How the Four Gospels Originated
The origin of the Gospels has proved a Serbonian bog, in which many
writers who have attempted an explanation have floundered without
finding solid ground. Scarcely two writers agree. Why should there be
any doubt in a matter of so much importance, where the evidence could so
readily be obtained at the time they were written, and so safely guarded
and preserved? Truth, in a historic period like that in which it is
claimed the Gospels were written, need not be left in the dark. The true
difficulty has grown out of the fact, that writers who have undertaken
to give the origin of the Gospels have looked, as men do in most other
cases, to outside sources for information; whereas the explanation of
the origin is to be found within the Gospels themselves, and nowhere
else. By looking for light where none is to be found, writers on this
subject have had their attention withdrawn from the direction where the
truth is to be discovered. If we bear in mind that men eighteen hundred
years ago were much like men of to-day, that the emotion or effect a
given event or occurrence produces in the minds of men of our own time
would be the same as upon those who lived in the first part of the
second century, we have a compass, such as it is, to guide us through
this Cimmerian darkness. What would excite ridicule, or appear false and
improbable to intelligent minds of our own times, would appear equally
so to such minds as Pliny and Tacitus at their ages of the world.
In imagination let us take a stand at the beginning of the second
century, and make ourselves citizens of the Roman empire under the reign
of Adrian. We can well imagine how the minds of thinking and intelligent
people were affected on the first appearance of the present Greek
version of Matthew's Gospel. It set forth some of the most astounding
events in the history of the world, and which the world heard of for the
_first time_. When Christ was put to death, all the land, from the sixth
to the ninth hour, was covered with darkness; the veil of the temple was
rent in twain from the top to the bottom; the earth did quake, and the
rocks were rent asunder; the graves were opened, and many bodies of
saints which slept arose and came out of their graves, and went into the
holy city and appeared unto many. Suppose that some morning we
should pick up our daily paper, and find under the telegraph head an
announcement of like events as having occurred in London or Paris. At
first we might be fearfully startled, but would soon feel satisfied that
it was all a hoax, after the style of Professor Locke's story of the
Moon. If the authors of the story expected to accomplish anything
by such startling announcements, they failed by attempting too much.
Whether the earth was covered with darkness, or was shaken by an
earthquake, or the dead got out of their graves and went down into the
city, were facts easily inquired into, in that age of the world.
Matthew further states that a star went before the wise men of the East,
till it came and stood over where the young child was. How could a star
a million of miles off lead any one on this earth, and how could it at
that distance be in a position to indicate a spot on the earth where the
child was? He also states, that when Herod found he was mocked he was
wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in _Bethlehem_
and all the coast thereof, from two years old and under. We can readily
imagine the Pagans, who composed the learned and intelligent men of
their day, at work in exposing the story of Herod's cruelty, by showing
that, considering the extent of territory embraced in the order, and the
population within it, the assumed destruction of life stamped the story
false and ridiculous. A Governor of a Roman province who dared make such
an order would be so speedily overtaken by the vengeance of the Roman
people, that his head would fall from his body before the blood of his
victims had time to dry. Archelaus, his son, was deposed for offences
not to be spoken of when compared with this massacre of the infants.
But that part of the first Gospel which related to the dream of Joseph
and the conception of Mary was what most excited the criticism and
ridicule of the people of that day. The whole and sole foundation of the
new religion was _a dream_. The simplicity of Joseph, too, provoked a
smile, if nothing more. The story at the sepulchre was overdrawn, and
threw discredit over all. "And behold, there was a great earthquake: for
the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back
the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like
lightning, and his raiment white as snow." (_Matthew_ xxviii. 2, 3.)
Such aerial bodies are not given to the employments assigned to the
angel in this case. Rolling stones, say the wise men, by spiritual
essences is ridiculous and absurd. Besides, who knows anything of the
great earthquake? We find no account of it, nor is it even mentioned
anywhere else.
So men reasoned eighteen hundred years ago--and so they would to-day.
It is evident that the author of the first Gospel had overdone his part,
and injured the cause he meant to advance. The blunders and mistakes of
the first Gospel made it necessary that there should be a second. This
gave rise to a second Gospel, not by the same hand, but by some other,
who felt the pressure that had been brought to bear on Matthew.
As this second Gospel was written with a special purpose, we must expect
a great resemblance in it to the first, except where the former makes
statements which were the occasion of so much criticism on the part of
the philosophers; and in such cases, the best course to pursue would
be to say nothing. Naked contradiction would not answer. Mark has not
a word to say about the story of Joseph and the angel. He omits the
earthquake at the crucifixion, and the resurrection of the dead, for
these things were susceptible of disproof; but tells of the darkness,
and the rent in the temple, because the former was comparative, and may
have been a dark cloud in the heavens; and as to the case of the temple,
no one could disprove the story, for it was destroyed. The story of the
angel and stone is entirely omitted, but the stone is removed from the
mouth of the sepulchre when the women appear, and a young man is found
in the inside, who is presumed to have done it. Matthew says that Joseph
of Arimathea deposited the body of Christ in the sepulchre, and then
rolled a great stone to the door. Afterwards the priest and Pharisees
caused the entrance to be made _secure_, for fear that the body would be
stolen, and the disciples then claim that he had risen from the dead.
If so, say the philosophers, the work was not so poorly done that _one_
young man could roll the stone from the door, as stated by Mark. It
would be beyond his strength.
Luke removes the objection; when the women come to the sepulchre in
the morning they found the stone removed, and the body of Christ was
missing. There was no young man inside, but _two_ men were found
standing on the outside, who, no doubt, were competent to do the work.
The story of the star which led the wise men, and the murder of the
infants at Bethlehem, is also omitted. We are justified in saying that
those who were engaged in getting up the _first_ Gospel, or those who
succeeded them, were driven to abandon some false and impossible and
improbable things stated in that Gospel, by proof, in some cases, of
their falsehood, and in others by the force of argument and ridicule.
Matthew had related the story of Joseph and the angel, and that admitted
of no change or modification. Mark says nothing about it, but silence
will not answer; for the philosophers still claim that all depends upon
a _dream_, and the dreams of Joseph are no better than the dreams of any
other man. If the story could not be modified, it might be corroborated.
So, when it came to Luke's turn to speak he adds the story of Zacharias,
and the interview between Mary and the angel Gabriel. All now occurs in
_daylight_, and dreams which had been the subject of so much ridicule
are dispensed with.
When Zacharias went to the temple to burn incense, he found on the
outside a great multitude of people. The crowd has no connection with
the story, except as these people are wanted for witness as to what
happened _in the sanctuary_. While Zacharias was offering incense
within, there appeared to him an angel standing on the right side of
the altar. The position of the angel is defined with precision, that it
might not be claimed that what appeared to him was a phantom. Zacharias
saw him and was afraid.
As further evidence that the angel was not some optical illusion,
Gabriel spoke, and gave Zacharias such information about the future
birth of a son to him that he was disposed to doubt the truth of it. As
a punishment for his reasonable doubts, he is struck dumb. The interview
continued so long that the crowd on the outside began to be uneasy,
and when Zacharias did come out he had lost the power of speech. This
convinced the multitude (but how, is not stated) that he had seen a
vision in the temple. After this, Gabriel made a visit to Mary in open
day, and held a conversation, in which he announced to her the birth of
a son through the overshadowing influence of the Holy Ghost, who would
reign over the house of Jacob forever. Then follows the scene between
Mary and her cousin Elisabeth.
In Luke's account of the announcement of the birth of Christ by divine
agency, the story of Joseph is entirely omitted, and new witnesses are
introduced. His story was well studied; every precaution was taken to
silence cavil and make such a case as would remove doubts. The blunders
of Matthew were not to be repeated. The birth of Christ and John, who
was afterwards called the Baptist, are ingeniously associated in the
announcement of the angel, to give color to what is said of them in the
Gospels afterwards.
What objections were made by the philosophers to the story of Luke at
the time, we have no means of knowing; but if any were made, there is no
subsequent effort to improve it, and so it remains to this day.
The question interests us to know when and from whom did Luke get his
information. If he had it from any one who had the means of knowing what
he tells us, it must have been from Paul, for we have no knowledge that
he had any acquaintance, or relations of any kind, with either of the
disciples. He was Paul's companion: we find him with Paul at Troas, A.D.
50; thence he attended him to Jerusalem, continued with him during his
troubles in Judea, and sailed in the same ship with him when he was
sent a prisoner to Rome, where he stayed with him during his two years'
confinement. He was with him during his second imprisonment, and, as we
will show in the proper place, he died with Paul in Rome, and was one
of the victims of Nero's reign. If Paul knew what Luke states as to the
divine emanation of Christ, why does he not make some allusion to it in
his numerous epistles?--and how can we understand that he could, with
such knowledge, deny this divine creation, and preach to the last that
Christ was born according to natural law?
Luke, too, made mistakes, which John afterwards corrected in the fourth
Gospel.
We can best illustrate the claim that the three last Gospels were
written in the order they appeared, as a necessity to meet the
objections and cavils of the philosophers, by taking some leading
subject which is mentioned by all. Take the case of the _resurrection_.
Matthew says: "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some
doubted." (Matt, xxviii. 17.) To leave the question where Matthew leaves
it would be fatal. In such a case there must be no doubt. Mark makes
Christ appear three times under such circumstances as to render
a mistake next to impossible, and to silence the most obstinate
skepticism. He first appears to Mary Magdalene, who was convinced that
it was Christ, because she went and told the disciples that he had
risen, and that she had seen him. They disbelieved, nor could they be
convinced until he appeared to them. They in turn told it to the other
disciples, who were also skeptical; and, that they might be convinced,
Christ also appeared to them as they sat at meat, when he upbraided them
for their unbelief.
This story is much improved in the hands of Mark, but, in the anxiety to
make a clear case, it is overdone, as often happens when the object is
to remedy or correct an oversight or mistake previously made. There was
a large amount of skepticism to be overcome, but the proof offered
was sufficient to do it, and remove all doubts from the minds of the
disciples. Considering Christ had told the disciples he would rise, why
did they doubt at all? Owing to some strange oversight, neither Matthew
nor Mark says in what way Christ made his appearance--whether it was in
the body or only in the spirit. If in the latter, it would be fatal to
the whole theory of the resurrection. We conclude from what followed,
that the philosophers of that day, who would concede nothing to the
claims of Christianity, took advantage of this oversight, and denied the
resurrection of Christ in the body. It was the business of Luke to put
this disputed question in its true light, and silence the objection.
He says that when Christ appeared and spoke to the disciples they were
afraid. "But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they
had seen a _spirit._" (Luke xxiv. 37.) Christ then showed the wounds in
his hands and feet. "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of
a honeycomb: And he took it, and did _eat before them_." (Luke xxiv. 42,
43.) Now who dare doubt? Why some doubted, as Matthew says they did,
is hard to explain. The account of Luke should have satisfied the
philosophers that it was a body and not a spirit that appeared to the
disciples. But we can believe they were not, from what is afterwards
said on this subject. The story of the fish and honeycomb was incredible
and absurd. It was a fish-story. If true, why did Matthew and Mark fail
to mention it?
Luke had overdone the matter, and instead of convincing the Pagans, he
only excited their ridicule.
Now comes John's turn. He does not omit entirely the story of Christ
eating fish, for that would not do, after there had been so much said
about it. He might leave it to be inferred that Luke made a mistake, so
he modifies the story and omits the ridiculous part of it. The scene
is laid on the shores of the Sea of Tiberias. Under the direction of
Christ, Peter drew his net to land full of fish. "Jesus saith unto them,
Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou?
knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then cometh, and taketh _bread,
and giveth them, and fish_ like wise." (John xxi. 12, 13.) It does not
appear from this account that Christ ate of the fish at all. He took
the fish and gave to the disciples; the inference is, that they were the
ones that ate. In Luke the statement is reversed:--the disciples gave
the fish to Christ, and he ate. John has taken out of the story that
which was absurd, but he leaves us to infer that Luke was _nearsighted
or careless_ in his account of what took place. If you leave out of
Luke's account the part that relates to the fish and honeycomb, he fails
to prove what it really was which appeared to the disciples.
Christ, he says, said, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself." (Ch. xxiv. 39.) "And while they yet believed not for joy, and
wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?" (Ch. xxiv. 41.) It
seems from this that the disciples could not be convinced until Christ
had actually eaten something. Now if you strike out the eating part,
which John does, and which no doubt the ridicule cast upon it drove him
to do, Luke leaves the question open just where he found it. It was the
business of John to leave it clean, and put an end to all cavil.
Jesus appeared to the disciples when they assembled at Jerusalem. "And
when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side." (John
xx. 20.) They were satisfied, and no doubts were expressed. But Thomas
was not present, and when he was told that Jesus had appeared to the
disciples, he refused to believe, nor would he, "Except I shall see in
his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of
the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John
xx. 25.) Now if Thomas can be convinced with all his doubts, it would
be foolish after that to deny that Christ was not in the body when he
appeared to his disciples.
After eight days Christ again appears, without any object that we can
discover but to convince Thomas. Then said he to Thomas, "Reach hither
thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust
it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing." (John xx. 27.) It
is not stated whether he did as he was directed; but he was convinced,
and exclaimed, "_My Lord and my God_."
What fault the Pagans found with this account we have not the means of
knowing; but if they still disbelieved, they were more skeptical than
Thomas himself. We should be at a loss to understand why the writers of
the first three Gospels entirely omitted the story of Thomas, if we were
not aware that when John wrote the state of the public mind was such,
that proof of the most unquestionable character was demanded that Christ
had risen in the body. John selected a person who claimed he was hard
to convince, and if the evidence was such as to satisfy him, it ought to
satisfy the balance of the world.
John's services are again required to repair the blunders and oversights
of the writers of the first three Gospels in relation to the body of
Christ after the crucifixion. Matthew states that Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary went on the first day of the week to see the sepulchre. No
other purpose is expressed. Mark says that early in the morning of the
first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and
Salome brought spices to anoint the body. According to Luke, after the
women who had followed Christ from Galilee had seen the body deposited
in the tomb, they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested
the Sabbath day. The body was deposited in the tomb some time on Friday,
and remained until Sunday morning, on the first day of the Jewish week.
Doubtless, in the climate of Syria, the body in the mean time must have
undergone such a change as to make it difficult to either embalm or even
anoint it. The Pagans at that day could hardly fail to take advantage of
this mistake or blunder. But John again comes to the rescue and sets the
matter right. According to him, Joseph of Arimathea had permission to
take the body, which he did, and carried it away. "And there came also
Nicodemus (which at the first came to Jesus by night) and brought a
mixture of myrrh and aloes, _about a hundred pounds weight_. Then took
they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices,
as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (John xix. 39, 40.)
John now fully silenced the cavils of the enemy and taken the proper
steps to preserve the body until the morning of the third day.
The subject might be further pursued, but enough has been said to
furnish a key to the origin of the Gospels. Christians in their contests
with the Pagans resemble the course of a retreating army, which falls
back to take a stronger position. Each time the position is improved,
until one at last is found which is impregnable. We can readily see how
it is that the first three Gospels so closely resemble each other,
the exact language for whole passages being alike in all. Mark copies
Matthew, and Luke uses the words of both. It is only when the last
undertakes to improve or modify something written by those who wrote
previously, that the difference becomes obvious. That the Christians in
the beginning of the second century had books of some kind before the
three first Gospels appeared in the present shape is beyond all dispute.
The sacred writings of the Therapeutae, as we have shown, were full of
the most sound morality, and contained all the essential principles of
Christianity. These writings were ancient--had been regarded as sacred
for generations among them, and were so much like the present Gospels
that Eusebius claimed them to be the same, and that the Therapeutae were
Christians. No doubt the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was extant, and if it
was rejected by the Christians of that day, because it did not contain
the two first chapters of the Greek version, there was no reason why
they should reject the Sermon on the Mount, and all the sublime and pure
religion taught by Christ. The sacred writings of the Therapeutae--the
Hebrew version of Matthew, the Epistle of James and the first of
Peter--furnished the principles and doctrines which now form the life of
Christianity; and the great want of the day--that is, some proof of the
actual existence of the person of Christ, by those who had seen him and
were familiar with him before his death--was supplied in the first three
Gospels, by the testimony of those who claimed to be his disciples, or
by those who, it is said, wrote at their dictation.
In what quarter of the globe were the Synoptics written, and by whom?
All that can be said on this subject with certainty is, that the Greek
version of Matthew, the source of all, was not written in Judea, or by
one who knew anything of the geography of the country, or the history of
the Jews. He was ignorant of both. What excuse was there but ignorance
for making the order for the massacre of the infants to include
Bethlehem, and all _the coast thereof_, which would take in at least the
one-half of all Judea, and involve in one common slaughter, according to
the calculations of learned men, several thousand innocent children?
The Greek writer of Matthew evidently believed that Bethlehem was
an insignificant hamlet, situated on the coast of the Mediterranean,
whereas it is as far in the interior as Jerusalem; and not far from the
centre of Judea. The writer's ignorance of Jewish history will appear
still more conspicuous, when we speak of the application which he makes
of prophecy to the person of Jesus. Whoever the writer may have been, it
is evident that he received his education at the college at Alexandria,
where Medicine and Divinity were taught, and regarded as inseparable.
From the union of the two, recovery from diseases was ascribed to
supernatural powers. A fever was a demon, which was not to be expelled
by virtue of any material remedy, but by incantations, spells, and
magic. It was by such power Christ cleansed the leper--healed the
centurion's servant--touched the hand of Peter's wife's mother and
drove away the fever--expelled the devils from two men into swine,
and performed many other cures. The whole of the first Gospel has an
Alexandrian look not easily to be mistaken--if we except the miracle of
the loaves and fishes, walk of Christ on the water, and other wonders of
a like nature, which is the work of some one later in the century. The
deserts in the neighborhood of Alexandria abounded with monasteries from
the earliest accounts of the Therapeutae to the conquest of Egypt by the
Mahometan power, which were filled with monks who were celebrated
for their piety, their miracles, their power to expel devils and heal
diseases. The pages of Sozomen and Socrates abound with the names
of monks who cured the palsy, expelled demons, and cured the sick.
(Sozomen, _Ecc. Hist._, lib. vi., ch. 28.)