The orthodox claims regarding the origin of these books are thus expressed by Dr. Hitchcock:
“The Four Gospels are the best authenticated ancient writings in the world; so clear, weighty, and extensive is the mass of testimony in favor of them” (Analysis of the Bible, p. 1149).
“These four books, together constituting the best attested piece of history in the world, were written by four eye-witnesses of the facts narrated” (Ibid, p. 1151).
“Matthew and John were Apostles and Mark and Luke were companions and disciples of Apostles” (Ibid).
If these books are authentic and divinely inspired, as claimed, Christianity is built upon a rock, and the floods and winds of adverse criticism will beat against it in vain; but if they are not authentic—if they were not written by the Evangelists named—if they are merely anonymous books, written one hundred and fifty years after the events they purport to record, as many contend, then it is built upon the sand and must fall.
The Apostles.
Christians claim to have an “unbroken chain of testimony” to the genuineness and credibility of the Four Gospels from the alleged dates of their composition down to the present time. I shall endeavor to show that they have no such chain of testimony—that the most important part of it is wanting.
Twenty books—all of the remaining books of the New Testament but three—are ascribed to the Apostles Paul, Peter, and John. All of these books, it is affirmed, were written after Matthew was written, and about one-half of them after Mark and Luke were written. If this be true, some proofs of the existence of the Synoptic Gospels ought to be found in these books.
Of the fourteen Epistles credited to Paul all have been assigned later dates than Matthew, and a portion of them later dates than Mark and Luke. But there is not a word to indicate that any one of these Gospels was in existence when Paul wrote.