The Wave of Scepticism and the Rock of Truth

by M. H. Habershon

The third part deals with the Fourth Gospel in a similar manner, and occupies more than two hundred pages. Our author's inquiry into the reality of Divine revelation seems, at this point, to involve the following questions: Does the extant literature of the close of the first and the beginning of the second century quote from, or allude to, the three Synoptic Gospels? And if this cannot be answered in the affirmative, does such silence prove they were not then written; and, if so, is the conclusion deducible that the miracles recorded are not credible?

In the preliminary remarks with which he opens the second part, he says: "When such writers, quoting largely from the Old Testament and other sources, deal with subjects which would naturally be assisted by references to our Gospels, and still more so by quoting such works as authoritative, and yet we find that not only they do not show any knowledge of those Gospels, but actually quote passages from unknown sources, or sayings of Jesus derived from tradition, the inference must be that our Gospels were either unknown, or not recognised as works of any authority at the time." In reference to this sentence I remark that many of the passages he specifies and examines are not from unknown sources, but from the Gospels, because, if not strictly verbatim, they are in the sense identical, and almost identical in the language; therefore such quotations are evidence that the Gospels existed at the time. The insinuation that they are from tradition is purely conjecture, and altogether improbable, because our Gospels contain the passages. There is not the slightest reason for looking away from our gospels, and imagining the quotations to be either from unknown sources or tradition. This will appear as we proceed. I will give in his own words the results of his examination of what he designates "evidence for the Synoptic Gospels," and then follow him step by step through the journey he takes into early Patristic Church history.

He says (vol. ii. page 248): "We may now briefly sum up the results of our examination of the evidence for the Synoptic Gospels. After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus. Only once during the whole of that period do we find any tradition even that any one of our Evangelists composed a Gospel at all, and that tradition, so far from favouring our Synoptics, is fatal to the claims of the first and second. Papias, about the middle of the second century, on the occasion to which we refer, records that Matthew composed the Discourses of the Lord in the Hebrew tongue, a statement which totally excludes the claim of our Greek Gospel to apostolic origin. Mark, he said, wrote down from the casual preaching of Peter the sayings and doings of Jesus, but without orderly arrangement, as he was not himself a follower of the Master, and merely recorded what fell from the apostle. This description likewise shows that our actual Second Gospel could not in its present form have been the work of Mark. There is no other reference during the period to any writing of Matthew or Mark, and no mention at all of any work ascribed to Luke. If it be considered that there is any connection between Marcion's Gospel and our Third Synoptic, any evidence so derived is of an unfavourable character for that Gospel, as it involves a charge against it of being interpolated and debased by Jewish elements. Any argument for the mere existence of our Synoptics, based upon their supposed rejection by heretical leaders and sects, has the evitable disadvantage that the very testimony which would show their existence would oppose their authenticity. There is no evidence of their use by heretical leaders, however, and no direct reference to them by any writer, heretical or orthodox, whom we have examined. We need scarcely add that no reason whatever has been shown for accepting the testimony of these Gospels as sufficient to establish the reality of miracles and of a direct Divine revelation." (Here he says, in a foot-note: "A comparison of the contents of the three Synoptics would have confirmed the conclusion, but this is not at present necessary, and we must hasten on.") "It is not pretended that more than one of the Synoptic Gospels was written by an eye-witness of the miraculous occurrences reported; and whilst no evidence has been, or can be, produced even of the historical accuracy of the narratives, no testimony as to the correctness of the inferences from the external phenomena exists or is now even conceivable. The discrepancy between the amount of evidence required and that which is forthcoming, however, is greater than under the circumstances could have been thought possible."

There is a plausibility, combined with an assumed conclusiveness, in this summary, which may impose for a moment on those readers of his book who are not conversant with the question under discussion. They will be likely to have glanced at the foot-notes indicating the great number of books referred to, and take it for granted that an author so learned and painstaking would scarcely have asserted conclusions so boldly without having found good reasons for them, which, before he has done, he will adduce and make plain. It is evident, however, that whatever his reasons may be as a whole, when his promised further volume has been published, it is quite certain that, so far, his argument from the silence of early writings, supposing he had conducted it successfully, combined with his logic on the abstract question of the credibility of miracles, is not sufficient to justify his assertion that the testimony of the Gospels is insufficient to establish the reality of miracles; because the Gospels might have existed, although no trace of them can be found in the fragments extant of books written during the few years between the composition of the Gospels and the period when they were generally acknowledged as authoritative, and read everywhere in the Christian assemblies on the Lord's Day, that is, from about A.D. 100 to 150.

The reader will be unwise if he allow himself to be impressed by the multiplicity of selected witnesses from a selected period, other evidence being unappealed to. If a hundred of witnesses are, in a court of justice, produced to swear to the identity of a man, the impression is created that it cannot but be established. We have lately seen how from being inevitable is such an outside verdict. The special pleading of authorship, like that of the Queen's Bench, startles and impresses for a moment; but after the investigation of all the facts and circumstances of the case is complete, and the judge has dissected the evidence, the sophistry is found not to have helped the side which used it, but has tended to strengthen the other. I remark, before following our author in his references to the witnesses he has selected for cross-examination, it is not conceded to him the right to draw a line where it best suits him in Church history, and decide the case in the absence of the evidence of witnesses on the outside of it. He draws such a line in specifying "the first century and a half after the death of Christ." If the probable date of Christ's birth be the third year before the commencement of the Christian era, we have this line drawn at A.D. 180, at which point the second generation of Christians had only just passed away, when direct tradition had not lost its freshness. While men and women were living who had heard from eye-witnesses of the events of Christ's life on earth, the story of His advent, death, resurrection, and ascension, the books recording the facts for future ages were in a less prominent position in the Church than immediately afterwards. They were then read in all the Churches, but commentaries on them and written references to them were not very numerous; therefore what we can trace of such before that time is comparatively scanty. But, immediately afterwards, in the third and fourth generation of Christians, when there were no men living who could say, My grandfather or my venerable teacher told me so and so of Christ, and he saw Christ in Galilee after His resurrection, when there were not less than five hundred of His disciples assembled, and he was present when He ascended in a cloud—while such persons were living, the testimony of a book was to them of lesser weight and importance, for they could say that they had the truth, not from the written words of a disciple, but from his own lips. As Irenæus well remembered Polycarp, so might persons living about the middle of the second century remember the teaching of the Apostle John. The argument from "silence," applied to the early period restricted to the year 180, is for this and other reasons far from being conclusive, while the evidence furnished by such writings as those of Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Hippolytus, and Origen, who belong to the subsequent years of the first and the opening of the second century, is much more important than is indicated by our author. His investigation ignores to a great extent the circumstantial evidence of this later period. He says (vol. ii. p. 387) he "must be careful to restrict himself to the limits of his inquiry," and to avoid the "more general literary point of view," and he does so restrict himself. If a person really desires to decipher an obscure antiquarian manuscript or inscription, he does not say, I must carefully keep to this imperfectly-lighted room, and not step into broad daylight.

Here is a specimen of the way he draws an inference. In arguing against the authority of the four Gospels, he says, vol. ii. p. 457, "No two of them agree even about so simple a matter of fact as the inscription on the cross." Now the exact words, as given in each Gospel, are as follows: Matthew gives the inscription in eight words—"This is Jesus the King of the Jews;" Mark in five words—"The King of the Jews;" Luke in seven words—"This is the King of the Jews;" and John in eight words—"Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews."

This needs no comment. Could anything be more natural than such slight discrepancies? Would four shorthand reporters of the present day have been more exact?

The first early writer he examines is Clement, Bishop of Rome, who, towards the close of the first century, wrote an epistle to the Corinthians. It is attached to the ancient copy of the Scriptures known as the Codex Alexandrinus, written in the fifth century, and preserved in the British Museum.

This writer's fame surpassed all others in the first century. His first Epistle to the Corinthians, written in Greek, is deemed to be genuine; but, says Dr. Mosheim, "it seems to have been corrupted and interpolated."

Eusebius assures us it was received by all, and reverenced next to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore publicly read in the Churches for some ages, even till his time.[21]