stated that without the display of agony and sweat pouring from His body, the Manichaeans and Marcionites might seem reasonable in their theory that Christ was an apparition, and not completely real.”  He emphasizes how Jesus’ sweat like blood showed that “His flesh was real, and not an apparition.”

            Epiphanius claims in Panarion that Arius cited this very passage from the Gospel of Luke in an attempt to demonstrate the subordination of the Son to the Father.

            So far, we could read Epiphanius’ remarks and think that the only form of the text he knew included verses 43 and 44.  But in Ancoratus, chapter 31, Epiphanius wrote that the passage “is found in the Gospel according to Luke in unrevised copies.”  Then he said, “The orthodox have removed the passage, frightened and not thinking about its significance.”  Coming from someone who seemed ready to blame heretics for bad weather, this is a remarkable statement.

            Epiphanius uses Luke 22:43-44 again in Ancoratus chapter 37 as evidence that Jesus was truly human, and that His sweat shows that He was physical.    

            Around the year 405 in Asia Minor, Macarius Magnes, in the third part of the work Apocriticus, quoted from a pagan writer, probably Hierocles, a student of Porphyry.  Hierocles lived in the late 200s and early 300s. 
            When this pagan writer objected to Jesus’ statement, “Do not fear those who kill the body,” he wrote that Jesus Himself, “being in agony,” prayed that His sufferings should pass from Him.”  The term “being in agony” here is probably a recollection of Luke 22:43, because this term is used there, but not in the parallel-passages.          

            For the testimony of Amphilochius of Iconium, who lived from about 340 to about 400, we rely on a collection of extracts in the medieval manuscript Athous Vatopedi 507, from the 1100s.  A note simply says:  “Of Amphilochius bishop of Iconium, on the Gospel of Luke:  it states there, “Being in agony, He prayed more earnestly.”

            There is some reason to wonder whether Didymus the Blind, or someone else, was the author of the Greek composition called De Trinitate that is attributed him.  Some interpretations of the author are different from interpretations expressed by Didymus in some other works.  But, theologians do sometimes change their views.  Whoever wrote De Trinitate, he made an accurate quotation of Luke  22:43 in Book 3, Part 21.

             Ambrose of Milan, in the late 300s, in his commentary on Luke, seems to use a text that did not include verses 43-44; he does not mention the appearance of an angel and he does not mention that Jesus’ sweat became like drops of blood.

            John Chrysostom is yet another patristic writer who used Luke 22:43-44.  Once he did so in a comment on Psalm 109.  And once he did so in the course of his 83^rd Homily on the Gospel of Matthew, which covers the parallel-material in Matthew 26:36-38.

            In Homily 83 on Matthew, Chrysostom does not say that he has put down the text of Matthew and has turned to the text of Luke.  But after referring to Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denials, and Peter’s insistence that he will never deny Jesus, Chrysostom transitions to the contents of Luke 22:43, stating, “And He prays with earnestness, in order that the thing might not seem to be acting.  And sweat flows over Him for the same cause again, even that the heretics might not say this, that His agony was a pretense.  Therefore there is a sweat like blood, and an angel appeared strengthening Him, and a thousand sure signs of fear.”
            After interpreting this for several sentences, Chrysostom returns to the text of Matthew 26:40.

            We will reconsider the significance of this after we have seen the testimony of the cluster of manuscripts known as family 13.

            For now, let’s go on to the next patristic reference.

            The testimony of John Cassian should not be overlooked, even though his name does not appear in the textual apparatus for Luke 22:43-44 in the UBS Greek New Testament or the Nestle-Aland compilation.  John Cassian traveled widely:  to the Holy Land, to Egypt, and to Rome, before residing in what is now France in about 415.  In his First Conference of Abbot Isaac on Prayer, also known as the Ninth Conference, in chapter 25, Cassian states that the Lord, “in an agony of prayer, even shed forth drops of blood.”

            Jerome, in Against the Pelagians, Book 2, part 16, shows that he was aware of some copies that had Luke 22:43-44, and some copies that did not.  In 383, he included this passage in the Vulgate.  Later, in Against the Pelagians, he wrote that these words – the words we know as Luke 22:43-44 – are “In some copies, Greek as well as Latin, written by Luke,” which implies that Jerome also knew of copies in which the verses were not included.

           Theodore of Mopsuestia, a contemporary of Jerome who worked mainly in Syria and Cilicia, also had Luke 22:43-44 in his Gospels-text.  In 1882, the researcher H. B. Swete published a collection of some fragments from Theodore’s works, and one of them includes a full quotation of Luke 22:43-44.

            Only slightly later comes Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who famously oversaw the withdraw of 200 copies of the Diatessaron in his churches.  In 453, Theodoret wrote Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, and in this work, after presenting Jesus’ statement in John 12:27, he says that Luke taught more clearly how Jesus was indeed suffering, when He was in agony, and he proceeds to use part of verse 44.   

            Now we come to the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria, who died in the year 444.  In Cyril of Alexandria’s Sermon 146 and Sermon 147 on the Gospel of Luke, Cyril describes the events in Gethsemane in Luke 22, but he does not mention the appearance of an angel, and he does not mention Jesus being in agony or shedding drops of sweat like blood.  

            He states, “Everywhere we find Jesus praying alone, you may also learn that we ought to talk with God over all with a quiet mind, and a heart calm and free from all disturbance.”  This is not the sort of thing one says when one is reading a text that says that Jesus is praying in agony, and sweating huge drops of blood.

            Cyril says in Sermon 147,  “Let no man of understanding say that He offered these supplications as being in need of strength or help from another – for He is Himself the Father’s almighty strength and power.”  Cyril does not come out and say that he rejects the idea that an angel appeared and strengthened Jesus, but he comes very close to doing so.

            Severus of Antioch, in the first half of the 500s, supplies some additional information about the text used by Cyril.  In an extract from the third letter of the sixth book that he wrote to “the glorious Caesaria,” Severus stated the following:

            “Regarding the passage about the sweat and the drops of blood, know that in the divine and evangelical Scriptures that are at Alexandria, it is not written.  Wherefore also the holy Cyril, in the twelfth book written by him on behalf of Christianity against the impious demon-worshipper Julian, plainly stated the following: 

            “‘But, since he said that the divine Luke inserted among his own words the statement that an angel stood and strengthened Jesus, and his sweat dripped like blood-drops or blood, let him learn from us that we have found nothing of this kind inserted in Luke’s work, unless perhaps an interpolation has been made from outside which is not genuine. 

            The books therefore that are among us contain nothing whatever of this kind.  And so I consider it madness for us to say anything to him about these things.  And it is a superfluous thing to oppose him regarding things that are not stated at all, and we shall be very justly condemned to be laughed at.’”

            Then Severus says:  “In the books therefore that are at Antioch and in other countries, it is written, and some of the fathers mention it.”  He names “Gregory the Theologian” and John Chrysostom as two examples.  Then he says that he himself used this text, “in the sixty-fourth homily.”

            In this way, Severus drew his reader’s attention to Emperor Julian’s use of the passage in the mid-300s, and to Cyril of Alexandria’s rejection of the passage in the early 400s, and to the acceptance of the passage in Antioch, and by Gregory of Nazianzus, by John Chrysostom, and by Severus himself. 

            Severus’ testimony is particularly significant because he specifies that the copies in Alexandria lacked the passage.    

            Later, in the 600’s, a writer named Athanasius, Abbot of Sinai, is credited with yet another text-critically relevant statement about Luke 22:43-44.  Amy Donaldson, in her 2009 dissertation, Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers,  included his statement: 

            “Be aware that some attempted to delete the drops of blood, the sweat of Christ, from the Gospel of Luke and were not able.  For those copies that lack the section are disproved by many and various gospels that have it; for in all the gospels of the nations it remains, and in most of the Greek.”

            There is also a marginal note, preserved in minuscule 34, that states that “the report about the sweat-drops is not in some copies, but Dionysius the Areopagite, Gennadius of Constantinople, Epiphanius of Cyprus, and other holy fathers testify to it being in the text.” 

            We could examine more patristic support for Luke 22:43-44, from Augustine and Nestorius, for example.  But let’s go back to the evidence from Chrysostom. 

            Why, in Homily 83 on Matthew, does he take a detour to comment on Luke 22:43-44?  It cannot be absolutely ruled out that he just wanted to cover a parallel-passage.  But another possibility is that by the time John Chrysostom wrote Homily 83 on Matthew, it was already customary that when the lector read the Gospels-reading for the Thursday of Holy Week, after reading Matthew 26:39, he also read Luke 22:43-44.

            John’s brief detour into Luke 22 interlocks very snugly with this custom.  In addition, in Codex C, a secondary hand has written the text of Luke 22:43-44 in the margin near Matthew 26:39. 

            This brings us to the evidence from the cluster of manuscripts known as family 13.  In most members of family-13, Luke 22:43-44 appears in Luke, either in the text or margin after Luke 22:42.  Most of the members of family 13 also have these two verses embedded in the text of Matthew after 26:39. 
            The evidence from minuscule 1689, a member of family 13, is very helpful.  This manuscript was lost for several years, but has been found safe and sound in the city of Prague.  It has Luke 22:43-44 in the text of Luke, and alongside Matthew 26:39, there is a margin-note instructing the lector to jump to Section 283 in the Gospel of Luke – that is, to jump to Luke 22:43-44.

            Many other manuscripts have similar notes in the margin at this point, as part of the lectionary apparatus.
            It does not require a long leap to deduce what has happened in family 13:  instead of resorting exclusively to margin-notes to instruct the lector to jump from Matthew 26:39 to Luke 22:43-44 and then return to Matthew 26:40, someone whose work influenced members of family 13 simplified things for the lector, by combining the parts of the lection in order within the text of Matthew. 

             Some commentaries have misrepresented this as if it implies that the passage is not genuine.  But the evidence in family 13 just shows that a passage that was regarded as part of the text of Luke was embedded into the text of Matthew after 26:39 for liturgical purposes.

            On a related point:  when Luke 22:43-44 is accompanied by one or more asterisks, such as in minuscule 1216, the default deduction should not be that the purpose of the asterisks was to express scribal doubt, but to serve as part of the lectionary apparatus, drawing attention to the two verses that were to be read after Matthew 26:39 in the lection for Maundy Thursday. 

            So:  was Luke 22:43-44 initially present, or initially absent?  The passage is supported by a broad array of manuscripts, plus the manuscripts of over 20 patristic writers, and a couple of non-Christian writers.  Four patristic writers – Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Athanasius of Sinai – show that they were aware that verses 43-44 were not supported in all copies, but nevertheless they favored the inclusion of the verses.        Epiphanius even said that orthodox individuals had attempted to remove the passage.

            One Latin writer – Ambrose of Milan – did not have verses 43 and 44 in his text of Luke 22. 

            And one Greek writer, Cyril of Alexandria, from the 400s, definitely did not have verses 43-44 in his text.

            The most ancient evidence, from Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus, includes the passage.  The most geographically diverse support points in the same direction.  And support for these verses does not come only from authors with only one doctrinal view.

            Plus, internally, nothing in the surrounding material calls for the insertion of additional material.  Bart Ehrman has proposed that verses 43-44 do not look like something Luke would write, on the grounds that Luke had an interest in portraying Jesus as “imperturbable.”  However, Luke reports about several actions of Jesus in which His disposition is far from stoical or disinterested, including His criticism of the synagogue-ruler in chapter 13, and His weeping over the city of Jerusalem in chapter 19.  There is no substantial case based on internal evidence for the idea that verses 43-44 could not originate with Luke.

            When we look at the external evidence that supports Luke 22:43-44, the question should not be “Did someone remove these verses from the text of Luke,” but “Why did someone remove these verses from the text of Luke?”

            It is virtually unique to see a Christian writer assert that “the orthodox” tampered with the Gospels-text, and to imply that some orthodox believers revised the text in a way that was influenced by their fear.

            In the 100s, the second-century writer Celsus, in a statement preserved by Origen, claimed that some believers “alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism.”

            There’s no way to tell if Celsus saw what he says he saw, but it can’t be ruled out that he did indeed notice Christians making changes to the Gospels-text, and that because some of those changes appeared to him to relieve perceived difficulties in the text, he naturally believed that this was the motivation for the changes.

            However, he might have seen, and misunderstood, something else:  textual adjustments that were not made to minimize interpretive difficulties, but to render the text easier to use when it was read in church-services.

            One of those adjustments may have involved a liturgical feature pointed out by John Burgon in The Revision Revised.   Here I slightly paraphrase his observations: 

            “In every known Greek Gospels lectionary, verses 43-44 of Luke 22 follow Matthew 26:39 in the reading for Maundy Thursday.  In the same lectionaries, these verses are omitted from the reading for the Tuesday after Sexagesima – the Tuesday of the Cheese-eaters, as the those in the East call that day, when Luke 22:39-23:1 used to be read.

            Furthermore, in all ancient copies of the Gospels which have been accommodated to ecclesiastical use, the reader of Luke 22 is invariably directed by a marginal note to skip over these two verses, and to proceed from verse 42 to verse 45.

            What is more obvious, therefore, than that the removal of verses 43 and 44 from their proper place is explained as a side-effect of a lection-cycle of the early church?

            Many manuscripts have been discovered since the time of Burgon, but in general, what he describes is accurate:  Luke 22:43-44 is embedded after Matthew 26:39 in the lection for Maundy Thursday, and it is left out of the lection assigned to the Tuesday after Sexagesima Sunday. 

            The customary transfer of Luke 22:43-44 into the text of Matthew, when the text was read during Easter-week, may explain the sudden detour that Chrysostom took into this passage in the course of his Homily 83.

            A scenario that explains the most evidence in the fewest steps is that when an attempt was made to revise the text for liturgical reading, one group of liturgical revisors took verses 43 and 44 out of Luke 22, but failed to re-insert them into Matthew 26.  As soon as these verses dropped out of the text, the shorter reading was defended along the same lines that we see Cyril of Alexandria use to defend it.

            We do not have hard evidence of this particular liturgical step of revision being undertaken in the second century, but the elegance of Burgon’s explanation is a strong factor in its favor.  Plus, this theory accounts for the correspondence between this particular feature in the Easter-time lections, and the very similar contrast between forms of the text with and without the passage.

            So:  I conclude that Luke 22:43-44 was an original part of the Gospel of Luke. 

             I also conclude that its removal, in the second century, was probably not the result of some copyist’s desire to get rid of what he considered a problematic passage; nor was it the result of a heretic’s desire to remove a text that demonstrated the physicality of Jesus’ body.  Instead, it occurred when orthodox believers transferred verses 43 and 44 into Matthew, after 26:39, conforming to their Easter-time custom, but failed to retain it in Luke, again reflecting their early Eastertime liturgy.  As a result, these two verses fell out of the text. 

            This influenced texts known to Hilary, to Ambrose, and especially  Cyril of Alexandria.  It affected the text that was translated into Sahidic, and the Greek text that was translated into Armenian, and the Armenian text that was translated into Georgian.  But as Athanasius the Abbot of Sinai stated, although some attempted to delete the drops of blood from the Gospel of Luke, the legitimacy of the passage is shown by the “many and various Gospels-manuscripts in which the passage is read.”

            Luke 22:43-44 should therefore be respected and cherished for what it is:  part of the Word of God.

 

Hort's Lecture on Justin and Irenaeus

 

Fenton John Anthony Hort

           In 1890, Fenton John Anthony Hort (half of the Westcott-Hort duo) delivered a series of six lectures on ante-Nicene fathers.  They were published in 1895, a few years after his death.  What follows here, with slight adjustments, is the third lecture in the series.

LECTURE III:  JUSTIN AND IRENAEUS

            Last week we finished those of the Fathers who are called Apostolic Fathers. We considered two of them who were also martyrs, though at a long interval of time, one a Bishop

of Antioch who was conducted through Asia Minor to perish by the fangs of wild beasts at Rome, the other a Bishop of Smyrna who welcomed him on his way to death, collected his letters and wrote about him at the time, journeyed himself in extreme old age from Asia Minor to Rome to confer about difference of Church usages, came peacefully home, and then before long was himself called to perish at the stake in his own Smyrna because he too would not deny his Lord.

            We come today to a third martyr, one who conventionally bears the title of martyr almost as if it were part of his name. Justin was born at Mavia Neapolis close to Sychem in Samaria, but, it would seem, of heathen parentage. His Dialogue, to which we shall come presently, is represented as having had its scene laid at Ephesus. Eventually Justin would seem to have been much at Rome, at that time a special place of resort for those who took an active part in religious movements: and there he suffered martyrdom.

            The genuine works of his which have come down to us in their original form are at most three in number, without counting a little treatise against heresies, lost in its original form, but apparently in great part copied by Irenaeus.  Several others bear his name in manuscripts, but are certainly by other authors of various ages, some quite late. Early in the fourth century his name was attached to a partially different list of writings, the genuineness of which we have no means of testing. But the books of his which we do possess are so valuable from several points of view that we have every reason to be satisfied. They are two Apologies, as they are called, defending Christians against heathen misrepresentations and heathen persecutions; and a Dialogue with a Jew named Trypho in which the faith of Christians is vindicated against Judaism. It is hardly necessary to say that Justin’s Apologies have nothing whatever to do with courteous excuses, i.e. with the modern English sense of the word ‘apology.’  It is simply the common Greek word to denote any kind of defense against any kind of accusation, in a court of justice or anywhere else. Justin’s Apologies were not quite the earliest of which we have any knowledge; but, so far as we do know, their predecessors were of less permanent value.

            Justin’s first and longest Apology is addressed to the Roman Emperor, i.e. Antoninus Pius, and his two adopted sons, one of them the philosopher Marcus Aurelius, to the Sacred Senate and all the people of the Romans. The time is two or three years before the middle of the second century. Justin writes, he says, on behalf of them who out of every race of mankind are the subjects of unjust hate and contumely, being himself one of them.  He begins by appealing to the names Pious and Philosopher borne by the rulers. “Reason,” he says, “instructs those who are truly Pious and Philosophers to honor and cherish that only which is true, refusing to follow mere opinions of the ancients if they are bad ones ; for sober reason instructs us not only not to follow those actions or decisions which have been unjust, but the lover of truth is bound in every way, and with disregard of his own life, to choose to say and do such things as are just, though he be threatened with death for so doing.”  He protests against condemnation of Christians for the mere name, without anything evil being proved against them.  He repudiates the vulgar imputation of atheism, pointing out how the same charge had been brought against Socrates, and had caused his death.  That crime he attributes to the inspiration of the demons, whom he identifies with the gods of the heathen, and whom he represents as similarly inspiring the attacks upon Christians.  As regards such gods as these, he confesses atheism, but not as regards the most true God, the Father of right, and temperance and the other virtues, Himself free from all mixture of evil; and His Son and the prophetic Spirit.  As regards the lives of Christians, he courts the fullest enquiry, demanding that any found guilty of misconduct be duly punished, but for his crimes, not for being a Christian.  Then follow several chapters on the true service of God, on the Divine kingdom for which Christians look, and on their living as ever in God’s sight; and this is followed by free quotation from the Sermon on the Mount, and other similar passages from Gospel records; and by reference to Christ’s own authority for the faithful loyalty which Christians practiced towards the emperors. But it would take far too long to give even a slight sketch of the contents of the Apology. At every step we find attempts to trace analogies between Christian beliefs on the one hand and Greek philosophy or Greek mythology on the other.  This was no mere diplomatic ad hominem accommodation, but connected with Justin’s own deepest convictions.

            The doctrine of the Divine Word or logos received from Scripture he connected with the Stoic doctrine of the Word or Reason (logos) a seed of which is inborn in all men; and thus he was enabled to recognize the workings of God in the ages before the Word became Incarnate. He also appeals largely to the testimony of the Jewish prophets; but on this subject he is hampered by his habit of looking chiefly to supposed literal fulfillments of verbal predictions and by a want of perception of the true nature of prophecy. The last few chapters contain a valuable account of baptism as then practiced (i.e. adult baptism, for nothing is said of infant baptism), and then of the conducting of the newly-baptized person to the assembly of “the brethren,” followed by the offering up of prayers for him and “for all others everywhere,” and by the joining of all in the feast of thanksgiving or Eucharist, of which he gives a further explanation.  “And we from that time forward,” he proceeds, “always have each other in remembrance ; and we that are wealthy give help to all that are in need, and we are in company with each other always. And for all that we partake of we bless the Maker of all things through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.”  Last he describes the Sunday service including the Eucharist, and the distribution of the offerings among orphans and widows, the sick and the needy, prisoners and sojourners from other lands.

            The second or Shorter Apology is probably a sort of Appendix to the first.  It begins with a complaint how Urbicus the city prefect (or mayor, as we should say) had condemned three Christians in succession to death, without any crime on their part.  Justin declares that he too is expecting a similar fate, perhaps by the false accusations of the Cynic Crescens who went about declaiming against the Christians.  In what follows Justin speaks still more explicitly than before of the seed of the Word which had been implanted in the wiser and better heathen, causing them to be persecuted, not Socrates only but Musonius and other Stoics: but they all differed, he explains, from Christ, because what with them was in part only was with Him complete and whole.  “Whatsoever things therefore,” he says, “have been said well in any men’s words belong to us Christians; for we worship and love next to God the Word who Cometh forth from the unborn and unutterable God, since for our sakes also He hath become man, that becoming also a partaker of the things that affect us He might also accomplish for us a cure.  For all those writers were able to see but dimly, through the seed of the Word inborn in them, the things that are.  For a seed of a thing and imitation of it granted according to capacity is one thing, and quite other is that which graciously gives itself to be imparted and imitated.”

            The other work of Justin, a much larger one, is the Dialogue with Trypho:

            “While I was walking one morning in the walks of the Xystus, a certain man, with others in his company, having met me, said, ‘Hail, O philosopher!’ And immediately after saying this, he turned round and walked along with me; his friends likewise turned round with him.  And I for my part addressed him, saying, ‘Well, what is it?’ And he replied, ‘I was taught,’ says he, ‘by Corinthus the Socratic in Argos, that I ought not to despise or neglect those who wear this dress, but to show them all kindness, and to associate with them, if so be some advantage might arise from the intercourse either to some such man or to myself.  It is good, moreover, for both, if either the one or the other be benefited.  On this account, therefore, whenever I see anyone in such dress, I gladly approach him, and now, for the same reason, have I willingly accosted you; and these accompany me, in the expectation of hearing for themselves something profitable from you.’

            ‘But who are you, best of mortals?’ So I replied to him in jest.

            Then he told me simply both his name and his race. ‘Trypho,’ says he, ‘I am called; and I am a Hebrew of the circumcision, escaped from the war lately carried on there, and now spending my days in Greece, for the most part at Corinth.’

            ‘And in what’ said I, ‘would you be profited by philosophers so much as by your own lawgiver and the prophets.’

            ‘What?’ he replied.  ‘Do not the philosophers make their whole discourse on God?  And are they not continually raising questions about His unity and providence? Is not this truly the duty of philosophy, to investigate concerning the Divinity?”

            ‘Yes,’ said I, ‘so we too have supposed. But the most have not even cared about this, whether there be one or more gods, and whether they take thought for each one of us or no, as if this knowledge contributed nothing to our happiness; nay, they moreover attempt to persuade us that God takes care of the universe as a whole with its genera and species, but not of me and you, and each individually, since otherwise we would surely not need to pray to Him night and day. But it is not difficult to understand the upshot of this, for fearlessness and license in speaking result to such as maintain these opinions, doing and saying whatever they choose, neither dreading punishment nor hoping for any benefit from God.  For how could they?  They affirm that the same things shall always happen; and, further, that I and you shall again live in like manner, having become neither better men nor worse.  But there are some others, who, having supposed the soul to be immortal and immaterial, believe that though they have committed evil they will not suffer punishment (for that which is immaterial is insensible), and that the soul, in consequence of its immortality, needs nothing from God.'

            “And he, smiling gently, said, ‘Tell us your opinion of these matters, and what idea you entertain respecting God, and what your philosophy is.’

            “‘I will tell you,’ said I, ‘what seems to me, for philosophy is in fact the greatest possession, and most honorable before God, to whom it leads us and alone commends us; and these are truly holy men who have bestowed attention on philosophy. What philosophy is, however, and the reason why it has been sent down to men, have escaped the observation of most; for there would be neither Platonists, nor Stoics, nor Peripatetics, nor Theoretics, nor Pythagoreans, this knowledge being one.  I wish to tell you how it has become many-headed.  It has happened that those who first handled it [i.e. philosophy], and who were therefore esteemed illustrious men, were succeeded by those who made no investigations concerning truth, but only admired the perseverance and self-discipline of the former, as well as the novelty of the doctrines; and each thought that to be true which he learned from his teacher.  Then, moreover, those latter persons handed down to their successors such things, and others similar to them, and this system was called by the name of him who was styled the father of the doctrine.

            “Being at first desirous of personally conversing with one of these men, I surrendered myself to a certain Stoic; and having spent a considerable time with him, when I had not acquired any further knowledge of God (for he did not know himself nor did he say that this was a necessary part of teaching) I left him, and betook myself to another, who was called a Peripatetic, and as he fancied, shrewd.  And this man, after putting up with me for the first few days, requested me to fix a fee, in order that the intercourse might not be unprofitable to us. Him too for this reason I abandoned, believing him to be no philosopher at all.  But as my soul was still yearning to hear the peculiar and choice part of philosophy, I came to a Pythagorean, very celebrated – a man who thought much of his own wisdom.  And then, when I had an interview with him, willing to become his hearer and disciple, he said, ‘What then?  Are you acquainted with music, astronomy and geometry?  Do you expect to perceive any of those things which conduce to a happy life, if you have not been first informed on those points which wean the soul from sensible objects, and render it fitted for objects which appertain to the mind, so that it can contemplate that which is honorable in its essence and that which is good in its essence?’

            “Having commended many of these branches of learning, and telling me that they were necessary, he dismissed me when I confessed to him my ignorance.  Accordingly I took it rather impatiently, as was to be expected when I failed in my hope, the more so because I deemed the man had some knowledge; but reflecting again on the space of time during which I would have to linger over those branches of learning, I was not able to endure longer procrastination. In my perplexity it occurred to me to have an interview with the Platonists likewise, for their fame was great.  And so I conversed much with one who had lately settled in our city – a man of intelligence, holding a high position among the Platonists – and I made progress, and gained ever so much increase day by day. And the perception of immaterial things quite overpowered me, and the contemplation of ideas furnished my mind with wings, so that in a little while I supposed that I had become wise; and such was my stupidity, I expected forthwith to look upon God, for this is the end of Plato’s philosophy.

            “And while I was thus disposed, when I wished at one time to be filled with great quietness, and to shun the tramp of men, I used to go to a certain field not far from the sea. And when I was near that spot one day, which having reached I purposed to be by myself, a certain old man, by no means contemptible in appearance, showing a meek and grave disposition, followed me at a little distance. And when I turned round to him, having halted, I fixed my eyes rather keenly on him.” —

            Then Justin recounts how the old man, after much discourse on philosophy, and especially that of Plato and Pythagoras, guided him to the prophets and the Christ of whom they prophesied.

            “‘But pray’ he concluded ‘that before all things, the gates of light may be opened to thee; for these things are not perceptible to the eyes or mind of all, but only of the man to whom God and His Christ shall give the power to understand.’

            ‘When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding me follow them up; and I saw him no more.  But straightway

a fire was kindled in my soul, and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of

Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and expedient.  Thus, then, and for this reason, I am a philosopher.  Moreover, I would wish that all with a resolution similar to my own would never separate themselves from the words of the Savior.  For they possess an awe in themselves, and are sufficient to abash those who turn aside from the path of rectitude; while the sweetest rest comes to those who carefully practice them. If then, thou hast any care for thyself, and seek after salvation and put thy trust in God, thou may come to know the Christ of God, and become perfect, and so be happy.’

            “When I had said this, my beloved friend, those who were with Trypho laughed; but he,

smiling, says, ‘I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things, but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation.  For if you remain in that mode of philosophy, and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny were left to you; but when you have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits you?  If, then, thou art willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then keep as the law hath ordained the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law, and then perhaps thou shalt have mercy from God. But Christ – if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere – is unknown, and does not yet even recognize Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all.  But ye, accepting a vain report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for His sake arc now inconsiderately perishing.’

            “‘I excuse and forgive you, my friend,’ I said, ‘for you know not what you say, but have been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures; and you speak, like a diviner, whatever comes into your mind. But if you are willing to listen to an account of Him, how we have not been deceived, and shall not cease to confess Him – although men’s reproaches be heaped upon us, although the most terrible tyrant compel us to deny Him, – I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation, but words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with grace.” [Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, from pp. 85-97 in Rev. G. Reith’s translation (Antenicene Christian Library).]

            Some of Trypho’s companions depart with jeers, and then the dialogue begins in earnest.

It ranges over the various points of difference between Judaism and the Christian faith of that time, and large masses of the Old Testament are naturally quoted and discussed.  But we must be content with the autobiographic sketch, for such it doubtless is, which forms the introduction. Of course we must not expect that that story of passing from philosopher to philosopher is a complete account of the course of Justin’s conversion. In his second Apology he speaks strongly of the impression made on him by the virtues of the Christians while he was in his Platonist stage, and we may be sure that this impression acted powerfully on him. But the name which he commonly bore, Justin philosopher and martyr, was entirely appropriate.  He is the first prominent representative of what was to be the characteristic of many Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin, the construction of a theology out of the biblical elements of the faith in combination with this or that Gentile philosophy of the loftier sort.

            How soon Justin’s anticipations of martyrdom were fulfilled is not known with certainty.

There is fair evidence however that the interval was not long.  A short and simple narrative of his examination before the prefect still survives, and is almost certainly genuine.  He and his companions died by the headsman’s sword.

            We possess other Greek Apologies written later in the same century.  The most individual of them is by Tatian, an erratic disciple of Justin’s, the compiler of a famous Diatessaron or composite Gospel narrative formed by putting together small fragments of the four Gospels.  He was by birth a Syrian, not a Greek, and his fiery nature bursts forth in his Apology in bitter hatred and contempt for all that was Greek.  The other Apologies have a value of their own, but are far below Justin’s in force and freshness.  We must now turn to a different region from any in which we have as yet paused.  Irenaeus, one of the greatest of the Fathers, belongs to different countries, but he must always be chiefly associated with South-East France, the scene of his principal labors and episcopal authority.  There is however a prelude to his work which must not be passed over. Marseilles was a Greek colony of great antiquity, and from it the Greek language and culture spread not only along the coast but for a considerable distance up the Rhone.  How the Gospel first found its way there we do not know, but there is some evidence of a connection between the churches of Western Asia Minor and those of the Rhone.  Now the historian Eusebius has preserved for us the greater part of a letter which begins thus:           

            “The servants of Christ who sojourn in Vienna and Lyons in Gaul to the brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia who have the same faith and hope of redemption with us: peace and grace and glory from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.”  The purpose of the letter is to describe a grievous persecution which had fallen upon them, Pothinus the bishop, a man of 90 years of age, being among the victims. The story of Christian heroism, especially as shown by the slave girl Blandina, has hardly an equal in literature: but it must be read as a whole, and it is of considerable length.

            While some of these Christians of Lyons and Vienna were in prison, they wrote various letters, among others one to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, “on behalf of the peace of the churches,” i.e. probably to urge toleration for the votaries of the new enthusiastic movement proceeding from Phrygia which we know under the name Montanism.  The bearer of the letter was an elder of Lyons, Irenaeus by name; and the writers of the letter warmly commend him to Eleutherus, as one who was zealous for the covenant of Christ.  How long he had been in Gaul, we know not, but he came from Asia Minor, where as we know from the passage read last week he had listened eagerly to the aged Polycarp, and his reminiscences of his intercourse in youth with men who had seen the Lord.

            There is also some evidence that he was at Rome at the time of Polycarp’s death, and heard there the sound as of a trumpet proclaiming “Polycarp hath suffered martyrdom.”  Later in life he addressed himself to Rome for another mission of peace.  The importance which the Church of Rome derived from its position in the central city of the Empire was gradually fastening itself to the person of its bishop, and assumed exaggerated proportions when the arrogant Victor was its bishop.  The differences between the Asiatic and the Roman customs as to the time of keeping the Paschal festival had now become aggravated into a deadly strife, and Victor endeavored to impose the Roman custom on all churches.  Irenaeus was now a follower of the Roman custom, but this did not prevent his writing a strong letter of remonstrance to Victor in the name of the Christians of Gaul.  This incident occurred somewhere in the last few years of the second century.

            After this we hear no more of Irenaeus on any tolerable authority. He may or may not have lived into the new century.  Essentially he is the best representative of the last half, and especially the last quarter, of the second century.

            Besides minor works, chiefly Epistles, of which we have only fragments, we possess entire Irenaeus’ great work, the Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge (Gnosis) falsely so called.  Only a small proportion of it is preserved in Greek, but it is a great thing that the ancient Latin version is completely preserved.  Thus far I have said nothing about the theologians who are now called Gnostics.  Unfortunately not many fragments are preserved of their own writings; so that our knowledge of them comes chiefly from opponents who saw truly the impossibility of reconciling their main principles with the historical Gospel, but who as a rule had but a dim sense of the real meaning of their speculations, and a very imperfect sympathy with the speculative difficulties which led to them.  The so-called Gnostic systems were various attempts to interpret history and nature by a medley of Christian ideas with the ideas and mythologies suggested by various Eastern religions.  The most definite types of so-called Gnosticism were further shaped by Greek influence, and it is in this form that they chiefly came into collision with the ordinary churches.  Their great time was about the middle of the first half of the second century, but they lasted on in one shape or another for a considerable time.  The great leaders had passed away before Irenaeus wrote, but even in Gaul his flock was troubled by some of the successors; and it was no superfluous task that he undertook when he set about an elaborate refutation.

            Doubtless he had other predecessors besides Justin.  Thus Papias had written “Expositions of the Lord’s Oracles” to correct and supersede the fantastic interpretation of our Lord’s parables and other discourses by which some of the so-called Gnostics endeavored to find authority for their speculations.  Nor was he the only elder to use the often recurring title, whom Irenaeus was thankful to quote and sometimes to transcribe at considerable length.  Doubtless, if so large a proportion of the Christian literature of the preceding half-century had not perished, we should have found yet clearer evidence of the width of his reading.

            But it is a striking fact that, while his censure of the so-called Gnostic systems is always unreserved and pitiless, he is unconsciously influenced by the new thoughts which they had brought forward.  The Christianity which he proclaims has a comprehensiveness such as no earlier Christian Father known to us could ever have dreamed of.  His doctrine of the Word is a true expansion of St. John’s doctrine, a rich application of it to bring order into the retrospect of the spiritual history of mankind, and so his vision of the future is inspired by the thought which he loves to repeat out of the Epistle to the Ephesians, how that it was the eternal purpose of the Father to sum up all things in Christ (anakefalaiwsasthai, recapitulare).

            Two passages must suffice, though many are tempting to read. The first shall be a familiar one from the second book, on our Lord’s taking upon Him all the ages of man up to adult manhood.

            “He was thirty years of age when He came to the Baptism, thenceforth having the full age of a teacher, when He came to Jerusalem, that He might rightly be able to receive the title of Teacher from all. For to seem one thing, and be another, was not His way, as is said by those who represent Him as being in appearance only: but what He was, that He also seemed. Being therefore a Teacher, He had likewise the ages of a Teacher, not rejecting nor transcending man, nor breaking the law of the human race in Himself, but hallowing every age by its likeness to Himself.  For He came to save all through Himself; all, I mean, who through Him are born anew unto God, infants, and little children, and boys, and youths, and elders. Accordingly He came through every age, with infants becoming an infant, hallowing infants; among little children a little child, hallowing those of that very age, at the same time making Himself to them an example of dutifulness, and righteousness, and subjection; among young men a young man, becoming an example to young men and hallowing them to the Lord.  So also an elder among elders, that He might be a perfect Teacher in all things, not only as regards the setting forth of the Truth but also as regards age, at the same time hallowing also the elders, becoming likewise an example to them. Lastly He came also even unto death, that He might be the first begotten from the dead, Himself holding the primacy in all things, the Author of life, before all things, and having precedence of all things.” [Irenaeus, p. 358, Stieren.]

            The other passage shall be from the end of the book, the end also of the millennial speculations which filled Irenaeus as they did other men of that age. If some of the thoughts are difficult to follow, yet they manifestly deserve to be listened to and pondered.

            “In clear vision then did John see beforehand the first resurrection of the righteous, and the inheritance of the earth during the kingdom (reign): to the same effect also did the prophets prophesy concerning it. For thus much the Lord also taught, in that He promised that He would have a new mixing of the Cup in the kingdom with the disciples. And the apostle too declared that the creation should be free from the bondage of corruption to enter the liberty of the glory of the sons of God.  And in all these [events], and through them all, the same God, even the Father, is shown forth, who fashioned man, and promised the inheritance to the fathers, who prepared it (?) for the resurrection of the righteous, and fulfils the promises for His Son’s kingdom, afterward bestowing as a Father things which neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, and which have not ascended into the heart of man.  For One is the Son, who accomplished the Father’s will; and one the human race, in which the mysteries of God are accomplished, which angels desire to see, and have not power to explain the wisdom of God, through which the being which He fashioned is brought into conformity and concorporation with the Son; that His offspring, the first begotten Word, might descend into the creature, that is into the being that [God] fashioned, and be received by Him; and that the creature again might receive the Word, and ascend up to Him, mounting above the angels, and come to be after the image and likeness of God.”