Produced by David Widger
WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?
By Charles Bradlaugh
[Fourth Edition]
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter Street E.C.
1881.
London:
Printed By Annie Besant And Charles Bradlaugh,
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
PREFATORY NOTE TO FOURTH EDITION.
Since this pamphlet was originally penned in 1867, the
author of "Supernatural Religion" has in his three volumes
placed a very storehouse of information within the easy
reach of every student, and many of Dr. Teschendorf's
reckless statements have been effectively dealt with in that
masterly work. In the present brief pamphlet there is only
the very merest index to matters which in "Supernatural
Religion" are exhaustively treated. Part II. of "The
Freethinkers' Text-Book," by Mrs Besant, has travelled over
the same ground with much care, and has given exact
reference to authorities on each point.
The Religious Tract Society, some time since, issued, prefaced with
their high commendation, a translation of a pamphlet by Dr. Constantine
Tischendorf, entitled "When were our Gospels Written?" In the
introductory preface we are not unfairly told that "on the credibility
of the four Gospels the whole of Christianity rests, as a building on
its foundations." It is proposed in this brief essay to deal with the
character of Dr. Tischendorf's advocacy, then to examine the genuineness
of the four Gospels, as affirmed by the Religious Tract Society's
pamphlet, and at the same time to ascertain, so far as is possible in
the space, how far the Gospel narrative is credible.
The Religious Tract Society state that Dr. Tischendorf's _brochure_ is
a repetition of "arguments for the genuineness and authenticity of the
four Gospels," which the erudite Doctor had previously published for the
learned classes, "with explanations" now given in addition, to render
the arguments "intelligible" to meaner capacities; and as the "Infidel"
and "Deist" are especially referred to as likely to be overthrown by
this pamphlet, we may presume that the society considers that in the 119
pages--which the translated essay occupies--they have presented the best
paper that can be issued on their behalf for popular reading on this
question. The praise accorded by the society, and sundry laudations
appropriated with much modesty in his own preface by Dr. Constantine
Tischendorf to himself, compel one at the outset to regard the Christian
manifesto as a most formidable production. The Society's translator
impressively tells us that the pamphlet has been three times printed
in German and twice in France; that it has been issued in Dutch and
Russian, and is done into Italian by an Archbishop with the actual
approbation of the Pope. The author's preface adds an account of his
great journeyings and heavy travelling expenses incurred out of an
original capital of a "few unpaid bills," ending in the discovery of
a basketful of old parchments destined for the flames by the Christian
monks in charge, but which from the hands of Dr. Teschendorf are used
by the Religious Tract Society to neutralise all doubts, and to "blow
to pieces" the Rationalistic criticism of Germany and the coarser
Infidelity of England. Doubtless Dr. Teschendorf and the Society
consider it some evidence in favor of the genuineness and authenticity
of the four Gospels that the learned Doctor was enabled to spend 5,000
dollars out of less than nothing, and that the Pope regards his pamphlet
with favor, or they would not trouble to print such statements. We
frankly accord them the full advantage of any argument which may fairly
be based on such facts. An autograph letter of endorsement by the Pope
is certainly a matter which a Protestant Tract Society--who regard "the
scarlet whore at Babylon" with horror--may well be proud of.
Dr. Tischendorf states that he has since 1839 devoted himself to the
textual study of the New Testament, and it ought to be interesting to
the orthodox to know that, as a result of twenty-seven years' labor,
he now declares that "it has been placed beyond doubt that the original
text.... had in many places undergone such serious modifications of
meaning, as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the apostles
had actually written," and that "the right course to take" "is to set
aside the received text altogether and to construct a fresh text."
This is pleasant news for the true believer, promulgated by authority
of the managers of the great Christian depot in Paternoster Row, from
whence many scores of thousands of copies of this incorrect received
text have nevertheless been issued without comment to the public,
even since the society have published in English Dr. Tischendorf s
declaration of its unreliable character.
With the modesty and honorable reticence peculiar to-great men, Dr.
Tischendorf records his successes in reading hitherto unreadable
parchments, and we learn that he has received approval from "several
learned bodies, and even from crowned heads," for his wonderful
performances. As a consistent Christian, who knows that the "powers that
be are ordained of God," our "critic without rival," for so he prints
himself, regards the praise of crowned heads as higher in degree than
that of learned bodies.
The Doctor discovered in 1844 the MS. on which he now relies to confute
audacious Infidelity, in the Convent of St. Catherine at Sinai; he
brought away a portion, and handed! that portion, on his return, to the
Saxon Government--they paying all expenses. The Doctor, however, did
not then divulge where he had found the MS. It was for the advantage
of humankind that the place should be known at once, for, at least, two
reasons. First, because by aid of the remainder of this MS.--"the
most precious Bible treasure in existence"--the faulty text of the New
Testament was to be reconstructed; and the sooner the work was done the
better for believers in Christianity. And, secondly, the whole story
of the discovery might then have been more easily confirmed in every
particular.
For fifteen years, at least, Dr. Tischendorf hid from the world the
precise locality in which his treasure had been discovered. Nay, he was
even fearful when he knew that other Christians were trying to find
the true text, and he experienced "peculiar satisfaction" when he
ascertained that his silence had misled some pious searchers after
reliable copies of God's message to all humankind; although all this
time he was well aware that our received copies of God's revelation had
undergone "serious modifications" since the message had been delivered
from the Holy Ghost by means of the Evangelists.
In 1853, "nine years after the original discovery," Dr. Tischendorf
again visited the Sinai convent, but although he had "enjoined on the
monks to take religious care" of the remains of which they, on the
former occasion, would not yield up possession, he, on this second
occasion, and apparently after careful search, discovered "eleven short
lines," which convinced him that the greater part of the MS. had been
destroyed. He still, however, kept the place secret, although he had no
longer any known reason for so doing; and, having obtained an advance of
funds from the Russian Government, he, in 1859, tried a third time for
his "pearl of St. Catherine," which, in 1853, he felt convinced had been
destroyed, and as to which he had nevertheless, in the meantime, been
troubled by fears that the good cause might be aided by some other than
Dr. Teschendorf discovering and publishing the "priceless treasure,"
which, according to his previous statements, he must have felt convinced
did not longer exist. On this third journey the Doctor discovered "the
very fragments which, fifteen years before, he had taken out of the
basket," "and also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament
complete, and, in addition, Barnabas and part of Hermas."
With wonderful preciseness, and with great audacity, Dr. Tischendorf
_refers_ the transcription of the discovered Bible to the first half
of the fourth century. Have Dr. Tischendorf's patrons here ever read of
MSS. discovered in the same Convent of St. Catherine, at Sinai, of which
an account was published by Dr. Constantine Simonides, and concerning
which the _Westminster Review_ said, "We share the suspicions, to use
the gentlest word which occurs to us, entertained, we believe, by all
competent critics and antiquarians."
In 1863 Dr. Tischendorf published, at the cost of the Russian Emperor, a
splendid but very costly edition of his Sinaitic MS. in columns, with a
Latin introduction. The book is an expensive one, and copies of it are
not very plentiful in England. Perhaps the Religious Tract Society have
not contributed to its circulation so liberally as did the pious
Emperor of all the Russias. Surely a text on which our own is to be
re-constructed ought to be in the hands at least of every English
clergyman and Young Men's Christian Association.
"Christianity," writes Dr. Tischendorf, "does not, strictly speaking,
rest on the moral teaching of Jesus;" "it rests on his person only." "If
we are in error in believing in the person of Christ as taught in the
Gospels, then the Church herself is in error, and must be given up as a
deception." "All the world knows that our Gospels are nothing else than
biographies of Christ." "We have no other source of information with
respect to the life of Jesus." So that, according to the Religious Tract
Society and its advocate, if the credibility of the Gospel biography
be successfully impugned, then the foundations of Christianity are
destroyed.
It becomes, therefore, of the highest importance to show that the
biography of Jesus, as given in the four Gospels, is absolutely
incredible and self-contradictory.
It is alleged in the Society's preface that all the objections of
infidelity have been hitherto unavailing. This is, however, not true. It
is rather the fact that the advocates of Christianity when defeated on
one point have shuffled to another, either quietly passing the topic
without further debate, or loudly declaring that the point abandoned
was really so utterly unimportant that it was extremely foolish in the
assailant to regard it as worthy attack, and that, in any case, all the
arguments had been repeatedly refuted by previous writers.
To the following objections to the Gospel narrative the writer refuses
to accept as answer, that they have been previously discussed and
disposed of.
The Gospels which are yet mentioned by the names popularly associated
with each do not tell us the hour, or the day, or the month, or--save
Luke--the year, in which Jesus was born. The only point on which the
critical divines, who have preceded Dr. Teschendorf, generally agree
is, that Jesus was not born on Christmas day. The Oxford Chronology,
collated with a full score of recognised authorities, gives us a period
of more than seven years within which to place the dale. So confused
is the story as to the time of the birth, that while Matthew would
make Jesus born in the lifetime of Herod, Luke would fix the period of
Jesus's birth as after Herod's death.
Christmas itself is a day surrounded with curious ceremonies of pagan
origin, and in no way serving to fix the 25th December as the natal day.
Yet the exact period at which Almighty God, as a baby boy, entered the
world to redeem long-suffering humanity from the consequences of Adam's
ancient sin, should be of some importance.
Nor is there any great certainty as to the place of birth of Christ. The
Jews, apparently in the very presence of Jesus, reproached him that
he ought to have been born at Bethlehem. Nathaniel regarded him as of
Nazareth. Jesus never appears to have said to either, "I was born at
Bethlehem." In Matthew ii., 6, we find a quotation from the prophet:
"And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least amongst the
princes of Juda, for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule
my people Israel." Matthew lays the scene of the birth in Bethlehem, and
Luke adopts the same place, especially bringing the child to Bethlehem
for that purpose, and Matthew tells us it is done to fulfil a prophecy.
Micah v., 2, the only place in which similar words occur, is not a
prophecy referring to Jesus at all. The words are: "But thou Beth-lehem
Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out
of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel,
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." This is not
quoted correctly in Matthew, and can hardly be said by any straining
of language to apply to Jesus. The credibility of a story on
which Christianity rests is bolstered up by prophecy in default of
contemporary corroboration. The difficulties are not lessened in tracing
the parentage. In Matthew i., 17, it is stated that "the generations
from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David until
the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the
carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."
Why has Matthew made such a mistake in his computation of the
genealogies--in the last division we have only thirteen names instead of
fourteen, even including the name of Jesus? Is this one of the cases of
"painful uncertainty" which has induced the Religious Tract Society and
Dr. Tischendorf to wish to set aside the _textus receptus_ altogether?
From David to Zorobabel there are in the Old Testament twenty
generations; in Matthew, seventeen generations; and in Luke,
twenty-three generations. In Matthew from David to Christ there are
twenty-eight generations, and in Luke from David to Christ forty-three
generations. Yet, according to the Religious Tract Society, it is on the
credibility of these genealogies as part of the Gospel history that
the foundation of Christianity rests. The genealogy in the first Gospel
arriving at David traces to Jesus through Solomon; the third Gospel
from David traces through Nathan. In Matthew the names from David are
Solomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias; and in the Old
Testament we trace the same names from David to Ahaziah, whom I presume
to be the same as Ozias. But in 2nd Chronicles xxii., 11, we find one
Joash, who is not mentioned in Matthew at all. If the genealogy in
Matthew is correct, why is the name not mentioned? Amaziah is mentioned
in chap, xxiv., v. 27, and in chap, xxvi., v. 1, Uzziah, neither of whom
are mentioned in Matthew, where Ozias is named as begetting Jotham, when
in fact three generations of men have come in between. In Matthew and
Luke, Zorobabel is represented as the son of Salathiel, while in 1
Chronicles iii., 17--19, Zerubbabel is stated to be the son of Pedaiah,
the brother of Salathiel. Matthew says Abind was the son of Zorobabel
(chap, i., v. 13). Luke iii., 27, says Zorobabel's son was Rhesa. The
Old Testament contradicts both, and gives Meshollam, and Hananiah,
and Shelomith, their sister (1 Chronicles iii, 19), as the names of
Zorobabel's children. Is this another piece of evidence in favor of Dr.
Tischendorf's admirable doctrine, that it is necessary to reconstruct
the text?
In the genealogies of Matthew and Luke there are only three names
agreeing after that of David, viz., Salathiel, Zorobabel, and
Joseph--all the rest are utterly different. The attempts at explanation
which have been hitherto offered, in order to reconcile these
genealogies, are scarcely creditable to the intellects of the Christian
apologists. They allege that "Joseph, who by nature was the son of
Jacob, in the account of the law was the son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob
were brothers by the same mother, and Heli, who was the elder, dying
without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow; in
consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law
the son of Heli." This is pure invention to get over a difficulty--an
invention not making the matter one whit more clear. For if you suppose
that these two persons were brothers, then unless you invent a death
of the mother's last husband and the widow's remarriage Jacob and Heli
would be the sons of the same father, and the list of the ancestors
should be identical in each genealogy. But to get over the difficulty
the pious do this. They say, although brothers, they were only
half-brothers; although sons of the same mother, they were not sons
of the same father, but had different fathers. If so, how is it that
Salathiel and Zorobabel occur as father and son in both genealogies?
Another fashion of accounting for the contradiction is to give one as
the genealogy of Joseph and the other as the genealogy of Mary. "Which?"
"Luke," it is said. Why Luke? what are Luke's words? Luke speaks of
Jesus being, "as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of
Heli." When Luke says Joseph, the son of Heli, did he mean Mary, the
daughter of Heli? Does the Gospel say one thing and mean another?
because if that argument is worth anything, then in every case where
a man has a theory which disagrees with the text, he may say the text
means something else. If this argument be permitted we must abandon in
Scriptural criticism the meaning which we should ordinarily intend to
convey by any given word. If you believe Luke meant daughter, why does
the same word mean son in every other case all through the remainder of
the genealogy? And if the genealogy of Matthew be that of Joseph, and
the genealogy of Luke be that of Mary, they ought not to have any point
of agreement at all until brought to David. They, nevertheless, do agree
and contradict each other in several places, destroying the probability
of their being intended as distinct genealogies. There is some evidence
that Luke does not give the genealogy of Mary in the Gospel itself. We
are told that Joseph went to Bethlehem to be numbered because he was of
the house of David: if it had been Mary it would have surely said so. As
according to the Christian theory, Joseph was not the father of Jesus,
it is not unfair to ask how it can be credible that Jesus's genealogy
could be traced to David in any fashion through Joseph?
So far from Mary being clearly of the tribe of Judah (to which the
genealogy relates) her cousinship to Elisabeth would make her rather
appear to belong to the tribe of Levi.
To discuss the credibility of the miraculous conception and birth would
be to insult the human understanding. The mythologies of Greece, Italy,
and India, give many precedents of sons of Gods miraculously born.
Italy, Greece, and India, must, however, yield the palm to Judea. The
incarnate Chrishna must give way to the incarnate Christ. A miraculous
birth would be scouted to-day as monstrous; antedate it 2,000 years and
we worship it as miracle.
Matt, i., 22, 23, says: "Now all this was done, that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a
virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." This
is supposed to be a quotation from Isaiah vii., 14--16: "Therefore the
Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall
he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For
before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the
land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."
But in this, as indeed in most other cases of inaccurate quotation, the
very words are omitted which would show its utter inapplicability to
Jesus. Even in those which are given, the agreement is not complete.
Jesus was not called Emmanuel. And even if his mother Mary were a
virgin, this does not help the identity, as the word [----] OLME in
Isaiah, rendered "virgin" in our version, does not convey the notion of
virginity, for which the proper word is [------] BeThULE; OLME is used
of a youthful spouse recently married. The allusion to the land being
forsaken of both her kings, omitted in Matthew, shows how little the
passage is prophetic of Jesus.
The story of the annunciation made to Joseph in one Gospel, to Mary
in the other, is hardly credible on any explanation. If you assume the
annunciations as made by a God of all-wise purpose, the purpose should,
at least, have been to prevent doubt of Mary's chastity; but the
annunciation is made to Joseph only after Mary is suspected by Joseph.
Two annunciations are made, one of them in a dream to Joseph, when he is
suspicious as to the state of his betrothed wife; the other made by
the angel Gabriel (whoever that angel may be) to Mary herself, who
apparently conceals the fact, and is content to be married, although
with child not by her intended husband. The statement--that Mary being
found with child by the Holy Ghost, her husband, not willing to make
her a public example, was minded to put her away privily--is quite
incredible. If Joseph found her with child _by the Holy Ghost_, how
could he even think of making a public example of her shame when there
was nothing of which she could be ashamed--nothing, if he believed in
the Holy Ghost, of which he need have been ashamed himself, nothing
which need have induced him to wish to put her away privily. It is
clear--according to Matthew--that Mary was found with child, and that
the Holy Ghost parentage was not even imagined by Joseph until after he
had dreamed about the matter.
Although the birth of Jesus was specially announced by an angel,
and although Mary sang a joyful song consequent on the annunciation,
corroborated by her cousin's greeting, yet when Simeon speaks of the
child, in terms less extraordinary, Joseph and Mary are surprised at it
and do not understand it. Why were they surprised? Is it credible that
so little regard was paid to the miraculous annunciation? Or is this
another case of the "painful uncertainty" alluded to by Dr. Teschendorf?
Again, when Joseph and Mary found the child Jesus in the temple, and he
says, "Wist ye not that I must be about my father's business?" they do
not know what he means, so that either what the angel had said had been
of little effect, or the annunciations did not occur at all. Can
any reliance be placed on a narrative so contradictory? An angel was
specially sent to acquaint a mother that her son about to be born is the
Son of God, and yet that mother is astonished when her son says, "Wist
ye not I must be about my father's business?"
The birth of Jesus was, according to Matthew, made publicly known by
means of certain wise men. These men saw his star in the East, but
it did not tell them much, for they were obliged to come and ask
information from Herod the King. Is astrology credible? Herod inquired
of the chief priests and scribes; and it is evident Jeremiah was right,
if he said, "The prophets prophecy falsely and the priests bear rule by
their means," for these chief priests misquoted to suit their purposes,
and invented a false prophecy by omitting a few words from, and adding a
few words to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star, after
they knew where to go, and no longer required its aid, went before them,
until it came and stood over where the young child was. The credibility
of this will be better understood if the reader notice some star, and
then see how many houses it will be over. Luke does not seem to have
been aware of the star story, and he relates about an angel who tells
some shepherds the good tidings, but this last-named adventure does not
appear to have happened in the reign of Herod at all. Is it credible
that Jesus was born twice? After the wise men had left Jesus, an angel
warned Joseph to flee with him and Mary into Egypt, and Joseph did fly,
and remained there with the young child and his mother until the death
of Herod; and this, it is alleged, was done to fulfil a prophecy. On
referring to Hosea xi., 1, we find the words have no reference whatever
to Jesus, and that, therefore, either the tale of the flight is invented
as a fulfilment of the prophecy, or the prophecy manufactured to support
the tale of the flight. The Jesus of Luke never went into Egypt at all
in his childhood. Directly after the birth of the child his parents
instead of flying away because of persecution into Egypt, went
peacefully up to Jerusalem to fulfil all things according to the law,
returned thence to Nazareth, and apparently dwelt there, going up to
Jerusalem every year until Jesus was twelve years of age.
In Matthew ii., 15, we are told that Jesus remained in Egypt, "That it
might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying,
Out of Egypt have I called my son." In Hosea ii., 1, we read, "When
Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."
In no other prophet is there any similar text. This not only is not a
prophecy of Jesus, but is, on the contrary, a reference to the Jewish
Exodus from Egypt. Is the prophecy manufactured to give an air of
credibility to the Gospel history, or how will the Religions Tract
Society explain it? The Gospel writings betray either a want of good
faith, or great incapacity on the part of their authors in the mode
adopted of distorting quotations from the Old Testament?
When Jesus began to be about thirty years of age he was baptised by John
in the river Jordan. John, who, according to Matthew, knew him, forbade
him directly he saw him; but, acccording to the writer of the fourth
Gospel, he knew him not, and had, therefore, no occasion to forbid him.
God is an "invisible" "spirit," whom no man hath seen (John i., 18),
or can see (Exodus xxxiii., 20); but the man John saw the spirit of
God descending like a dove. God is everywhere, but at that time was in
heaven, from whence he said, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well
pleased." Although John heard this from God's own mouth, he some time
after sent two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were really
the Christ (Matthew xi., 2, 3). Yet it is upon the credibility of this
story, says Dr. Teschendorf, that Christianity rests like a building on
its foundations.
It is utterly impossible John could have known and not have known Jesus
at the same time. And if, as the New Testament states, God is infinite
and invisible, it is incredible that as Jesus stood in the river to be
baptised, the Holy Ghost was seen as it descended on his head as a dove,
and that God from heaven said, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am
well pleased." Was the indivisible and invisible spirit of God separated
in three distinct and two separately visible persons? How do the
Religious Tract Society reconcile this with the Athanasian Creed?
The baptism narrative is rendered doubtful by the language used as to
John, who baptised Jesus. It is said, "This is he that was spoken of by
the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." Isaiah xl.,
1--5, is, "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak
ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare is
accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of
the Lord's hand double for all her sins. The voice of him that crieth
in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the
desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every
mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made
straight, and the rough places plain: and the glory of the Lord shall be
revealed." These verses have not the most remote relation to John? And
this manufacture of prophecies for the purpose of bolstering up a tale,
serves to prove that the writer of the Gospel tries by these to impart
an air of credibility to an otherwise incredible story.
Immediately after the baptism, Jesus is led up of the Spirit into the
wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. There he fasts forty days and
forty nights.
John says, in chapter i., 35, "Again, the next day after, John stood
and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he said,
behold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they
followed Jesus." Then, at the 43rd verse, he says, "The day following
Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto
him, follow me." And in chapter ii., 1, he says, "And the third day
there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was
there; and both Jesus was called and his disciples unto the marriage."
According to Matthew, there can be no doubt that immediately after the
baptism Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. And
we are to believe that Jesus was tempted of the Devil and fasting in
the wilderness, and at the same time feasting at marriage in Cana of
Galilee? Is it possible to believe that Jesus actually did fast forty
days and forty nights? If Jesus did not fast in his capacity as man,
in what capacity did he fast? And if Jesus fasted, being God, the fast
would be a mockery; and the account that he became a hungered must be
wrong. It is barely possible that in some very abnormal condition or
cataleptic state, or state of trance, a man might exist, with very
slight nourishment or without food, but that a man could walk about,
speak, and act, and, doing this, live forty days and nights without food
is simply an impossibility.
Is the story that the Devil tempted Jesus credible? If Jesus be God,
can the Devil tempt God? A clergyman of the Church of England writing on
this says: "That the Devil should appear personally to the Son of God is
certainly not more wonderful than that he should, in a more remote age,
have appeared among the sons of God, in the presence of God himself, to
torment the righteous Job. But that Satan should carry Jesus bodily and
literally through the air, first to the top of a high mountain, and then
to the topmost pinnacle of the temple, is wholly inadmissable, it is
an insult to our understanding, and an affront to our great creator and
redeemer." Supposing, despite the monstrosity of such a supposition, an
actual Devil--and this involves the dilemma that the Devil must either
be God-created, or God's co-eternal rival; the first supposition being
inconsistent with God's goodness, and the second being inconsistent with
his power; but supposing such a Devil, is it credible that the Devil
should tempt the Almighty maker of the universe with "all these will I
give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me?"
In the very names of the twelve Apostles there is an uncertainty as
to one, whose name was either Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, or Judas. It is
in Matthew x., 3, alone that the name of Lebbaeus is mentioned,
thus--"Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus." We are told, on this
point, by certain: Biblicists, that some early MSS. have not the words
"whose surname was Thaddaeus," and that these words have probably
been inserted to reconcile the Gospel according to Matthew with that
attributed to Mark. In the English version of the Rheims Testament
used in this country by our Roman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation
between Matthew and Mark is completed by omitting the words-"Lebbaeus
whose surname was," leaving only the name "Thaddaeus" in Matthew's text.
The revised version of the New Testament now agrees with the Rheims
version, and the omission will probably meet with the entire
concurrence of Dr. Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society, now
they boast autograph letters of approval from the infallible head of
the Catholic Church. If Matthew x., 3, and Mark hi., 18, be passed as
reconciled, although the first calls the twelfth disciple Lebbaeus, and
the second gives him the name Thaddaeus; there is yet the difficulty
that in Luke vi., 16, corroborated by John xiv., 22, there is a disciple
spoken of as "Judas, not Iscariot," "Judas, _the brother_ of James."
Commentators have endeavored to clear away this last difficulty by
declaring that Thaddaeus is a Syriac word, having much the same meaning
as Judas. This has been answered by the objection that if Matthew's
Gospel uses Thaddaeus in lieu of Judas, then he ought to speak of
Thaddaeus Iscariot, which he does not; and it is further objected also
that while there are some grounds for suggesting a Hebrew original for
the Gospel attributed to Matthew, there is not the slightest pretence
for alleging that Matthew wrote in Syriac. The Gospels also leave us in
some doubt as to whether Matthew is Levi, or whether Matthew and Levi
are two different persons.
The account of the calling of Peter is replete with contradictions.
According to Matthew, when Jesus first saw Peter, the latter was in a
vessel fishing with his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea of
Galilee. Jesus walking by the sea said to them--"Follow me, and I will
make you fishers of men." The two brothers did so, and they became
Christ's disciples. When Jesus called Peter no one was with him but his
brother Andrew. A little further on, the two sons of Zebedee were in a
ship with their father mending nets, and these latter were separately
called. From John, we learn that Andrew was originally a disciple of
John the Baptist, and that when Andrew first saw Jesus, Peter was not
present, but Andrew went and found Peter who, if fishing, must have been
angling on land, telling him "we have found the Messiah," and that
Andrew then brought Peter to Jesus, who said, "Thou art Simon, the son
of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas." There is no mention in John of
the sons of Zebedee being a little further on, or of any fishing in the
sea of Galilee. This call is clearly on land. Luke's Gospel states that
when the call took place, Jesus and Peter were both at sea. Jesus had
been preaching to the people, who pressing upon him, he got into Simon's
ship, from which he preached. After this he directed Simon to put out
into the deep and let down the nets. Simon answered, "Master, we have
toiled all night and taken nothing; nevertheless at thy word I will let
down the net." No sooner was this done, than the net was filled to
breaking, and Simon's partners, the two sons of Zebedee, came to help,
when at the call of Jesus, they brought their ships to land, and
followed him.
Is it credible that there were three several calls, or that the Gospels
being inspired, you could have three contradictory versions of the
same event? Has the story been here "painfully modified," or how do Dr.
Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society clear up the matter? Is it
credible that, as stated in Luke, Jesus had visited Simon's house, and
cured Simon's wife's mother, before the call of Simon, but did not go
to Simon's house for that purpose, until after the call of Simon, as
related in Matthew? It is useless to reply that the date of Jesus's
visit is utterly unimportant, when we are told that it is upon the
credibility of the complete narrative that Christianity must rest. Each
stone is important to the building, and it is not competent for the
Christian advocate to regard as useless any word which the Holy Ghost
has considered important enough to reveal.
Are the miracle stories credible? Every ancient nation has had its
miracle workers, but modern science has relegated all miracle history
to realms of fable, myth, illusion, delusion, or fraud. Can Christian
miracles be made the exceptions? Is it likely that the nations amongst
whom the dead were restored to life would have persistently ignored the
author of such miracles? Were the miracles purposeless, or if intended
to convince the Jews, was God unable to render his intentions effective?
That five thousand persons should be fed with five loaves and two
fishes, and that an apparent excess should remain beyond the original
stock, is difficult to believe; but that shortly after this--Jesus
having to again perform a similar miracle for four thousand persons--his
own disciples should ignore his recent feat, and wonder from whence the
food was to be derived, is certainly startlingly incredible. If this
exhibition of incredulity were pardonable on the part of the twelve
apostles, living witnesses of greater wonders, how much more pardonable
the unbelief of the sceptic of to-day, which the Religious Tract Society
seek to overcome by a faint echo of asserted events all contrary to
probability, and with nineteen centuries intervening.
The casting out the devils presents phenomena requiring considerable
credulity, especially the story of the devils and the swine. To-day
insanity is never referable to demoniacal possession, but eighteen
hundred years ago the subject of lunacy had not been so patiently
investigated as it has been since. That one man could now be tenanted
by several devils is a proposition for which the maintainer would in the
present generation incur almost universal contempt; yet the repudiation
of its present possibility can hardly be consistent with implicit
credence in its ancient history. That the devils and God should hold
converse together, although not without parallel in the book of Job,
is inconsistent with the theory of an infinitely good Deity; that the
devils should address Jesus as son of the most high God, and beg to be
allowed to enter a herd of swine, is at least ludicrous; yet all this
helps to make up the narrative on which Dr. Tischendorf relies. That
Jesus being God should pray to his Father that "the cup might pass"
from him is so incredible that even the faithful ask us to regard it as
mystery. That an angel from heaven could strengthen Jesus, the almighty
God, is equally mysterious. That where Jesus had so prominently preached
to thousands, the priests should need any one like Judas to betray the
founder of Christianity with a kiss, is absurd; his escapade in flogging
the dealers, his wonderful cures, and his raising Lazarus and Jairus's
daughter should have secured him, if not the nation's love, faith, and
admiration, at least a national reputation and notoriety. It is not
credible if Judas betrayed Jesus by a kiss that the latter should have
been arrested upon his own statement that he was Jesus. That Peter
should have had so little faith as to deny his divine leader three times
in a few hours is only reconcilable with the notion that he had remained
unconvinced by his personal intercourse with the incarnate Deity. The
mere blunders in the story of the denial sink into insignificance in
face of this major difficulty. Whether the cock did or did not crow
before the third denial, whether Peter was or was not in the same
apartment with Jesus at the time of the last denial, are comparatively
trifling questions, and the contradictions on which they are based may
be the consequence of the errors which Dr. Tischendorf says have crept
into the sacred writings.
Jesus said, "as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of
the whale, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth." Jesus was crucified on Friday, was buried on
Friday evening, and yet the first who went to the grave on the night
of Saturday as it began to dawn towards Sunday, found the body of Jesus
already gone. Did Jesus mean he should be three days and three nights
in the grave? Is there any proof that his body remained in the grave for
three hours? Who went first to the grave? was it Mary Magdalene alone,
as in John, or two Maries as in Matthew, or the two Maries and Salome
as in Mark, or the two Maries, Joanna, and several unnamed women as in
Luke? To whom did did Jesus first appear? Was it, as in Mark, to Mary
Magdalene, or to two disciples going to Emmaus, as in Luke, or to the
two Maries near the sepulchre, as in Matthew? Is the eating boiled fish
and honeycomb by a dead God credible? Did Jesus ascend to heaven the
very day of his resurrection, or did an interval of nearly six weeks
intervene?
Is this history credible, contained as it is in four contradictory
biographies, outside which biographies we have, as Dr. Tischendorf
admits, "no other source of information with respect to the life
of Jesus"? This history of an earth-born Deity, descended through a
crime-tainted ancestry, and whose genealogical tree is traced through
one who was not his father; this history of an infinite God nursed as
a baby, growing through childhood to manhood like any frail specimen
of humanity; this history, garnished with bedevilled men, enchanted fig
tree, myriads of ghosts, and scores of miracles, and by such garnishment
made more akin to an oriental romance than to a sober history; this
picture of the infinite invisible spirit incarnate visible as man;
immutability subject to human passions and infirmities; the creator come
to die, yet wishing to escape the death which shall bring peace to his
God-tormented creatures; God praying to himself and rejecting his own
prayer; God betrayed by a divinely-appointed traitor; God the immortal
dying, and in the agony of the death-throes--stronger than the strong
man's will--crying with almost the last effort of his dying breath, that
he being God, is God forsaken!
If all this be credible, what story is there any man need hesitate to
believe? Dr. Teschendorf asks how it has been possible to impugn the
credibility of the four Gospels, and replies that this has been done by
denying that the Gospels were written by the men whose names they bear.
In the preceding pages it has been shown that the credibility of
the Gospel narrative is impugned because it is uncorroborated by
contemporary history, because it is self-contradictory, and because many
of its incidents are _prima facie_ most improbable, and some of them
utterly impossible. Even English Infidels are quite prepared to admit
that the four Gospels may be quite anonymous; and yet, that their
anonymous character need be of no weight as an argument against their
truth. All that is urged on this head is that the advocates of the
Gospel history have sought to endorse and give value to the otherwise
unreliable narratives by a pretence that some of the Evangelists, at
least, were eyewitnesses of the events they refer to. Dr. Teschendorf
says: "The credibility of a writer clearly depends on the interval
of time which lies between him and the events which he describes. The
farther the narrator is removed from the facts which he lays before
us the more his claims to credibility are reduced in value." Presuming
truthfulness in intention for any writer, and his ability to comprehend
the facts he is narrating, and his freedom from a prejudice which may
distort the picture he intends to paint correctly with his pen: we
might admit the correctness of the passage we have quoted; but can these
always be pre-turned in the case of the authors of the Gospels? On the
contrary, a presumption in an exactly opposite direction may be fairly
raised from the fact that immediately after the Apostolic age the
Christian world was flooded with forged testimonies in favor of the
biography of Jesus, or in favor of his disciples.
A writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ observes: "To say nothing of such
acknowledged forgeries as the Apostolic constitutions and liturgies,
and the several spurious Gospels, the question of the genuineness of the
alleged remains of the Apostolic fathers, though often overlooked, is
very material. Any genuine remains of the 'Apostle' Barnabas, of Hermas,
the contemporary (Romans xvi., 14), and Clement, the highly commended
and gifted fellow laborer of St. Paul (Phil, iv., 3), could scarcely be
regarded as less sacred than those of Mark and Luke, of whom personally
we know less. It is purely a question of criticism. At the present day,
the critics best competent to determine it, have agreed in opinion,
that the extant writings ascribed to Barnabas and Hermas are wholly
spurious--the frauds of a later age. How much suspicion attaches to the
1st Epistle of Clement (for the fragment of the second is also generally
rejected) is manifest from the fact, that in modern times it has never
been allowed the place expressly assigned to it among the canonical
books prefixed to the celebrated Alexandrian MS., in which the only
known copy of it is included. It must not be forgotten that Ignatius
expressly lays claim to inspiration, that Irenasus quotes Hermas as
Scripture, and Origen speaks of him as inspired, while Polycarp, in
modestly disclaiming to be put on a level with the Apostles, clearly
implies there would have been no essential distinction in the way of
his being ranked in the same order. But the question is, how are these
pretensions substantiated?" So far the _Edinburgh Review_, certainly not
an Infidel publication.
Eusebius, in his "Ecclesiastical History," admits the existence of many
spurious gospels and epistles, and some writings put forward by him
as genuine, such as the correspondence between Jesus and Agbaras, have
since been rejected as fictitious. It is not an unfair presumption from
this that many of the most early Christians considered the then existing
testimonies insufficient to prove the history of Jesus, and good reason
is certainly afforded for carefully examining the whole of the evidences
they have bequeathed us. On p. 48, Dr. Teschendorf quotes Irenaeus, whose
writings-belong to the extreme end of the second century, as though that
Bishop must be taken as vouching the four Gospels as we now have them.
Yet, if the testimony of Irenaeus be-reliable ("Against Heresies," Book
III., cap. i.) the Gospel attributed to Matthew was believed to have
been composed in Hebrew, and Irenaeus says that as the Jews desired a
Messiah of the royal line of David, Matthew having the same desire to
a yet greater degree, strove to give them full satisfaction. This may
account for some of the genealogical curiosities to which we have drawn
attention, but hardly renders Matthew's Gospel more reliable; and how
can the suggestion that Matthew wrote in Hebrew prove that Matthew
penned the first Gospel, which has only existed in Greek? Irenaeus, too,
flatly contradicts the Gospels by declaring that the ministry of Jesus
extended over ten years and that Jesus lived to be fifty years of age
("Against Heresies," Book II., cap. 22).
If the statement of Irenaeus ("Against Heresies," Book III., cap. 11)
that the fourth Gospel was written to refute the errors of Cerinthus and
Nicolaus, have any value, then the actual date of issue of the fourth
Gospel will be considerably after the others. Dr. Tischendorf's
statement that Polycarp has borne testimony to the Gospel of John is not
even supported by the quotation on which he relies. All that is said in
the passage quoted (Eusebius, "Ecc. Hist.," Book V., cap. 20) is that
Irenaeus when he was a child heard Polycarp repeat from memory the
discourses of John and others concerning Jesus. If the Gospels had
existed in the time of Polycarp it would have been at least as easy
to have read them from the MS. as to repeat them from memory. Dr.
Tischendorf might also have added that the letter to Florinus, whence
he takes the passage on which he relies, exists only in the writings of
Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for many pieces of Christian evidence
since abandoned as forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says: "Any testimony
of Polycarp in favor of the Gospel refers us back to the Evangelist
himself, for Polycarp, in speaking to Irenaeus of this Gospel as the work
of his master, St. John, must have learned from the lips of the apostle
himself, whether he was its author or not." Now, what evidence is there
that Polycarp ever said a single word as to the authorship of the fourth
Gospel, or of any Gospel, or that he even said that John had penned
a single word? In the Epistle to the Philippians (the only writing
attributed to Polycarp for which any genuine character is even
pretended), the Gospel of John is never mentioned, nor is there even a
single passage in the Epistle which can be identified with any passage
in the Gospel of John.