# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1851 08 05_S197
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

197

[illegible]nig. If it is so, however, with our Greek Gospel of Matthew, then Papias also, in the passage cited by us, has mentioned our Gospel of Matthew, and this passage is generally regarded as one in which our Gospel of St. Matthew is mentioned.

The kind reader will now see, first, the correctness of this point also of our proof, and second, the reason why we took from the passage in Papias only so much as served our purpose, namely: Matthew wrote a Gospel; for had we given the passage unabridged, we should also have had to give the rather long explanation set forth above, in place of which the majority of readers would certainly rather have read something more entertaining, but which we have nevertheless now had to give, precisely because it was incumbent upon us to show how Mr. S. goes in this point also in the leading-strings of ignorance.

We beg the kind reader to pause here a moment, in order to take a brief look backward.

Mr. S. had advanced in No. 2 of the “Freie Blätter” the proposition that the Gospel of Thomas is mentioned in the writings of the Church Fathers as early as any one of those contained in the New Testament. We refuted the same in No. 21 of the Lutheraner, in order to let the readers see what is to be thought of Mr. S's words and of him as the author of them. Mr. S. could not overthrow our refutation; but in order now at least to do something for appearance's sake, he shook at least two of its supports, namely the assertion that Origen is the first who mentions the so-called Gospel of Thomas, and that Papias mentions the Gospel of St. Matthew. But these two supports did not totter, and Mr. S. has only furnished a further contribution toward judging what is to be thought of him. Mr. S. also confesses this result, to be sure after his own fashion, namely by a distortion. In reference to the refutation of the proposition that the Gospel of Thomas is mentioned in the writings of the Church Fathers as early, etc., he speaks of the “folly of those who think they have obtained who knows what if they are only in a position to cite the utterance of a Church Father in their favor.” That sounds as if we meant that the truth of the Word of God depended on whether Papias mentions the Gospel of Matthew. But it was Mr. Schmidt who first pointed to the Church Fathers, in that, besides the oft-cited words, he expressly said, “that therefore with the help of the Church Fathers the assertion cannot be proved that the Gospel of Thomas is younger, that is, written later, than the Gospels given out as ‘God’s Word;’” and we declared beforehand, in reference to his assertion in No. 21 of the Lutheraner, expressly: Now it makes indeed no difference at all whether the Gospel of Thomas was written at the same time as, or later than, the four canonical Gospels; it remains an Apocryphon nevertheless; and only then did we apply the testimony of the Church Fathers, and for this time only in order to put the reader in a position to judge for himself what is to be thought of Mr. S.; while we can indeed use the same for something much better, and commonly do use it, namely for the strengthening of our faith.

Then Mr. S. behaves very badly over the note of the honorable Editorial Office to our article in No. 21 of the Lutheraner, whereas he ought to have been thankful to it, first, because it assumes, as the motive for Mr. S.’s writing such stuff into the world as he does, the most lenient one that can be thought of, namely necessity; and secondly, because it keeps silent, notwithstanding what lies before us in Mr. S's paper, concerning his qualification for his new calling, which in itself is as honorable as it is important.

Finally Mr. S. exerts himself to defend what he had said in No. 2 of the “Freie Blätter” about the superscription of the Gospels, and to bring to nothing what was remarked by us in No. 21 of the Lutheraner on what was said by Mr. S. In doing so Mr. S. displays such an ignorance that, even if he had never written more than those few dozen lines, one would on that account alone have to hold him incapable of making even a single scholarly utterance about the Bible that deserved any notice.

Mr. S. says, “there are only two passages in which the word kata is used to designate the author,” and in assuring us of this he behaves as if he would call heaven and earth to witness it.

Let the kind reader now compare, if it please him, the following passages, the number of which we could easily increase still further.

Clement of Alexandria says in Eusebius (Church History 6, 14), “the Gospel kata Marcon was written on the following occasion.” And then he (Clement) relates that when Peter had preached the Gospel at Rome, Mark, the companion of Peter, was requested by the Christians there to write down Peter’s words, and that he (Mark) then composed his Gospel. Clement thus understands by Gospel kata Marcon the Gospel written by St. Mark.

Irenaeus says (“Against Heresies” 3, 11), “John wrote his Gospel after Matthew, Mark and Luke,” and in 3, 11, 17 calls the Gospel “Gospel kata (secundum) Ioannen” — Irenaeus thus understands by Gospel kata Ioannen the Gospel written by St. John.

Origen says in Eusebius (Church History 5, 1, 25): “First was written the Gospel kata Matthaion, who composed it for those who had become believers from among the Jews, in the Hebrew language. (N. B.: this is a passage to which Mr. S. appeals on another occasion.)

The same (Origen) says in Eusebius [6, 25]: “the second Gospel, however, is that kata Markon, who wrote it down according to Peter’s direction. — Origen thus understands by Gospel kata Matthaion and kata Markon the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Gospel of St. Mark.

Eusebius (Church History 3, 24) says: “It is said that John, after Mark and Luke had published the Gospels kata autous (that is, to them), at last came also to writing” — Eusebius thus understands by Gospel kata Markon and kata Loukan the Gospels written by St. Mark and St. Luke.

Athanasius (Synopsis G. s.): “The Gospel kata Matthaion was written by Matthew in the Greek language.”

The same, in the same place: “The Gospel kata Loukan was delivered by the Apostle Paul, but written down and published by Luke” — Athanasius (or whoever the author of that writing may be, which makes no difference here, where it depends only on the usage of language) thus understands by the Gospels kata Matthaion and kata Loukan the Gospels written by St. Matthew and by St. Luke.

We should like to know what Mr. S., who now also gives himself out as a philologist and as a new lumen mundi (light of the world), will say when he sees these passages. Without doubt he will become yet more enraged at the dear Church Fathers, because they give him the lie once more, than he has already become since they gave him the denial in the matter of his Gospel of Thomas and otherwise. But he still has his “sound logic;” that will perhaps help him somewhat out of his embarrassment, and so spare him from putting on a brow of iron. Perhaps he will say: That does not count, that is a petitio principii, that is, it was first to be proved that kata Matthaion, etc., means: by Matthew, etc. To this we should have to reply: That is precisely why we have proved it with those passages. Then he would perhaps say: No, I mean, it would first have to be proved from those two passages (2 Maccabees 2, 13; and Epiphanius a. h. 8, 4) that kata designates the author. To this we should have to reply that his meaning so is likewise a slight ignorance. In such, however, Mr. S. is truly sunk, in that, as appears from the relevant words in his article, he does not even know what is at issue when theologians adduce those two passages in the 2nd Book of the Maccabees and in Epiphanius. The Mr. Ignoramus supposes it is done to prove an unproved matter, whereas it is done for the sake of superfluous proof of a matter already proved.

We say here nothing further about the meaning of the word kata, since we in our