The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 35

the Christian Chnrch a character of considerable imvortnnce when thus used and quoted as authorities for idms which the writers did not hold. ·we will commence with those which establish this far-reaching iuflucnco in the close of the second century, and then move backwards. I. CELSUII. We are brought into contact with this w1iter by me:ius of Origen's reply to his assault on Christianity. This wa.s designated A/,-yo1 'AAtJ9~r. Keim has proved (1673), in his restoration of the work of Celsus from tho great treatise of Origon, that it was written about A.t>. 178. Keim has made it vrobable that the friend of Lu!lian, supposed by Origen to be an Epicnrean, and with whom Ori gen identified him, nmy have been the man, and that his Epicureanism is of very doubtful character. Volkmar and the author of' Supernatural Religion' try to establish a later date than I.his; but tho great bulk of critics think the date is earlier rather than Inter than that fixed upon by Keim. It is unquestionable that Cclsus, v.·hoever he was, was intimately acquainted with the f()tl,f' Gospels, a.nd recognized them as common authorities for tho doctrines of the faith which he despised.1 Origen, 'Contra Celsum,' i. 50, shows that Celsus accuses the Christians of believing that "the Son of God is come down from he.<1ven" (cf. eh. iii. 31; viii. 23). I. 67, he quotes from Celsus : "Thou hast made no manifestation to us, although they challenged thee in the temple to exhibit some unmistakable sign that thou wert Son of God" ( cf. eh. iL 18; x. 24; Matt. xxi. 23). I. 70 implies that Celsus objected to Christ, that the body of a God could not be thirsting at the well of Jacob, or eating broiled fish and honeycomb (cf. eh. iv. and x:x.). II. 31, be refers to the charge that Christians were guilty of sophisticating reasoning in saying that "the Son of God is the Logos himself," and "when we declare that the Logos is Son of God, we present not pure and holy Logos, but a degraded man punished by scourging and crucifixion." II. 36, Celsus referred to the iclwr flowing in the veins of the Crucified (cf. eh. xix. 34-, 35). II. 49, the apparent.quotation of 4'i>s nl lr.A.iiBnc, from the Fourth Gospel. Now, that a heathen opponent should have made use of these citations from the Fourth Gospel in A.D. 178 shows how widely it must have been diffused before his day. 2. TESTAMEl>'T OF THE XII. PATRIARCHS. Written by a Jewish Christian, who puts into the mouth of the sons of Jacob the pions advice which these patriarchs might with most singularly gifted prevision have given to the Christie.us who were neverthe- 1- proud of their ancestral faith and race. Tertullian and Origen refer to this work. (Sinker has edited the document" with many discussions, ' Anti-Nicene Library ; ' cf. Hilgenfeld. 'Nov. Test., Extra Canonem.') The work, in Godet's judgment, was written before the second destruction of Jerusalem, therefore before A.D. 130. In this document the Messiah is spoken of as "Light of the world," " Saviour;''-" Son of God,'' "Only Son," "Lamb of God," "God come in the flesh," "The Spirit gives witness to the truth;" all of which phrases reveal Johannine thought. 3. The Cl.EMxNTn."E HoMILIES. The work of Dr. Sanday, frequently referred to, gives a most exhaustive trea.tment of the bearing of the text of the Clementine homilies of the pseudo-Clement, on the previous existence of the four Gospels. Seeing that we have only a Latin tralll!lation of the 'Recognitions,' no dependence can be placed upon their testimony; but if the 'Homilies' were the original work, which was expanded into the form of the 'Recognitions,' and which is the opinion of Ewald, Hcnss, Liicke, and many others, we a.rein possession of a document of the middle of the second century, written by a J udmo-Christian, who reveals acquaintance with the four Gospels. "There are no material differences from our Gospels" in these quotations. Some are exact, some are variant, some are merely allusive, some are combinations from all three. They contain passages, moreover, which are peculiar to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, e.nd some proving acquaintance with our canonical Gospel. For a long time it was sa.id that the Clementines contained no reference to tho Gospel of John. 'fhis Hilgenfeld maintained to 1850; but eh. x. 3, 9, and 271 are unmistakably referred to in ' Hom. Clem.,' i1i. 52 : "On this account the true Prophet said, 'I am the G1i.te of life; he that entereth by me, entcreth El,dpx•,,.,,_, into life;' imd again, 'My sheep hear my voice.'" ' Hom.,' xi. 26 : " Thus bath the Prophet sworn to us, saying, • Except ye be born again of or in living water, into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven.'" 1 See F, Jude, in Fraur'e Magazine, "February, 1878.  THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. xxxiz.