|
This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the
history and for the benefit of my readers. Let us now point out the
undisputed writings of this apostle. And in the first place his
Gospel, which is known to all the churches under heaven, must be
acknowledged as genuine. That it has with good reason been put by the
ancients in the fourth place, after the other three Gospels, may be
made evident in the following way. Those great and truly divine men,
I mean the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were
adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in
speech. They were confident indeed in their trust in the divine and
wonder-working power which was granted unto them by the Saviour, but
they did not know how, nor did they attempt to proclaim the doctrines
of their teacher in studied and artistic language, but employing only
the demonstration of the divine Spirit, which worked with them, and
the wonder-working power of Christ, which was displayed through
them, they published the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout
the whole world, paying little attention to the composition of written
works. And this they did because they were assisted in their ministry
by one greater than man. Paul, for instance, who surpassed them all
in vigor of expression and in richness of thought, committed to writing
no more than the briefest epistles, although he had innumerable
mysterious matters to communicate, for he had attained even unto the
sights of the third heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of
God, and had been deemed worthy to 'heat unspeakable utterances
there. And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve
apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were
not ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of
the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and
they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of
necessity. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews,
when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to
writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was
obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. And when Mark and
Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who
had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally
proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels
already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own
too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their
truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the
deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. And this
indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded
only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment
of John the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their
account. For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation
which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says:
"Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea
into Galilee." Mark likewise says: "Now after that John was
delivered up Jesus came into Galilee." And Luke, before
commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the
time, when he says that Herod, "adding to all the evil deeds which
he had done, shut up John in prison." They say, therefore, that
the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his
Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier
evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period;
that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the
Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following
words: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus "; and again when he
refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still
baptizing in non near Salim; where he states the matter clearly in the
words: "For John was not yet cast into prison." John
accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were
performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three
evangelists mention the events which happened after that time. One who
understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance
with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains
the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the
latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according
to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already
given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his
divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their
superior, by the divine Spirit. These things may suffice, which we
have said concerning the Gospel of John. The cause which led to the
composition of the Gospel of Mark has been already stated by us. But
as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states that since
many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the
events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling
the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in
his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which
he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay
with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles. So
much for our own account of these things. But in a more fitting place
we shall attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, what others
have said concerning them. But of the writings of John, not only his
Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted
without dispute both now and in ancient times. But the other two are
disputed. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are
still divided. But at the proper time this question likewise shall be
decided from the testimony of the ancients.
|
|