THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.
The question of their credibility is before that of their inspiration.
If uninspired, they may have given us everything essential to the
determination of Christ’s resurrection. If inspired, inspiration may
have been bestowed in such a manner as to leave them subject to some of
the limitations of human testimony. If reliable accounts of the life,
teachings, death, and resurrection, of our Lord, were to be published
to the world, it was of the last importance that they should not carry
upon their face the appearance of collusion and contrivance. Let any one
who is disturbed by any seeming contradictions or errors, consider for
a moment what would be the consequence if they did not exist. If each
writer narrated the same occurrences and teachings and in the same terms,
it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to believe that they
were independent witnesses. And so, if each should give all of the same
occurrences and teachings, although in different terms, or a part of
them, but in the same terms, it would be almost as difficult to believe
that we have independent witnesses. As it is, no question can arise.
Neither of them covers the whole ground, and where the same matters
appear, it is, in general, except in brief passages easily remembered,
in different terms. We are _sure_ there was no collusion. We are sure we
have the testimony of independent writers. This is conceded. Says Judge
Waite (pp. 311, 313): That the Gospels “are not merely copied one from
the other, with changes, is the almost unanimous verdict of Biblical
scholars.” And in this, he expresses the verdict of those who reject,
not less than of those who accept the Gospels. Among the limitations
attending mere human testimony, are, that, ordinarily, no witness will
state the whole of any transaction, and no two witnesses will state it
in precisely the same terms, unless there is fraud or collusion, and
the testimony of each is but the recital of something that has been
committed to memory. Another limitation is, that even with two or more
witnesses, errors to some extent will come in. There will be some lack
of correct observation, or some misrecollection,—not only the omission
of a part, but positive misstatement by one or more of the witnesses.
The whole transaction is to be gathered _from all_ the witnesses. And
the law, having respect to human infirmities, says it is enough in all
cases to prove the _substance_ of words alleged to have been spoken, or
the substance of the issue, in any civil or criminal cause; immaterial
errors of time, or place, or distance, or other circumstance, will be
disregarded. Now it is _conceivable_ that the Evangelists, under the
guidance of the Divine Spirit, may have been left (to some extent)
subject to these limitations, in order that their testimony, conforming
to these laws of observation and memory, be the more credible. Hence,
whether the Evangelists, in this stage of the inquiry, be regarded as
inspired or uninspired, it is labor lost, to adduce alleged errors[1]
or contradictions which, if made out, could not seriously affect their
honesty and general competency. In order that a witness receive our
confidence, we should be satisfied of his means of knowledge, his
capacity to ascertain the facts, and his disposition to give a correct
account of them. Two of the writers, Matthew and John, were of the twelve
(and John was the beloved disciple) and hence they had the best possible
means of knowing the facts. Matthew, from his business of a tax-gatherer,
may be presumed to have been sharp, shrewd and observant. John, from his
most intimate association, was pre-eminently qualified to give testimony.
He gives it with solemnity equal to an oath: “And he that saw bare
record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that
ye might believe” (c. xix. 35). “And many other signs truly did Jesus
in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book;
but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name”
(c. xx. 30, 31). Again, after stating what Peter asked concerning the
disciple “whom Jesus loved,” and what followed, it is said: “This is the
disciple which testifieth of these things, and who wrote these things;
and we[2] know that his testimony is true” (c. xxi. 20-24). This Gospel,
obviously written later than the others, omits much that is contained in
them, and is, so to speak, of higher order. The first incident mentioned
in it, is the witness borne to Christ by the Baptist. It gives none of
the parables, so abundant in the Synoptics.[3] It relates but two of the
miracles recorded in them, _i. e._ the feeding of the five thousand,
and the walking upon the water, (c. vi. 1-21). It adds six miracles
not recorded in the Synoptics (among which is the raising of Lazarus),
numerous conversations and discourses of the greatest interest, and
facts relating to the crucifixion and resurrection, of great weight as
evidence. It is written in purer Greek than the others; its style[4]
is elegant and graceful; it gives every indication of calm, thoughtful
and deliberate composition, and in these respects tends to confirm the
uniform tradition that it was the ripe product of a mind and heart,
enriched, quickened, and vitalized, by familiar intercourse with our Lord
and the truths which he declared, as well as by the Spirit promised to
the Apostles. Men with favorable native gifts, become educated fast under
such influences.
It affords about the only means for a connected chronological history of
our Lord’s ministry, which is seen to have embraced a longer[5] period,
than could have been ascertained from the Synoptics.
Although Mark was not one of the twelve, the character of his Gospel in
its life-like description of events, and its omitting nothing[A] where
Peter was prominent, confirms the tradition, that he was an attendant
upon Peter’s ministry, and was his interpreter. Nine-tenths[6] of the
incidents related in Mark are also recorded in the other Gospels.
Luke was an educated man, and, as he incidentally discloses, a companion
of Paul in a part of his journeyings. His Gospel was evidently drawn
up with great care. In the prologue (c. i. 1-5) he gives a reason for
his writing, and the sources of his information. “Many have taken in
hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most
surely believed among us.” These things, he says, “were delivered unto
us by those who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of
the Word.” He was stimulated to give an additional narrative (“having
had perfect understanding of all things from the very first”) for the
satisfaction of his friend, Theophilus, and in order that he might know
“the _certainty_ of those things,” wherein he had been instructed. No
historian could enter upon his work in a better spirit, or with more
excellent qualifications and opportunities. In a subsequent treatise
which in terms refers to the former, he finds nothing to retract or
qualify. Can any one tell why Luke, as a historian, is not entitled to as
much credit as Josephus?
In comparing the Gospels with each other, or with Josephus, it should
be constantly borne in mind, that _omission_ (except under special
circumstances) _is not contradiction_. The facts of history, like the
conclusions of a jury, are to be drawn from all credible sources, and the
transaction deemed to be as shown upon _all_ the evidence. _Positive_
testimony from a single witness may prove a fact against the _negative_
testimony of any number of witnesses, who are silent upon the subject.
It is also to be remembered that the Gospels are not so much connected
histories, as reminiscences of events and teachings, with but little
regard (sometimes an utter disregard) to their chronological order.
Neither Gospel is, of itself, any approach to a connected history from
Christ’s birth to his ascension. The events, so far as known to us, are
to be gathered _from them all_. Mark begins with the Baptist at the
river Jordan, and John at about the same time. It is not to be inferred
that they knew nothing of the infancy, or childhood, or young manhood of
Jesus. Matthew omits the presentation at the temple, the vision to the
Shepherds, and other incidents; and Luke omits the visit of the Wise men,
the slaying of the children, the flight into Egypt, and other incidents.
But in so doing, neither contradicts the other; nor does Josephus, by his
silence concerning these events, contradict the Evangelists. He may have
been ignorant of some of these events, for he was not born until the year
37, and, being a Jew and not a Christian, he might not choose to mention
those which had come to his knowledge.
Luke’s Gospel may or may not have made use of writings then in existence
relating to Christ (but which never found general acceptance), and the
same is true of the First and Second Gospels. _It is no impeachment of
their credibility._ Every historian makes such use of materials that he
deems reliable, as best answers his purpose, and his history is none the
less trustworthy on that account. Hence, as a matter of evidence, it
is of no consequence how many or how few, previous manuscripts may be
traced in our Gospels, or either of them. Such writings had an ephemeral
existence, never came into general use, and the Four Gospels and no
others were the accepted Gospels in all the churches. Whatever literature
of the kind preceded them perished so early that it cannot be told when
it disappeared, or what was its character or completeness.
The Evangelists give every mark of honest witnesses. Their story is
simple, straightforward and unimpassioned, even under circumstances
calculated to arouse resentment. They seem intent upon nothing but the
giving of a truthful narrative, not sparing themselves or extenuating
their own faults. Their frequent incidental allusions to matters of
government, custom, nationality, etc., and minuteness of detail, are
such as would never be found in false witnesses. “A false witness,” says
Mr. Greenleaf, “will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his
testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there
is danger of being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts
equally circumstantial.”
It would detract nothing from the credit of the Evangelists, if, in the
multitude of their incidental references, error should be found in a
few of them, for some error is inseparable from all human productions;
and their inspiration may not have been so circumstantial as to exclude
immaterial errors.
With such differences as show most convincingly that the Evangelists are
independent witnesses, there is such unity in the character and life
of Christ, as exhibited by them, as shows the same _original_ for the
likeness. This essential unity of the Gospel is evidenced by the fact
that not a single church or communion exists, that does not accept _all_
the Gospels, if _either_.
From internal evidence, it is extremely probable that the Synoptics were
written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke was certainly written
before Acts, and the history in Acts is not carried later than the year
62, eight years before that event. As the four undisputed Epistles were
all written before the year 60, the logical order will be to present the
testimony of Paul to the Resurrection before that of the Evangelists.
[1] President Bartlett believes that notwithstanding its long line of
exposure, the outer historical difficulties seem reduced to the solitary
question of the taxing under Cyrenius. (The _Princeton Review_ for
January, 1880, p. 44.) Aside from any question of inspiration, it is
improbable that Luke made a mistake. Justin Martyr, who wrote at a very
early period, in his Apology to the Roman Emperor, refers to this taxing
as a well known event (Ap., c. 34). He again refers to it in his Dialogue
(c. 78) as being the first census taken in Judea under Cyrenius. Celsus,
who was not wanting in skill or inclination to attack at all points,
found no occasion here. It may well be that a person holding the office
which Cyrenius held at the first enrolment was called a “procurator.” Or
Luke in speaking of this enrolment may have referred to Cyrenius by the
title which he afterwards bore; or Cyrenius may have been in the office
twice. President Bartlett also concludes with Warrenton that there is not
any instance of a really inapposite quotation from the Old Testament,
although the quotations are sometimes inaccurate. He also concludes that
the instances of alleged _contradictions_ may be reduced to five, and
that there is no insurmountable difficulty in reconciling them. But, for
reasons stated in the text, the inquiry is not material to our argument.
[2] Many suppose that the “we” are the Elders at Ephesus. But if so, why
did they not sign? The “we” preceded by the unmistakable reference to
John and followed by the first person singular, in the closing verse, is
as likely to have been John.
[3] “Synoptics”—a word often used by writers at the present day to
designate the first three Gospels.
[4] The Apocalypse is quite different in style and in respect to pure
Greek. For these reasons and others some of the early Fathers denied that
the Apostle wrote it. But such was the early tradition. Justin Martyr
refers to him as the author, and as Dr. Sears, in his Heart of Christ,
well argues, these differences are sufficiently accounted for by the
highly excited state of mind in which the Apocalypse was written; and he
points out many agreements both in doctrine and mode of expression.
[5] Three years, and possibly four.
[A] Its omission of Peter’s want of faith, as recorded in Matthew 14-30,
is an exception.
[6] Wright’s Logic, etc., p. 210; Norton’s Genuineness, etc., Vol. I., p.
188; Wescott’s Introduction, cc. 3 and 4.