1. No one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other part of the
New Testament. [This assuredly would not have been the case had they
been the oldest, and the foundation on which the whole was built.]
2. No work of art of any kind has ever been discovered, no painting
or engraving, no sculpture or other relic of antiquity which may be
looked upon as furnishing additional evidence of the existence of
those gospels, and which was executed earlier than the latter part of
the second century. Even the explorations of the Christian catacombs
failed to bring to light any evidence of that character.
3. The four gospels were written in Greek, and there was no translation
of them into other languages earlier than the third century.
4. No manuscript of the gospels are in existence dating further back
than the fourth century. Of that century, or the next, there are three
or four, and some twenty or thirty, more than a thousand years old.
5. No autograph manuscript of any of the gospels has ever been known,
so far as there is any authentic record, nor has any credible witness
ever claimed to have seen such a manuscript. No one has ever claimed
to have seen such a manuscript of either of the four gospels in
the hand-writing of Luke, Mark, Matthew, or John. If the autograph
manuscripts had ever existed they would have been preserved among
the most sacred relics of the church.
6. During the first two centuries tradition was esteemed of more
value and better evidence of the gospel history, than any written
books or manuscripts.
7. The dialect in which the New Testament books were written,
a sort of Hebraistic Greek, has been considered evidence of their
antiquity. But this dialect prevailed three centuries after Christ,
and was in full use during the second century. The same or similar
Hebraisms abound in the apocryphal gospels of that age.
8. The canonical gospels were selected by the bishops from a large
number then in circulation.
In taking a general review of the first hundred and seventy
years of the Christian religion the first thing that strikes the
mind is the dearth of material from which to construct a reliable
history. It is seen at once how much must rest upon probability in
its different degrees--how much must be relegated to the province of
speculation. The works of the only church historian who wrote during
that period, lost or destroyed the few fragments that are left being
of comparatively no value--the writings of Porphyry and others who
wrote against Christianity, and those of the heretic Christians,
all destroyed--there remain only the works of some of the orthodox
fathers, and the text of those in a mutilated and corrupted condition.
Such is the material at the hands of the historian. Of course he cannot
rely implicitly upon the unsupported assertion of any such writer
for the truth of any historical fact whatever. In every instance
he is obliged to scrutinize carefully, and endeavor to ascertain
whether any ulterior motives may have prompted whatever statement
may be under consideration. If he can find none, and the fact stands
uncontradicted by other writers, it is cautiously accepted. Under
such circumstances progress is slow and uncertain. The most that any
writer can hope to accomplish is to place in proper shape what is
already known, and to establish here and there a landmark for the
benefit of subsequent historians.
In conclusion, as the result of this investigation, it may be repeated
that no evidence is found of the existence in the first century of
either of the following doctrines: the immaculate conception--the
miracles of Christ--the material resurrection. No one of these gospels
is found in the epistles of the New Testament, nor have we been able
to find them in other writings of the first century.
As to the four gospels, in coming to the conclusion that they
were not written in the first century, we have but recorded
the conviction of the most advanced scholars of the present day,
irrespective of their religious views in other respects; with whom
as now presented, is, How early in the second century were they
composed? Discarding as inventions of the second century, having no
historical foundation, the three doctrines above named, and much else
which must necessarily stand or fall with them, what remains of the
Christian religion? (C. B. Waite, "History of the Christian Religion
to the year 200.")
The Canon.
"The infancy of the canon was cradled in an uncritical age and rocked
with traditional ease. Conscientious care was not directed from the
first to the well authenticated testimony of eye-witnesses. Of the
three fathers who contributed most to its early growth, Irenæus was
credulous and blundering; Tertullian passionate and one-sided; and
Clement, of Alexandria, imbued with the treasures of Greek wisdom,
was mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics.
"Irenæus agrees that the gospels should be four in number, neither more
nor less, because there are four universal winds and four quarters
of the world. The Word or Architect of all things gave the gospel in
a four-fold shape. According to this father the apostles were fully
informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge after
their Lord's ascension.
"He says, 'Matthew wrote his gospels while Peter and Paul were
preaching in Rome, and founding the church.' Such assertions show
both ignorance and exaggeration.
"Tertullian affirms that the tradition of the apostolic churches
guarantees the four gospels, and refers his readers to the churches
of Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, etc., for the authentic epistles of
Paul. What is this but the rhetoric of an enthusiast?
"Clement contradicts himself in making Peter authorize Mark's gospel
to be read in the churches, while in another place he says the apostles
'neither forbade nor encouraged it.'
"The three fathers of whom we are speaking had neither the ability
nor inclination to examine the genesis of documents surrounded with an
apostolic halo. No analysis of their authenticity and genuineness was
seriously attempted. In its absence, custom, accident, taste, practical
needs, directed the tendency of tradition. All the rhetoric employed
to throw the value of their testimony as far back as possible, even up
to or very near to the apostle John, is of the vaguest sort. Appeals to
the continuity of tradition and of church doctrine, to the exceptional
veneration of these fathers for the gospels, to their opinions being
formed earlier than the composition of the works in which they are
expressed, possess no force.
"The ends which the fathers in question had in view, their polemic
motives, their uncritical, inconsistent assertions, their want of sure
data, detract from their testimony. Their decisions were much more
the result of pious feeling, biased by the theological speculations
of the times, than the conclusions of a sound judgment. The very
arguments they use to establish certain conclusions show weakness of
perception. What are the manifestations of spiritual feeling compared
with the result of logical reasoning?" (Davidson on the Canon.)
Thus we have the testimony of one of the ablest and clearest
minds that has ever written upon the canon which the fathers most
depended upon to establish the authenticity of the small books
forming it, were "ignorant," "credulous," "blundering," "passionate,"
"one-sided," "uncritical," "inconsistent," "possessed undue enthusiasm
with contradictions;" "not possessing ability or inclination to
examine;" "attempting no analysis of genuineness;" "an unreasonable
apostolic reverence." "Custom, accident, taste, and the tendency of
tradition taking the place of careful examination;" "a disposition
to misrepresent;" "exceptional veneration of the fathers for the
gospels older than the composition;" "want of data;" "their decisions
the result of pious feeling based upon [incorrect] theological
speculations;" "unsound judgment;" "weakness of perception;" "lack
of logical reasoning." These are the characteristics of the fathers
depended upon to establish the authenticity of a gospel story which
has no solid foundation to rest upon and which is clearly of an
apocryphal character. ("Answers to Christian Questions" pp. 69-70,
by D. M. Bennett.)
"One hundred and seventy years from the coming of Christ elapsed
before the collection assumed a form that carried with it the idea
of holy and inspired." (Davidson on the Canon, p. 106.)
"It is clear that the earliest church fathers did not use the books of
the New Testament as sacred documents clothed with divine authority,
but followed for the most part, at least till the middle of the second
century, apostolic tradition orally transmitted." (Ibid, p. 107.)
"Their decisions (the fathers) were much more the result of pious
feeling biased by the theological speculations of the times, than
the conclusions of a sound judgment. The very arguments they use to
establish certain conclusions show weakness of perception." (Ibid
p. 124.)
"The men who first canonized them (the gospels) had no certain
knowledge of their authors." (Ibid p. 127.)
"That Luke did not write the gospel of Luke." (Ibid 2, p. 25.)
"The canon was not the work of the Christian Church so much as of
the men who were striving to form the church." (Ibid p. 129.)
"Professor Davidson says that the Gospel of Matthew, as we have
it now could not have been written by Matthew. Intro. New Test. 1,
p. 484. He says that the present Gospel of Mark was not written by
Mark and that its author is unknown." (Ibid 2, p. 83, 84.)
Of John's Gospel he says:
"Its existence before 140 A. D. is incapable either of decision or
probable showing. The Johannine authorship has receded before the
tide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at times,
it is here irresistible.
"No certain traces of the existence of the fourth gospel can be found
till after Justin Martyr, that is till after the middle of the second
century." (Ibid 2, p. 520.)
The Value of Papias' Testimony.
"Suppose Papias is referring to our present gospel of Mark, what
testimony have we to the authenticity of Jesus' words as contained
in it? Just this: Eusebius says that Papias said that John the
presbyter said that Mark said that Peter said that Jesus said thus
and so." (Keeler's "Short History of the Bible," p. 19.)
Ignorance and Dishonesty of the Early Fathers.
That the charge of ignorance justly attaches to many of the fathers
of the church, and that of dishonesty as well, there is abundant
evidence, but a small portion of this can be given here. Mosheim,
in part 2 chapter 3 of his "Ecclesiastical History," says:
"The interest of virtue and true religion suffered yet more
grievously by the monstrous errors that were universally adopted
in this century, and became a source of innumerable calamities and
mischiefs of succeeding ages. The first of these maxims was that it was
an act of virtue to deceive and lie when by that means the interest
of the church might be promoted; and the second, equally horrible,
though in another point of view, was "that errors in religion, when
maintained and adhered to after proper admonition were punishable with
civil penalties and corporal tortures." The former of these erroneous
maxims was now of long standing. It had been adopted for long ages
past, and had produced an incredible number of ridiculous fables,
fictitious prodigies, and pious frauds to the remarkable detriment to
that glorious cause in which they were employed. And it must be frankly
confessed that the greatest men and the most eminent saints of this
century [the fourth] were more or less tainted with the infection of
this corrupt principle, as will appear evident to such as look with an
attentive eye to their writings and actions. We would willingly except
from this charge Ambrose, and Hiliary Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen,
and Jerome; but truth, which is more respectable than these venerable
fathers, obliges us to involve them in the general accusation."
At another time he says, as translated by Vidal:
"At the time when he [Hermas] wrote, it was an established maxim
with many Christians to avail themselves of fraud and deception,
if it was likely they would conduce toward the attainment of any
considerable good."
He again says:
"It was considered that they who made it their business to deceive,
with a view of promoting the cause of truth, were deserving rather
of commendation than censure."
The French Protestant writer, Casaubon, talks in a similar way, thus:
"It mightily affects me to see how many there were in the earliest
times of the church who considered it a capital exploit to lend to
heavenly truth the help of their own inventions in order that the
new doctrine might be received by the wise among the Gentiles. These
officious lies, they said, were devised for a good end."
Le Clerc, corroborating these opinions, says:
"Dissemblers of truth are nowhere to be met with in such abundance
as among the writers of church history."
M. Daille, another learned and impartial French writer, in his
celebrated work, the "Use of the Fathers," says:
"We find them saying things which they did not themselves believe. They
are mutually witnesses against each other, that they are not to be
believed absolutely on their bare word."
In book 1, chapter 6, he states upon the authority of St. Jerome, that:
"Origin, Methodius, Eusebius, Apollonaris, have written largely against
Celsus and Porphyry. Do but observe their manner of arguing, and
what slippery problems they used. They alleged against the Gentiles,
not what they believed, but what they thought necessary."
Jerome himself adds:
"I forbear mentioning the Latin writers, as Tertullian, Cyprian,
Minutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hiliary, lest I should rather seem
to accuse others than defend myself."
Daille adds of the fathers:
"They made no scruple to forge whole books."
An able writer in the Eclectic Review of 1814, page 179, speaks of
the fathers in this way:
"When we consider the number of gospels, acts, epistles, revelations,
traditions, and constitutions which were put in circulation during
the first three centuries, and which are unquestionably spurious,
we find sufficient reason for examining with care and receiving
with extreme caution productions attributed to eminent men in the
primitive church. Some of the early Christians do not seem to have
possessed in some points a nice sense of moral obligation. The writing
of books under false names, and the circulating of fables, were not
accounted violations of duty; or, if the impropriety of such conduct
was felt, the end proposed--the promotion of the Christian cause--was
thought to justify the means employed for the accomplishment. (From
D. M. Bennett's "Answers to Christian Questions," p. 78-80.)
Jesus Not a Historical Character.
The following very pertinent argument is made use of by the
Rev. S. Baring-Gould in his "Lost and Hostile Gospels": "It is somewhat
remarkable that no contemporary, or even early account of the life of
our Lord exists, except from the pen of Christian writers. That we
have none by Greek or Roman writers is not, perhaps, to be wondered
at; but it is singular that neither Philo, Josephus, nor Justus
of Tiberius, should ever have alluded to Christ or to primitive
Christianity. Philo was born at Alexandria about twenty years before
Christ. In the year A. D. 40 he was sent by the Alexandrian Jews on
a mission to Caligula, to entreat the emperor not to put in force his
order that his statue should be erected in the temple of Jerusalem and
in all the synagogues of the Jews. Philo was a Pharisee. He traveled
in Palestine, and speaks of the Essenes he saw there; but he says
not a word about Jesus Christ or his followers. It is possible that
he may have heard of the new sect, but he probably concluded it was
but insignificant, and consisted merely of the disciples, poor and
ignorant, of a Galilean rabbi, whose doctrines he, perhaps did not
stay to inquire into, and supposed they did not differ fundamentally
from the traditional teaching of the rabbis of his day."
The Spurious Passage in Josephus.
"At this time lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed he ought to be
called a man]; for he performed wonderful works [he was a teacher of
men who received the truth with gladness]; and he drew to him many
Jews and also many Greeks. [This was the Christ.] But when Pilate,
at the instigation of our chiefs, had condemned him to crucifixion,
they who at first loved him did not cease; [for he appeared to them
on the third day again; for the divine prophets had foretold this,
together with many other wonderful things concerning him], and even
to this time the community of Christians called after him, continues
to exist."
That this passage is spurious has been almost universally
acknowledged. One may be accused perhaps of killing dead birds, if
one again examines and discredits the passage; but as the silence of
Josephus on the subject which we are treating is a point on which it
will be necessary to insist, we cannot omit as brief a discussion as
possible of the celebrated passage.
The passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A. D. 315) in two
places (Hist. Eccl. lib. 1. c. 11; Demonst. Evang. lib. 3.),
but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A. D. 140), Clement of
Alexandria (fl. A. D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A. D. 193), and Origen
(fl. A. D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced
by Justin in his apology, or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew,
had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence
of Origen is still more significant. Celsus in his book against
Christianity introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the arguments of
Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of
Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the
genuine text. He indeed distinctly affirms that Josephus did not
believe in Christ. (Contra. Celsus 1.)
Again the paragraph interrupts the chain of ideas in the original
text. Before this passage comes an account of how Pilate, seeing there
was a want of pure drinking water in Jerusalem, conducted a stream into
the city from a spring two hundred stadia distant, and ordered that
the cost should be defrayed out of the treasury of the Temple. This
occasioned a riot. Pilate disguised Roman soldiers as Jews, with
swords under their cloaks, and sent them among the rabble, with orders
to arrest the ringleaders. This was done. The Jews finding themselves
set upon by other Jews, fell into confusion; one Jew attacked another,
and the whole company of rioters melted away. "And in this manner,"
says Josephus, "was this insurrection suppressed." Then follows the
paragraph about Jesus, beginning, "At this time lived Jesus, a wise
man, if indeed one ought to call him a man," etc., and the passage is
immediately followed by, "About this time another misfortune threw the
Jews into disturbance; and in Rome an event happened in the temple of
Isis which produced great scandal." And then he tells an indelicate
story of religious deception which need not be repeated here. The
misfortune which befell the Jews was, as he afterward relates, that
Tiberius drove them out of Rome. The reason of this was, he says, that
a noble Roman lady who had become a proselyte, had sent gold and purple
to the temple at Jerusalem. But this reason is not sufficient. It is
clear from what precedes--a story of sacerdotal fraud--that there was
some connection between the incidents in the mind of Josephus. Probably
the Jews had been guilty of religious deceptions in Rome, and had made
a business of performing cures and expelling demons, with talismans,
and incantations, and for this had obtained rich payment.
From the connection that exists between the passage about the
"other misfortune which befell the Jews," and the former one about
the riot suppressed by Pilate, it appears evident that the whole of
the paragraph concerning our Lord is an interpolation. That Josephus
could not have written the passage as it stands, is clear enough, for
only a Christian would speak of Jesus in the terms employed. Josephus
was a Pharisee and a Jewish priest; he shows in all his writings that
he believes in Judaism.
It has been suggested that Josephus may have written about Christ
as in the passage quoted, but that the portions within brackets are
the interpolations of a Christian copyist. But when these portions
within brackets are removed, the passage loses all its interest
and is a dry statement utterly unlike the sort of notice Josephus
would have been likely to insert. He gives color to his narratives;
his incidents are always sketched with vigor; this account would be
meagre besides those of the riot of the Jews and the rascality of
the priests of Isis. Josephus asserts, moreover, that in his time
there were four sects among the Jews--the Pharisees, the Sadducees,
the Essenes, and the sect of Judas of Gamala. He gives tolerably
copious particulars about these sects, and their teachings, but of the
Christian sect he says not a word. Had he wished to write about it,
he would have given full details, likely to interest his readers,
and not have dismissed the subject in a couple of lines.
It was perhaps felt by the early Christians that the silence of
Josephus, so famous a historian and a Jew, on the life, miracles,
and death of the founder of Christianity was extremely inconvenient;
the fact could not fail to be noticed by their adversaries. Some
Christian transcriber may have argued, either Josephus knew nothing
of the miracles performed by Christ--in which case he is a weighty
testimony against them--or he must have heard of Jesus, but not
having deemed his acts, as they were related to him, of sufficient
importance to find a place in history. Arguing thus, the copyist took
the opportunity of rectifying the omission, written from the stand
point of a Pharisee, and therefore designated the Lord as merely a
wise man. (D. M. Bennett in "Jesus Christ.")
That this paragraph, concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, is not
Josephus's but an interpolation, is argued from these several following
considerations:
1. It is not quoted or referred to by any Christian writer before
Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century,
and afterward.
2. This paragraph was wanting in the copies of Josephus which were
seen by Photius, in the ninth century.