_“Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and
they are they which testify of me.”—John 5: 39._
WE of course use the above passage as a motto, as the writer must have
referred to the Old-Testament Scriptures, as the New Testament was not
yet in existence. As this book is the sole dependence in finding
evidence regarding Jesus, we naturally first inquire as to what is known
of it. We find this volume to be made up of _twenty-seven_ small tracts
or pamphlets, fastened together for the sake of convenience.
(1) We have _four_ sketches, purporting to be brief biographies of
Jesus.
(2) Next we have a condensed history, called the _Acts of the
Apostles._
(3) Then we have _twenty-one_ writings or letters addressed to
different churches or individuals in the epistolary form of
communication.
(4) And finally we have a _highly-wrought allegory_, partaking
somewhat of the form of both history and prophecy.
We find that this volume of little pamphlets is called the “Authorized
Version” of the New Testament.
We inquire who _authorized_ this version, and find that it was gotten up
by certain men, mainly Englishmen, in the year 1603 by the “special
command” of James, who is called “king of Great Britain, France, and
Ireland,” and who was addressed by these gentlemen, mostly clergymen, as
“the Most High and Mighty Prince, Defender of the Faith,” etc.
It now becomes a matter of superlative importance to determine the basis
upon which this version of the New Testament was made. It is well known
that in 1881 a New Version was published, and Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.
D., a member of the committee of revisers, issued a little book entitled
_Companion to the Revised Version_, to be circulated with it. This is
the latest and highest authority by which to settle the question of the
_basis or standard_ of our “Authorized Version” of the New Testament. It
is stated on its title-page that it is “Translated out of the Original
Greek;” and it is safe and fair to let Dr. Roberts, the mouthpiece of
the New Version Committee, tell us upon what Greek manuscripts this
version of King James was based. After giving a history of the different
Greek editions of the New Testament (the _first_ of which was completed
in 1514, and its publication formally sanctioned by Pope Leo X. in
1520), he inquires, “Which of the foregoing Greek texts formed the
_original_ from which our common English translation was derived?” “To
this question the answer is, that Beza’s edition of 1589 was the one
usually followed.” Beza’s edition was based on Stevens’ edition of 1550,
and that was derived from the fourth edition of Erasmus, published in
1527. Beza, Stevens, Erasmus! In reference to the edition of Erasmus he
said himself, “It was rather tumbled headlong into the world than
edited.” But the question now comes up, What was the basis of the
edition of Erasmus? Dr. Roberts shall answer: “In the Gospels he
principally used a cursive MS. of the fifteenth or sixteenth
century,”... “admitted by all to be of a very _inferior character._”...
“He procured another MS. of the twelfth century or earlier, but Erasmus
was ignorant of its value and made little use of it.”... “In the Acts
and Epistles he chiefly followed a cursive MS. of the thirteenth or
fourteenth century, with occasional reference to another of the
fifteenth century.”... “For the Apocalypse he had only one mutilated
MS.” Dr. Roberts adds: “He had _no_ documentary materials for publishing
a complete edition of the Greek Testament.”
The point we here raise is, that it is an admission made by the best
orthodox authority that our “_Authorized_ New Testament” was formed out
of MSS. dating no farther back than the twelfth, thirteenth,
fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, and that even these were
hastily and unskilfully used or not used at all.
But the question naturally arises, Have not earlier MSS. come to light,
substantially confirming what we have in King James’ Version? The answer
is, that there are now in existence about two thousand MSS. containing
_parts_ of the New Testament, with about _one hundred and fifty
thousand_ variations, mostly trivial, but some very important; but no
scholar, orthodox or liberal, will dare to pretend that any of these
date any farther back than the fourth or fifth century; and he would be
a reckless man, feeling bound to lie for what he might regard as the
truth, who would contradict the admission of Dr. Roberts, that there are
only five copies of the New Testament, at all complete, of a greater
antiquity than the tenth century, nor who would dare to question the
statement of the Rev. George E. Merrell in his recent _Story of the
Manuscripts_, that “there is a wide gap of almost three centuries
between the original manuscripts of the evangelists and apostles and the
earliest copies of their writings which have yet been discovered.”
Whether there ever were _original_ manuscripts or _accurate_ copies are
questions which it would be prudent to hold for consideration until we
have made further investigations. When we reverently listen to our
ministers as they expound the Word, and learnedly tell us how certain
sentences should have been translated from the “original Greek,” let us
not laugh in their faces, but respectfully ask them whether they do not
know that there is _no original_ Greek Testament or any certified copy,
and that all we know upon these matters is highly conjectural and wholly
unauthenticated.
The principal MSS. of the New Testament were unknown for a thousand
years after the Christian era—to wit, those from which our “Authorized”
New Testament was compiled—and their real origin cannot be traced, and
even their accepted date is purely a matter of conjecture. The
Alexandrian, Vatican, and Sinaitic MSS., supposed to date from the
fourth and fifth centuries, are of uncertain and suspicious origin, and
their date is a matter of simple guess by parties whose prepossessions
would incline them to make them as ancient as possible. How easy it is
for the best scholars to be imposed upon is shown from the fact that the
experts of the British Museum would probably have been swindled by the
recent Syrian forgery of the very ancient book of Deuteronomy but for
the discovery of the fact by a French scholar that the “ancient
document” was in fact only a year or two old, the product of a skilled
copyist! The fact is, little or nothing is actually _known_ by
historical and documentary verification of the origin or dates of the
MSS. upon which our New Testament is based.
The next question that arises in a rational mind in this connection is
this: Have we in these twenty-seven little pamphlets all that has been
written upon the subjects to which they relate? The answer to this
question is very embarrassing. It is an undoubted fact that the
ecclesiastical council that selected the books composing the New
Testament had at least _fifty_ Gospels, from which they selected _four_,
and more than _one hundred_ Epistles, from which they selected
_seventeen_, and that from nearly a _score_ of books professing to be
records of the “Acts of the Apostles” they selected _one_, which
Chrysostom in the fifth century says “was not so much as known to many.”
Then there are _forty-one_ New-Testament books now extant, called
apocryphal, relating to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and
besides the canonical and apocryphal books extant there are
_sixty-eight_ New-Testament books mentioned by the Christian Fathers of
the first four centuries which are not now known to be in existence.
Besides these, more than _fifty_ books, written in the second century by
more than _twenty_ distinguished persons, have mysteriously disappeared.
The fact should also be emphasized that the adoption of the
New-Testament books in the early part of the fourth century, as we now
substantially have them, was followed by the _disappearance_ and
probable _destruction_ of all books that could throw light upon the
books received, and all the supposed copies of our Gospels to that
period have been lost or destroyed. The fact to be kept in mind is this,
that the New-Testament books which we now have were selected from scores
and hundreds of writings claiming equal authority by a few
self-appoint-ed men, who had very few qualifications and many
disqualifications for the work they undertook for all coming
generations. We have but a trifling proportion in number of the ancient
records regarding Jesus.
But we now take up the little pamphlets as we have them, and try to
arrange them in order of time. The oldest writings of the New Testament
are the Epistles of Paul. And here we find ourselves embarrassed by the
fact that biblical criticism shows that not more than _five—some say
four_—of the Epistles ascribed to Paul were written by him—viz. First
Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, and
Romans. The other nine ascribed to Paul were doubtless written by
unknown second-century authors. The same uncertainty prevails in regard
to the authorship of several, if not all, of what are called the General
or Catholic Epistles, as well as of the Acts of the Apostles and the
book of Revelation.
It is impossible to fix the dates of the New-Testament books except
approximately. There is a great diversity of opinion. The earliest were
probably written in the last half of the first century, and the latest
certainly in the last quarter of the second century. Certain it is that
no evidence can be found of the existence of our four Gospels until the
latter part of the second century, about one hundred and fifty years
after the alleged death of Jesus. It is therefore true what Prof.
Robertson Smith, D. D., the learned Scotch Presbyterian minister,
asserts, that our four Gospels are “unapostolic digests of the second
century.” From the Apostolic Epistles we learn nothing of the life and
teachings of Jesus. With Paul, Christ was an _idea_ rather than a
_person_. Not a syllable do we find in his writings of the miraculous
birth of Jesus, no reference to the Sermon on the Mount, much less to
the miracles ascribed to him. He rather boasted that he had learned
nothing of him from his disciples, but what he knew he had received at
the time of his own miraculous conversion. He dwells upon the _death_
and spiritual _resurrection_ of Jesus, not upon his _life_; and the only
_words_ of Jesus quoted by Paul, “it is more blessed to give than to
receive,” are not found at all in the Gospels. All that Paul ever
claimed to know about Jesus as a person he learned in a vision, and it
is to be taken for what it is worth.
We are absolutely driven to the Gospels for information regarding the
alleged founder of Christianity, his birth, his life, his teachings, and
his death. And here the fact should be faced that Jesus never wrote
anything about himself, his mission, or his doctrines. We should not
even know that he had learned the art of writing but for the incident
mentioned in one of the Gospels (John 8:6) that on a certain occasion he
stooped down and wrote in the sand; and now our learned New Versionists
come along and snatch this from us by declaring that the beautiful story
about the kind treatment of the woman taken in adultery is an
interpolation not found in the best early MSS., so that we are not even
sure that Jesus wrote anything even with his finger in the sand, or that
he even knew how to write! Nobody pretends that Jesus ever directed his
disciples or any one else to write down what he said and did, but, on
the other hand, he often forbade his disciples to tell what he said and
did; and much of what he is reported to have said was so obscure that
the disciples themselves continually misunderstood him. Two reasons have
been assigned for this omission of Jesus to write himself or to
commission others to write down his sayings. The first is, that he said
nothing which could not be found in then existing writings (as can
easily be shown), and the second is, that he was so sure that the world
was about to be destroyed, and that his own kingdom would so soon be set
up and established upon the general ruin, that it was useless to write
down what was said and done in the short remaining period of mundane
history.
We have four brief sketches claiming to be biographies of Jesus, which
the Church claims as authentic, from which we must draw all our
information regarding Jesus.
It is not necessary here to assign the reasons of learned critics for
their conclusion that the Gospel “according to” Mark is the older of the
four. But it is worthy of note that there is not in it _one word_ of
_the miraculous conception story_, and not a _hint_ of the bodily
resurrection and ascension of Jesus, as the critics have a way of
proving that the last chapter of Mark was added by a later hand.
Then we are embarrassed by the testimony of Irenæus, Origen, Jerome, and
other Christian Fathers that the Gospel of Matthew was written in
Hebrew, while there are indubitable internal evidences that this Gospel,
as we have it, was written in Greek and by a Greek, and not a Jew, and
that it is really a _theological_ treatise written by some partisan for
ecclesiastical reasons, and that if Matthew ever wrote a Gospel, it has
been unfortunately lost or purposely destroyed. An early Christian sect,
called in derision Ebionites, are supposed to have had the Hebrew Gospel
of Matthew, and they were persecuted and stamped out for denying the
miraculous conception and divinity of Christ, and with them, some
critics suppose, perished the only genuine Gospel of Matthew. There is
little if any doubt that the first and second chapters of our Matthew,
giving an account of the miraculous birth and genealogy of Jesus, were
added when this fiction was incorporated into Christianity as necessary
to a divine Church establishment which should almost deify a hierarchy
and bring the common people into subjection. In reading Matthew’s Gospel
we should undoubtedly begin at chapter 3, and especially as the first
two chapters are absurd, contradictory, and inconsistent. If Jesus was
begotten by the Holy Ghost, it was not consistent or necessary to notice
the genealogy of Joseph, and there is nothing more bungling than the
genealogies of Mary and Joseph as given in Matthew and Luke. Indeed, the
name Matthew is not Jewish, and there are those who doubt if there ever
was such a man. It is a suggestive fact that the Egyptians had a
_Matthu_, and that he was the _registrar_, or keeper of their records.
The Gospel ascribed to Luke he himself admits to be a résumé or
compilation of what had been written by others and was the prevalent
belief (Luke, chapter 1). In making a close analysis of this little
tract a learned German critic Schleiermacher, shows that it was probably
compiled from thirty-three different manuscripts. But since Luke himself
claims nothing more than the office of a collector, his work is a mere
digest of what others had written and a summary of what was then
believed by some persons.
The Gospel according to John deserves a more careful and extended
notice, from the fact that it differs in so many particulars from the
other three Gospels. There is no evidence of the existence of this
writing until A. D. 175, when it was mentioned in the Clementine
Homilies,(1) and in 176, Theophilus of Antioch ascribed its authorship
to John. But nothing is more certain than that John the Evangelist did
not write this little book, as it contains internal evidence of its
Grecian origin, and that it could not have been written by one familiar
with Judaism and the geography of Palestine. Many of the best biblical
scholars, orthodox and rationalistic, admit this fact, and our Methodist
friends may amuse themselves at their leisure in reading a learned note
from the pen of their great commentator, Dr. Adam Clarke, at the close
of his exposition of the first chapter of John, in which he points out
thirty-five parallels between the writings of Philo the learned
Platonist and the Gospel of John, unwittingly showing that it must have
been written by an Alexandrian Greek.
(1) These were spurious.
And right here it is proper to expose an ancient fraud perpetuated in
the Church to the present day—to wit, that Papius and Polycarp, early
Christian writers, were personally acquainted with and instructed by
John, and that therefore a succession was established with the teachings
of Jesus himself, whose personal disciple John was. This story was
originated by Irenæus, and the fraud consists in confounding John the
son of Zebedee and Salome with one John who was said to be a presbyter
in Asia Minor. This ingenious device is clearly exposed by Reber in his
work—_The Enigmas of Christianity_. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, may be
called one of the _founders_ of the papal hierarchy, as he in the second
century attempted, but miserably failed, to furnish a catalogue of
bishops in orderly succession from the apostles; and soon after he was
followed in the same vain attempt by Tertullian, who first claimed
supremacy for the bishop of Rome, calling him “_epis-copus
episcoporum_,” a bishop of bishops. The fact is, it is not known who
wrote the fourth Gospel, but it is certain that it was not written by
the humble, amiable Galilean fisherman, but by a learned neo-Platonist,
who was familiar with the dialectics of the learned Gnostic
philosophers, and who desired most earnestly their complete suppression
as essential to the success of the fixed purpose of priests to establish
a Church, under an alleged divine commission, in which they were to be
the kings and princes. Priests have always been the corrupters and
perverters of truth for their own aggrandizement, and the Grecian
treatise palmed upon the Church as the Gospel of St. John is one of the
most illustrious examples. But for this so-called “Gospel” the existence
of the papal hierarchy, and the consequent priestly pretensions in
Protestant churches, would have been impossible. Enough has been
presented to show that we have no alternative but to depend upon the
synoptical Gospels, credited to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in our inquiry
as to Jesus.
Now let us see just where we stand as to the sources of information to
which we are to look in learning whom Jesus was.
1. We are restricted to four, if not three, short biographies,
accredited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, only two of whom,
Matthew and John, were mentioned among the disciples of Jesus.
2. That these sketches were written by those whose names they bear is
not supported by a particle of proof, but, on the other hand,
there is strong evidence that they were not written by the persons
to whom they are credited; and this is especially true in regard
to Matthew and John. Strictly speaking, our Gospels are anonymous.
3. These documents are without date, both as to the time in which
they are written and the place of writing, and there is no proof
of their existence until more than one hundred and fifty years
after the alleged occurrence of the things recorded.
4. That these four Gospels were selected from many other writings
most of which have been lost or destroyed.
5. That the men who made our four Gospels canonical, and rejected all
the rest, were for the most part narrow, bigoted partisans, and
had good reasons of a selfish nature to reject whatever did not
favor their ambitious designs.
6. We have no proof that the four Gospels made canonical by the early
ecclesiastical councils were the original writings of the
evangelists, even if we were sure that they wrote anything, nor
have we any proof that the copies adopted were genuine and
authentic and the best then extant.
7. We have no proof that the copies we have are accurate copies of
the ones adopted by the councils, but we have proof positive,
admitted by the New Version-ists of 1881, that they contain many
interpolations and additions and many evidences of forgeries and
alterations by the ignorant, designing, and selfish ecclesiastics
of the mediaeval centuries known as the Dark Ages.
8. That the Authorized Version read in the churches and in our
families is based upon MSS. dating from the twelfth to the
sixteenth century, and that only fragmentary MSS. and
unauthenticated copies are now in existence, dating from the
fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries.
9. That the copies we have bound up in our New Testament contradict
themselves and one another in a great many particulars, and
contain many statements which are geographically, historically,
and philosophically absurd and incredible.
10. That, therefore, our Gospels are of uncertain authority and of
undoubted human origin, and are to be so regarded without a doubt.
Now, it will be said that this is an infidel attack upon the New
Testament, and that it tends to the overthrow of the only religion that
can do the world any good. And yet, strange as it may appear, these
facts are presented in the best interests of true religion—presented
because they are true, and therefore best adapted, nay absolutely
essential, to the successful defense and propagation of virtue and
morality.
The real infidels of the day are the theological liars and pretenders
who are wilfully ignorant, or too dishonest and cowardly to publish what
they know. Infidelity is breach of trust, disloyalty to truth. He who
would do the most good must tell the whole truth. If we regard the
Gospels as simple compilations from earlier documents and traditions,
with occasional additions and alterations to meet occasions and times,
we shall find in them very many things to admire and to adopt into our
problems of life and systems of morals, many things worthy of imitation,
many things to give courage and comfort in the struggle for existence,
many things which would be just as true and just as useful if they had
only been written yesterday by some one whom we have known from our
childhood.
Regarding the Gospels as human, we can excuse their absurdities and
errors, and while we cast these errors aside we joyfully accept what is
true and good and beautiful; but by claiming for them what they are not
we bring even what is true into disrepute.
It was a master-stroke of worldly wisdom and policy when Irenæus in the
second century (who first mentioned our four Gospels) sanctioned the
monstrous assumption of all ecclesiastical authority by divine right by
the bishops and priests, which power soon became centralized at Rome;
but it was the greatest misfortune of the ages for the cause of true
religion and sound morality. It not only made the Church of Rome with
its immense machinery a necessary result, but it made the not less false
systems of Protestant dogmatic theology possible. There is no use in
attempting to disguise the fact that the so-called scheme of redemption
is in principle and substance the same in the Catholic and orthodox
Protestant Churches. Many intelligent persons feel that they would as
soon belong to one as the other, while they secretly regard the
Romanists as logically the more consistent.
The Romanists are strong in that they place the Church _first (jure
divino)_ and make the scriptures the product of the Church, and of
course subject to its interpretation. Protestants are weak in that they
make the Church subject to written scriptures, which were selected by
the founders of _Catholicism_, and then for centuries altered, forged,
interpolated, and manipulated by popes and priests to strengthen their
authority and secure the absolute submission of the people.
The one fatal blunder of the Protestant Reformers was to found their
system of theology upon a written book of the origin of which so little
is known, and yet regarding which so much is known that it is impossible
for persons of a rational, judicial mind to accept it as an infallible
supernatural revelation.
The conclusion is inevitable that in the absence of everything that, by
even a strain of language, can be called _evidence_ as to the
genuineness and authenticity, of our Gospels we cannot safely accept
them as an infallible authority in religious matters. We have a right to
examine them critically, just as we would read and study any other
ancient writings of uncertain authorship and date.
The Reformation was in part the substitution of a _book_ which was
pronounced _infallible_, but which has proved to be very _fallible_, for
a Church which claimed infallibility, but which had shown itself not
only very fallible, but exceedingly corrupt and dangerous. Infallibility
belongs to neither men nor books. Infallibility in books is an
absurdity. A religion founded upon a printed book must submit to
examination of both the origin and character of that book, and must
shoulder the imperfections and errors which the discoveries of modern
research have fully exposed. The principles of true religion inherent in
human nature, an ineradicable constituent of the constitution of man, as
has been shown, are to-day obscured and shackled by the false position
in which its professed friends have placed it. It will be shown before
these papers are concluded that a religion manacled by a printed book
claiming infallibility, and made to depend solely upon an _historical
character_ who, if admitted to be historical, wrote nothing himself and
commissioned no one to write anything for him, and of whose verbal
teachings and actual mode of life we can never be sure,—a religion thus
encumbered must suffer great loss, if not total failure, as men shall
progress in knowledge and science shall uncover the past and demonstrate
the absurdities of the superstitious dogmas of the ancient faiths. It is
impossible to compress the largest brains of the nineteenth century into
the smallest skulls of the twelfth century. The true friend of religion
is the fearless man who dares attempt to rescue it from the accretions
and perversions of the Dark Ages, and to establish its eternal
principles of truth and righteousness in the very nature of man, in the
elevation of moral character, in strict agreement with the demonstrated
facts of the present, as opposed to the bigoted and degrading fancies of
the past. To defend religion from the follies of its mistaken champions,
and show that its foundations are secure and its ultimate triumph
certain, may now be denounced as treason to the Church, but in coming
years it will be seen to have been the work of men of whom the Church of
to-day is not worthy.
The fact is, very little is known of the New Testament, but too much is
well known to receive it in _evidence_ in a matter of so much
importance. The narratives it contains would be _ruled out of court_ in
any civilized country on the globe. It is evidently a huge _compilation_
of what was at best only _traditions_ among the nations of the earth,
and even these traditions, mixed and mangled as they are, must have
another and a more rational explanation than an historical or a literal
one. This book _cannot be an infallible divine revelation_. Let us see
whether we cannot find out what was really intended to be taught by the
different writers.