CHAPTER XXI. THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE GOSPELS AS DEDUCED FROM PREVIOUS

CONSIDERATIONS.

I have proved in the preceding chapters that one of the miracles recorded in the Gospels is substantiated by the highest form of historical testimony, on evidence quite independent of their contents. I have adopted this course because unbelievers affirm that the miraculous narratives contained in them are alone sufficient to prove them to be unhistorical. It has therefore become necessary to prove the truth of the greatest miracle which they narrate, without any reference to their assertions. Christianity unquestionably existed before the Gospels were written, and the all‐important fact on which it rests can be substantiated without their aid, on data which are conceded by our opponents. Its truth or falsehood therefore does not rest on any mere question as to what was their actual date, or who were their authors. Still they are the only records of the life of Jesus Christ that the Church possesses. The question therefore as to whether they are true in all their chief outlines, is one of such importance as to render a few observations on this subject indispensable.

There can be no doubt that no one would have ever thought of denying their general authenticity, except on account of the miraculous narratives they contain. This has made them the battle‐field of Christianity, because it has been supposed that if their historical character can be shaken, Christianity would be disproved as resting on no other basis. For this purpose every variation in them, even the smallest, has been noted, and these variations have been magnified into contradictions. There is no weapon which criticism has not employed for the purpose of impugning their veracity. But the real ground of offence is the miraculous narrative. As, however, I have proved that the most important miracle recorded in them can be established on grounds quite independent of their testimony, we can now approach their consideration with this great antecedent difficulty removed. If the Resurrection of Jesus is an actual occurrence, the other miraculous events recorded in them no longer stand in the way of their acceptance as genuine histories. This one miracle is sufficient to carry all the rest; not, of course, that it proves that they occurred, but it gets rid of the entire _à priori_ difficulty with which their acceptance is attended. Nay, further, if Christ rose from the dead, it is more probable than not, that this was not the only miracle connected with Him: or, in other words, if the authors of the Gospels attributed to Him no other miraculous action, it would rather afford a presumption against them as credible historians. It follows therefore, that although the proof of the Resurrection does not by itself establish the reality of the other miracles recorded as having been performed by Him, it renders them so far probable, that the same amount of evidence, which is sufficient to establish the ordinary facts of history, is sufficient to establish the general truth of the events recorded in the Gospels. I do not mean to affirm that some miracle may not have been incorrectly attributed to Christ in the traditions of the Church, from which the narratives in the Gospels have been derived, in the same manner as some inaccurate reports of facts have obtained admission into ordinary histories. But as these latter do not affect the general credibility of history, so errors of this description would not affect the general credibility of the Gospel narratives. All that I claim for them is that they should be both alike tried by the historical canons of criticism applicable to the same species of documents. Let me state once for all the position that I occupy. I am not called upon to prove that no error can have crept into their accounts; that events are all arranged in their true order of sequence; that variations do not exist in them which with our present knowledge of the details, it is difficult to reconcile, or even that the Evangelists themselves may not have misconceived their true order, or grouped them in one that was the result of religious considerations. The determination of such questions may affect our views as to the nature of the inspiration under which we suppose the Gospels to have been written, but it is one wholly foreign to an historical discussion. The question which I have to consider is, not the extent of the inspiration of their authors; but whether they do or do not contain genuine history; and if they do, to what class of historical writings they belong, and to estimate their testimony accordingly.

I will consider this last question first. The Gospels most distinctly affirm that they do not belong to the class of professed histories, but to that of memoirs. This is a very important consideration; for if they only claim to be memoirs and not histories it is absurd to demand of them an accuracy of arrangement and of detail, which would be essential to a history, but which forms no portion of the plan of a memoir. But they not only affirm that they are memoirs, but memoirs of a peculiar character; that is to say, religious memoirs, composed with a double purpose, viz. that of setting forth the events of a life, and at the same time of teaching a religion.

This point is so important, and is so generally overlooked in the arguments both of those who affirm and of those who deny their historical character, that it will be necessary to prove it. It is not only evident from the general nature of their contents, but three of the Evangelists directly affirm it, and two of them, Luke and John, in express terms. The former distinctly asserts that he composed his Gospel in order that a person called “Theophilus” might know the certainty of the things in which he had been instructed. “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth a declaration of these things that are most surely believed among us; even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having perfect understanding of all things from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things in which thou hast been instructed.” (Luke i. 1‐4.)

Here we have the purpose of the writer definitely affirmed. It is to set forth a statement of the leading facts of the life of Jesus, for the purpose of communicating instruction in the Christian religion. In one word, the author proposed to teach a religion by means of a narrative of facts. It is hardly possible to give a more accurate description of a memoir as distinguished from a history. He also tells us that he meant to compose it in an orderly arrangement, but he does not tell us whether the order was intended to be strictly chronological, or merely regulated by the avowed religious purpose of the work. It is quite possible for a writer to adopt an orderly arrangement, who arranges his matter as much by religious considerations as by chronological ones. According to the statement of this preface, the religious purpose is clearly the predominant one; and it is therefore only reasonable to suppose that it has exerted considerable influence on the grouping.

We learn also from this preface that the things most surely believed among Christians consisted of a number of facts, which had been delivered to them by persons who from the beginning were eye‐witnesses and ministers of the word. Several persons had already set forth written accounts of them before the author composed this Gospel. It is implied that he did so because he possessed better and more accurate sources of information than previous writers. The object, however, is clear; it was that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things, _i.e._ the great facts on which the Christianity, in which he had been instructed, was based.

The assertion of this religious purpose in the composition of the fourth Gospel, and that the materials are a selection from a large mass of others is even more distinct and definite. “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life through his name.” (John xx. 30, 31.)

Words could hardly have been framed which more definitely assert that this Gospel is a memoir, and not a history; and that the religious purpose, in its composition, was the predominant idea of the writer.

The assertions of the author of St. Mark’s Gospel, although not equally full, are sufficiently definite. He designates it as “The beginning of the gladsome message of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Here, again, the religious idea is plainly the predominant one in the writer’s mind, and the obvious conclusion is that he intended his work to be a memoir, and not a history.

We have no such direct affirmation by the author of St. Matthew’s Gospel, unless the opening words, “The book of the generations of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,” are intended to cover the entire work. The nature of its contents, however, leave not the smallest doubt that his design in writing was precisely the same as that of the other Evangelists, viz. to teach Christianity by setting forth a memoir of the life of Jesus Christ.

Such, then, is the avowed purpose of the authors of the four Gospels. Each of them is a religious memoir. This being so, it is absurd to demand of such writings what can only be found in regularly composed histories.

In what, then, does a history differ from a memoir? The object of the historian is not only to give an account of the events which he narrates precisely as they occurred; but the order of his narrative is regulated by the definite sequences of time and place. The writer of a memoir, on the contrary, is not bound to observe this order, but he is entitled to vary it in reference to the special object he has in view, and the points which he requires to illustrate.

But the religious purpose is most definitely affirmed to have been the predominant one in the minds of the authors of the Gospels. It would therefore have an important influence on their arrangement of their materials. We should expect to find them grouped far more in reference to this end, than to the mere sequences of time and place. When certain of the actions or portions of the teaching of our Lord illustrated the particular subject which each Evangelist had before him, he would neglect the exact historical order, and group them in reference to this special purpose.

In writings of this description, therefore, while all the chief points of his life and his discourses ought to present a substantial agreement, we should naturally expect to find a considerable number of minor divergencies. While we have the fullest right to expect that the facts will be accurately reported, we have no right to demand that the writer should observe no other order in his narrative than the mere sequences of time and place. It is on the assumption that the authors of the Gospels intended to set forth an exact historical account of the ministry of Christ, instead of taking them for what they have affirmed them to be, religious memoirs of that ministry, that no inconsiderable number of their alleged discrepancies have originated.

The presence of variations, or if it is preferred to call them contradictions, in writings of this description by no means invalidates their historical character. It has been well observed by a writer in the “Westminster Review,” that they are to be found in every historical writing from Herodotus to Mr. Froude. As these discrepancies in the Gospels are so largely dwelt on by unbelievers, I subjoin a passage from Dean Stanley’s account of the murder of Thomas a Becket, in his “Memorials of Canterbury Cathedral,” as showing the existence of such inaccuracies even in the accounts of persons who were actual eye‐witnesses of events in which they were deeply interested. Speaking of the number of existing accounts of the murder, he says:—

“Of these thirty narrators, four, Edward Grimes, William Fitzstephen, John of Salisbury, who unfortunately supplies but little, and the anonymous author of the Lambeth manuscript, claim to have been eye‐witnesses. Three others were monks of the convent, and although not present at the massacre, were probably somewhere in the precincts. Three others, though not in England at the time, had been on terms more or less intimate with Becket, and two of them seem to have taken the utmost pains to ascertain the truth of the facts which they narrate. From these several accounts, we can recover the particulars of the death of Archbishop Becket to the minutest details. It is true that having been written by monastic and clerical historians, after the national feeling had been raised to enthusiasm in his behalf, allowance must be made for exaggeration, suppression, and every kind of false colouring which could set off their hero to advantage. It is true, also, that _in some points the various authorities are hopelessly irreconcilable_. But still a minute comparison of the narrators with each other, and with the localities, leads to a conviction that on the whole the facts have been substantially preserved; and as often happens, the truth can be ascertained in spite and even in consequence of attempts to distort and suppress it.”

It is clear, therefore, that the presence of variations, nay even _hopeless contradictions_ in such narratives, does not interfere with their general historical character. It appears that from narratives which contain “exaggeration, suppression, and every kind of false colouring,” we can ascertain the particulars of the death of Becket to the minutest particular. Why do not unbelievers apply the same rule to the Gospels? Why are their minor variations in details alleged to prove that the entire narrative is unhistorical? One thing respecting them is clear: instead of presenting indications of “exaggeration, suppression, and false colouring,” they are characterized by a uniform sobriety in their statements. They offer no comments, and allow the facts to produce their own impression on the reader.

It follows therefore that if the Gospels were ordinary biographies, the variations in them would not interfere with their historical character, and that differences in mere details would leave the main facts unaffected. Still more true is this with respect to memoirs, and especially with those composed with the object of teaching a religion. Attention to this obvious fact will get rid of a large number of the objections which have been so pertinaciously urged against them.

With respect to their general credibility, it is important to observe that even if the date of the Synoptics be placed as late as that assigned to them by those critics who deny their historical character, viz. somewhere between A.D. 90 and 115, still the time when they must have been composed lies, according to the rule of Sir G. C. Lewis, within the period of trustworthy historical tradition. In this case the earliest of them would bear date about sixty, and the latest of them about eighty‐five years after the events they narrate. Renan is of opinion that their internal evidence proves them to have been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem. Be this as it may; even at the date assigned to them by the most sceptical critics, good traditionary information lay within the reach of their respective authors. The interval is about the same in the one case as that which separates us from the invasion of France by the allies in 1814, and in the other case from the outbreak of the French Revolution. Many persons are still alive who can remember the former event; and although nearly everyone who could remember the latter has passed away, yet large numbers of the existing generation, whose recollections will be good for twenty years to come, have conversed with those who took the deepest interest in the scenes in question. While this generation lives, it would be impossible for the whole outline of the facts to become falsified. Minor errors might creep into the details; their precise order and sequence might not be accurately preserved; yet their general outline would be handed down correctly, and it would be impossible to hide the true history behind a set of legends. If the authors of the Synoptic Gospels were only separated by this interval of time from the events that they narrate, they must have had all the materials of true history within their reach. Persons must have been living when the first Gospel was written who could accurately remember the events in question; and even at the latest date which can be assigned to the other Gospels, large numbers of persons must have been living who had heard narratives of them from their fathers, which, as unspeakably interesting, they would treasure up with the liveliest recollection.

It follows, therefore, that even if we assume the latest date which has been assigned for the publication of the Synoptic Gospels it lies considerably within the period of accurate historical recollection, even if we suppose that their authors composed them from traditional sources only, and were not assisted by written documents. But the existence of documents is expressly asserted by the author of St. Luke’s Gospel. And even if we were devoid of this testimony, we might infer it from the inherent probability of the case. This was inevitable, as the basis of the religion was placed on a personal history. The system of instruction must have involved a constant reference to the details of that history. When, therefore, the members of the Churches heard them from the lips of original witnesses, the interest of the subject must have induced those who were able to write, to compose brief memoranda for the purpose of assisting their recollections. In this way a considerable amount of Christian literature in connection with the life of Jesus must have grown up in the course of years, and the necessity for it would become the more urgent in proportion as the original disciples who had heard His discourses and seen His actions passed away from the scene. This is exactly in conformity with the statement made by the author of St. Luke’s Gospel.

It is clear, therefore, that even if the publication of our present Gospels did not take place before the time assigned to them by unbelievers, the historical materials at the command of their authors must have been ample. It would have been impossible that facts and legendary inventions should have become blended together within so short a period. Consequently nothing but neglect to use the materials at hand, or a deliberate purpose of falsification could have prevented them from giving an account of the ministry of Jesus which would be substantially accurate in all its main features. If on the other hand we suppose these Gospels to have been written for the purpose of falsification, then their contradiction to the accounts which had been hitherto accepted by the Church must have destroyed their credit. It would have been impossible for the authors to have succeeded in concealing the facts behind a mass of myths and legends while they formed the very groundwork of the daily life of the community. Under the peculiar circumstances of the Christians of the first century some portion of the events of the life and teaching of Christ must have been brought to their minds every day. The hostility of the Pagan world around them was alone sufficient to ensure this. Moreover, the religion was not one which was committed to the custody of a caste or priesthood; but it appealed directly to the individual. As distinguished from the other religions of the world Christianity may be not incorrectly defined as the religion of the individual. It awoke emotions of the profoundest nature in the hearts of even its humblest followers, addressing itself both to their consciences and their affections. These emotions were all centered in a personal life. If one fact is more certain than another, it is that Jesus was viewed by the early Christians as their religious King, to whom they owed a personal allegiance. This must have rendered it necessary for them to treasure up all the facts of His history with the deepest care.

Further: the early Christians not only lived in the midst of a society extremely hostile to them, but were also zealous proselyters. This alone would have been sufficient to compel them to keep in lively remembrance the chief events in the history of Jesus. How else was it possible for them to persuade others that He was the Christ? The Church was not a school of philosophy, but consisted of a body of men whose bond of union was adherence to a leader. To make converts to such a religion would have been impossible without an accurate acquaintance with the facts on which His claims were grounded.

Corporate bodies possess a power of handing down a traditionary knowledge of events in a far greater degree than individuals. The Christian Church consisted of a set of communities which had not only an individual, but also the strongest corporate life. Although it contained no priesthood, properly so called, the cohesion of these communities, placed as they were in the midst of a hostile population, in Jewish or Gentile cities, was of the strongest character, and in proportion to their smallness, the action of each individual member would be important. Each separate Church therefore formed a corporation as opposed to the Jewish and heathen world by which it was surrounded; and each separate unit felt himself animated by a similar life, which dictated to him the necessity of conquering or perishing. From this arose an intense desire of making new converts and of increasing the number of the faithful. How was this to be accomplished? An organization was necessary. Each of the communities had one which was suitable to its need. One of its most important functions must have been to instruct new converts in its principles, and to keep actively burning the zeal of its original members. But as the existence of the community was founded on an adhesion to a person, the course of instruction must have consisted to a considerable extent of details of the actions and teaching of Jesus. “How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard?” was a pertinent question of St. Paul, “or how shall they hear without a preacher?” No society has ever existed in the world which has had an equal inducement to hand down accurately the events of its founder’s life, or had equal facilities for detecting any attempt to substitute a fictitious account of him for the true one.

It follows therefore that at the period in question it would have been simply impossible that a fictitious or legendary account of the life of Jesus should have taken the place of the one which these Churches had accepted at the time when they first came into existence. I have already proved that the Epistles of St. Paul put it beyond the possibility of question that an account of the chief facts in the ministry of Jesus formed the foundation of the religious life of the Churches at the time when he wrote them, and that it had done so from the first. The difficulty therefore of introducing an entirely new version of it must have been insurmountable. A doubtful fact or two might have become incorporated, but while the religious life of the community was thus strong, it would have been utterly impossible to give a new colouring to the whole.

But further: this difficulty must have been greatly increased by the wide separation of such Churches as those of Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Jerusalem, and others, from one another. Each Church must have had an account of its own of the chief facts of our Lord’s ministry. If one of them could have been induced to accept a new set of facts, there would have been the greatest difficulty in persuading the others to follow its example. Daily experience teaches us how very slow religious bodies are in changing the fundamental articles of their belief. However much the sentiments of individuals may have changed, the original confessions of faith are retained with the utmost tenacity, even after they have ceased to embody the religious life of the community. What confessions of faith are to modern Churches, the chief facts of the ministry of our Lord must have been to the primitive one; the only difference being that these latter lived with a far greater tenacity in the minds of the early Christians than the former have in modern Churches. If therefore a single Church could have been induced to accept a new version of its Founder’s life, the separation of these different communities from one another, would have placed an insuperable barrier in the way of imposing such an account on the other Churches. The inquiry must have at once arisen, Whence has this Church derived its new Gospel, thus fundamentally different from that which has from the first formed the basis of our religious life?

It is clear therefore that even if we accept the latest date which had been assigned to the publication of the Synoptic Gospels, their authors must have been in possession of abundance of materials for setting forth an account of the ministry of Jesus, which would have been correct in all its great outlines; and that even if they had been so minded it would have been impossible for them to have succeeded in palming off a previously unknown set of facts in place of those which had hitherto formed the groundwork of the life of the different Churches. We have seen also that when St. Paul wrote his Epistles, the different Churches were in possession of an outline of the ministry of Jesus Christ which contained within it, as a matter of the highest importance, the most remarkable miraculous fact which is recorded in the Gospels. Is it to be believed that this was the only one; or, is it possible that a set of miraculous narratives could have succeeded in taking the place of the account of His life and teaching which was in possession of the Churches, within the interval of time which separates St. Paul’s Epistles from the publication of the first of the Synoptic Gospels?

I conclude, therefore, that the original narratives must have attributed a number of miracles to Jesus Christ; that the accounts of them must have been handed down to the time when our opponents allow that the Gospels were published, and that by this means they have been incorporated into them. Not only has the alleged late date of the publication of the Gospels been urged as a reason for discrediting them as reports of historical facts, but also the uncertainty of their authorship. It will not fall within the scope of this work to examine the value of the testimony by which each Gospel has been assigned to its respective author. It will be sufficient here to observe that it is as strong as that by which the authorship of any other ancient writing is ascertained. The internal character of two of these Gospels fully agrees with the traditionary account. Although the assertions of the early Fathers vary as to the precise relation in which Mark stood to Peter, the ancient traditions are unanimous in connecting him in some way or other with the Apostle. The phenomena of this Gospel are precisely such as we should expect if this was the case. In nearly every case where we can ascertain, either from this or from one of the other Gospels, that Peter was an eye‐witness of an event recorded in it, St. Mark gives precisely such a description of it as we might expect would be given by a man of the peculiar temperament of Simon Peter. We know, both from the Acts of the Apostles and from the Epistles of St. Paul, that St. Luke was a companion of that Apostle. The peculiarities of the Gospel that bears his name are precisely such as we should have expected if its author was a companion of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. There is also every reason for believing that Luke was not an eye‐witness of the ministry of Jesus. The author of the Gospel affirms that he was not an eye‐witness. In conformity with this the Gospel bears the most distinctive marks of compilation. So far the internal structure of these two Gospels entirely agrees with the external testimony as to their authorship. We know also on the authority of the early Fathers that Matthew composed a Gospel in the Hebrew language which was designed for the use of Jewish Christians. Now whoever is the author of the present Greek Gospel which bears his name, it is distinguished by precisely the same characteristics as those which are described as appertaining to the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, that is to say, that the proportion which the discourses bear to the narrative portions of it is very large; and its contents make it evident that it was chiefly designed for the use of Christians of the Jewish race. If therefore our present Gospel was not set forth by the Apostle himself in Greek, both the external testimony and the internal evidence prove that it is a representation of its contents sufficiently accurate for all the practical purposes of history.

But the question as to the names of the persons who actually set forth our Gospels has been made of far more importance than it deserves, both by the defenders and the opponents of Christianity. The all important point is, are they faithful accounts of the primitive traditions of the Church respecting the chief events of its Founder’s ministry; and were they composed within that period of time, when the recollections of it must have been so fresh as to render it impossible to substitute a body of fictitious and legendary narratives in place of those which had been handed down in the Church from the beginning? Unless we know enough about an author from external sources of information, to enable us to form a definite opinion as to his judgment and means of information, our mere knowledge of his name will help us little. The information which ecclesiastical tradition affords us respecting the authors of the Synoptic Gospels is little beyond that which is contained in the New Testament itself, and is insufficient to enable us to form a judgment respecting their character. That judgment must be formed exclusively from the writings themselves, and can only be arrived at after a careful examination of their contents.

It will be urged that if our present Greek Matthew could be shown to have been the work of the Apostle, we should then have the testimony of an eye‐ witness of the ministry of Jesus; and if we have no certain evidence that it was composed by him, then none of the events recorded in the Synoptics rest on autoptic testimony. The truth of this position I entirely deny. The real question is, do the events recorded in them faithfully represent the traditions of the Church? Have we evidence that the traditions which were current when these Gospels were composed, are accurate representations of the accounts of the ministry of Jesus, which were handed down by our Lord’s original disciples? If so, they must rest on autoptic testimony, as they could only have been derived from our Lord’s companions. The mere knowing the name of one of them, unless we knew a great deal about his judgment and discretion, is of far less importance than the assurance that we are in possession of the general testimony of the entire body. Nor does it necessarily follow that any one follower of Jesus, even an Apostle, was in constant attendance on His person. We know from the Gospels themselves that this was not always the case. If such a person had narrated events which occurred during his absence, he must have been indebted for his knowledge of them to the testimony of others. If therefore the present Greek Matthew could be proved to be the work of the Apostle, still it by no means follows that he was an eye‐witness of every one of the events recorded in it. If, however, it was set forth in its present form by some other hand, I fully admit that neither of the Synoptics was composed by an Apostle. But this is a wholly different point from the consideration whether they do or do not embody the testimony of the eye‐witnesses of the ministry of Jesus Christ. This does not depend on our knowledge of the names of their respective authors, but whether we have good evidence that they faithfully embody the primitive apostolical traditions.

A careful perusal of the Synoptics will convince the reader that neither of them professes to embody a set of personal reminiscences. On the contrary, they bear the strongest indications of being a collection of apostolic traditions. Of this I shall offer distinctive proof in the next chapter. The only Gospel which embodies such personal reminiscences as indicate the authorship of an eye‐witness is that of St. John. But the indications of the presence of an individual personality in St. Matthew’s Gospel are almost entirely wanting. In its general structure it forms a striking contrast to that of John. Supposing it to have been composed by the Apostle, he has entirely hidden his individuality in his narrative.

The question, therefore, really turns on the conclusion at which we are able to arrive as to whether the Synoptic Gospels are faithful representations of the primitive apostolic traditions. I have proved that even at the latest date to which opponents assign their publication, they must have been written within the period when all the requisite materials existed for composing a substantially correct account of all the leading facts; that such a traditionary account was certainly handed down in the Church; that it formed the ground‐work of its existence; that it must have been derived from apostolic men, who had ample means of knowing the facts; that the Church possessed the means of transmitting them accurately, such as were never possessed by any other Society; and that it was under the necessity of doing so as the condition of its life; and that while this account remained fresh in the recollections both of the community and of its individual members, it would have been impossible to foist on them a fictitious story. I shall now proceed to inquire how far the phenomena of the Gospels tend to establish these positions.