,s .#^ v ■ =^t fl //. Z2..23;s LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, N. J. bt-v^ t> ^* Di'viiion.lJ.^.C- Ji ^ C. Stction...\..\..\.\.rv' RJ Il-^^^^ U:^< :/; ■^ -*i EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. PART I. \ INTEGRITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. PART IT. GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. J. W. McGARVEY, A. M. Professor of Sacred History and Evidkncbs in the College of the Bible, Ken- tucky University. CINCINNATI : GUIDE PRINTING & PUBLISHING COMPANY, 18S«). Copyright, 1886 bv J. W. Mc(iAKVEY. PREFACE On no other subject have so many thoughtful volumes been written within the last Imndrcd years, as on the Evidences of Christianity. This is true as regards both sides of the ques- tion at issue; for while the uninspired friends of Christ have never before defended his cause with ability so consummate, they have never before encountered opponents with learning so extensive or with talents of so high an order But among the arniv of writers whom the deepening conflict has called into the field, very few have attempted to reduce the argu- ments pro and con to a form suitable for class-room instruc- tion. Scarcely one of these writers has failed to widen the field of investigation, or to direct attention to some of the new ])hases which the controversy is ever assuming; but since the appeamnce, a century since, of Lardner's immortal work, no English author has attempted an exhaustive discussion of the whole subject. Of the few works in which a general though not exhaustive discussion of the subject has been presented with a view to the instruction of College classes, not one has contin- ued in general use to the present day. As a consequence, instructors are now limited to the unsatisfactory method of teaching by lectures alone on tiiis important theme. These considerations furnish tiie ground on which the author excuses himself for offering to the public the work of which this volume is the first iustallment. The work is intended, not for those who are already pntllcient in the (ill) CONTENTS, PART I. INTEGRITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. Intboduction, 1-6 CHAPTER I. Nature and Limits of the Inquiiy, CHAPTER II. Character of the Various keaoinga. 7-12 1»-18 CHAPTER III. Sources of the Various Readings, 19-24 CHAPTER rv. Means of Restoring the Original Text, CHAPTER V. Labors of Biblical Critics, and Results Obtained, 25-40 41-56 PART TI. GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. CIIAPTKR I. Evidence from Catalogues, . 5^76 CHAI*TER II. Evidonce Irmu Versions, r-81 (vii; Vlll CONTENTS. CHAPTER III. Evidence from Quotations, 82-111 CHAPTER IV. Internal Evidence, , . .112-125 CHAPTER V. Positions taken by Unbelievers, 126-175 CoN'CLUsiox, 176-177 Appendix, . . . , 1/-8-180 Inijex, 181-186 p.-m* INTEODUCTION. The divine origin of the Christian religion depends for its what to be proof on the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is " the Christ, *"^°^^ ' the Son of the living God." As he is the author of this relig- 1 Messiah- ion, if it be proved that he is that Christ whose coming and divinity of work were predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament, -^^^^s- and that he is the Son of God miraculously begotten, his relig- ion is proved to be of divine origin, and to be for this rea- son possessed of divine authority. But should we succeed in establishing the fact that Jesus is ^\ Authen- the Christ, the Son of God, and fail to show the authenticity the Script- of the writings on which we depend for a knowledge of his"''^^- religion, the fact established would be of no practical value, seeing that we could not know how to secure to ourselves the blessings which the religion might offer. For this reiuson it is necessary to the practical value of an inquiry into the evi- dences of Christianity, that it furnish conclusive proof not only of the claims of Jesus, but of the authenticity of the Christian Scriptures. Moreover, an authentic account of the Christian religion 3. infniii- which should fall short of infallibility, would leave the theScript- mind a continual prey to doubt in regard to it.«! exact teach- """fil- ing and requirements. If we have in the Christian Script- ures nothing more than an authentic account, such as wise and good but fallible men could give, we must be content, and not pretend that we have more. But our inquiry will not reach the result that is desirable unless we find proof that the Scrij)tures are infallil)le. The importance of this iiKiuirv, whether to the believer •r'n^P"'^ , , ,. 11. 1 A 1 Unccofour the unbeliever, can scarcely be overestimated. As respects the inqniry. to (1) 2 INTRODUCTION. unbeiiev- unbeliever, it may be estimated in part by the following con- siderations : 1. We must -^ 'YiiQ rejection of the Christian religion is the rejection of accept the . . •' . Christian all rcligiou. The adherents of any other faith may lay aside religion, or ^j^g- J. ^^^,^^ ^j^^| accept the Christian, and many have done so ; none. ^ ' * ' but no man who studies the evidences of the Christian religion and fails to find proof of its divine origin, can find such proof in favor of any other. As Richard Watson has well said, " It is universally acknowledged among us, that there is but one book in the world which has claims to divine authority so presumptively substantial as to be worthy of serious examina- tion." ' It is clear, then, that the Christian communities of the earth Avould be stripped of all the blessings which religion brings to a people should they decide against the religion of Jesus, seeing that the alternative would be no religion at all. 2. Seen in 2. The Christian religion offers to every man who properly offers. accepts it the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting, two blessings with which, in our present .state, no others conceiva- ble are worthy to be compared. The importance of an inquiry into its truth is proportionate to the value of these blessings. ; 3. Seen in 3. If it is true, cvcry man who disbelieves it will suifer threatens. ^^^^ ^^^ eternal condemnation. This its founder repeatedly declared, and in the declaration he assumed that the evidence which would attend the gospel would be such that no man could disbelieve without guilt, and such guilt as requires final condemnation. As surely as the religion is true, di.sbelief is a fatal sin. Importance To the l)eliever the in<|uiry is only less important than to tf) bcllev- , 1 !• T. • • , ' . /• i /• I • 1 Tp ers: the Unbeliever, it is important, iirst, tor Ins own good. It for their jjjg faith has not a sure foundation it may fail in the hour of own good :., t i c i • • *i ^ ^ n \ for that of trial ; and what loundation IS sure except a knowledge ot the others. evidences. It is important, .secondly, for the good of others. We are required to give to others, for their good, a reason of the hope that is in us, and this we can not do with satisfaction to them or to ourselves, unless we know the evidence on which our hope is based. Proper spir • Jn order tliat onr conclusions on any subject may be safe it for the 'Theological Institutes, Vol. I., 105. INTRODUCTION. and satisfying, our investigation of it must be conducted in a inquiry, proper frame of mind. Tnipiirers into the evidences of Chris- tianity are exposed to dangers at this point, varying according to their preconceptions on the subject. Unbelievers are in^^^^^""'^ danger of so earnestly wishing that the evidence shall appear danger: inconclusive, as to underestimate the force of every proof, and to overestimate the force of every objection. Such a frame of mind is inimical to the reception of truth. Unfortunately, many persons who are not committed to unbelief, api)r(iach this subject more or less affected by this bias ; for the Bible condemns all men who are not obedient believers, and thus it arouses a degree of antagonism within them at the very time that they are investigating its claims. He who would avoid an unjust judgment against the Bible must suppress this tend- ency, and be perfectly willing that the Bible shall prove itself the word of God. The believer, on the other hand, is in danger of pursuing '^^^ of the . believer. the inquiry with so fixed a determination that the Bible shall be found true, as to lead him to accept shallow sophisms for sound arguments, and to disregard the force of serious objec- tions. Such an inquirer, should he afterw^ard exercise a calmer judgment, must look back with distrust upon his former con- clusions and experience a consequent weakening of his faith. There is a proper place and work for the zealous polemic The true on the subject, especially in the field of controversy where bold *^'" ' and often unscrupulous assailants are to be met ; but the stu- dent and the teacher should assume the spirit of an inquirer or a judge, rather than that of an advocate. By this must not be understood a spirit of indiflference.' The judge before whom '"If iniliHonMice to tho result he docs not A'how, or pretend to .srrj/, be an essential qualification for an whether there lie a God or not; or investigator of the Scriptures, then whether, if there be, He takes any I must give up all hope of ever interest in human affairs; or wheth- being one. To the result I can not er, if He does, it much imports us be indifTerent if I wotild ; for there to know; or whether, if He has are all my hopes." (Calvin Stowe, revealed that knowledge, it is pos- HiMnry of the Ilooksf of (lif Bihlr, 'i"i4). sible or impossible for us to nsrer- '• When I hear some youth tell- tain it; when I hear him further ing me. with a simpering faci', that saying, that meantime he is dis- The nflSrm ative to be 4 INTRODUCTION. a man of previous good character is being tried under the charge of an infamous crime, would be unfit for his high office, if, while enforcing with impartiality the rules of evidence, he should have no wish to see the man's innocence established. So, in })rosecuting an inquiry into the evidences of Christianity, while the student must guard vigilantly against self-deception, he should most earnestly wish that a religion which confers upon men so much good in this life, and promises so much more in the life to come, may prove to be unquestionably true. Many persons, in studying the claims of Christianity, take heard up the objcctious that are urged against it before they learn before ihe ^y}^at it is, or examine the evidences in its favor.^ Thev hear negative. ' ^ " the negative in the debate before the affirmative ; they allow the witnesses for the defendant to testify before they hear the plaintiff state his case ; they read books and attend lectures in opposition to the Bible, when they know but little of its con- tents and still less of its evidences. They often decide the question after hearing only one side, and that the side which should be heard last, not first. This is a reversal of the order established in all courts of justice, in all well conducted dis- cussions, in all scientific investigations. Common sense and the maxims of justice alike demand that we hear first the ar- guments in favor of a proposition, and afterward those against posed to make himself very easy in position of Part I. of liis Age of the midst of these uncertainties, Reason, which lie published in anil to await the great revelation advance of Part II. : " I had neither of the future with philosophical — P>ible nor Testament to refer lo, that is, heing interpreted, iiliotic — though 1 was writing against both." tranquilMty, I see that, in point of After this confession, it is n()t ,sur- fact, he has never entered into the prising to hear iiim .say, in Part II. : question at all ; that he has failed " I have now furnished myself with to realize the terrible moment of a Bible and a Testament, and I can the questions (however they may say also that I have found them to be decided) of which he speaks be much worse books than I had with such amazing flippancy." conceived." {Prffacr to Agi: oj liea- ( Henry Rogers. EclipKc of Faith, mn, Part II.) A man so unjust as 31.) to assail a l)o<»k whicli he had never ' We have a striking example ol read, would l>e exj)ected to read it, this in the notorious Ttiomas Paine, if at all, for tiie purpose of finding who says, in reference to the com- itWftrse than be liad represented it. INTRODUCTION. O it. He who reverses this order j)rejudges the ease, and comes to the consideration of the affirmative evidence in a frame of mind unfavorable to a candid hearing; or a just decision. If we hear much evil said of a man before we form his acquaint- ance, we are jircjudiced ag;ainst liim ; whereas, had we known him first the evil speech that we heard might seem to be only calumny. Unfortunately for the great majority of unbelievers, they have pursued this improper method, and then after form- ing their opinions, have either neglected the Bible and its evi- dences entirely, or have come to the study of them with an unfriendly spirit. In the investigation of any question which is a subject of ^'''" '^^ ^^^ controversy, it is desirable to begin with admitted facts, and to take the successive steps of the inquiry in such an order that neither shall in any degree involve its successor. In the })res- ent instance we may begin with the undisputed fact that we now have a collection of writings making up the Bible, and that these are said to have been composed many centuries ago by men divinely inspired for this purpose. Should we first in- quire as to the divine origin of the Bible as a whole, and then inquire as to the canonicity of its several books, our first in- quiry would overlap and involve the second. But should we first inquire as to the uncorrupted preservation of the books ; then, as to their authorship ; then, as to their authenticity ; then, as to the inspiration and infallibility of its writers, we would have a series of incpiiries, every one of which would have an intrinsic value independent of the others, and no one of which would overUij) its successor. We would also have in this series of inquiries all that is necessary to the discussion of both the divine origin of the Christian religion and the infalli- bility of the Holy Scriptures. We would then be at liberty to give attention to any other evidences not included in this line of argument, and also to objections not thus far encountered. Such is the plan of the present work. It proposes an inquiry into the fi)llowing topics, in the order here given: I. The Integrity of the New Testament Books. II. Their Genuineness. III. Their Authenticity. b INTRODUCTION. IV. The Inspiration of Their Writers. V. Other Evidences of the Divine Origin of Christianity. VI. The Integrity, Genuineness, Authenticity and Inspi- ration of the Old Testament Books. In conducting all of these inquiries it is proposed to state fully and to consider fairly the principal objections and counter- arguments of unbelievers. It is also proposed to collect in this volume, in the form of foot-notes and appendixes, many valuable documents from the pens of both ancient and modern writers, which have important bearings on the subject, but which are now inac- cessible except to those who have the use of costly libraries. These documents, it is thought, will add great value to the work, independently of its line of argument. PART I. ijS'tegrity of the jstew testaaieki^ TEXT. CHAPTER I. NATURE AND LIMITS OF THE INQUIRY, 1. Bv the inteerritv of an ancient book is meant its whole- ^ff"*"°° fe . ^ of terms. ncss, or its nncoriMij)teil)l<'. Tiiblieal Criti- cism. Its province is to ascertain, first, wiiat dilVcrenees of reading, if any, are to be linmd in the \arious cn|»ies of the book; and second, to (leterniine which of the various readings is the original one. 2. This inciuirv became necessarv from the fapted with reference to his own books. ^ The Jewish copvists of the Old Testa-* ment were aware of the same danger, and, as stated in the Talmud published about A. D. 350, they adopted for themselves very minute regulations to preserve the purity of the sacred j text. They numbered the verses, words and letters of the Scriptures, by books and sections, marking the middle verse and letter of each, so that by counting these in any copy they could determine whether a word or a letter had been added or omitted.' We have no account of the rules adopted by copv- '^.'"^ ^'*'^'^' * ^ I " tiaii ists of the New Testament, but we know that they had every copyists, inducement to copy with care. The author of the Book of Revelation had given the warning, that to anyone who should add a word to his book God would add the plagues written in it, and that if any one should take away a word God would take his name out of the book of life ; and that this solemn warning was accepted by Christians at an early date as a2)ply- ing to other books as well as to this, is known l)y the fact that Iremcus thus applied it to some who were charged with alter- ing the text, though he expresses the opinion that those who do so without evil intent may receive pardon.^ But notwith- ' " Irenjeus also wrote the troa- manuscript from which thou lia-t tise on the Ogiload, or the number carefully transcribed, and that thou eight. . . . At the close of tbe also copy this adjuration and insert work we found a most delightful it in the copy.' " (Eusebius, £cc/''«. remark of his, which we shall deem //i.s^, r. 20.) incumbent upon us also to add to * Davidson, liihlical Criticism, I. the present work. It is as follows : 116. ' I adjure thee, whoever thou art '' He is speaking of a change that transcribest this 1)ook, by our which had been made in some Lord Jesus Christ and Ity His glo- copies, by which (il(i was found in rious ap|)earance when Tie shall Rev. xiii. IS, instea♦>(>; and come to judge the quick and dead, he says of those who liad made the to compare what thou hast copied, change or had received it : " Now, and to correct it by this original as regards those who have done 10 INTEGRITY OF THE but found standing the viarilance of Jewish copyists, and the solemn in the sa- • i i i /-> • • . credtext. warnings addressed to Cliristian copyists, a large number of erroneous readings found their way into the manuscript copies of both Testaments, and the existence of these gave rise to the science of Biblical Criticism. How errors 3 Jt ^vaJS known, from a very early i)eriod of Christian of copyists . . ■ came to literature, that errors of transcribers had crept into the sacred light, writings,^ but it was not until after printed copies had come into circulation, and the copies issued by different publishers had been compared, that scholars began to realize the magni- tude of the evil and to search for the means of correctinef it. Printing from movable types was invented in 1438, and the first book printed was the Latin Bible about 1452.^ In the last quarter of the same century several editions of the Hebrew Bible were printed by wealthy Jews in Italy,^ but it was not until the beginning of the sixteenth century that the Greek New Testament was given to the world in this form. It was first printed at Complutum'(Alcala) in Spain, under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes, in the year 1514 ; but on ac- count of delay in obtaining the consent of the Pope, this cdi- tliis in simplicity, and without evil great in truth has become tlie di- intent, we are at lilierty to assume versity of copies, be it from the that pardon will be granted them negligence of scriVjes, or from the by Goil. But as for those who, for evil daring of some who correct the sake of vainglory, lay it down what is written, or from those wko for certain that names containing in correcting add or take away the spurious number are to be ac- what thej' think lit." {Com. on cepted, and affirm that this name, Mdttht'w, quoted in Scrivener's Int., hit upon by themselves, is that of Mi).) him who is to come; such persons '^ It was publislied at Alentz by shall not come forth without loss, Gutenl)crg (the inventor of print- because they have led into error ing) and Faust ; and Scrivener both themselves and those who states that eighteen copies of the have confided in them. . . . As edition are still preserved, " a there shall be no light punishment splendid and beautiful volume." upon him who either aJlds to or (Int., 3ol.) One of these was solil subtracts anything from the Scrip- at auction in London, in March, ture, under that such a person I880, for the enormous price; of must neces.sarily fall." {AgaiiiKt $19,500. Hrrrsirs^ B. V., c. xxx., ? 1.) '' For an iiccmint of these, sec ' Origen, at the l)eginnine of the Davidson's Bih. Crit., I., 1.37-141; third century, says: "But now Tregelles, //is^. 0/ Prm^^r/ T^r/, 1, 2. NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 11 tion was not published until 1522. In the meantime an edi- tion was prepared by Erasmus and published at Basle in Switz- erland, in lolG. After this, editions and copies were multi- plied rapidly; tiie Protestant Reformation, which began about the same time, stimulated the; work, and the attention of scholars was drawn more and more to the diiferences among tilt! printed editions, and between them and the manuscripts, until Biblical Criticism, to which printing gave birth, grew to its i)resent maturity. As a result of these investigations, thc'*"'^ '^®^'' * 1 • ^' Tiv c number number of various readings, that is, readings diiierent from those in the text commonly used, which are to be found in the hundreds of existing manuscripts, is now estimated at not less than 120,000.^ 4. But while the art of i)rinting brought into clearer light.^'"V'-^"' i _ " ° , _ ° the field of the various readings of manuscripts, and gave rise to the in- inquiry, quiries of Biblical critics, it also brouglit the multiplication of various readings to an end, and fixed a limit to the field in which these inquiries are to be prosecuted. Such is the per- fection to which the art of printing has attained, that when the types for a book are once set, and stereotyped plates are made from tiiem, all the copies printed therefrom, however numer- ous, are alike in every word and letter ; consequently, the mere multiplication of copies, which is the chief source of error in manuscripts, originates no errors in j)rinted copies. It is also practicable, by means of proof-nading, which is a part of the art of printing, to secure perfect accuracy in the types or plates from which the printing is done, and to perpetuate this accuracy in making duplicates of the plates. It is claimed, fi)r instance, by the Anicriean BibU; Society, that there is not a single mis- print in any of the myriads of coj)ies of the English Bible which they are annually printing in various editions. It fol- lows, that since the art of printing has been perfected, the multiplication of various readings in the original Scriptures has cea.sed, an. "The king ilorod." " Ik'rod tlie king." V. ?> "Jerusalem with him." "All Jerusalem with him." V. 4. "All the prie.st8 and "All the chief priests and scribes." scribes." V.4. " Inquired from them where " Incinireil where," etc. the Christ should lie born." to doubt only make up about one- sub.stantial variation is but a .small sixtieth of the New TesUiment. In fraction of (lie whole residuary thisBccond estimate, the yiroportion variation, and can hardly form of comparatively trivial variations more than a thousandth part of the is beyond measure larger than in entire text." (hilrodnctiou to fireek the former, so that the amount of New Testament, Westcott and Ilort, wliat can in any sense be called 2.) NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 15 Should WO .submit to liko cxaniiiiation tlic entire wture, there arc a few that are so, and "^ '"?'!'^ f"'" '-' o i ' 7 ous kind, there ai'e two pa.s.sages of considei'able length, the genuineness an'i long of which has been brought into doui)t by the investigations {'"^^"^^^^^ , the whole tenor of the evidence becomes clear and harmonious. Every other view is, we believe, untenable. ... It [the pa.ssage] manifestly can not claim any apostolic authoritv ; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age." {Introduction to New Testament, Ap- pendix I., p. 51.) In opposition to these conclu- sions. Scrivener speaks with equal confidence. He says in regard to both of the passages mentioned above : " AVe shall hereafter defend these passages, tlie first without the slightest misgiving, the second with certain reservations, as enti- tled to be regarded as authentic portions of the Gospels in which they stand." He redeems this pledge by furnishing an elaborate answer to all the arguments made by Dr. Hort. {Scrivener's Introduc- tion, 583-590). The positions taken by other able critics are given in the same note. In regard to John vii. 53-viii. 11, opinions of critics are not so con- flicting. All agree tliat it can not have been a part of John soriginal MS., Init it is held ])y some of the ablest that it is nevertheless an authentic piece of history, and that it was probably inserted by John in a second edition of his Gospel. (Scrivener, JUO.) NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 17 nor have any historical latts been .summoned by it from (th- scurity. All the doctrines and duties of Christianity remain unaffected;"^ and in the still more specific language of Dr. Hort, " The books of the New Testament as preserved in ex- tant documents assuredly speak to us in every important re- spect in language identical with that in which they spoke to those for whom they were originally written."- If these statements are true, a.s they undoubtedly are, then all the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still. The ca^je is' like that of a certain will. A gentleman lefl a large estate entailed to his i""'^ira»ion descendants of the third generation, and it was not to be divided until a majority of them should be of age. During the interval many copies of the will were circulated among parties inter- ested, many of these being copies of copies. In the meantime the office of record in which the original was filed was burned with all its. contents. When the time for division drew near, a prying attorney gave out among the heirs the report that no two existing copies of the will were alike. This alarmed them all and set them busily at work to ascertain the truth of the report. On comparing copy with copy they found the report true, but on close inspection it was discovered that the differ- ences consisted in errors of spelling or grammatical construc- tion ; some mistakes in figures corrected by the written num- bers; and some other differences not easily accounted for; but that in none of the copies did these mistakes affect the rights of the heirs. In the essential matters for which the ^vill was written the representations of all the copies were precisely the same. The result was that they divided the estate with perfect satisfaction to all, and they were more certain that they had executed the will of their grandfather than if the original copy had been alone j)n'served ; for it might have Ijccu tamju'red with in the interest of a single heir, but the coj)ies, defective though they were, could not have be(>ii. So with the New Testament. The discovery .tf errors in the copies excited ' Bihliod Critici.vii, ii. 147. ^ Iiilnnluctimi to Greek New Teata- ineni, 284. 18 INTEGRITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. alarm leading to inquiry, M-hich developed the fact that ho who has the most imperfect copy has in it all that the original con. ta,ined of dt)ctrine, duty and privilege. CHAPTER III. THE SOURCES OF THE VARIOUS READINGS. The student can scarcely realize how the number of various vaiue of this in- quiry. readings can be so great and yet the number of serious differ- ences so small as we have represented in the preceding chap- ters, until he becomes acquainted in detail with the sources whence the various readings have arisen. Much the greater part of the variants, as the reader must Variations already have perceived, is the result of accident; but there are (.'appjl^je'^t. some which must be regarded as intentional alterations. They '^^ ^^^ '"■ are therefore divided into the two general classes of accidental and intentional alterations ; and in seeking to trace them to (heir more especial sources we will consider these two classes separately. The sources of the accidental alterations may be classified Accidental as follows: ' """"S^'"- 1. Momentary Inattention. Every person who has had ex- From inat- pi-'rieuce in copying knows that it is difficult to keej) theatten-'*'"^'""' tion closely fixed on the task Inr a protracted period, and that if it is diverted even for a moment, mistakes are almost cer- tain to occur. This is a prolific source of such mistidies as the omission of letters and worda, the repetition of the same, the substitution of words for others composed chiefly of the same letters, the substitution of letters for others of similar form, and the traus|)osition of words. 2. Divemion of attcnfion from the words to the siihjeci matter. ^'^'^^^ '^^''^'^'^■ An intelligent copyist must unavoidably follow the train offttte,,'t,onT thought in that which he eopics, mid the momcnl (hat he l)o- coraes more absorbed in this than in the exact words cniploved, (11')' 20 INTEGRITY OF THE he is exposed to such mistakes as the omission of particles not necessary to the sense, the substitution of one synonym for an- other, and the addition or omission of pronouns, and the inser- tion of nouns where their pronouns were understood. from dicta- 3^ Writing from dictation. The task of the copyist was a very tedious one, and he naturally resorted to every available means of hastening his progress. One of these was to employ an assistant who would read a few words at a time while he copied. In this case he had only the sound of the words to guide iiim, and lie was exposed to errors through his reader's fault as well as his own. If the reader mispronounced a word, or pronounced it indistinctly, it was likely to be misspelt or mistaken for another. If he omitted or repeated a word, it was on)itted or repeated by the copyist.^ from ho- 4, Homoioteleuton. For want of a suitable English word ton; critics have adopted this Greek word for another source of clerical errors, the similar ending of clauses, sentences and lines. The copyist, when he finishes a certain clause, or sen- tence, or line, bears in his mind as he turns his eye back to the manuscript before him, the ending of what he has just written, and seeing a similar ending close by he starts from it, omitting some words, a whole clause, the whole of a short sen- tence, or possibly tiie whole of a line. from mis- 5. Change of pronunciation. Words in a living language pronuncia- . , tion; undergo many changes of pronunciation; and wlien a dead language is employed by scholars of different tongues it is sub- jected to as many different modes of pronunciation as the tongues employed; and in all these cases there is a constant ' Dr. Scrivener remarks in regard trust himself to tliis motliod wlio to this source of error: "One is did not regard himself as very pro- not very willing to believe that ficient in Greek orthography ; yet, manuscripts of the better class while all this is true of manuscripts were executed on so slovenly and of the " better class," it may not be careless a i)lan; " and he thinks true of those of inferior classes, that "the confusion of certain and a supposition so natural in it- vowels and dii)ht)hongs having self, and adopted l)y all other crit- nearly the same sound " can be ac- ics, can not be set aside entirely counted for on other suppositions, by the counter- supposition of a Doubtless he is correct ; and it single critic. See Scriv. Int., 10. may be added, that no scribe won Id NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 21 tendency toward the misspelling of words to suit the changed pronunciation. 6. Trusting to memory. The copyist necessarily carries f"""™ '"^s^- words in his moniory from the moment tiiat his eye turns away memory; from the text before him until the last word of the number thus carried is written. The greater the number of words thus carried at once the more rapid his progress and the less weari- some his task. He is therefore tempted to trust too much to memory. The same is true in writing from dictation. From this cause must have sprung a large number of errors of nearly all the kinds mentioned above. 7. Absence of spaces and punctuation. Early manuscripts '"^o™"^ • ., • ,• »» . 1 , . , senceof were written m continuous rows of capital letters, without spaces and spaces between the words and sentences. The earliest example P^^^ctua- of separated words is found in a manuscript of the ninth cen- tury, and it was not until about this period that the punctua- tion marks now employed came into use, the earliest existing Greek manuscripts having no stops at all, and the oldest exist- ing manuscripts of the New Testament having only a single point here and there at the top of the letters to denote a pause in the sense.* That such a mode of writing must have been a prolific -source of mistakes in copying, and must have aggra- vated the effects of the other causes mentioned above, is ob- vious. The English scholar will have a more lively apprecia- tion of it if he will imagine himself copying a book printed as follows : HOWBEITTHATWASNOTFIRSTWHICHISSPIRITUALBT^TTH ATWHICHISNATURALANDAFTERWARDTHATWHICHISSPIRI TUALTHEFIRSTMANLSOFTHEEARTHEARTHYTHESECONDMA NISTHELORDFROMHEAVENASISTHEEARTHYSUCHAREALSO THEYTHATAREEARTHY The sources of intentional alterations are not numerous, sources of and the number of such alterations is comparatively small! ISion'' All these sources are to be found in the various purposes for which thf alterations were made, and all may be included in the following: 1. To correct a supposed mistake. Every copyist, kuowintr'^''*'''"^' ^ -^ ^ misUkea in ' Scrivener's Int., 46, 47. 22 INTEGRITY OF THE grammar, that preceding copyists were liable to mistakes, was tempted to correct such mistakes when he discovered them, or when he thought he discovered them. These supposed mistakes were of two kinds: first, errors in grammatical construction ; and second, errors of omission, addition, or substitution. When a sentence appeared to the scribe ungrammatical, or even inelegant, he sometimes corrected it without altering the sense. Sometimes, also, MSS. were thus corrected by inter- lineation, and copies of these MSS. perpetuated and mul- or accident- tiplied these corrections.^ Errors of the other kind originated sions. chiefly from confounding marginal notes with marginal correc- tions. It was quite common for owners of MSS. to write notes and comments on the margin, or between the lines ; and it was also common for copyists when they had accidentally omitted a word or a number of words, to insert these in the same way. Now and then, a subsequent copyist would mis- take one of these marginal notes for a marginal correction, and purposely put it into the body of his text. It is supposed, for exam})le, that the portion of I. John v. 7 relating to the Heavenly Witnesses, the whole of Acts viii. 37, the doxology to the Lord's prayer, and John v. 4, as represented in King James' version, were interpolated in this way. • Togivefuii- 2. To secure fullness of expression. In many instances the expression, scribcs have coj)ied into a })assage in one of the Gospels words which belong to the parallel place in another, but which ap- peared to liim necessary to fill out the sense. Thus, in the sentence, " I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to re- pentance," the words "to repentance" are copied into Matt, ix. 13 and Mark ii. 17, from Luke v. 32 where they are genuine. Again,the prophetic citation in Matthew xxvii.35is interpolated from John xix. 24.^ In other instances, separate narrntives of the same event, written in the .same book, are made to supple- ' The student wlio understands thus fill up one narrative from an- Greek syntax may find a number other nm.st have been a-rnravafcd of examples of this class of cor- by the laudable elTort of Biblical rections in Scrivener's Introduc- scholars (beginning with Tatian's tion, 13 (12). Diatesseron in the8e(;ond century) ^ Scrivener makes the very apj)©- to construct a satisfactory liarmony site remark, that the tendency to of them all. Int , 12 (0). NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 23 ment one another. In the account of Paul's conversion given in Acts ix. 8-(J, the words, " it is hard for thee to kick -against the goad," were taken from xxvi. 14; and tiie words, "Lord, what wilt thou have nie to do," from xxii. 10. In other in- stances, tlie transcribers, in copying qudtations made from tlie Old Testament by New Testament writers, liave extended the quotations. The words, " dmwctli nigh (o me with their mouth" (Matt. xv. 8); " to heal the broken hearted " (Luke iv. 18); " him shall ye hear "(Acts vii. 37), are examples. In these instances the added words are found in the Old Testa- ment, and the New Testament Avriters had seen fit to omit them, but the transcribers took tlie liberty to insert them, 3. To support a doctrine. There is only a very small num- tosupporta ber (»f variations which can be suspected of a doctrinal origin; and fortunately none of these affects materially the doctrine of the Scripture as a whole on the subject involved. Yet the difference l)etwoen manuscripts in regard to the following readings can scircely be accounted for on any other hypothe- sis. In Matt. xix.l7,some MSS. read : '' Why callst thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." Others, " "Why askest thou me concerning that which is good ? One there is who is good," In John i. 18, some read "the only begotten son;" others, "the only begotten God." In Acts XX. 28 some read "the cliiireh of God which he hath pur- chased with his own blood ; " others, " the Church of the Lord," etc. It is highly probable that, no matter which of the readings in each of these instances is the original, intem- perate zeal on the question of the Trinity led to the insertion of the other in the copies which have it. It is possible that in some of them the scribe regarded the objectionable reading as a mistake of his predecessor, yet rloctrinal i>r(judice is the most probable cause of his so thinking. When we consider all of the foregoing sources of (•(.rrup-T''"p Kroiini) of prise. tion to which the sacred text was exposcMl n)r fourteen htin-.s7,'rpri dred years, th(> multitude of accidental mistakes to which a long line of copyists were exp(.s( d, the constant temptation of ambitions scholars to make what they might think imj)rove- racnts in (he style, and the almost irresistible inclination on 24 INTEGRITY OF THE NEAV TESTAMENT TEXT. the part of sectaries engaged in fierce controversy to make the Scriptures conform to their dogmas, we have reason to be surprised, not that there are so many various readings, but that they are so few and of so little importance. Nothing short of a mjracle could have prevented their existence, and nothing short of reverence for divine things can have so limited their number and character. CHAPTER IV. MEANS OF RESTORING THE ORIGINAL TEXT. The materials employed by Biblical critics for the restora-Thematen -, ... , . , ,. alsofcrit.- tiou of the original text are the same ancient documeuts in cism which the various readings are found. Though imperfect "*™^^- and conflicting they contain the evidence by which the perfect original is to be restored. These materials are I. Ancient Greek Manuscripts, II. Ancient Translations, III. Quotations made by Ancient Writers, IV. Internal Evidence. We will consider these materials or sources of criticism separately in the order in which we have named them, and will then show briefly and in general terms the manner in which a decision is reached by means of their combined testi- mony. I. Ancient CJrekk MANUscRir^Ts. The autof^raphs of the New Testament writers perished '^'^^ *"*°' in all probability at an early day. Unless they were written on the best of parchment or vellum/ and were kept with special reference to long-continued preservation, their de- struction was inevitable. While parchment was certiiinly used by the apostle Paul, as we see from a remark in II. Xim. '^''^^"'""^'^ 10 / 1 ^-^ • writing ma IV. 16, yet paper (the Egyptian pajiyrus, made from the inner teriui. bark of a reed), was used by the apostle John in writing his ' The term " parelmiint " i.s con- skiii.s of very younjr oalvts or ante- fined to the writinjr material innde lopes. The latter is the more costly from the skin.s of sheep and noalB, and tlie more dural)le. and "vellum" to that from the 1^5) andof MSS. )f ti rst 26 INTE(;i!ll'Y «)F THK shorter epistles. II. John i. 12. It is highly 2)robable that on tins latter material, which is quite brittle and perishable, much of the XeAV -Testament was written; and although some specimens of very ancient papyrus manuscripts, iiaving been l)uried in Egyptian tombs or in the ruins of Herculaneum, have been preserved, yet documents like the apostolic writings, Unavoid- which must have passed rapidly from hand to hand, for the structiou of purpose both of reading and copying, could scarcely fail to ttuiogruphs perish in a siiort time. Even those written on parchment would soon be defaced by this |)rocess and cease to be prized on account of the superior freshness of the copies taken from them*. The tliought of serious errors in the copies was not entertained, and consequently the idea of preserving the originals as a standard of accuracy was not suggested. Not only have the autographs most probably peri.shed, that- ecu but all the copies made directly from them, and indeed all '"'^"■* made during the first three hundred years of the church's his- tory have met with the same fate so far as we know. Multitudes of the sacred books were hunted and destroyed by the heathen in the various persecutions through which the early church passed, and this must have created a tendency to the use of cheap and perishable materials in making copies of them. As we iiavt! remarked in a previous cliapter, the earliest Greek manuscripts were written entirely with capital letters; but during the ninth and tentli centuries a change in the size and form of the letters was gradually introduced to lessen the cursive'"' ^^'"*'' "^ Copying. The new style was called the cursive, or MS8 distill running hand, while the old was named uncial, or inch long, '^""' ^ ■ an exaggeration of the size of the letters.' Manuscripts writ- ten in the old form are called Uncials; those in the new form. Cursives. The cursive style of writing .seems to have been employed on other works much earlier than on the Scriptures; '" Speaking pencrally, and limit- elcvi-iitii ((iitiiry; cursive letters inj,' our statement to (ireek nianii- were (•nii)loyeii as early as the ninth BcriptH of the New TcHtament, un- or tentli century, and continued in cial letters prevailed from the use until the invention of j)rinting fourth to the tenth or (in the case supersecled the humble labors of of liturgical hooks) as late as the the scribe." (Scrivener, Inf., 58.) NEW TKSTAMKNT TKXT. 27 for the earliest cursive manuscript of the New Testament now ^'"■''''^' * ^ ' cursive. known to exist bears date A. D. 978. Of uncial MSS. of the New Testament only eighty-three ^";«f""- •' ° •' ciaisof New- are now known to critics;^ but this is a large number com- TestauK-m pired with that of classical works of like antiquity. Of*','^!|.^ Homer, for example, only a few fragments exist in this form, while the oldest complete copy of his works is a cursive of the thirteenth century.^ There is but one uncial copy of Virgil, and one each of ^T^schylus and Sophocles.' Of tliese eighty-three uncial MSS. there are but few that "'''"'«'"' "' '^ •' uncials. originally contained the whole New Testament, and only- one that contains it now. Much the greater part were originally copies of single books, or of groujrs of books, and nio.st of these are now fragmentary. The four Gospels are found in a good degree of completeness in four of them. Acts in nine, the Catholic epistles in seven, the epistles of Paul in nine, and the Apocalypse in five.* The cursive MSS. are far more numerous. Scriven* gives ^'*""'* , *=■ _ contents of a catalogue and description of 1,997 ; " and of these about thirty cursives. contain all of the New Testament,^ while the remainder, like the uncials, are copies of single books, or of groups of books, many of them in a mutilated condition. Thus we see that while the Scriptures existed only in manuscript, the number uf complete copies was comparatively small. Besides the manuscript copies of New Testament book.s, a Leclionar- ies, class of works called Lectionaries (reading lessons), were anciently in common use, which serve the purposes of criti- cism in a similar way. These consisted of passages selected from the historical books and the epistles, for public reading in the churches on consecutive Sundavs throughout the year. ( )f '''eir num- " • bur, cursive these about 540 have been preserved, of which about eighty and uuciaL ' Jh. 40, note 1. * Scrivener, Int. 4. '^ Tliis is tlie whole nninber of * Dr. Pliilij) Sch:i(r, Int. to Ainer- dietiiu't inamiscripts given in icaii Edition of (irci'k Tt-stainent Scrivener's list (Int. 87-177), though by Westcott and Hort, p. xiv. the number as he counts them, re- * Westcott and Hort, Int. 75. peating several times tiio count of * Introduction, 307 cp. Appendix those containing hirge portions of xxx. witf. the New Testament, is 97. ' Westcott and Hurt, Jul. 76. 28 INTEGRITY OF THE are unciulis.' Tlie cursives of this cliiss are incliitled iu the 1,997 meutioued above, but the uucials must be added to the eighty-three mentioned before, making- all tiie uneial MSS. of portions of tlie New Testament about 1G3. How the Ancient manuscripts were preserved tlirough the dark MSS. were vreserved, agcs, not SO much by the care as by tlie neglect of their owners. After being used for a comparatively short time, they were laid away in libraries, because their owners had ceased to read tliem, and their very existence in many cases passed out of human knowledge. The immense library of the and where. Yatjcaii ])alace in Rome, founded in 1448, now occupying a room 2,100 feet in length, is one of the largest depositories of such documents, but the most of them liave been found in the neglected libraries of convents and monasteries which were establislied in large numbers throughout southern Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia, during the f)urth, fifth and sixtli centuries. In these places they have been found by Biblical critics, who have made their contents known to the learned worhl. Names of Mauu.scripts when thus discovered were named after their .\i.ss. : * discoverers, or after the places in which they had been kept; or they were distinguished by the numbers which they bore in the library catalogues. Most of the cursives are now designated ofcursives, by numerals, though some are known by the small letters of the Roman alphabet. The uncials, wiiile still bearing the ofunciiiis. names fir.-t given, are now more conveniently designated by the capital letters of the Roman and Greek alphabets, while one of them is known by the first letter of the Hebrew alpha- Ijet. In some "instances one capital letter is made to stand Ibr .several MSS. by appending small letters to its upper right hand curve. Thu.s, () (J'^ 0''(>^ O'^O'" O^ represent seven dis- tinct MSS. Unfortunately tlu; letters are not applied to them in the order of their age or that of their discovery. ^,'''*""' The a«re of an am-ient i\IS. is not determined, like tliat of MSS , how '^ _ _ ' ^ deieriniru.i a modern book, ])y a date on its title page; fi)r the; custom of dating books did not originate till the tenth eentiny. The earliest Hiblieal manus<;rij)t bearing a date is the copy oi" the ' Srrivencr's Int. L'SO cp. .\|tiien. Appended to the New Testament are the first Epistle of Clement, and a portion of the second. Its leaves, of which there are 793, are about 13 inches long and 10 broad, and tiie writing is in two columns to the page. It was sent as a present to Charles I. of England, ' Ther(> is a ropy rnrli in tin; Con- librarios of the Union Tlioolojriral gressional Library at Wasliinirton, Seminary, Ilarvanl llnivt'r.sity and the Astor Library, N<\v York, tlio the AndovcrTbcological Seminary (Jonlenis. NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 31 in 1628, by Cyril Lucar, the Greek Patriarch of Constantino- ple, who had previously brought it from Alexandria. It is kept in the British Museum, where the open volume of the New Testament portion can be seen under glass by every vis- itor. Its date is assigned by the common judgment of critics to the beginning of the fifth century or the close of the fourth. It occupies the third place in point of value among the great vuiue. manuscripts. 3. Codex Vaticanus, or the Vatican Manmcrlpt, known as ^j*^''^^!;'^ B. This, like the two preceding, was originally designed for vut. b. a complete Greek Bible; but it now lacks the first forty-six chapters of Genesis, and thirty-two of the Psalms (cv.- co»ients. cxxxvii.); and the New Testament part terminates at Heb. ix. 14. The remainder of the New Testament has been ap- pended by a later hand. It is written on very thin and deli- ""^"'"'' cate vellum, supposed to have been made from the skins of antelopes, and it makes a volume ten and a half inches long,'*"''^' ten broad, and four and a half thick, with 1518 pages. It was placed in the Vatican library shortly after its first establish- ''"''"■■■• ment in 1448, and there it is still very carefully preserved. Of its previous history nothing is known. Few persons have been allowed to handle it, though the open volume is kept on exhibition under glass in a magnificent hall filled with other rich treasures of the Vatican. In point of antiquity, it is the rival of the Sinaitic, both belonging to the middle or the first half of the fourth century, and the opinions of scholars being divided as to which is the older. The narrow jealousy of the Popes and their Councils has prevented minute examina- tion of it by Protestant critics, and it was not until the year 1881 that a printed edition of the New Testament portion, marked by many imperfections, was given to the world by some Italian .scOiolars.' But notwithstanding the imperfect ' In Scrivener's Introduction, ment. The jealousy of the Papal 1 05-1 IG, there is a full acoouut of authoritie.s has to this day excluded the futile efForts made during Prot«'stant seludars from the piivi- nearly half a century to ohtain an lege of carefully eoilatinj; it, and accurate ac(|uaintance with the the eollations made hy Catholics readings of this venerable docu- have proved unsatisfactory. 32 INTEGRITY OF THE value. knowledge of it which has been obtained it is now regarded by some critics as the most reliable of all existing manuscripts. cod.Eph.c. 4. Kext in point of antiquity and value is Codex Eph- Coiitents, raemi, C, in the National Library of Paris. It contains a small portion of the Old Testament in Greek, and fragments of every book of the New Testament exce])t II. Thcsi^alonians and II. John, amounting to about two-thirds of the whole New Testament. It is written, like the three preceding, on vellum, size, and its leaves are about the size of those in A. It is what is nature of called apalhiipsest manuscript, or a codex rescriptus ; that is, a 'copy on which another work has been written over the faded letters of the original writing. This MS. consii^ts of detached leaves of an ancient Greek Bible written over with some works of a Syrian Christian of the fourth century called St. Eph- raem, whence its name. The new writing was done about the twelfth century, but it did not entirely efface the original. Where the latter had faded too much to be read it has been restored l)y the use of chemicals, and the contents of the man- date, uscript have been copied and printed. Its date is about the same as tha-t of A, and it is believed by some to be more accurate. value, It was brought from some unknown library in the East to Flor- iiistory. tnce in 1535, and was soon afterward brought to Paris together with a number of other ancient ISISS. wliich are still k('{)t in the National Library of France. MS3. iiiu It is evident at a glance that the ancient Greek MSS. which we have now mentioned, and especially the ftur which we ucsses. have just described, must constitute the most reliable class of witnesses concerning the exact reading of the original Script- ures. Where they all agree, as they do according to Dr. Hort's estimate quoted in a formc^r cha])ter, in seven-eighths of the whole New Testament, there can be no room for doubt that we have the original perfectly preserved. Where they TfBiimony differ in scusc, it is the business of the critic to estimate the weighed by r \ • ■ • ■< r \ • t preponderance ot their testnnonv m lav<»i' of (Ins reading or that. In mf)st iii^taiiees' this j)rej)ondeiiniee is sd Lrreat as to leave little if any room for doubt. In eslimatinp; it reference number, is had imt merely to the innnhcr oi MSS. on eii her ^jdc, but aiiticjuity, also to their an(i:e 400). NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. lU 5. The iEthiopic Version. The ^thiopic language isthe^thio- closely related to the Arabic, and was anciently spoken in the country now called Abyssinia, where the Chi'istian religion i>ecame prevalent in the fourth century. A vernacular trans- lation of the New Testament soon became a necessity, and one was made near the end of the fourth century or the begin- ning of the fifth. All the books of both Testaments were in- cluded in it. 6. The Gothic Version. While the Goths were invading the Gothic, Southern Europe, they were in turn invaded by the mission- aries of the cross, and so many of them were turned to the faith, that Ulphilas, a Cappadocian, who had gone among them in the year 345, made an alphabet of their language and trans- lated into it both the Old Testament and the New. As he died in the year 388 his version belongs to the latter half of the fourth century. There is still extant an uncial manuscript of this version, made near the beginning of the sixth century, written on purple vellum in letters of silver with occasionally some in gold. It belongs to Sweden, and is kept in the library of the University of Upsal. 7. The Armenian Version. The Armenians claim to have '*^® '*^''™^ been the first people who accepted the gospel as a national faith, but they were then without an alphabet of their own language. They read the Scriptures in Syriac, using the Peshito version until the fifth century, when Miesrob, one of their own countrymen, invented an Armenian alphabet, and with the a.ssistance of other scholars, translated into the native tongue the whole Bible. Unfortunately, no very ancient manuscripts of tiiis version have been preserved. The versions which we have now named represent in the^'"'"'^°^ aggregate the copies of the Greek Scriptures whicii were.si'.ma.^^' known and used in every part of the world that had been evangelized up to the clo.se of the fourth century. Their value for the purpose of deternuniiig the condition of the original during the two luiiidrcd and fifty preceding years can scarcely be overestimated. III. Quotatidu.s iiKiflc by Ajicioif Authurti. Ancient Chris- guotaiious tJan writers were in the habit of quoting the scriptures in th^jw* 38 INTEGRITY OF THE writings very much as we quote them now, and it is clear that every literal quotation made by one of them from the Greek Testament shows the reading in tiiat place of the manuscript which he used. Even an allusion to a certain passage may sometimes enable the critic to determine whether a clause now in doul)t was present in the passage or not. In a few instances these , writers expressly mention differences of reading, and then their testimony is explicit, and, to the extent of their information, reliable. This source of evidence, so far as it can be safely used, is of very great value, and the more so from the fact that some of these writers lived at a period preceding the date of our earliest manuscripts. Had their writings come down to us entire they would have been still more valuable, l)ut some of the best of them have reached our day in a very frag- mentary form.' Their value has been further depreciated hv the fact that their MSS., like those of the scriptures and of the versions, have undergone some changes, and that none of a very early date have been preserved." Much has yet to be done in the way of thoroughly searching those that remain to UK, before all the evidence from this source will be in hand. Internal ev- lY. Internal Evidence. The evidence furnished by the read- mgsot (jrreek manuscripts, ancient versions, and quotations made by ancient authors is called external evidence. When it is de- cisive, that is, when the preponderance of evidence for a certain reading from all of these sources is m) great as to leave no room for doubt, there is noocca,sion for evidence from any other source, liut when the eviden<-e from these three sources is indecisive re- whatitis, s«jrt must he had to what is called internal evidence. This is (he evidence foMn ployed, In judging of the latter, we are to consider the nsiia/ style and mode of thought of the writer, and also the bearing of the con- text. Dr. Hort, with fine discrimination, styles this kind of evidence internal evidence of" readings, and he distinguishes the two questions of probability just mentioned by the terms intrinsic probability, referring to what the autlior would have written, and transcriptional probability, referring to the work of"'''^"ility, having refer- receiving it" (//*/. 400). Dr. Hort ence to the author, and what may expresses himself less positively, be called Transcriptional I'robaliil- Speaking of Transcriptional Proba- ity, having reft'rence to the copy- Itility he says: "But even at its ists. In appealing to tlie first, we best this class of Internal Evi- ask what an autlior is likely to dence, like the other, carries us have written; in appealing to the but a little way toward the recov- second, we ask what copyists are ery of an ancient text, when it is likely to have made him seem to employed alone. The number of tvrite " (New Testament in Orig- variations in which it can be terials. 40 INTEGRITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. Requisites "\ye now liave before our minds all the materials which are for use of these ma- employed by Biblical critics in restoring the original text, and it is evident that a large amount of patient labor and a sound judgment are necessary in order to the skillful application of them all to the noble end proposed. For examples of this application the student is referred to the critical works to be mentioned in the following chapter. trusted to supply by itself a direct ders, that is, clerical errors, have and immediate decision is very been set aside " (-^'i'- ^5). Binall, when unquestionable blun- CHAPTER V. THE LABORS OF BIBLICAL CRITICS, AXD THE RESULTS OBTAINED. We are now prepared for a brief sketch of the history of '^''^ s'^^'ch .... . . ' proposed. Biblical Criticism, showing particularly the successive stages of its progress, and the results which have thus far been at- tained. As we have stated before, the art of printing is the parent ^,"""^^*'°" . - . , . ^f Biblical of this .science, seeing that it was by means of printed copies criticism that the attention of .scholars was first awakened to the jm. ""^ print- ing. portance of the subject and led to the study of it. The early printed editions, being copied from diflFerent manuscripts and Origin of printed in different countries, at first produced confusion by^,g^^^.j' their differences, and afterward led to the adoption without Text, very good rea.sons of a " Received Text," which became a standard for all others. The .steps by which this result was reached were briefly as follows : The Greek Testament of Era.s- nius, published in 1516, at Basle, Switzerland, and the Com- plutentian Polyglott, ])rinted at Complutum (Alcala) in Spain, in 1514, but not published till 1522, were, as we have .said before, the first printed editions of the New Testament. These editions had ciivulated about a quarter of a century without rivals, when Rol)ert Stephen, a celebrated j)rinter at Paris, brought out an edition in 1546, followed rapidly by three others, the last in 1551. In tliis last the (Jreek Testament was first divided into verses numbered on the margin, the di- vision into chapters having been introduced in the liiitin Bible in 1248. The purpose of both divisions was to facilitate ref- 42 INTEGRITY OF THE erences to particular passages.^ His third edition (1500) be- came the standard or received text in England, and from it chiefly the English version was made in 1611. In 1633 a very small Greek Testament was published at Leyden in Holland, by two brothers named Elzevir, in which the verses were marked by breaks in the text, and not merely by numbers in the margin as before. In a somewhat boastful spirit, the Elze- virs remarked in their preface, " Now you have a text received by all, in which we give nothing clianged or corrupted." The words helped forward their own fulfillment, and this edition became the Received Text on the Continent of Europe. The differences between its readings and those of the edition of Stephen are not very numerous nor very important. Neither of these standard editions was prepared with such care and skill as to entitle it to special preeminence, yet each in the course of time gained such a hold upon the public mind that to change it was considered almost sacrilegious. MiU'sEdi- It was not until the year 1707 that an edition of the Greek Testament was published containing a really serious attempt to apply the materials of Biblical Criticism to the restoration of the original text. This was the critical edition of John Mill, of Oxford University. He spent thirty years in prepar- ing it, and he died just two weeks after its publication. In preparing it he collated a lai:ge number of Greek MSS., ver- sion.s, and ancient quotation.s, and printed in his notes their var- ious readings, amounting to about 30,000. He also discussed the value of the evidence adduced, and pointed out the cor- rections which it indicated, but he printed in the body of his work the text of Stephen without correction. This work ex- cited alarm and opposition among the friends of the Bible, and some infidel writers took advantage of the facts to inveigh against the reliability of the Scriptures -^ but the final result of the discussion was to render Christian .scholars more favorable to the prosecution of critical studies. It was perceived that ' For a detailed acteount of the Vnthony Collins, the most noted origin and proj.'rf'sa of these divis- infidel writer of that age. See Far- ions, see Sf-rivener, Int. fi6-H8. rar's HiMory of Free Thought, 132- ' Tlje leader of this attack was 135. tion, 1707 NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 43 discovering various roadinjr-s was notcroatini; them, but that it was a necessary preparation for correcting thtni. Scrivener expresses the common judgment of critics when he says, " Dr. Mill's services to Biblical Criticism surpass in extent and value those rendered by any other, except perhaps one or two men of our own time." ^ The attack upon Mill's work, of which we have just ^''^ labors spoken, having been made after his death, its defense was taken up by Dr. Richard Bontloy, one of the most accomplished scholars and brilliant writers of that age. His defense of Mill increased his own interest in the work of Biblical Criti- cism, and directed the attention of others to his qualifications as a critic, so that he was at length induced to attempt the preparation of a critical edition of the New Testament. A large amount of preparatory work was done, and many valua- ble contributions were made to the development of the sci- ence, but other engagements diverted liis attention to such a degree that, to the regret of subsequent critics, he left his work incomplete.^ Thus far the work of criticism on the New Testament had^^^^^^l; tion of Ben- been prosecuted almost exclusively in Great Britain; it was gel, 1734: now transferred to Germany, and but little more was done in England for about a century. The next critical edition after Mill's was the work of John Albert Bengel, which appeared in 1734, twenty-seven years later. When Mill's work ap- •peared Bengel was a student at the University of Tubingen, and in common with thousands of other jiious men he was excited and alarmed by the multitude of various readings which had been brou;iht to lijjht. He commenced the colleo- tion of critical materials merely to satisfy' his own mind, but was encouraged by others to complete tlu> work and give it to the public.' The characteristics of his edition were the following: He made some changes in the Received Text, but only "'''■''*™*'* tcristic*. ' For an account of the i. i f, 1751-2. edition, published at Amsterdam in two folio volumes, 1751-2. He was a native of Basle in Switzerland, where he was or- dained to the ministry at twenty years of age. He had al- ready become so enamored with critical studies that his ordina- tion sermon was on the subject of Various Readings of the New Testament, and " his zeal for this fascinating pursuit," says Scrivener, "became at length with him a passion, the master passion which consoled and dignified a roving, troubled, unprosperous life." He visited both England and France in his search for MSS., and in the midst of his labors he was deposed from his " pastorate " on account of Unitarian senti- ments. He finally obtained a Professorship at Amsterdam, where his work was C(unpleted and where, two years later, he ended his life. He was the first to employ the method nowiif use of designating uncial MSS. by capital letters, and the cursives by Arabic numerals. He collated 102 MSS.,' and his collations were more accurate than those of his |)r('decessors. Scrrivencr (•x])r('sses the opinion that in the critical jxirtion of his work he must Ix; placed "in the very first rank, inferior (if to any) to but one or two of the highest names. "^ 'Scrivener, Int. 460. Tregollcs sometimes counted separately even (Printed Text 77) states the niim- when they arc parts of one copy of ber at tvrnty. The disrropaney is the; New Testament. In this way a due to difTerent methods of count- MS. containing all w onld he count- ing. MSS. of the (ioKpels, of Acts, ed as five if cited for everv part, and of Paul's p]i)istlr'S, of the Catholic yet it may he counted as one. Epistles, and of the Apocalypse, are ' Scrivener, t7). 460. To thi^ tea- NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 45 The next eminent critic after Wetstein was John James ^''.'^'1'"*,^'' Griesbach, whose name stood for many years at the head of edition, the list of Biblical critics. His principal edition appeared in^''-^'^- two volumes, the first in 1796 and the second in 1806. While he was engaged in its preparation many MSS. hitherto unno- ticed were collated by other scholars. The libraries of Russia, Austria, Italy and Spain were ransacked in search of them, and the results published in various volumes were appropriated by Griesbach. He also himself collated quite a number of MSS., versions and ancient authors. The materials before him were therefore more abundant than those possessed by any previous critic, and he used them with a skill hitherto unpre- cedented. The distinctive purpose of his edition was to place before his readers such evidence from the materials of criticism as would enable the student of his work to decide for himself on the genuineness of any given reading. He also carefully laid down the principles which should guide us in reaching a de- cision. Following the suggestion of Bengel, he attempted to make a distribution of MSS. into three great famifies,' which he calleil the Alexandrian, the Western and the Byzantine, ac- cording as he thought that their parentage could be traced to Alexandria, to Europe, or to Constantinople. This was the most distinctive feature of his critical theory, and it is the one which has received the greatest amount of adverse criticism from more recent critics. He devoted forty years to constant labor in his chosen field, and died in the year 1812.' timonial may be added the state- stein, what that critic said of Mill, ment of Davidson (Biblical Criti- that he accomplished more than cisin ii. 125): " Notwithstanding all of his predecessors put together, the defects and inaccuracies ob- If this character be too high, it is servable in the work, it is slid in- but little more than the truth" dispensable to all who are occupied (History of Priutrd Text, 77). with sacred criticism ; and will ' For a fuller account of his ca- ever remain a marvelous monu- reer and of the estimate in whicli ment of indomitable energy and his labors are held by later schol- diligence, uniteil to an extent of ars, see the works of Tregelles, philosophical learning rarely sur- Davidson and Scrivener, already passed liy any single man ;" anlii'd a theory to the classification ly thrown away " f7n^/-o(/ur//o*(, 475). of authorities by which their re- "II is collatiftns have been luisty spective value was ;»«/.s<7v/Twrsrt/" and superficial. They are often (Tregelles, History of Printed Text, incorrect" (Davidson, Jilb. C'rit. ii. 97). 137). " If Schol/' text is com- '' The following remarks of Tre- pared with that of Griesbach, it gelles on this 8u]>jt*ct are worthy ot will be seen that it is a retrograde notice even at the j^rcsent day ))y Btej) in the ai)j)lication of criticism; persons who are but partially in- NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 47 distinctive feature of Lachmann's work was not so well received by critics. His aim was to reproduce, not necessarily the true text, but the text as it existed in the fourth century. He used only such documents as he thought necessary to this result, and where they united in an unquestionable error, he printed this error, because it was a part of the text which he was aiming to reproduce. Subsecpient critics agree in the opinion thiit the documents which he used were insufficient even for the pur- pose which he had in view,' and many have condemned the purpose itself, because they have understood him as aiming at a restoration of the true tcxt.^ After all that can be said against it " still the fact will remain," says Tregelles, " that the first Greek Testament since the invention of printing, edited wholly on ancient authority irrespective of modern tradition, is due to Charles Lachmann." Like so many of his fellow- laborers he ended his critical labors with his life. He died in 1851, the year following the completion of his second edition. The name of Constantine Tischeudorf stands next in the list Tischcn- of great Biblical critics, and it was the first to tower above thatjj^,,,," ,^i. of Griesbach. He j)ublished eigiit editions of the Greek Testa- "- mont, of which the first appeared in 1841, and the eighth was cDiiipleted in 1872. On this last edition, which was published in parts, from 1865 to 1872, his fame as a critic chiefly rests, formed on the subject of Biblical some subjective notion in our own criticism, and who are prejudiced minds of what is true and right — a against what they style changes in notion that has no better basis the text :" It is in vain to call such than recent, ill-grounded tradi- a labor ' wholesale innovation,* or tion." lo say that it manifests ' want of ' Tregelles, his greatest admirer reverence for Holy Scripture ;' for and zealous defender, says on this it is not innovation to revert to the point: " A wider scope of ancient first sources ; it is not irreverence for evidence should have been taken " God's word to give it forth on the {lb. 100). best and most attested basis. It is ' Davidson, after stating Lach- not can^eW/n(7 words and sentences, mann's real purpose, says: "Had when they are not inserted be- this, his true purpose, been per- rause the oldest and best authori- ceived, it would liave saved a great ties know nothing of them. Hon- deal of misapprehension on the est criticism has to do with f. 4S:5). ecclesiastical writers" {Int. 520). ■• The narrative was i>Mblis1ie(l in "Th(! result of this excessive and Germany in 18()4, and a translation irrational deference to one of our of it into Knglish was published by chief codices, that which he was the London Tract Society in 186(5, so fortunate a.s to bring to light followed by a reprint of the Anieri- twenty-five years ago, appears can Tract Society, in the same year, plainly in Tischendorf's eighth The little volume bears the rather edition of tlie New Testament, cumbrous title: "When were our 'i'liat great c-ritic had never ]»een (lnHjich Writim: An Anjumrnl by • •(inspicuons for stability of jndg- ('(iristavlinr TuchnKlorf, v:Uh a Nar- ment" {ib. 528). rative of the Discovery of the Sinintic '"It maybe truly asserted that Manuscript." m:\\ testament TKX'i'. 4& construct the exact text which came i'rom the liands of the sacred writers. After publishing- his first edition (1841) lie was couviuced that to accomplish his purpose it would be necessary ior him to examine the original documents lor him- self, and to give them a closer scrutiny than they had yet re- ceived. But this required a protracted and expensive tour to foreign lands, and money he had none. He applied to his Government (that of Saxony) and obtained a grant of one hundred dollars a year for two years. With this meager siun, insuHicient to allow the purchase of an extra suit of clothing, he started on a literary tour wliich was destined to occupy four years. He spent two years in Pari«, and thence went successively to Holland, England, Italy, Egypt, the Libyan Desert, Mt. Sinai, Palestine, Smyrna, the isle of Patmos, Constantinople and Athens, everywhere searching ihrough collections of ancient manuscripts and collating many <>{' them. The journey and his purchases cost him about five thousand dollars, which came to him through the use of his pen, and through the gifts of persons who became interested in his work, thus verifying the conviction with which he set out, that " God helps those who help themselves, and that which is right must prosper." His labors on this tour were full of important results, one of the most important of which was the restoration, by chemical applications, of the faded manuscript C, at Paris, and the printing of its text. While visiting the convent of St. Catharine, in 1844, he saw a basket of old parchment leaves, which the monks had set aside to be burned as worthless, and to his great delight he detected among them some sheets of a very ancient copy of the Old Testament in Greek. He obtained about forty-five of the leaves without difficulty, but the ignorant monks inferred from his lively satisfaction that they must be of great value, and they refused to let him have more. These were ptibli.shed when he returned home, and their great antiquity was so clearly demonstrated that he resolved to leave no effort untried to ob- tain the whole volume to which they belonged. In 1853, nine years later, he was at the convent again, but. he could find no trace of the coveted treasure. In IH")!) he went auain. backed 50 INTEGEITY OF THE this time by commendations from the Czar of Russia, and sup- ported by his money. After searching in vain for a few days, and almost despairing of success, he found the whole of the precious document in the hands of the steward of the convent. It proved to be the Sinaitic manuscript of the whole Bible in Greek which we have described in Cha})ter IV. It was with tlie utmost difficulty, after bringing to bear the influence of higli officials in the Greek church, and making several jour- neys back and forth, that he succeeded in obtaining permission to carry it to Cairo and copy it. Hp copied its " one hundred and ten thousand lines, many of which were so faded as to be almost illegible, in the nu)nths of March, April and May, when the thermometer was never below 77° in the shade. He finally succeeded in ol>taining the manuscript itself for the imperial lihrary at St. Petersburg, and on the 19th of November, 1859, he proudly laid it at the feet of Alexander 11., in his winter palace. By the munificence of his imperial [)atron he was also furnished with the funds necessary to make a large number of fac simile copies in four volumes each, which were distributed gratuitously among the more noted libraries of Europe and America. This task was completed in 1862, but Tisehcndorf afterward published the New Testament part of the manu- script in ordinary type, with critical notes which exhibit its variations from the Elzevir text and from Codex B. The surprising and gratifying results of his life-long in- dustry secured tt> Tischendorf from time to time the most flat- tering encomiums from learned men, University Faculties, and crowned heads in every part of Europe, but he concludes his narrative by saying: "That which I think more highly of than all these flattering distinctions is, the conviction that providence has given to our age, in which attacks on (Chris- tianity are so common, the Sinaitic Bible, to be to us a full and clear light as to what is the word written of God, and to assist us in defending the truth by establishing its authentic form." After thirty-four years t»f unrenntting and exiiausting labor in his chosen field, his strong frame was prostrated by a stroke of paralysis in 1873; his work was thus brought sud- denlv to an end, and his useful life closed on the 7th of De- NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. Ul cembiT, 1874, when lie liad iicaily cinnpleted his sixtieth year. Th(.ii.rh Kil)lieal Criticism, which had its hirtii in k*:"^^*! of Great Britain, as we have seen, soon afterward lett her England, shores, after an absence of more than a luindred years it returned, and English critics, with the ck^arness of thought and even balance of judgment which characterize their race, seem destined to the high honor of bringing it to perfection. AVhile Ti.scheiulorf was pro.socuting his Herculean labors on the continent, S. P. Tregelle.s, his only rival as a critic, hisTREOELLEs: friend and correspondent, was quietly toiling at the same task in England. Born in Ealmoutli of Quaker parentage in 1813, just two years before the birth of Tischentlorf, at an early age he joined the body called Plymouth Brethren, with whom he was connected the greater part of his life. In 1838, when he was only twenty-five years of age, \u\ published a specimen page of a proposed Critical Greek Testament, the plan of which P'auof his had been formed as a result of several years of study under- taken at first for his own satisfaction. The distinctive feature of the plan, much like that of Lachmann's, of whose edition he then knew nothing, was the formation of a text based exclu- sively on ancient manu.scripts, but allowing ancient versions a determining voice in regard to clauses and longer passages.' He afterward modified his plan so as to admit the testimony of ancient versions without limitation, and to include also the evidence of ([notations made during the first three and a half centuries.^ In 1844 he ])ubli,shed the first fruits of his labors in the form of a corrected text of the Apocalypse, accompanied "'""■"st by an English translatiou. In further prosecution of his stud- and sub»e- ' There liail arist'ii hofore my insertion or noii-in.si'ition of clauses, niind a ])lan for a Greek New rfr.; letting the order of words, «7('., Testiuuent, in which it was pro- rest wholly on MSS. ; posed,— :;d, To give the Autliorities for 1st, To form a text on the an- tiie text, and for the various read- thority of ancient copies, without ings, clearly and aet-urately, so that allowing the "received text" any the reader niiglit at once see what prescriptive right; rests on ancient evidence (vlccot//// L'nd, To give to the ancient ver- of I'rinUd Test, 15'J, l."):J). sions a determining voice as to the '' lb. 173. 52 INTEGRITY OF THE quentia- j^g^ ^p fouiid it uGcessary in order to settle points of difference bors. 1 • 1 1 1 • ' ' o among his predecessors, and to gii;ird iigainst repetition oi any of their mistakes, to recollate all the MSS. and versions on whose authority he proposed to rely. For this jnirpose lie vis- ited the principal libraries of Europe, conversed much with Lachmann, and compared notes with Tischendorf After more than twenty years of such toil, he published Part First of his work, containing Matthew and Mark, in 1857, and Part Sec- ond containing Luke and John, in 1861. In neither of these parts had he the opportunity of using the Sinaitic MS., which, though found in 1859, had not yet been published. The re- mainder of the New Testament was brought out in three other parts from 1865 to 1870. Part Fifth was published for him by other editors, who sadly state in their Introduction, that in the early part of that year while Dr. Tregelles was in the act of revising the concluding chapters of Revelation, he was visited by a second and very severe stroke of paralysis, which, though it left his intellect unclouded, disabled him from a further prosecution of his work.' Thus did another great Biblical critic })av the oft-inflicted penalty of an overtaxed brain, and cease from labor when the noon of life had little more than passed. His assistant editors bear witness to his faith and His faiU) pietv in these words: " For many long years he has reverenced an piet\. ^^^^ Scripturcs as being veritably the word of God. His prayer has been that he might be the means of j)rotecting it from th(! consequences of human carelessness, and presenting it a.s nearly as possible in that form in which it was first given us by God."- His personal friend. Dr. Scrivener, who always refers to him in terms of tender regard, says that he met with much dis(|uietude and some mild persecution among the Ply- mouth lirethrcn, and adds : " His last years were more ijap})ily spent as a humble lay member of the Church of England, a fiiet he very earnestly begged me to keep in mind."^ He lin- gered in hel|)le.ssness for several years, and died at I'lyniouth April 'I\, 1H75. VHiucofhis The princi|tlrs bv which Tregelles was guided in fi)rniing labors. ' Advertiaenu'iit lo I'ait Fifth, 1. ^ Tiilr()(l English reader can see for himself the broad ground of certainty and the narrow ground of doubt. 2. The Revisers, who were selected from among the most * restored eminent scholars in Great Britain and America, had before °'**'' ^*^'' them all the critical editions which have been mentioned above, including advanced sheets of Wcstcott & Hort's text, and where these differ they made an intelligent choice of readings. ' Ih. 488. 56 INTEGRITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. The Greek Avhich thev followed in translating has been pub- lished by Dr. E. Palmer, of Oxford, and also by Dr. Scrivener, thus placing in the reach of every one who can read the Greek Testament a far purer text than has been seen by any previous generation since the sacred autographs disappeared. 3. The materials for criticism which have been collected bv the diligence of the noble men whom we have mentioned are now so ample, and the number of thoroughly accomplished critics yet engaged in the work so great, that we have every reason to expect a speedy consummation of their hopes in a restoration of the original text which shall a|>proach very nearly to perfection. Then the science ot Biblical Criticism, having finished her task, may lay aside the implements of her toil and rest under the benediction, well done ! PAUT II. GENUIi^lSrESS OF THE NKW TESTAMEI^T BOOKS. PART II. GE:NrUIKEIi5'ESS OF THE ISTEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. CHAPTER I. EVIDENCE FROM CATALOGUES. Having discussed in Part First the history and present The present condition of the text of the New Testament, we now inquire "** ^^' whether its books can be severally traced back to the writers whose names they bear. In order to begin, as in Part First, i is starting with admitted facts, we make the date of the oldest existing copy of the Greek New Testament the starting-point of the present inquiry. It is an axiomatic proposition that every book is as old as its oldest existing copy ; but the acknowledged date, as we have before stated (page 30), of the Sinaitie Manuscript, the oldest complete coi)y of the New Testament now in existence, is the first lialf of the fourth century ; and consequently all of the books in (piestion were certainly in existence at that date. This conclusion is """^ ''^^'™' . . . Its. universally admitted, and the task before us is to trac^e these books back through the two and a half centuries which lie be- tween that date and llu; age of their reputed authors. Our first evidence is that ol' catalogues. It" the inquiry 60 GENUINENESS OF THE Force of ev- \^Qf\ reference to Shakcspearo's plays, and we slioukl find in a dence from , . , ,^,,,^ i- * /• i • j- ^ catalogues, document written a. d. IbOO, a list ot tlioni as existing works, we would knoAV from this that they were written at least that early. Now it so happens that writings of ancient authors iiave come down to us which contain lists or catalogues of such books both of the Old and the New Testament as were known and used in their day. These catalogues furnish demonstrative proof that the books wiiich they mention were already in ex- istence. Catalogues Some of the.se catalogues are found in the acts of various Councils, ecclesiastical assemblies, which, like the assemblies that drew up the creeds of the several Protestant churches, set forth the books of the Old Testament and the New which they regarded Council OF f^^ the true word of God. The earliest of these assemblies in A. D. 397: whose acts such a catalogue is found, is the CounciL of Car- tilage, which met A. D. 397.' Jt was c(jmposed of tlie Bishops of Africa, representing all the churches in the Roman province of that name. The rule adopted on the suhjcct begins with these words : " It was also determined, that beside the canoni- cal ^ Scriptures nothing be read in the churches under the title itscuta- Qf (]iyine Scriptures." It names all the canonical books of the Old Testament, including all in our present Bible and some of those in the Apocrypha, and then gives the New Testament books in the foIl<»wing order: "Four books of the Gospels, one book of Acts of Apostles, thirteen Ki)istles of the Apostle Paul, one of the same to the Hebrews, two Kpi.stles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Juda.s, one ' The Council of Laodicca, wliicli in use anions the (ireok writers of met A. D. 3G3, is commonly quoted the early church. Applied (o the as liavinp made a catalogue, but Scrii)tures, it rejiresents them a.s there are good grounds for believ- the rulf of laith and i)racti(!e. The ing that the catalogue appended to Canon is the whole JMhle, and a the report of its proceedings was book is said to l)e canonical when added at a later date. The evi- it is entitled to a place in this y ''' The word cnnon is the Greek councils. For a full account of its word Kuvi'jv anglicized, and means use, see Appendix A to Westcott's a rule. I'anl employs the original Cunon of New Testament. term inn<^ as to be regarded by them as having proceeded from the Apostles. This testimony pushes the history of the books back to at least the beginning of the fourth century — farther l)aek than the date of the oldest existing copy of tliem. The next catalogue ^vhich we cite is from the pen of Atha-AxnANA- nasius, who was Bishop of Alexandria from .'V26 to .')7'> a. d., and one of the most noted Greek writers of the fourth century. In an epistle addressed to the disciples under his oversight, he gives, for the purj)ose of guarding "some few of the weaker sort" from being deceived by aj)Ocryphal books, a list of thehiseat.i- truc books <»f the whole Bible, those of the New Testament being the same that we now receive. He declares that these books had been "delivered to the fathers" by those who were his tistim.v " eve-witnesses and ministers of the word," and that h(> liad "^ ""''. ^ reasoning. learned this " from the beginning." He appends to his list this warning: "These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in them : in these alone the doctrine of religion is taught : let no on(>add to them or take anything from theui." - This testimony sets ' For th(^ original Latin text of as (leatsevi- New Testament except the Apocalypse were in use in Pales- tine, the birth-place of Christianity, at the beginning of the fourth century, and that they had been in use a sufficient length of time to be regarded as having come down from the Apostles through the ancient overseers of the church. Eusebius, called 'the Father of Ecclesiastical History, be-EusiBius: cause he wrote the first church history that lias come down to our day, is our next witness. He lived from 270 to 340 a.d., and was Bishop of the Church of Cfesarea in Palestine. He was 45 years old when C}'ril was born, and 56 when Athana- sius was made Bishop of Alexandria; his testimony, therefore, reaches back about half a century earlier than that of our last two witnesses. He lived through the persecution under ^'s account 1 T-' T~v 1 • 1 • 1 • 1 /• -1/-V-. of the UlO- the Emperor iJioeletian, which continued irom A. i). 303 to eietian per- 311, and Books viii. and ix. of his history are devoted to an"®*^"'"""' account of this persecution. The edict under which it was in- augurated required that all the churches be razed to their foundations, and that all copies of the Scriptures be burned.^ ' Quoted by Lardner, iv., 299, ical title, corrupts the souls of note a. His catechetical lectures tin* simplc-mindeil. And receive which he wrote in his youth are also the Acts of the twelve Apos- extant. ties; in addition to these, also, the ' Quoted in the original by West- seven Catholic Epistles of James Cott,Canon(if Neir Testament, 5A\,ry42. and Peter, .Tolin and Jude, and the I translate the part concerning the seal of all, tlie last W(trk of the New Testament as follows: "Of disciples, the fourteen K])istles of the New Testament, receive the Paul." four Gospels. Rut the others are ' " It was the nineteenth year of falsely written and injurious. The the reign of Diocletian, and the Maniclieans have al.so written a month Dystrus, called by the Ro- gospel accordingtoThomas, which, mans March, in which the festival as by the fragrance of its evangel- of our Saviour's pa.Hsion was at 64 GENUINENESS OF THE The edict was universal, and it was executed with especial zeal in Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Italy and Spain.' Its promulgation shows that at this period the Chris- tian Scriptures were in use throughout the Roman Empire, and that they were well known to the heathen autlioi-ities as the foundation and support of the Christian faith.^ hiscata- Eusebius leavcs us in no doubt as to the books which made logue ; . up the Scriptures whose wide-spread use and influence are thus indicated. He mentions every one contained in our New Tes- tament. He says, however, of seven, that though they were well known and recognized by most persons, they were con- troverted by some. These were Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, II. Peter, 11. and III. John and the Apoca- lypse.'* He says of the same books in "another passage, that hand, when the imperial edicts assumed the unworthy office of were everywhere publislied, to tear directing the blind zeal of persecu- down the churches to their foun- tion, had diligently studied the dation.s, and to destroy the sacred nature and genius of the Cliristian Scriptures by fire, and which com- religion ; and as tliey were not mauded also tiaat those who were ignorant that the speculative doc- in honorable stations should be trines of the faith were supposed degradetl, but those who were to be contained in the writiugs of freednion should be deprived of the i)rophets, of the evangelists, their liberty, if they persevered in and of the apostles, they most tiieir adherence to C'hristianity." prubably suggested the order tliat " All this has been fulfilled in our the bishops and presbyters should own day, when we saw with our deliver all their sacred booUs mto own eyes our houses of worship the hands of the magistrates, who thrown down from their elevation, vvere commanded under the se- the sacred Scriptures of inspiration verest penalties to burn them in a committed to flames in the mar- public and solemn manner." ((iil)- kets, the sheplierds of the jK'ople i)()n, Decline and Fall, ii., (i4.) basely concealed here anuke derstood from tradition respect- and .Tolin, each gave forth a strain ing the four Gospels, which are on their priestly trumpets. Peter, the only undisputed ones in the moreover, sounded loudly on the whole C'hurch of (rod through- two-fold trumpet of his Epistles; out the world, that the first is and so also .James and Jude. Still written according to Matthew, the the number is incomplete, and same that was once a publican, but .John gives forth the trumpet-sound afterwards an apostle of .Jesus NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 67 In his commentarv on the gospel of John, after speaking in general terms of Paul's epistles, he says: " But Peter, upon concerning whom the church of (Mirist is built, against which the gates ofEpistks. hell shall not prevail, has left one epistle imdisputcd. Suj>- pose, also, the second was left by him, for on this there is some doubt." ^ But although he thus declares that there was some doubt about II. Peter, preventing him from styling it like I. Peter, "undisputed," he shows his own judgment of it not only by the passages cited above from one of his homilies on Joshua, but also by ({noting II. Peter i. 4, with the formula, "Peter said"; am! II. Peter ii. K), with the words, "As the Scripture says in a certain place"; and by citing what Peter said in his " first" epistle, implying a second." Eusebius quotes him assaying in the same commentary, ■^°''"*'^^ that John wrote the Apocalypse, that he left one epistle and perhaps a second and a third, " for all do not allow that they are genuine."^ Concerning the epistle to the Hebrews he expresses the "^'''^^^■• opinion that the thoughts are Paul's, but that the diction and phraseology are those of another. He says that some a.s- cribed the writing to Clement, and others to Luke; but he Clirist, who, having published it on Numbers xiii. 8 ; and l)e Prin- for the Jewisli converts, wrote it in cipiis Viris, II., n., 3. Hebrew. The second is according ^ " What shall we say of him to Mark, who composed it as Peter who reclined upon the breast of explained to him, whom he also Jesus? I mean John, who has left acknowledges as his son in his one Gospel, in wiiicb he confesses general Ei)istle, saying, ' The elect tliat he could write so many that church in Babylon salutes you, as the whole world could not contain also Mark, ray son.' And the them. He also wrote the Apoca- third according to Luke, the Gos- lypse, commanded as he was to pel commended by Paul, which conceal and not to write the voices was written for the converts from of the seven thunders. He also the Gentiles ; and last of all, the left an Epi.stle consisting of a very Gospel according to John." (Ec- few lines; suppose also that a eec- cUs. Hixl., VI., XXV., p. 245.) on " ill his ex- his extant writings that he names and quotes from every book lant works. in the New Testament except Philemon, James, II. Peter and III. John.^ This evidence is furnished by a man who was horn within f"orceof sixty-five years of the death (tf the apostle John, and haddence. received instruction from eminent teachers who, to use his own words, " Preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine de- rived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John and Paul, the son receiving it from the father (but few^ Mere like the fathers) came by God's will to us also to deposit those an- cestral and apostolic seeds." ^ How few generations of trans- mission are here alluded to can be realized, if we remember that a man eighty-five years of age could have lived ten years with the apostle John and ten years with Clement. The in- terval was too brief for books originating within it to be trans- mitted as having been known since the days of the apostles. Tertullian, a famous Latin writer of Africa, was born in tertulu- Carthage about a. d. 160, and died about a. d. 240.^ He^'' was, therefore, a cotemporary of Origen and Clement, and his personal knowledge of the New Testament books extended through the last quarter of the second century. lie left no formal catalogue, but his extant writings eontain statements Misuse of concerning the gospels and Paul's epistles that are equivalent "^ *^"^^*' ^ to a catalogue, and he mentions all the other books except U. Paul's Epis- Pfter, James, and the two shorter epistles of John. He names our four gospels, and says that Matthew and John^ were writ- But it is probable tliat the title, Clement Ijelonping to the Ante- Paul the Apostle, was not prefixed Niccne Christian Liljrary. to it. For as he wrote to the '^ Stramnta, i. i. {Ante-Nicem- Lib. Hebrews who had imbibed preju- Vol. iv. Soo). dices against liiin, and suspected ■'' i>ee the evidences and opinions him, he wisely guards a>;ainst di- aildnced by Lardner, ii. '_'.").'?, and vertiuK them from the perusal by also Westcott, Taoox, .•?4I. giving his name'" (/•^■(•/«.i. //(-.sr.vi. '"Of the Apostles, therefore, !•*)• John and Matthew first instill faith ' The citations are too numerous into us; whilst of apostolic men, for our space, but they may be Luke and Mark renew it after- found in Lardner's Credibility, ii. ward " ( r.r/i(///an mjain»l Mnrcion, 210-230, and in the two volumes of iv. ii, 2S0). 72 GENUINENESS OF THE ten by apostles, and Mark and I^uke by " apostolic men." In the last book of his work against Marcion, he names all of Paul's epistles to churches in regular order, drawing an argu- ment from each one separately, thus refuting Marcion out of the very books on wliieh he relied to su})j)or( his heresy. He does the same with Pliilemon, and twits Marcion for accepting, as he did, this personal epistle, yet rejecting the two to Timothy and the one to Titus.' Thus he arrays the thirteen epistles of Paul as authorities in debate. He was also acquainted with He- Hebrews, brews, but he represents it as having been written by Jiarnabas.^ Acts, He frequently quotes Acts of the Apostles by its title, ascribing it to Luke, and asserting that those who do not receive it have no means of showing when, or with what beginnings the church I.Peter. ^^^j^^ formed.^ He quotes bv name 1. Peter and Jiide.^ He also Jude, ' ' "To this Epistle alone did its knew not even by hearing" (De brevity avail to protect it against I>aj>tlx)jio, x. 248). " ]\loreover, the falsifying hands of Marcion. I since in the same Conmu'ntary of wonder, however, when he re- Luke, both the third hour uf pray- ceived this letter which was writ- er is pointed out, at which, when ten to but one man, that he reject- entered by the Holy Spirit, they ed the two Epistles to Timothy and w'ere held to be drunk, and the the one to Titus, which all treat of sixth, at which Peter went up on ecclesiastical discipline. His aim the house-top," etc. (J)e Jcjuniis, c. was, I sui)pose, to carry out his 10). "And assuredly He fulfilled interjiDlating f)rncess even to the His promise, since it is proved in num])er of Epistles" {TertiUlian the Acts of tlie Apostles that tiie uyaiiixl Marcion, v. xxi. 478). Holy Spirit did come down. Now '^ He says: " For there isan Epis- they who irjccl that Scrii)ture can tie of Barnabas, inscribed to the neither belong to the Holy Spirit, Hebrews, written by a man of such seeing they can not acknowledge authority, that Paul has placed that the Holy Sj)irit has been sent him with himself in the .same as yet to the discii)les, nor can they course of abstinence: 'Or I only pretend (o claim to be a church and Harnabas, have we not power themselves who positively have no to forbear working?'" Then fol- means of proving when and with lows a quotation from Hel). vi. 4- what infant nursing this Ixjtly was 8. Set! the passagf^ cited from Pr established " (Prescription tujaind J'adirltiii, })y l-;\rdncr, CrrdihUilii, Jfrntlcs, xxii. 2G). ji. 270. ^ " Peter says to the jx'Ople of '"Accordingly, in the Acts of Ponfus, How great glory it is, if, the Apostles we find that men who when ye_ are punished for your had .lolin's baijtism had not re- faults yet lake it patii-ntly," etc. (I. ceived the Holy Spirit, whom they Peter ii. 20, 21). Lardner, ii. 274 NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 73 nuotcs frcqiuntlv frdiii I. John and the Aixjcalvnso, ascribing: ^•"^"'•^"• » , T , ■ , 1.1' fe Revelation. the latter to John. In addition to tiic testimony jrivon in this indirect way, *^'^*^^°""' Tiir • \ • °^ theorl- Tertullian, in opposition to Marcion who rejected all the Gos-ginand pels exceiit Luke's, and was eharf2:ed with miitilatin[i: this, in.>nting the face of each comes down from the Apostles of them severally. Achilla is very which has been kept as a .sacred near you, rou fin-aged man when he wrote, reached back into the first half of the second century, and he may have conversed with men who had lived in the midst ot the AjKJstles, and his information concerning the origin of our books may have been derived to some extent from original witnesses. The earliest writer who set forth a formal list of the books Mabcion: which he accepted as authoritative, was Marcion, who came from Pontus to Rome about tiie year 140," and was then a teacher of great notoriety. He was the founder of a heretical party called Marcionites after his own name. While the Ebionites, an intensely Jewish-Christian sect, the theological offspring of the Judaizers against whom Paul waged so con- ! stant a warfare, rejected all of Paul's writings, and also the writings of Luke, because he wa.s under Paul's influence, Mar- cion took the opposite extreme, and claiming that Paul was the only Apostle who understood the gospel correctly, he rejected "'^ ''"°^* all the New Testament writings except ten of Paul's Epistles, and Luke's Gospel. The two Epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus he rtyected for reasons that are not known, and also Hebrews. His teaching demonstrates the previous general recognition of this Gospel and these ten P^pistles, while his ^'^j^'"^^**® antagonism to the other Gospels and to the writings in general of the other Apostles, demonstrates the existence of those. Moreover, the ground on which he rejected the latter was not their want of genuineness, but, admitting their geiuiineness, he denied the ajiostoiic authority ol' their authors.' Thus the ' "Westcott gives tlio whole T.atin A'/W/', S5), at 140. text of this floruinont, and •li.'scnsa- ''This is implied in th(^ follow- es it exhau.stively (r"f7Hon of New inp extract from Tortullian's ropi)-: 7V«raj?»^n/, 208-218, and AppmdixC). " Bnt Martion, finding the Epistle * Westcott (Canon of New TeMn- of Paul to the Galatians, wherein mnil, 'MY)), fixes the date between he rehnkes even Apostles for not 139 and 142; Davidson (Cnnon oj the walking: uprightly according to the Uii^ teach- ng; 76 GENUINENESS OF THE direct and indirect evidence from this source combine to show that at least the greater part of our books were known to Mar- cion, and his knowledge reached back into the first quarter of the second century. Summary f he five writers last quoted, Marcion, the author of the in the sec- Muratoriau Canon, Tertullian, Clement and Origcn, unitedly ondcentu- j^iention bv name all the books of the New Testament. They are the earliest group of writers who do so, and they all lived within the second century, spanning with their personal knowl- edge the whole of this century from the beginning of its sec- ond quarter to its close. They declare that these books had been handed down " from the fathers," " from the ancients," " from the Apostles ; " and they speak from Rome, from Africa, from Egypt, from Palestine. The age of a single man may have overlapped the early days of the latest of the five and the latter part of the life of John. We have therefore itsconciu- traced the existence of these books by unquestionable evidence biveness. ^^ ^^^^ second generation after that of the Apostles, and we find them at that time widely circulated over the world as ajmstolic writings. Can they have gained this circulation and this rep- utation if they had originated by forgery within the interven- ing generation ? We find also these unimpeached witnesses as- serting that they had received these books from their flithers, who had received them from the cotemporaries of the Apos- tles. Is it credible that all of these were deceived, or that they all, in widely separated parts of the world, conspired together to impose upon their fellow-men as apostolic, books which their fellow-men must have known to be of recent origin ? If it is not, then the evideneo from catalogues alone is credible proof that all of the New Testament books originated in the days of the Apostles. truth of the Gospel, as well as ac- sootli, to seciire for his own gospel cuses certain false apostles of per- the credit which he takes away verting the (iosi)el of Christ, lahors from them " (Agnimt Mnrclon, iv. very hard to destroy the standing 3). A hrief account of the career of therte Gospels which are puh- of Marcion and of his teaching is lished as genuine and under the given by Westcott {Canon of New name of Apostles, in order, for- Testament, 308-315). CHAPTER II. EVIDENCE FROM VERSIONS. It is self-evident that every book must be as old as any Nature and translation of it into another language, and that so far back as J^.^d'ence :'^ we can find a translation of the New Testament books, we trace their existence by this fact to the same date. Moreover, a book is seldom translated until it has acquired such a reputa- tion in its original tongue as to create a demand for it in some other country where a different tongue is spoken. The period necessary for this was comparatively long in ancient times, when literary intercourse between nations of different languages was not so free as in this age of travel, of newspapers and of printed books. The New Testament books, therefore, must have been in existence for a considerable period previous to the earliest translation of them. As we have already traced their '^^ '"*''t'"=- existence by evidence indisputable into the second centurv, we'"'" need not start with this new evidenc;> at a later perioy soiiu; scholars it« date is fixed a little earlier; by others a little later; but the very latest date that can be assigned it is the year 170.^ It ' See p. 34. '' -See p. ^o, where the evidences are given. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 79 ■was not made in Italy, as one would naturally suppose, but in the Roman provinee of Africa, of which C'arthage wa.s the principal city, and where Latin was the prevalent language. The church in Rome itself continued thus far to use Greek literature.' As Greek was but little known in Africa, a trans- lation of the Greek scriptures became indispensable as soon as the disciples became numerous. This accounts for the fact that although Africa was among the latest of the Roman prov- inces to be evangelized,- it was among the first to possess a translation of the Christian scriptures. The publication of this translation so soon after the conversion of the people, makes it j)r()bable that they received the translation from the same ' " At first it seemed natural to and, at a later period, we find the look to Italy as the center of the Bishop of Corinth writing in Greek Latin literature of Christianity, to Soter, the ninth in succession and the original source of that from Clement. . . . The apolo- Latin version of the Holy Script- gies to the Roman emperors were ures which, in a later form, has in Greek. . . . The first ser- become identified with the Church raons that were preached at Rome of Rome. Yet however plausible were in Greek. . . . Mean- such a belief may be, it finds no while, however, though Greek con- support in history. Rome itself, tinued to be the natural, if not the under the Emperors, is well de- sole language of tlie Roman Church, scribed as a Greek city, and the seeds of Latin Christianity were Greek was its second language, rapidly developing in Africa. . . . As far as we can learn, the mass Carthage, the .second Rome,escaped of the poorer population — to which the Grccism of the first. In Africa the great bulk of the early Chris- Greek was no longer a current dia- tians belonged — was Greek either lect." WesicoU, Canon of New Tes- in descent or in speech. Among lament, 244-247. the names of the fifteen bishops of "^ " Nothing is known in detail of Rome, up to the close of the the origin of the African churches, second century, four only are The Donatists classed them among Latin, though in the next century 'tho.se last which shall be first'; the proportion is nearly reversed, and Augustine in his reply merely When St. Paul wrote to the Roman aflirms that '.some bftrl)arian na- Church, he wrote in (Jreek, and in tions eml)raced Christianity after tlie long Mst of salutations to its .\frica, .so that it is certain that members, with which the epistle Africa was not the last to believe.* is concluded, only four genuine The conces-sion implies that Africa Latin names occur. Sliortly after- was late in being evangelized, ward Clement wrote to the Cor- Tertullian adtls that it received inthian Chtirch, in Greek, in the the gospel from Rome." Westcott, name of the Church of Rome; Canon of New Testament, 2^. 80 GENUINENESS OF THE persons who brought them the gospel. But these persons lived at a period early euough to know what books had come from the apostolic age, and books of recent origin could not have been palmed off on them as apostolic. The version in- cluded all of our present New Testament books except He- brews, James and II. Peter. But Hebrews and James were both in the Peshito Syriac, and all the books absent from that except II. Peter were present in this. Consequently we find the existence of every book of the New Testament except II. Peter attested by translations as early as the middle of the second century. They were translated because they were the authori- tative books of the churches, and they were authoritative be- cause the churches believed them to have come from ajwstolic hands. Is it possible that these churches could have been totally mistaken about such facts when the interval had been so short? Why no When we remember that the gospel was preached and the sio^'nsiriec- churches were established before the close of the second cen- ond cen- ^y^^x in all the nations of the Roman empire, we are led to in- *"'^" quire why so few translations of the Christian scriptures were then made. But the small number should excite no surprise. In the first place, the Greek language was the universal lan- gwA^v of literature, known and read by educated persons throughout the world except in Africa. In the second place, most of the nations not closely connected with Greece or with Rome were as yet without an alphabet. Even in Egypt the Christian translators were compelled, as we have stated, to en- large and otherwise change the native alphabet, and in Ar- menia as well as among the Goths, an alphabet had to be in- vented.* Moreover, in all countries the masses of the people were unable to read, and were dependent for knowledge of books on the public and private readings of their teachers. The" latter couhl translate as they read, and thus tlie demand for written translations was delayed. This universal spread of the Greek language, which had resulted from the conquests of Alexander and tlio dominion of his successors, served three important purposes of divine providence: it facilitated the ' See page 37. NEAV TESTAMENT BOOKS. 81 preaching of the gospel aiitl the intercourse of remote Chris- tian communities with one anotlier ; it obviated for some gen- erations the necessity of translating the scripture into the ver- nacular tongues; and it led to the composition of the New Testament Scriptures in the language best adapted of all that had been s|)oken among men to the expression of the nicer distinctions in religious thought. CHAPTER III. EVIDENCE FROM QUOTATIONS. Nature of Quotations from a book, like copies of it, catalogues of its dencr parts, and translations of it, are self-evident proofs of its pre- vious existence, seeing that it is impossible to make quotations from a book not yet written. Quotations Quotations are divided into three distinct classes : c asbi J Those in which the words quoted are credited by name to the book whence they are taken, or to its author. These are called express quotations. II. Those in which the source of the quotation is not given. These are called anonymous quotations. III. Those in which an idea, a figure of speech, or a form of expression, is borrowed from another writer without credit. These are variously styled coincidences, allusions, reminis- cences; but they are really quotations from memory, and we think it better to treat them as such. As we proceed, we shall refer to these classes of quotations by their numbers. Foroeof In the second and third classes, and especially in the third, third class- *'^^ ^^^^ ^''^* ^ quotation is actually made is usually a matter «* of probability, not often one of certainty. It depends on the probability that two writers used the words, ideas, or figures of speech in question, independently <>f <'ach other; and the degree of this probability depends upon tin; character of the matter used by them in comjiiou. Such ideas, figures and phrases as an; commonplace, and such as have become common property, may be used in common by two writers uuac<|uainted with each other's productions; but such as are strikingly char- (8'2) NEW TESTAMENT ROOKS. 83 acteristic of a certain author are known, when found in the works of another, to be borrowed property. The identitieation depends on the well known fact, that as every man has his own peculiar features, so every writer of any originality has his own peculiar mode of expression, and his peculiar thoughts. For ^""■"■**'''° example, if in the works of any writer since Shakespeare there should be found the words, " to be, or not to be, that is the question," there could be no reasonable doubt that he obtained them directly or indirectly from Shakespeare's Hamlet. On the other hand, if they should be found in the works of some author previous to Shakespeare, it would be morally certain that Shakespeare had borrowed them from him. In like manner the charact^'ristic phraseology, figures of speech, or thoughts of any New Testament writer, when found uncredited in the work of another author, furnish proof that the latter borrowed directly or indirectly from the former, except when the New Testament writer can be regarded as the later of the two. We now j)ropose to draw upon this source of evidence, byThecita- presenting not all, but a few of the quotations made from the li^^g^j New Testament books by early authors, and we have selected those on which the force of the evidence from this source chiefly depends, and which for this reason should be familiar to every student of Evidences. The writers whom we have already mentioned, such asQ^o^^'o'is Origen, Clement, Tertullian, and others of a later date, made already many and copious quotations from the books of the New T('s- '"**°'*'*"^**- tament, so many and so copious that the opinion has some- times been exj)ressed that the whole New Testament, if it were lost, could be reproduced out of the Christian writings of the first four centuries. But as we have already seen that these men mention the books by name, it would be but reiteration to cite their (luotations. It is needful only that we betrin at'^**""^*"*' . , •' ® point. the point of time already reached by means of the latter evi- dence, and cite the (piotations made by writers who livrd at a still earlier period. If the period between the writers just named and the apostles can be spanned by a sueee.ssion of writers making quotations from the books in <|uestiou, the ex- 84 GENUINENESS OF THE IREN.EUS: istence of these books will be traced to the age of the apostles Ijy evidence absolutely couclusive. We begin this line of evidence with Iremeus, a writer who mentions so many of the New Testament books by name that he might almost be classed with those who have left catalogue. The exact date of his birth is not known, nor is that of his death; but both are iixed Avithin very narrow limits, and we hisperioJ; adopt OS Certainly quite close to the trutli the date 135 as that of his birth, and 200 as that of his death.' Hf speaks of hav- birthpiace; ing seen Polycarp in Smyrna in his early youth, and from this it is supposed that Smyrna, or some adjacent part of Asia home; Minor was his native place." Later in life his home was at Lyons, in Gaul, where he was made a Bishop in the year 177. opportuiu- pj.gyj^^jj, iq ]^{^ ordination he visited Home as the bearer of a ties. letter from certain members of the church at Lyons who were in prison and awaiting martyrdom, to the Bishop of the church at Rome.'^ From all this it is apparent that he had means of knowing what books of tiie New Testament were in use within the period of his remembrance, in Asia Minor, in CJaul and in Rome. His memory reached back within the first half of the ' These are the figures adopted by Westcott (Canon of New TcMa- menl, 379) while Donaldson {Arde- Nkene Library, Jni. XVIII., XIX.), says that "the general date as- signed to his birth is somewhere Ijetween a. d. 120 and a. d. 140," and that' "he is siippo.sed to have died about a. d. 202." * " But Polycarp was not only in- structed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but WUH also by apostles in Asia appointed bishop of the chin-ch in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried a very louK time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the ehureh has handed down, and which alone are true." Irenseus, Against Here- sies, 202, 2fi3. ^"But these same martyrs rec- ommending also Irenreus, who was then a presbyter of the church at Lyons, to the Bishop of liome, before mentioued, bear' abundant testimony in his favor, as the fol- lowing extracts show : ' We pray and desire, father Eleutherus, that you may rejoice in (iod in all thin^rs and always. We have re- (jueste(l our brother and com- jtaniou, In-nanis, to carry this ejjistle to you, and we exhort you to consider hira as commended to you as a zealous fidlower of the testament ftf Christ.' " Kusebius, ErclesiaHlical Hintory, v. 4. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 85 second century. His quotations and citations may be classified a.s follows: 1. He says that what the Apostles first preached they after- His account ward " handed down to us in the Scriptures ; " that they were Gospels""' filled with the Holy Spirit before they prcaclu'd ; that Matthew " issued a written gospel " while Peter and Paul were preach- ing at Rome; that Mark, "the disciple and interpreter of Peter," wrote %vhat bad been preached by Peter; that Luke, " the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him ; " and that " John, the disciple who had leaned on the Lord's breast, published a gospel during his residence in Ephe- 6US. "' He further claims that the ground on which these Gospels rest was so firm that even the heretics against whom he wrote and whose doctrines were condemned by them, were constrained to acknowledge them, some acknowledging one, and some another." He makes other remarks concerning the ■ " We have learned from none wards, John, the disciple of the others the plan of our salvation, Lord, who had also leaned upon than from those througli whom his breast, did himself publish a the gospel has come down to us, gospel during his residence at which they did at one time pro- Ephesus in Asia." Against Here- claim in public, and at a later sics, iii. 1. period, by the will of God, handed ■^''So firm is the grouncl on down to us in the .Scriptures to l)e which these gospels rest, that the the ground and pillar of our faith, very heretics themselves l)ear wit- . . . For after our Lord rose ness to them, and, starting from from the dead the apostles were these each one of them endeavors invested with power from on high to establish his own peculiar doc- when the Holy Spirit came down, trine. For the Ebionites, "who use were filled from all his gifts and Matthew's gospel only, are con- had perfect knowledge. . . . futed out of this very same, niak- Matthew also issued a written gos- ing false suppositious in regard to pel among the Hebrews in their the Lord. But ]\hircion, mutilating own dialect, while Peter and Paul that according to Luke, is proved were preaching at Rome and laying to be a blasphemer of the only ex- the foundations of the church, isting God from those pas-sages After their departure, Mark, the which he still retains. Those again disciple and interpreter of Peter, who .separate .Tesus from Christ, did also hanus, and they are 'Whom, not seeing, ye love; in collected in a group in Lardner's whom, though now ye see him Credibility, III. 103, 164. not, ye have believed, ye shall re- ' In naming some of the minor joice with joy unspeakable'" I. works of Irenteus, Eusebius says: Peter i. 8. Against Heresieii,l\.9,2. "There is a book also of various * After quoting a statement of disputes, in which he mentions John in his gospel, Iremeus adds: tike epistle to. the Hebrews." Ec- " For this reason also he has tes- cU-siaatU-al nistory, \. 26. tified tons in his epistle: 'Little '^ " Moreover, l)y Photius we are children, it is the last time; and as informed that Stephen Ciobar writes ye have heard that antichrist dotli thus: ' Ilippolytus and IrenM'ussay, come, now have many antichrists the epistle of Paid to the Hebrews apj)eared ; whereby we know that is not his'; by which, perhaps, we it is the last time' " (I. .lohn ii. IS.) need not understand that Irena-us Ih. iii. .5. "These are they against liad expressly said so anywhere." whom the Lord has cautioned us Lardner, Crvdibilitii, II. IK.'). beforehand; and bis disciple, in his •'' Hy this expression is meant epistle already mentioned, toni- the epistles of .lames, Peter, .lohn mands us to avoid them when he and .fude, called catholic, (general) says: ' For many deceivers are en- l»ecause they were not addressed tered into the worlil who confess (except II. and III. .John) to any not that .Tcsus Christ is come in I>articular person or congregation, the flesh'" (II. John vii. 8.) lb. Tlie expression originated at an iii. S. early period, and is very con- 88 GENUINENESS OF THE Second Epistle of Peter. In trying to show that Adam died the same day that lie ate the forbidden fruit, he states as the opinion of some, that he died within a thousand years, and he argues that since " a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he died within the time stated in the sentence.' In another place he assumes that the six days of creation are a prophecy of the earth's duration, and argues that as " the day of the Lord is as a thousand years," in six thousand years the world will come to an end.^ This bold and startling statement that " a day of the Lord is as a thousand years " is found in almost the identical words in II. Peter iii. 8, and it is there employed in connection with the very subject to which Irenjeus in the last instance applies it, the end of the world. The thought is strikingly original, and it could not have occurred independ- ently to Irenaius and the author of II. Peter. We conclude then that it was borrowed by the former, and that he not only knew this Epistle, but accepted it as an authority on this high subject, the mysterious relation which God sustains to tirae.'^ In * " And there are some, ajjain, is evident, therefore, that they will who relegate the death of Adam to come to an end at the sixth thou- the thousandth year; for since a sand years." lb. v. 28, 3. day of the Lord is as a thousand ' The only ground for douht- years, he did not overstep the ing, as many eminent authors do, thousand years, but died within that Irena-us here quotes II. Peter, them, thus bearing out the son- is based on the possibility of his tence of his sin." J7>. v. 23, 2. having obtained the thought from *"For in as many days as this Psalnj xc. 4. But the thought of world was made, in so many thou- the Psalmist is quite diflerent from sand years shall it be concluded, that of Peter and Iren:rus. The -Vnd for this reason tlie Scripture latter si)caks of God's absolute re- says: Thus the heavens and the lation to time, and interjjreta his earth were finished, and all their language accordingly; while the adornment, and (rod brought to a Psalmist is considering (Jod's long conclusion upon the sixth flay the existence iii the jiast, and speaks works that he had made, and (!oil of it as being so long that a thou- rested on the seventh day from all sand years dwindle in comparison his works. This is an account of 1o the length (»f a day or a watch th(! things formerly created, as also in the night. ^Moreover, tlie words it is a prophecy of what is to come, of Iremcus are almost identical For the Iartyr. pate of the churcli at Lyons," Euse- *"We will not, however, incur \ni\ii,EccLHin)flicalIIidonj,\'.r,. Tiiis the risk of pronouncing positively occurred, as the same writer states, as to tlie names of antichrist; for in the seventeenth year of the if it w»Te necessary that his name reign uf Marcus Antoninus, which should be revealed at the present was a. d. 177. lb. v., Preliminary, time, it would have been an- * " Wat Polycarp also was not nounced by liim who beheld the only instructed by apostles, and apocalyptic vision. For that was conversed with many who had seen no very long time since, but seen Christ, but was also by apos- 90 GENUINENESS OF THE who had conversed with many persons who had seen Jesus. He had also conversed with another person whom he styles " a certain presbyter," who had been taught by men who had seen the Apostles.' From his boyhood, then, he had known the New Testament books as they were known by men who had seen the Apostles, and this renders it in the highest degree improbable that any of them had originated since the apostolic age. Hisrever- Before wc Icavc the writings of Tremens it may be well to eiiceforthe i xt m New Testa- notice the reverence paid to the New Testament books by the ?''"\ disciples of his day, as it appears in the titles which he famil- iarly applies to them. He calls them " the Sacred Scriptures," " the Oracles of God." ^ He speaks of the New Testament as containing "the writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles," as the Old Testament contains "the law and the prophets."^ He holds these Scriptures to be perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit ; * and he declares that no ties in Asia appointed bishop of sions and parables whenever found, tl)e church in Smyrna, whom I to adapt the oracles of God to their also saw in my early youth, for he baseless fictions" /^.i.8, 2. "These tarried a very long time, and, when things are such as fall under our a very old man, gloriously and observation, and arc clearly and un- most nobly suffering martyrdom, ambiguously in express terms set departed this life, having always forth in the sacred Scriptures. And taught the things which he had therefore the parables ought not to learned from the apostles, and be adapted to ambiguous expres- which alone are true." Arjaimt Here- sions " Jb. ii. 27, 1 . gieH iii. 3, 4. ^ " -'^"d it is not only from the '"As I have heard from a cer- writings of the evangelists and the tain presbyter, who had heard it apostles that they endeavor to de- from those wlio had seen the apos- rive proofs for their opinions by ties, and from those who had been perverse interpretations and de- their disciples, the imnishment in ceitful expositions: they deal in the Scripture was suliicicnt for the the same manner with the law and ancients in regard towliat tiieydid the prophets, which contain many without the Spirit's guidance." lb. parables and allegories that can iv. 'i7, 1. frequently be drawn into various *" In like manner do these per- senses, according to the kind of sons patch together old wives' fa- exegesis to which they are Bub- bles, and then endeavor by vio- jected." ]b. i. I',, (i. lentiy drawing away from their ♦" We should leave those thinga proper connection, words, expres- of that nature [things we can not STJN ktvr: Kf:\V TESTA.MKNT HOOKS. 91 light punishment awaits him whf) either adds to or subtracts anything from them.' Is it possible that Ijooks thus esteemed in the middle of the second century and believed to have been in use in the church from the days of the Apostles could have been written but a few years previous? We next go back to Justin, a native of the ancient citv of:J)^ Shechem in Palestine, which was called Flavia Neapolis by the Romans, and is now called Xablus by the Arabs." His nation- ality was uncertain. He calls the Samaritans his people,'* but ^J^^'"'^" this may be only because he was born among thom. His name, and that of his father and his grandfiither, are Roman, >'"'^"s<'- indicating the probability of a Roman lineage. His principal writinecs which have comedown to us are two Apologies, andaP""^'P"i writings, Dialogue with one Tr}'pho, a Jew. One of the former was ad- dressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, and the other to the Roman Senate. The Dialogue, which is by far the most elab- orate of his works, is an attempt to state and to answer the arguments of the Jews against the Christian faith ; and the Apologies are remonstrances against the persecution of Christ- ians by the Roman authorities. The exact date of his birth is not known, but it was not much later than the beginning of*"'*P*"°** ' ° ® of acuvuy. explain] to God who created us, tus Cjcsar, and to his son, Ver- being most properly assured that issimus, the philosopher, and to the Scriptures are indeed perfect, Lucius, the philosopher, the uat- since they were spoken by the ural son of Ca?sar and the adopted Word of God and his Spirit " Ih. son of Pius, a lover of learning, ii- 28, 2. and to the sacred senate, with the ' Speaking of a change in the whole people of the Romans, I, number 6t;0 (Rev. xiii. IS) which .Justin, the son of Priscus and had been made by some heretics, grandson of Bacchius, natives of he says: " Now in the first place, Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, pre- it is loss to Winder from truth, and sent this address and petition in to imagine that as being the ca.se behalf of those of all nations who which is not; then again, as there are unjustly hated and wantonly shall be no light punishment on abused, my.self being one of them." him who either adds to or sub- First Apology, Addrexn. tracts anything from Scripture, ' " For I gave no thought to any under that such a person must of my peojjle, that is the Samari- nece.ssarily fall." Ih. v. .SO, 1. tans, when I had a communica- ^"To the emperor Titus /Elius tion with Ca?8ar, but stated that Adrianus Antoninus Pius .\ugus- thev were wronp in trusting to the 92 GENUINENESS OF THE the second eentur}'/ The date of his death is involved in equal uncertainty, but that of his first Apology is stated in the work itself as about one hundred and fifty years after the birth of Jesus, and it is agreed among scholars that it was written in 146 or 147.^ He suffered martyrdom at Rome,^ and from this circumstance he is usually called Justin Martyr. In re- gard to these dates it is sufficient for our present purpose to know that he lived through the first half of the second century. In his dialogue he gives an interesting account of his own He seeks early inquiries on the subject of religion. Being desirous of obtaining a knowledge of God, he sought personal instruction from Greek philosophers. His first teacher was a Stoic. After spending much time with him and learning but littk^, he re- sorted to a Peripatetic, then to a Pythagorean, and finally to a Platonist. Under the latter he says that his mind was "fur- nished with wings," and that he was elated with the thought that he would soon look upon God; but at this juncture, while and finds enjoying a solitary walk by the seashore he met an aged Chris- tian through whose conversation he was brought to the true knowledge of God."* He was the more easily converted on account of his previous knowledge of the patience with which Christians endured persecution.^ From this- time he went magician Simon of their own na- pate and solve the difficulty." tion, who, they say, is God above First Apol. c. 46. Westcott, follow- all power and authority and ing Dr. Ilort, gives the exact dale might." Dialogue, c. 120. as 146 (Canon of N. T. 98, n. 1), ' See Westcott on the Canon, p. and the author of the infidel work 95, 98, n. 1, and the authorities called Supernatural Keligion,makes quoted by Lardner, Credibility II. it no later than 147. Vol. i. 284. 112, 116. ' An interesting account of his ' " But lest some should, with- martyrdom by an unknown writer out reason and for the perversion has come down to us, and an Eng- of what we teach, maintain that lish version of it may be found in the we say that Christ was born one Ante-Nicene Christian Li])rary, hundred and fifty years ago under vol. II. 367. Cyrenius, and subsequently, in * Dialogue c. ii.-viii. the time of Pontius Pilate, taught '■' " For I myself, too, when I what we say he taught ; and shoiild was delighting in the doctrines of cry out against us as thoiigli all Platd, and heard the CUirisfians men who were born before him slandered, and saw them fearless were irresponsible, let us antici- of death and of all other things Him NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 93 about in the garb of a philosopher, contending earnestly for "is later ... . • 11 • V? 1 ' 1 career. the gospel in various countries, especially in iLphesus and at Rome. According to Eusebius, " he was the most noted of those who flourished in those times." ' As Justin's argument in all three of his works pertains ^® 'i""**' ,. . T /. 1 1 II 1 '*^® Gospels not to the doctrine or discipline ot the church, but to the per- chiefly. son and character of Jesus, and to the moral status of Chris- tians, his quotations from the New Testament are necessarily confined almost entirely to the gospel narratives. From these he makes about one hundred and twenty quotations setting forth all the characteristic teachings of Jesus, and nearly all of the prominent events of his life. For a very obvious reason he nowhere mentions any of our gospels by the name of its author; for the author's name would amount to nothing ^^''^h ^"' "°°^' the heathen emperor or the unbelieving Jew ; but he designates the books in such a way as to give them their full weight of authority. He refers to them constantly as the sources of his in- formation and the authority for Christian ordinances; and he designates them by such titles as these: "The Gospel," " The '^»^« "•^«' . • ^ he gives Memoirs of the Apostles," " The Memoirs composed by the them. Apostles, which are called Gospels," " The Memoirs which were draw^n up by His Apostles and those who foliowt'd them." There arc sixteen instances of this kind, two in the First Apology, and fourteen in the Dialogue.' Jiy an examination which are counted fearful, per- the .\po.stle.s, iii the memoirs com- ceived that it was impossihh' that posed In- them, whieli an- called they could be living in wickedness Gospels, have thus delivered to us and plca.sure." .SVroH/o(7.i/, c. 12. what was enjoined on them; that ' " Hut Justin was the most Jesus took bread, and when he noted of tho.se who flourished in had given thanks, 8air the human have left no impression on the race. For he foreknows that some genuine or doubtful works of .fus- are to be saved by repentance, tin Martyr." Westcott On the some even that are, perhaps, not Canon, 170. yet born." First Apology, c. 28. 98 GENUINENESS OF THE tained this thought from Peter than that he originated it him- self and propounded it on his own authority, as an interpreta- tion of God's mind. To sum up the evidence from tlie writings of Justin, we Sum of evi- „jj^y gtate, that it proves beyond question the general and ])ub- Justin. lie use within the first half of the second century, of the four Gospels, of all of Paul's Epistles except Titus and I. and II. Timothy, of the Apocalypse, and almost certainly of the Second Epistle of Peter. papias: Xhe next author whose testimony we employ is Paj)ias. He was an overseer of the church at Hierapolis, a city which stood in the vicinity of Laodicea and Colosse, and whose well preserved ruins continue to attest its ancient magnificence. It his home, yy^ ^[jg j^st home and burial place of the Apostle Philip and two of his three daughters.' The church is mentioned by Paul, Col. iv. 13. All that we know of Papias personally is derived from the writings of Irenseus and Eusebius. He was the author of a work in five books entitled An Exposition of Oracles of the Lord.^ The whole work has perished except a few quotations made from it by early writers, chiefly Eusebius ; consequently we have but very limited means of knowing what use he made of the New Testament writings. The work was based, as its his writ ings, * Eusebius quotes from Polyc- rates, a bishop of tlie church at Ephesus, the following statement made in a letter to Victor, a bishop of Rome : " For in Asia also, mighty luminaries have fallen asleep, which shall rise again at the last day, at the api)earance of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall gather again all the saints. I'hiliii, one of the twelve apostles , who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters. Another of his daughters who lived in the Holy Spirit, rests at Ephesus." Ecrli^. IIul. III. c. .31 ; v. 24. Some have supposed that in this quo- tation Philip the apostle is sul^sti- tuted forPhilij) the evangelist, but its correctness is successfully argued by Lightfoot, Com. on (^olos- sidihH, 4.5-47. ■•* Irenaeus, JL'rrsicK, v. 33, 4 ; Eusebius, Eech's. HiM. III. 30. The above is "Westcoft's triuislntion of the title (Canon, 70) followed by TJghtfoot, Com. on Colossians, 47. Donaldson (Hist. Chris. Lil. avd Doc. I. 314) renders it, An Ex- position of the Lord's Sayings. The original words arc Aoyluv KvplaKiiyv NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 99 title indicates, on sayings of Jesus, and consequently we should expect its references to be confined to the four Gospels. The period at which he lived is determined by the follow- ^^'^ p<-"0'^ ing statements: Lusebms says that he claimed to liave con- portunitiee. versed with the daughters of Philip ; ' Irenseus says that he was a companion of Polycarp;' and he says of himself that he had conversed with various persons who had been followers of the Apostles ; that he had inquired of them what the Apos- tles taught, and that he thought he derived more benefit in writing his Exposition from the living voice of these persons than from books.'^ These statements show that he was sepa- rated from the Apostles by only a single generation, and that his knowledge of apostolic teaching derived from books was supplemented by the recitals of original hearers. Eusebius considers him a man of weak judgment,* but this, if true, does not detract from his testimony concerning facts. '"That the apostle Phihp con- those that teach the truth ; neither tinned at Ilierapohs with his those that record foreign precepts, daughters has heen already stated but those that are given from the above. But we must now show Lord to our faith, and that come how Papias, coming to them, re- from the truth itself. But if I meet ceived a wonderful account from with one who had been a follower the daughters of Philip." Eccles. of the elders anywhere, I made it Hist. III. 30. a point to inquire what were the *" These things are borne wit- declarations of the elders. What ness to in writing by Papias, the was said by Amliew, Peter, or hearer of .John, and a companion Philip. "What by Thomas, .Tames, of Polycarp, in liis fourth book, for John, ^latthew, or any other of there were five books compiled by the di.sciples of the Lord ; for I do him." Heresieii, v. 33. not think I derive so much benefit ' Eusebiuslquotes him as follows : from books as from the living voice "But I shall not regret to subjoin of those that are still surviving." to my interpretations also for your Eccks. Hist. III. 30. benefit, whatsoever I have at any * " He says there would be a time accurately a.scertained and certain millennium after the reaur- treasured up in my memory as I rectiun, and that there would be have received it from the elders, I a corporeal reign of Christ on this have received it in order to give very earth, which things ho ap- additional confirmation to the truth pears to have imagined, as if they of my testimony. For I have were authorized by the apostolic never, like many, delighte i i thority of one of the elders above referred to whom he calls " John the Presbyter," that Mark was Peter's interpreter, that what he recorded was written with great accuracy though not in chronological order, and that Peter gave him such instruc- tion as was necessary;^ His language implies, as in the case propounded mystically in their he moans and implies in liis hin- representations. For he was very guage, that the necessity of rend- limited in his comprehension, as is ering the Hebrew into Greek had evident from his discourses; yet once existed, to be sure, but ex- he was the cause why most of the isted no longer." Prof. Geo. P. ecclesiastical writers, urging the an- Fisher, Supernatural Origin of Chris- tiquity of the man, were carried tianity, 162. Meyer, speaking on away by a similar opinion; as, for this subject says: "The original instance, Irenteus, or any other Hebrew writing, however, from that adopted such sentiments." whi(;h our present Matthew pro- Eccles. Hist. III. 39. Perhaps this ceeded through being translated low estimate of the man's compre- into Greek, must, apart from the hension was suggested by the poor language, have been in contents opinion which Eusebius enter- and in form, in whole and in part, tained concerning the doctrine of substantially the same as our Greek the millennium ; yet in the very Matthew. The general evidence expression of this opinion he shows in favor of this view is, that that Papias exert(?d a very decided throughout the ancient church our influence over the views of later Greek Matthew was already used writers. as if it l.ad been the authentic '/ft. (ext itself." Com. on Matthew, Int. ' " When 'every one interpreted ' ? ii. (3). the Hebrew Matthew 'as he could,' •'"'And .Tohn the presbyter also NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 101 of Matthew, that this Guspol was well known in the days of Papias, and was believed to have eome from the pen of Mark. The Gospel of John is not mentioned in anv of the extant p'"^*'*^''' ' , ", , statement fragments of Papias, but a manuscript of John in the Vatican about library has a Latin "argument" prefixed to it which was '^°^°''' '^'"' written in the ninth century, when the works of Papias were still extant, and it states that Papias described this Gospel and related that it had been given to the churches by John.' Besides these three Gospels, Eusebius says that Papias made use of testimonies from the First Epistle oi' John aud'-^o'*°' I. Peter, also from that of Peter ;" - and Andrew of C£esarea, a Greek Revelation, writer of the fifth century, declares that he bore testimony to the inspiration of the book of Revelation.'^ These are all the books mentioned or quoted by Papias, so far as our meagre information extends. They include all the Gospels but Luke's, I. Peter, I. John, and the sum and Apocalypse. It is })robable, from the nature of his work, evidence. as before intimated, that if we had it all, the list would not be greatly extended. It is altogether certain that the books which he does use were not only recognized in his day as apos- tolic, but that they were so recognized by the elders who were said this: Mark ln-ing the inter- wa.s published and given to the preter of I'ttir, wliat.socv .r he n;- ehurches by John while yet in the corded he wrote with accuracy, body. So relates Papias, a man of but not, however, in the order in flierapolin, in the last of his five which it was spoken or done by books. He has rightly described our Ix)rd ; he was in company the gospel as being composed by with Peter, who gave him such in- John." struction as was necessary, but not '■' Kecks. HiM. III. •.'39. to g4ve a history of our Lord's dis- '^ Westcott, Canon of N. T. 44.3. courses. Wherefore Mark has not The words of Andrew are as fol- erred in anything by writing some lows : " With regard to the inspir- things as he has recorded them ; ation of the book (Revelation) we for he was carefully attentive to deem it superfluous to add another one thing, not to pass by anything word; for the blessed (iregory that he heard, or to .state anything Theologus, and Cyril, and even falsely in these accounts." Quoted some of still older date. Papias, by Eusebius, Ecrles. IliM. HI. .39. Irena-us, Methodius and Ilippoly- *The pas.sago as given by West- tus, bore entirely satisfactory testi- cott {Canon of N. T. 7G, n. 1) is thus mony to it." Fmgmrnts of Papias, translated; "The Goapel of John \U1., An(e-Nicaie Library, yol I. 102 GENUIXENESS OF THE his instructors and who had known the Apostles. This traces them to the Apostles and their comjjunions by evidence that can not fairly be called in question. polycarp: Polycarp of Smyrna is one of the most conspicuous char- acters of the church in the second century. Irenanis, who when a boy was personally acquainted with him, says of him his oppor- ^^^^ (( jjg ^g^g instructed by Apostles ; " that he had " conversed tuuities; _ 11. with many who had seen Christ ; " that he was appointed an overseer of the Church in Smyrna by Apostles ; that he lived to be a very old man ; and that he suffered " a glorious mar- tyrdom." "To these things/' adds Ircnseus, "all the Asiatic cliurches testify, as do all those men who have succeeded Poly- carp down to the present time."^ his martyr- jjig martyrdom occurred Feb. 23, a. d. 155, or 156,^ and in an account of it written in the name of the church at Smyrna he is represented as claiming to hiwe served the Lord Jesus eighty-six years.^ This dates his baptism as early asthe date of his yg^j. 'jQ ^\^q fj^tg of tiic destruction of Jerusalem. If we baptism ; '' i i i • i i suppose that he was 100 years old at his death, a supposition quite in harmony with the statement of Irenteus, he was bap- ' .4r/^r/;/s7 //i'/r.svVs, 2fi2, 263. Polycarp. Donaldson, after point- "•'Ilis death is variously placed ing out many unautlientic details from 147-17G. The recent investi- in it, reaches this conclusion : gations of M. Waddington as to the " The hypothesis by Mhich we can date of the Proconsulship of L. give the most probable account of 8tatius Quadratup, under whom this production is that it really was, Polycari) sufTerod, tix the true date as it professes to be, a letter from [Feb. 2.3], 155-0 A. D." WcstcoU, the church in Smyrna , that it was Canon of N. T." 39, n. 5. a short summary of the principal ""Then the proconsul urging circumstances of the marlyrdom ; him and saying: 'Swear and I will and that as this letter went down Bet thee at liberty, reproach Christ ;' to posterity it gathered length and Polycarp declared, ' Eighty and six absurdities." Knt. of Chrhtian Lit. years have! served him, and he and Doc. I. 100-169. Westcottsays never did me an injury, how then of it: "The authenticity of this can I blaspheme my King and my narrative has been calle'^'*'"'*"'i'' part 'of his life at P^phcsus, only fifty miles from Smyrna, Polyoarp may have seen him and heard him. Furthermore, ith as Phili|)'s home in the latter part of his life, was at Hierap- "'"^ "' * , * Philip olis, only about 100 miles east of Smyrna,' Polyearj) may have seen that Apostle, and he may, in the course (»f his liic' have met with others. It is not improbable that Irenaus is correct in saying that he was instructed by Aj)ostles, and by Apostles appointed to office in the church. His long life, reaching back iiisknowi- into the very midst of the apostolic age, and extending down ^ew lesta- to the middle of the .second century, enabled him toknow™^°^ . books ; what writings of the Apo.stles were in use almost from the be- ginning, and it made him familiar with the first appearance of all their later productions. The books which he recognized as apostolic must have been so, and what he taught concerning them was j)ropagated in Gaul by his pupil Irenieus, in Asia by other pupils, and in Rome by him.self ; for in the imperial city he in person defended the faith against heresy.^ Polycarp wrote a number of epistles to neighboring churches,^ of which that to the Philippians alone has been preserved. It is quite brief, occupying in print not much more than five ordinary octavo pages. It is written in the name of " Polycarp and the presbyters with him," and it is addressed to " the church of God sojourning at Philippi." * ■ See page 98. boring churches in order to con- * '• He it was who, coming to firm them, or to some of the Rome in the time of Anicetus, brethren in order to admonish and caused many to turn away from to cxiiort them, the same thing the aforesaid heretic. The may ho clearly shown." Ireiurus church of riod, proclaiming that quoted by Eusebius, EccUk. Hixt. he had received this one and sole v. 20. truth from the apostles — that, *" Polycarp and the presbyters namely, which is handed down by with him, to the church of (Jod so- the church." Irenious, Against journing at riiilippi: Mercy to Herr»ii'n, III. .3, 4. you, and peace from oiiits respecting which him succeeded Anadetus; and you consulted us; and especially after him, in tlie third place from to that shameful and detestable se- the ai)rstles, Clement was allotted dition which a few rash and self- the bishopric. This man, as he confident persons liave kindled to had seen the blessed apostles, and such a pitch of frenzy, that your had been conversant with them, venerable and illustrious name, might be said to iiave the j^reach- wortliy to be universally loved, ing of the apostles still echoing in has sufrere4) iii. 20)." yiy^/.s//., c. vii. " Noah being hanthatlu.should 1-1 /, '■'on with more properly ai)prcciated it we compare the evidence from ancient the same source for some of the most noted classical writings ^'*"'*^- of antiquity. The writings of Herodotus, the most famous of Greek historians, are quoted by only one author (Ctesias) in the first century after they were written, by only one (Aristotle) in the second, by none in the third, and by only two in the fourth. Thucydides, second among Greek historians, is not quoted at all during the first two centuries after he wrote ; Livy, the early Roman historian, is quoted by only one writer in the first hundred years, and the first to quote Tacitus isTer- tiillian, who wrote about 100 years later.' If, then, our task had been to trace back to their authors the works of these cele- brated writers, works the genuineness of which is never called in question, the case which we could make for them would be weakness itself compared with that which we have made for the writings of the New Testament. 'The facts jiave l)pon colli-ctcfl tory, in liis work entitled Historical by the learned and painstaking Evidences of Christianity. Lecture George Rawlinson, one of the vi. n. 9. greatest masters of ancient his- CHAPTER IV. INTERNAL EVIDENCE. Nature of this evi- dence. Proper method of inquiry; The claim of authorship which a book sets forth on its own pages lia.s a presumption in its favor. It is the same pre- sumption which attaches in law to a will or a deed when writ- ten and signed in due form. It is not proof, but in the absence of proof to the contrary it stands good. The evidence neces- sary to set it aside or to confirm it, may be external, or inter- nal, or both. External evidence is that derived from other sources than the book itself. It is that with respect to the New Testament, which we have already considered. Internal evidence is that found in the contents of the book. If events are mentioned in it, or alluded to as having transpired, which reallv took place after the siipj)()sed author's death, or which, for any other cause, could not have been known to him ; or if words are employed which did not come into use until after his death, the claim is disproved. If no such evidence is found, and if, on the contrary, evidence, in support of the claim is found, tlie pr('sunij)tion is turned into proof From the nature of the case, liowcvci', internal evidence is nuieli more effective, and mueli more commonly eniploved in dis|>n>ving the claims of spurious books, than in estal)lisliin-1!»; xvii. 24-27, our remarks on the date of this Luke xxiv. 12, .34; Mark xiv. 47. book, page 117. ■■' Luke xxi. 20, coinp. Matt. xxiv. * Luke i. 1-4. 15; Mark xiii. 14. Mohn xxi. 24; comp. 20-2.3; xiii. 'Acts of Apostles i. 1 ; and see 23-25, xx. 2-0; xix. 2(>. 116 GENUINENESS OF THE theaiiu- Jesus received into such intimacy that one of them could be sions to the i t • i i i * i i mi ti j. author suit Known as the disciple whom he loved, ihese were Teter, John alone, james and John, the three who alone were permitted to wit- ness the transfiguration, whom alone he took with him into the garden of Gethsemane, and whom he especially honored on other occasions,' But the one whom he loved can not have been Peter, seeing that he is especially distinguished from Peter in the statement that " Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following," etc.^ Neither can James have been the one thus designated, for he was beheaded by Herod long previous to the earliest date that can be assigned to this Gospel.^ Furthermore, while all the other writers in speaking of John the Baptist, give him his title to distinguish him from John the Apostle, the writer of this Gospel alone refers to him simply as John, a circumstance to be accounted for only by the fact that this writer was the other John. This method of designating himself contains very strong and are un- evidence of the author's sincerity : for a spurious writer of a spurious later period could scarcely conceive of such a method, but, authorship, j^gj. ^j^g reader should fail to recognize him as .the Apostle John, he would have written openly under that name, after the manner of the spurious Gospels of the second century.* Sl^dat?°* The principal internal evidence as to the date of this Gos- pel is found in the fact that it diifers so widely in its subject matter from the other three, thus indicating that its author knew tlie contents of the others, and that it was written after these had became so widely circulated as to make it superfluous to reiterate what they had made known. This wide divergence faterThan ^^^^ ^^^ Other three Gospels is proof not only of a later date John's than theirs, but also of a date too early and of an authorshij) too authoritative for a spurious document : for if the three pre- vious Gospels had alone gone down to a late period as the ac- ' Matt. xvii. 1 ; xxvi. 36, 37; Mark 44, only ten years after the death V. .'i7. of Jesus. Atitirjuitien, XIX., viii. 2. ■•^ Jolin xxi. 20. *Thi8 line of evidence is pre- ' Acts xii. ]. This event, soon scnted clearly and strongly by followed by the death of Herod, is Prof. Geo. P. Fishor. Sit/jfrnutural known by the statements of Jose- Origin of Christianity, 84-86. phus to have occurred in tlie year XEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 117 roptoc] rooord of tlic career of Jesus, no man in attempting to write a Gospel in the name of John wouhl have ventured to depart so witlely from them, or if he had, his book would have been rejected at once as a forger\'. Its very divergence from the other Gospels is no mean proof, under the circumstances, of its apostolic authorship.' Acts of Apostles. This book claims to have been writ- acts: ten by the same author as the third Gospel, and it incidentally, the Ruthor by the use of the pronouns " we " and "us," represents its ^^Yuk^^ *" author as being an actor in many of the scenes which it de- Gospel; scribes.^ The external evidence that its author was Luke is confirmed by the fact obtained from two of Paul's epistles, that he was a companion of Paul as the narrative represents, ^" *'^*°'' '" 1 . . 1 . i rni 1 /• • • 11 'the events; during its closing scenes. ihc date or composition could not have been earlier than the last event mentioned in the book, Paul's two vears imprisonment, which terminated a. d. 6,3 date uot be- * . . ^O"* 63, nor Neither could it well have been later than this : for the last later, four chapters of it are occupied with a very interesting account of proceedings and journeys consequent upon Paul's appeal to Csesar from the rulings of Festus ; and after dwelling so long ujx)n this subject it would have been a most unnatural termin- ation of the narrative to have omitted the final decision, had it been rendered when the book left the author's hands. It would have been like the sudden close of a drama or of a novel just previous to the winding up of the plot ; or the close of the history of some celebrated jury trial without giving the verdict of the jury. The internal evidence therefore fixes the date at the end of the second year of Paul's Koman imprison- ment, which was the spring of the year 63.^ 'For a full and forcible state- ilenee is conclusive that it was dtir- nient of this evidence, see the work ing the imprisonment spoken of in last cited, !>", 98. the closing sentences of Acts. * .Vets i. 1, 2; xvi. 10, 17; xx. r», ^The accession of Festus oc- H, 1!} ; xxi. 1, 7, 15; x.wii. 1 ; xxviii. curreil in the year 60. In the 1, 11, lt>. autumn of the same year Paul was 'Col. iv. 15; Philemon '24. sent ^to Home (.^cts xxvii. 0) ; he These epistles were both written passed the winter of (>0-61 in Mel- while Paul was a prisoner (Col. iv. ita, reaching Home in the spring 3, 10; Philemon 2:5), and the evi- of Gl ^xxviii. 11-14); and he re- 118 GENUINENESS OF THE Evidence from refer- ence to the Herods. Paul's 13 Epistles : written in his name, and reflect- ing his ex- periences. Another internal evidence of the early date of Acts, is the manner in which the author sj)euks of members of the Herod family. Nothing is more puzzling to the modern reader who is not familiar with the secular history of that period, than the way in wliich these men are spoken of in the Gospels and Acts. For example, the author of Acts and of the third Gos- pel has " Herod the King " reigning before the birth of John the Baptist ; then he has " Herod the tetrarch " imprisoning and killing John ; then Jesus is sent by Pilate to " Herod ; " then the Apostle James is slain by " Herod the King; " and finally Paul is brought before " King Agrippa ;" yet there is not a line of description to distinguish these Herods from one another, or to show their relationship. A writer of his care- fulness in other matters could not have written thus unless he was Avriting when these princes were still well known, and therefore in the very generation to which the majority of them belonged. Paul's Thirteen Epistles. All of the epistles usually ascribed to Paul, with the exception of that to the Hebrews, contain the name of Paul as the writer, not subscribed at the close, after the modern cu-stom, but according to the ancient custom embodied in the opening salutation. They contain also many allusions to the author's personal experiences agree- ing with what is known of Paul through other sources, and thus they bear all the internal marks by whitrh the genuine- ness of epistolary documents of a ])ast age is tested.' Their mained there in prison two whole years (xxviii. 30) which extended to tlie spring of (i:5. ' There is evidence furnished by some of th(! epistli-s, tliat I'aul usually dictatetl to an amanuensis", hut that, in order to certify the genuineness of liis epistles by his handwriting, he wrote with his own hand the closing palutations. In the Epistle to tlie Romans the name of the amanuensis is given (xvi. 22), and that he employed one hahitnally, yet always wrote with his own liand the salutation appears from IT. Thess. iii. 17: "The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle : so I write." In Oalatiuns he makes the remark, " See with how large letters I have written to you with mine own hand," which probably refers to the whole epistle, making this an exception to his rule. This evi- dence is lost to us in the loss of the autographs. NKW TKSTAMKNT HOOKS. ll!l several dates are fixed with a tjood degree of acciiraev hetween the years 52 and 68. Thk Epistle to thp: Hebrews. Unlike all the other "*^""^^^^- I •! 1 T-» 1 1 • • I • HUOIIV- epistles ascrined to raul, tins one is anonymous. Jt is notmous: addressed lormallv to anv individual or coniniunitv, and Jt ^^""en f""" ' ' IIi'tire\v< is known to have been intended for Hebrew readers onlv bv its arguments. Notwithstanding these peculiarities, it has enough of the eharaeteristies of an epistle to be properly so called. It was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, as before the a])pears from its frequent references to the temple service aSofjeruFa" being still in existence;^ and from the consideration, that had^^"^- the city been destroyed and the temple worship thus abolished, the author could not have failed, in his elaborate argument on the temporary nature of that service and of the Jewish priest- hood (chapters vii.-x.) to make use of the fact. As to its author, the external evidence, as we have seen in ''>" «» imi- /■'i rn •I'T'iii 1 1 ..„ mate friend (. Iia])ter J liird, is divuled, but the prej)onderance is in fiivor of of Timothy Paul," and the internal evidence points in the same direction. "'^'^ '^^^"'"'^ . , the latter's It was written l)y one who sustained very intimate relations death: with Timothy, as appears from the statement (xiii. 23.). " Know ye that our brother Timothy hath been set at libertv, with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you ; " and the writer himself had been in some trouble from which he was not vet entirely freed, as appears from his ref|uest, " Prav for us . . . that I may be restored to you the sooner" (xiii. 18, 19.). These allusions point to Paul as the author, and thev show that >"«'^"'^^'f"K •* _ ' • before the the Epistle was written before the death of Timothv. On the preceding other hand, it c(/ntains some allusions which ])()int to a date as^^'^"^''' ' See Heb. viii. 4 ; ix. <)-n; x. II, cfcMlited by some to Clement of 12; xiii. 10, 11. Rome, and by others to Luke (p. '^ The sum of tlie exterriitl evi- 07); Clement of Alexandria says (lence on this point already given that it was written by Paul but in Chapter Third is as follows: translated into Greek by Luke, Tlie Council of Carthage ascribes Paul's name being suppressed to it to Paul (p. 00); Eusebius does make it more aceeptable to Jewish the same, but says that the chureh readers (p. 70) ; Tertullian ascribes at Rome did not (p. 04, and n. 8); it to Barnabas (p. 72) ; and Ironanis Origen ascribes tb(> matter to Paul, is represented on doubtfid nutlior- bnt the composition to some other ity as denying that it was written person, and says that it had been by Paul ]'s\in' .<7. u. 2. 120 c;ExrixENn;ss of the late as the preceding facts can well allow. First, the writer rebukes his readers because they needed to be taught the first principles of the oracles of God, though " by reason of time" they ought to be teachers (v. 12.) Second, he asks them to remember the former days in which, after they were enlight- ened, they endured a great conflict of sufferings (x. 32-34.) Third, he exhorts them to remember their deceased .spiritual probably fuiers, aud to imitate their faith (xiii. 7.) All of tlicsc allu- sions agree very well with tlie supposition tliat Paul was the writer, and they suggest no other person. They also indicate the close of his two years imprisonment in Rome, a. d. 03, as the probable date of the composition. James; The Epistle OF J AMES. This document claims to have been written by " James a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are of the Disper- eitherthc .sion " (i. 1.) The hidi authority with which he si)eaks son of Al- ^ ■ ^ , . . • . , • 1 T 1 phiTus, or throughout the Epistle, identifies hiui cither with James the brothel*^' Apostle, son of Alphreus (Luke vi. 15), or with the James who so long j)residcd oyer the Church in Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17; xxi. 18; Gal. ii. 12) and was called by Paul "the Lord's J[;;;Jf^';;;' '' brother " (Gal. i. 19 ; ii. i).) It is still an unsettled (piestion (linvnut. whether these two are the simc or diil'crent persons;' but it is generally agreed that if they arc different the latter is the author of the Epistle. He suffered martyrdom in Jerusalem A.D. 63,^ and consequently the Epistle must have been written |)revious to this date. That it was written in Palestine, where fore w, and 'liimes resided, is cyidssay appcudcil to NK\\' TKSTAMKNT BOOKS. 121 perish as the hot sun aud desert winds come upon them soon after the close of the rainy season. Again, when he demands, " Can a fig tree yiehl olives, or a vine tigs " (iii. 12), he de- rives his figures from the three most abundant fruits of Pales- tine ; and when lie speaks of the husbandman being patient until he receives " the early and the latter rain " (iv. 7), he alludes to the early rain of autumn which in Palestine is neces- •sary to early sowing, aud the latter rain of spring without which the dry season .sets in too soon for the grain to mature. The Two Epistles of Peter. The first of these two^'""^'"" Epistles is written in the name of "' Peter an Apostle of Jesus*'*"'" '"^"^ Christ" (i. 1); and in it the author speaks of himself as " a witness of the suif'erings of Christ " (v. 1 ). Its date is indi- cated proximately by tiiree considerations: First, it was ad-"^'"'^' dre.s.sed to the disciples in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, .Vsia and Bithynia (i. 1 ), regions which were evangelized by Paul and his associates ; and consequently it must have been written after those churches had been established, and after tiieir con- dition had become known to Peter. Paul ck)sed his labors there on leaving Ejjhesus in the spring of A. D. 57. Second, it was written after Peter had read Paul's Ej)istles to the Romans and the Ephesians ; for tlie author adopts many of the }»i'culiar expressions of Paul from these two Epistles.' Third, as Eplie- sians was written a. D. 62, and Peter's death occurred in 68, the Epistle must have been written between these dates. It was written from Babylon (v. 13); but whether from the real Baby- "*" ''"^'^ Ion, or from Rome figuratively called Babylon, is a (|n(stion of long-continued controversy and still unsettled. I'he Second Epistle is also written in the name of J^'ter, the" ''"^" = ' Tlu' reader can see the full I. I'tt. ii. l:\,ch. vi. 5. ing the follow inj; i)assuj,'es in I. I. IVt. iii. 1, romp, f'.ph. v. 22. Peter with tho.^e set opposite to I. Pet. iii. !), nunp. Uoiii. xvi. 17. ihein in Romans and E|ihesian.s; I. Pet. iii. 22, romp. Eph. i. 20, iioni. I. Pet. i. 1, camp. ICpli. i. 4-7. viii. '.U. I Pet. i. 3, comp. Ei-h. i. :]. I. Pet. iv. 1, Horn. vi. (>. 1. F'jt. i. 14, comp. Eph ii. S, Koin. T. Pet. iv. 10, Horn. xii. (i xii. 2. I. Pet. V 1, romp. Koni. viii. 18 I. Pet. ii. 6- 10, cow/). Kom. ix. 25-82. I. Pet. v. 5, romp. Epli. v. 21. I. Pet. ii. 1, ri,mi>. Koni. vii. 2:!. 122 GENUINENESS OP' THE author styling himself " Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of its author, Jesus Christ"; and besides the formal salutation in Peter's name, the author alludes to the Saviour's prediction concerning the manner of his death (i. 14,comp. John xxi. 18); to his pres- ence at the transfiguration of Jesus (i. 18) ; and to his having its date. written the previous epistle to the same disciples (iii. 1). Con- firmation of these formal indications of authorship is found in the fact that the Second Epistle contains many of the charac- teristic expressions of the First, and of Peter's speeches re- corded in Acts of Apostles.' As the First was written in the year 62 and Peter died in ' 68, the date of the Second can not be much later than that of the First : but there is nothing to indicate the exact year. jcDF.: The Epistle of Jude. This brief document claims as liisidenti- its author "Judas the brother of James. " There is some ^>' doubt as to whether he was Judas the Apostle (liuke vi. 16 ; John xiv. 22) or the Judas who was one of the Lord's brothers (Mark vi. 3). If the correct rendering of Luke vi. 16 were " Judas brother of James," this would identifv him as the Apostle; for here he gives himself this title. But the general usage of the Greek language is against that rendering (the Greek words are 'lo'jouu ' Iaxib[-ionates himself by the former title rather tlian by the latter, because it was more modest in view of the fact that the Ijord had long ago ascended to heaven.^ It is confirmatory of this view, that he omits to style himself an 'Tlio list iA references is too in liis Earhj DaijK of Chrhtianity ; long for insertion here. It may be and by Prof. Lniiiby, Intro, to Jude, found complete in tiie Introduction Blhlc Com, Tlie whole subject of to II. I'eter l)y I'rof. Liimby, in the The Brothers of the Lord is dis- Bible Comnn'ntary. cussed with great aliility and clear- *The arguments on this ques- ness by Lightfoot in an essay ap- tioti are more fully stated by Far- pended to his Commentary on rar in the chapter on this epistle Galatians. NKW TESTAMENT HouKS. 123 Apostle, and that he rather distinguishes himself from the Apostles by speaking of the latter in the third person, saying, " Remember the words wliieh have been spoken before by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ." This Epistle bears no internal evidenee of date except that ^^'"^^^ce o/ (late, it was written after the ehureh had become infested bv a large number of desperately wicked men (4-12). Its striking similarity to the second chapter of II. Peter shows that one of the two writers had seen the other's Epistle and made much use of its material. If it could be determined with certainty which is the older of the two, this would help to fix the date of Jude ; but the question, though long debated, is still unsettled.' The Three Epistles of Johx. These three Epistles, epistles bf like the Gospel ascribed to the same author, are written with- their nut a name, but the first i)aragraph of the First Epistle clearly *""'°"'''p implies that it was written by an Apostle, while identity of style and diction indicates that all three came from the same writer, and from the writer of the Gospel." They were all three written late in the life of their author, and at a period in the history of the church which implies a long life on his part. See I. John ii. 6-f 8 ; iv. 1 ; II. John 1, 5, 6; III. John 1, 4. Revelation. This book claims John as its author (i. 1, '^^^■'^'•* • . TlOS: 4,9; xxii. 8); and claims to have been written in the Island its auUior: of Patmos, whither John had been sent on account of his tes- timony for Jesus (i. 9, 11, 19 ; x. 4 ; xiv. 13 ; xix. 9 ; xxi. 5). It is addressed to "the seven churches of Asia " (i. 4-ll),aud''« *<^<^r<^»: as he styles himself "a partaker with them in the tribulation, and kingdom, and patience in Jesus " (i. 9), he must already have lived among them before the book was written. These ' Canon Farrar (Early Dai/x of (o the proof of the statoment made Christianity), presents the full force on this point we refer the reader to of the evidenees for the priority of the Introduction to I. John in the Jude, while Prof. T.uinhy in the Bible Coniniontary, and to the Introductions to II. Peter and many works on this epistle. To Jude in the Bible Conunentary, .sot them forth fully would require r. pmjiriate. '-' For the specification nec-essary 124 c ; K N U 1 N t: N KSS ( > b' T H K its earliest c'liiu'ches had been e.stablishetl by Paul, and tliough several of ^°^\ *" his epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, I. Timothy and II. Timo- thy) had been sent into their midst, the last just previous to his death, in all these there is no allusion to John, from which it is inferred that his residence there did not begin until after or about the time of Paul's death. As Paul was beheaded in the year 68, this is about the earliest date which can be as- signed to John's residence in Asia, and to the composition of this book. This is the date actually assigned to the book by arguments recent skeptical writers in general, and also by many others.' dlte; Their opinion is supported by many ingenious arguments, of which the following are the most forcible : First, that the con- tinued existence of the city and temple are implied in what is said of them in xi. 1, 2. Second, that there is such a differ- ence in style between the Apocalypse and the other writings of John, as can be accounted for only on the supposition that he wrote the former when he was but little acquainted with the- Greek language, having just removed from Judea, and the latter after a long residence among the Greek-speaking inhab- itants of Ephesus and its vicinity. Third, the interpretation of the book adopted by those writers, which makes the Em- peror Nero its Anti-christ, requires this date.^ All who con- tend for this date, set aside the positive statement of Trenaius, which we cited in a former chapter (page 89), as a mistake based on misinformation. On the other hand, the great mass arguments ^^f ^}^p older (U'itics, and some of the most recent, contend for for a later i i i i date; the correctness ot the statement oi Irenieus, that the book was written near the close of the reign of Domitian, who died in 06. They interpretthe words in xi. 1, 2 concerning Jerusalem '" We might fix the date of the "Tlic Apocalypse was written Vision in the summer or autninn slioitly after the death of Nero, of A. D. f).S. This is, indeed, the all and shortly hefore tlie destruction hut certain date of the l)ook." Kar- of Jerusalem." Fisher, Sup. Origin rar, Earl;/ I)ni/H of Chrixlianily, 413. of VhriMi0. -This scheme is condensed from Westcott {('nrioi) af Xrir Tt.fldDH')!!, (), ». 2). He .says, at the conclusion of his note, "Sch\ve}.'ler's theory has heen variou.sly modified l>y later writers of the Tubingen school, lint it still remains the most complete embodiment of the spirit of the school in which rela- tion alone we have to deal with it." The last remark is (Mnially ap- plicable to the use which we mnk from the Canon of Muratori,' the early date of which is called from .ma- in question. That it was written as early as the year 170, is'^s"'"* evinced by the following remark in the document itself: " Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently in our own time in the city of Rome, while his brother Pius was occupying the bishop's chair in the church at Rome." As Pius held office from 142 to 157, the author could scarcely speak of that period as being very re(!eut, and " in our own time," if he were writ- ing much later than the year 170. But the author of Super- natural Religion, the best rc^prescntative in England of the Tubingen school of rationalists, claims that this expression may have been used by a writer living in " an advanced period of the tliinl century,"- — with how much reason we leave the ' .Si'i- Cliapter I., p. 74. to date tins aiifniynions frajcnieiit rt*- '"It is un.safe upon the mere in- fj«'irdinp which wc know notliinp. tiTjiretationof a i)hrase which would earlier than the very end of the 1)0 api)Hcable even a century later, second or beginning of the third 128 GENUINENESS OF THE reader to judge. In view, however, of the admission that all of the books exeept II. Peter eaine into existence before the year 150, and of the fact that this Epistle is not found in the Canon in question, the objector has nothing to gain on the main question by establishing, were it possible, a later date for this document. We may therefore regard the evidence which we have presented from cutalognes as being virtually unassailed. As to that Xhe same may be said of the evidence from translations sions. presented in Chapter II.; for Tllthough a later date than that which we have assigned to the four versions from which this evidence is drawn has been contended for, yet the admis- sion by the objectors that all the books contiiined in the Pcshito Syriac and the Old Latin were in existence before the date assigned to these (a. d. 150), and that all the other books were in existence at the date which we have assigned to the Coptic versions (a. d. 200), renders nugatory, as respects this ques- tion, the attempt to bring these versions down to later dates. The only parts of the preceding evidence which are seriously Where the eoutcstcd, are thosc in Chapters III. and IV., the evidence contest be- ^ ' ^ , ^ _ ' gins. from quotations, and the internal evidence. In regard to the former, the contest begins with the quotations cited from Justin Martyr, all the evidence which we derived from Ireufcus being admitted, exee])t that referring to II. Peter, which we have defended in Chapter III. Moreover, the concession already mentioned, that all the books except this short Ej)istle were written before Ireujeus wrote, would render superfluous any contest over his quotations. Theissuoas 'fi^(> dispute concerning the evidence from Justin turns to Justin's , . „ , , quotations; ell lefly upou what he says about the Gospels. It is denied, of course, that lie (piotcd II, l\'ter, and on this point we have j)rescnt('y the sehool whose views we are representing : con- sequently they have contested very hotly the evidence on this point. The contest concerns wholly the question, whether the*^^"^" «r • 1 • 1 T • <> 1 ' 11 •! Memoirs. Memoirs which Justin so ireely quotes and describes, are our four Gospels, or some previously existing documents. The in- lidel position is, that they were not our Gospels, but a])ocrv- phal documents which alone were used up to Justin's time, and that our Gospels were written afterward and substituted for these older narratives. The principal arguments in favor oi this position, and the answers to them, we shall now state. I. Justin does not name the author or authors of his Mem- Argumoiu oirs. This is held as proof that he did not know the names, o,)^issiou and that therefore the Memoirs were not our Gospels. The"^"*™^^- argument is supposed to be strengthened by the fact that in a large majority of his quotations fi'onvthe ©Id Testament he does name the books or authors quoted ; and by the fact that in citing the Apocalypse he names John as its author. It is especially argued from this last circumstance, that he could not have known a Gospel by John, or he would likewise have mentioned his name in connection with it.' ' "That Justin does not mention the .inutility of repeating the refer- the name of the author of the ence. . . . The fact is that the Memoirs would in any case render only writing of the New Testament any arginiient as to their identity to which Justin refei-s by nauie is. with our canonical gospels incom- as we ha\c already mentioned, tlu- plete ; but the total o,niis.sion to Apocalypse, which he attributes to do 80 is the more remarkable from 'a certain man whose name was tlie circumstance that the names of John, one of the apostles of Christ. Old Testament writers constantly who prophesied by a revelation occur in his writings. Semisch made to him,' etc. The manner in counts 197 quotations from the 01<1 which John is here mentioned, after Testament, in which Justin refers the Mwmoirs had been so constantly to the author by name, or to the imlefmitely referred to clearly shows book, and only 117 in which he that Ju.stin did not pos.se.ss any gfis- oniits to do so. and flie latter num- pel also attributed to John. That ber might be reduced by considering he does name John. iiowev«'r. as the nature of tlif passages cited, and the aiuhnr >>t the Ajxicalypse ;ind 130 GENUINENESS OK THE Answer: Tluit this argument is without force is seen from the fol- the names . . , . -r-,. . • • i i i i immater- lowiug considerations, lirst, in arguing with the heathen ^*^' Emperor and the unbelieving Jew, after stating that the facts he gives were attested by writings of Apostles and their follow- ers, nothing would have been gained by giving the writers' names. It was their relation to the facts recorded that gave them credence, and not their names. Second, it was the cus- anonymous tom of early Christian writers, even of those who, according to customary, the admission of modern ske})tics, certainly used our Gospels, to quote them anonymously, and it would have been strange if Justin had done otherwise.^ Even since the introduction of printed books, with chapters and verses, it is quite customary to cite the Scriptures in the same way; for the only value of special references is that it enables the reader to more readily find the })assages quoted. Third, Justin's quotations from the except in Old Testament were almost exclusively the predictions that fjom had been fulfilled in Christ, and in arguing on this subject prophecy, -^yitli the Jcw Tryplio, it was necessary for him to be explicit. It is precisely in this way that he was led to name John as the author of the Apocaly})sc, for he was quoting from him a pre- diction concerning the millennium." Justin's failure, then, to give the names of his authors, has no bearing on the question at issue. ArKument 2. Ou Comparing Justin's quotations from tiie Memoirs from verbal .,, •^• -iz-i ^ • • ^ t tiifferenccs. With the Corresponding passages, in the Gospels, it is found .so frequently refers to Old Testa- ment 'that Justin " i.s not less but ment writers by name, yet never more explicit than later Apologists identifies the author of the Memoirs as to the writings from whicli he de- ls quite irreconcilable with the idea rivos his accounts of the Lord's life tliat they were the canonical go.s- and teaching." f'awmof Xew Trsta- l)els." Supernatural Ri'Iifjiou, i., 297, iiient, 1 1(5-119. -i^'H. ' " Moreover also among us a man ' Westcott giver; the names of named .Tolin, one of the apoKtl(>s of twelve writers extending fnjn\ Ta- <'hrist, j)rophesied in a revelation tian of the second century to Kn- made to him, that those who have sebius of the fourth, who in their believed on our Christ shall spend a works addressed to unbelievers al- thousand years in Jerusalem." Din- mo.st uniformly quote the gospels Aw/r^-, r. 81. Th^s is of course only anonymously, and he closes his re- Justin's interpretation of Rev. xx. marks on the subject with the state- 1-7. NEW TESTA MHNT HiJOKS. 131 that there arc many verbal differences, and from this it is argued that the Memoirs and the Gospels can not have been the same books.* These differences consist partly in slitrlit alterations aud'^"^^®'"- trdnsiX)sitions of words, and partly, as in the instances cited differences l)olo\v in the last note, in the coinminulinf'nts tliee as a watcnman to the house of died, and so the people cscajied .Tndah. Should the sinner sin, aiid death." Apol. i. HO, comp. 'Sumh. thou not testify to him, he indeed xxi. G-9. By parity of reasoning shall perish for his sin, but from the skeptic should say of these quo- thee I will require his blood; but if tations that they eortandy must thou testify to him thou shalt l)e have been taken from some spuri- blameless." Dial. c. Ixxxii. " In ous Ezekiel and Numbers, and not the writingH of Closes it is recorded from the books kuown to us by that at the point of time when the these titles. Israelites came out of Egypt, and -' Wostcott has collected in a brief were in the wilderness, venomous table all the quotations which Jus- beasts encountered tliem, vipers tin makes more than once, and it and asps and serpents of all kinds, shows that while there arc twenty- which killed the people; and that three instances of agreement, there by inspiration and impulse of God are thirty-five instances of differ- Mo.ses took bra.ss and made an im- ence. f'nvov of N. T. 173, 174. age of a cross, and .«»et tiiis on the ^Snji. liil. ii. 'J.S(),.'?H3, 412-10, /'^ I • Ar • 1 ' ■ 1 1/1 from fuels facts derive evidence from the writings of Papias, who stands next evidence . i- r i • i • i • fromPapi- m ouF Iist 01 authors, IS contested as vigorously as that from "• Justin. It is contended that the Matthew and Mark men- tioned by him were not our two Gospels under those names, but older documents, and of quite a different character. In regard to Matthew the following positions are taken : The subject First, it is affirmed, that the term by which Papias desig- matter of , , . ,> a r i i mi / > i m bis Mat- nates the subject matter ot Matthews work, " J. he Oracles, thew. shows that it was not a history like our present Matthew, but a collection of the sayings of Jesus.^ It is admitted that the ' " Is it then possible to suppose by Iren^eus.'' Canon of Xcw Tesia- that within twenty or thirty years ment, 165. "The last of these gen- after his [Justin's] deatJi, these eral objections to which 1 need now Gospels should have been replaced refer, is the statement that the diffi- by others similar and yet distinct ? culty with regard to the gospels That he should speak of one set ot commences precisely where my ex- books as if they were j)eriiianently aniination ends, and that I am incorporated into the Christian ser- bound to explain how, if nn trace of vices, and that those who might this existence is previously discov- have been his scholars should erabtc, the four gospels are sudden- speak in exactly the same terms of ly found in circulation at the end of another collection as if they had the second century, and quoted as had no rivals in the orthodox j)ale? authoritative by such writers as That the substitution should b.ave Iren.eus. iMy reply is that it is been effected in such a manner that totally unnecessary for ine to ac- no record of it has l)een preserved, count fortius." Sap. Rrl. ix. while similar analogous reforms *" There can he no doubt that liave been duly chronicled ? The the direct meaning of the word complication of historical diflicul- .'oyia (oracles) anciently and at the ties in such an hyjiothesis is over- time of Papias, was simply words whelming ; and the alternative is or oracles of a sacred character ; that wliich has already been justi- and liowever much the signification fied on critical groune New Muratori, and whose mutual rela- Testament; and there is noli ngni.stic tions were eloquently expounded precedent for straining the expres- NKW '1 KSTA.MKNl' J5- propriate expression than the word Gospel. Neither J^ipias nor Justin was pleased with the latter title. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul uses this term for tiie Old Testament Scriptures in general, Siiying of the Jews, " They were entrusted with the Oracles of God " (Rom. iii, '2.) The term Oracles, tlien, is an appropriate expression lor the subject matter of Matthew's GiJspel, and Papias showed good sense in using it. Second, it is argued that the work of Matthew, which -^'^*«^'^e I. • • I Tir 1 I 1 Iiin^uaReof 1 apias mentions, can not be our Matthew, because that was his Mat- written in Hebrew and this in Greek.' The question turns ^'*^^" upon the meaning of Papias. If he means that the only coui- position !)y Matthew known to him was composed in Hebrew, then the conclusion, so fiir as his testimony is eoiicerncd, is logical. But tiuit it is unfair to construi' his language thus is evident from the fat-t, that later writers who arc known to 8ion UHpd at tliat pericjd to mean wrote in Hebrew, it can not be as- anythinj,' beyond a mere collection serted that he wrote at all. It is of 8ayin<,'s of Jesus which were es- therefore perfectly certain from this timated as oracular or divine, nor testimony that Matthew can not be IS there any reason for thinkint,' declared the . I. 464. name." Ih 47(1. ' " If it be denied that .Matthew 138 GENUINENESS OF THE have had our Greek ]Matthew, and to have believed that it came from Matthew's pen, speak in the same way of the origi- nal composition. So speak Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and others.^ That they do so, proves clearly that the use of such language is not inconsistent ^\■ith a knowledge of the Greek Gospel of jNIatthew, nor with the belief that jNIatlhew himself composed the latter. l*apias, then, like them, may have had the Greek Gospel and may have believed that it came from MatthcM', notwithstanding the assertion in (piestion. The only rational way in which these authors could have held this double position, was by believing that Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Hebrew and then in Greek. It is a fact, how- ever, not to be overlooked in thife connection, that not one of the writers referred to, including Papias himself, claims to have seen the Hebrew Gospel." Its use had necessarily been con- fined to Jewish Christians; and it liad gone out of use with the disappearance from the church of its Hebrew element. As to his si- Third, it is argned that Papias could not iiave known the Luke and Gospcls of Lukc and John, or he would have mentioned them *'*^^*"" also; and Eusebius, through whom alone we have knowledge of what he wrote, would liave recorded the fact: for, it is said, " Eusebius never fails to state what the Fathers say about tlie books of the Xew Testament."^ This argument Two things contains two assumptions : First, tiiat Papias -would certainly assumed. -ii /-niiiii i i have mentioned tliese two Gospels, had he known them; and second, that had he mentioned them Eusebius would have noted tiie fact. That the last is a false assumption a])pears 'The autliDi- 111 Supernatural lie- state what tlic Fath(>r8 nay about ligion himself (juotes to this elFect tho books of the Xew Ti'stanicnt, the words of these and other au- does not mention that Papias knew thors (ii. 471-474) without seeming either the third or fourth gospel, to know that he thereby furnishes Is it possible to suppose that i} evidence to refute his own argu- Papias had been acquainted with ment. those gospels he would not have 'This fact is emphasized l)y Al- asked information about them from ford (Prolegomena to Cireck Now the Presl)yter8, or that Eusebius Testament c. IT. 'i 2) who shows would not have recorded it as he that an apparent exreplion in the did that regarding the works as- case of Jerome is not a real one. cribcd to INIatthow and Mark?" •■"'Eusebius, who never fails to Sup. Rr'i. TI. 484. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 1',]'^) from the j)Iiin Mliich Ku.sebius followed in writing of .such mutters. After mentioning the books of the New Testament which h? 1 been disputed, and those which had been undis- ]>uted, he declared it his plan to name the previous writers who had made use of any of the former, and to quote what had been related by them concerning the latter.^ In carrying out this ])Ian, he fails to mention many rxpress quotations from the undisputed books made by writers whose works have come down to ns, although he uses these M'orks frequently for other purposes. Had these works been lost, like those of Papias, this argument would liavc been applied to them also, and how falsely we can easily see." It should also be carefully observed that the citation which he does make from Papias is in pej'fect keej)ing with his plan. It is not a quotation made by Papias from Matthew or ^lark, but a piece of information Avhich he gives concerning the origin of these two books. In regard to Luke and John, Papias had no occasion to record such information, because Luke tells his readers plainlv the ^*"'*^*^®'"" ' for an origin of his book (i, 1-4), and that of John was well known account of in the region in which Papias lived, for there John had pub- lished it after many then living were born. The absurdity of the argument that Papias knew nothing of the Gospels of Ivuke and John because he mentions them not, and that if he had known them and mentioned them Eusebius would cer- tainly have said so, is strikingly exposed by Dr. Lightfoot as follows: " Xot only is it maintained that A knows nothing of B, l^ecause he says nothing of B, but it is further assiuned that ' "But as my history proceeds I iii. ">, Dr. Lightfoot's translation, will take care alon<.' with the sno- ^Dr. T.ightfoot, in an elaborate reasions (of the liishops), to imli- article on this qnestion publi.shed rate what church writers from time in the Contenii)orary Review for to time have made use of any of January, 1875, presents this answer tlie disputed Ixtoks, anfl what has with great force, and shows con- })een .said by them concerning the clusively that Eusebius thus dealt Canonical and acknowledged Scrip- with the writings of Clement of tures, and anything that (they have Rome, Ignatius, Poiycarp, Justin said) concerning tliose which do not Martyr, Theophilns of .\ntiocb. belong to this class." Errlr». Hint, and Irenjeus. Luke and John. 140 GENUINENESS OF THE A kno\\ .s nothing of B, because C does not say that A knows anything of B." * As to his Fourth, it is urged that even if Papias knew some of the for tradi- Nsw Testament books, he regarded them as of little import- tion. ance, seeing that he preferred oral tradition as a source of in- formation.- This argument misrepresents the reason which he gives for preferring the living voice to books, and it falsely as- sumes that the books referred to are his Gospels. The facts of the case are these : He writes a work in five books under the title, " Exposition of Oracles of our l^ord." The oracles which he expounds are contained in sacred books, among which Matthew and ^lark are expressly mentioned. In his preface to this Expo.'^ition, he speaks of the aids which he em- ployed, .saying: "But I shall not regret to subjoin to my in- terpretations also for your benefit, whatsoever I have at any time accurately ascertained and treasured up in my memory, as I ha\e received it from the elders, and have recorded it in order to give additional confirmation to tlie truth by my testi- mony ; " and in this connection he adds: "For 1 do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voiceoftho.se that are still surviving."^ The benefit referred to is in the way of confirn)ing his interpretations; and his comparison is not that of the living voice with the books on which he was commenting, but that of the former with books which were used as helps in his Exposition. In brief, he was commenting on 'the Gospels, and he derived more help in this task from conversing with men who had .seen the Apostles, than from reading the books of uninspired men. If a commentator on th(» Gosjk'Is could enjoy tlie .. part in any important degree from ' For the sppciScations see p. 115. the order of the other two eynopt- '"Now it is impossible in the ic.<», ami which, tliroufjhout, has tlie work of Mark here descriijod [by most evident character of orderly Pdpias] to recognize our present arrangenient." Sup. HeL II. 4.'>B. second Gospel, whii-1. doi's imI de- 142 GENUI^■E^•EHS OF THK Astotheevi- j^ regard to the testimony of the still earlier writers whom earlier writ- we have cited, Polycarp, Barnabas and Clement of Rome, the '^^^ only position taken by infidel writers worthy of serious con- sideration, is this : that the quotations which are cited from them were derived not from our New Testament books, but from other documents older than these and from oral tradi- tion.^ The express quotations are not, of course, disposed of in this way, because they can not be ; and these have forced the admission that the Epistle to the Romans, the two to the Corinthians, and that to the Galatians, together with the book of Revelation are genuine. There is no doubt that in those early times many sayings of Jesus not recorded in our Gospels were current among the disciples, and it is altogether probable that some of them Mere adopted by these writers, as at least one was at a later ])eriod by Justin; but that the mass )f those found in these writers and also found in our New Testament books were derived from other sources, is an assump- tion supported by no proof and in itself it is wholly improb- able. It could be adopted only by one who had previously and from other considerations reached the conclusion that these writers wrote at an earlier period than the New Testa- ment writers. The argument is illogical, because it assumes the very thing in dispute. If it be said that though it may not be certain that these passages were derived from such other sources, they certainly may have been, and that this throws doubt upon the evidence; the answer is, that the number of these quotations is too great, and their correspondence with what is written in the New Testament too close, to allow the probability of such a supposition. The position, therefore, while it is ingenious, and the only one on which a skeptic in regard to the genuineness of our books can stand, must be set aside as arbitrary and illogical. ' Tlic author of Supernatural He- Christians, were no douht orally ligion, aftor discussing separately curreiit amongst thorn, and still the quotations from the authors more c-ertainly Mere recorded hy named, makes Uic following remark many of the nun\erous gospels then as applicable to all : '' >«ow we must in circulation, as th.ey are by several repeat that all such sayings of Jesus of our own." II. 270. were the common j)ropertv of early NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 143 We shall now consider briefly the objections of rationalists *^*''^<^''''"'^ , • 1-1 1 • , 1 111 ^'^^^ '°^^'"- to the internal evidence which we have aciclucea. naievi- Those writers who «-Ieny the realitv of miracles unite inf^"^^= "^ •^ ' , to the Cos- denying the genuineness of all the gospels in preference to ad- pels; mitting it and charging their writers with deliberate falsehood. This tienial is based, not on internal evidence, but on the ground of opinions formed independently of these narratives; and its discussion belongs to the question of the authenticity of the gospels and not to that of their genuineness. If the miraculous accounts are false, the falsehoods may have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as by other Christian writers. No internal evidence against the genuineness of the first f."^*'!*^^ ° ° _ first thri.'C three gospels has been adduced, except such as springs from<;ospeis; the theories of the various objectors as to what would have been their characteristics had they been genuine. It is not claimed that any facts mentioned in them or alluded to, were beyond the reach of their reputed authors, or that any of the words employed may not have been known to them. But it is assumed that had tliey been genuine they would have been more definite in their statements of time, and of the connec- tion of events; and that they would have harmonlzod more completely with ono another in regard to historical details.' ' Meyer's objection to the gen- eye-witness and a participator in uineness of the gospel of Matthew the events, even upon the assump- may be cited as a fair specimen of tion of a plan of arrangement carried the mode of reasoning applied by out mainly in accordance with the Rationalists to all of the first sul)ject matter; not mereJy in a pur- three gospels, except that, unlike tial want of clearness and direitiu'ss, the Rationalists in general, he ad- which is a prominent feature in mits the genuineness of .John and many of tlu' historical portions uses it to discredit >ratthew. He (evi-n in I'x. 0, tF iniluded), and not says: "In the form in wliich the seMom makes itself fvlt to such a gospels now exist it can not have degree that wo must in this respect originally proceeded from the hands allow the preference to the accounts of the apostle Matthew. The evi- of Mark and Luke ; not merely in dence in favor of this view consists the want of historical rotiwrtion in not merely of the ninny statements the citation and introduction of a of time, place and other things suhslnntial portion of the tlidai'tic which are irreconcilable with tiic discnurses of Jeens, by v.hich the living recollection of an apostolic fa1 strikingly NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 145 habitually speaks of the Jews in the third person, as if he were uot one of them, and that he distinguishes them constantly irom Jesus and his disciples who were also Jews.* In answer to this objection we remark: /'7/-.S'^, that this was the most natural way for the author, whether Jew or Gentile, to express himself; for he wrote long after the disciples had become a distinct community, sejiarated from both Jews and Gentiles, and how could he speak so intelligibly of the bulk (if the Jewish })eople who had stood op])osed to Christ and his disciples as by calling them the Jews? Second, the apostle Paul, himself a "Hebrew of the Hebrews," had already, long before this gospel was Avritten, made free use of the same phraseology in such expressions as these: "To the Jews I became as a Jew, that 1 might gain the Jews;" "Give no occasion of stinnbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the ('hurch of ( Jod." ■ The argument in question, if valid, wouhl prove that J'aul's epistles were not written by a Jew. Third, both Matthew and iSIark, who were confessedly Jews, have left one instance each of the same use of the word, while Luke has left but two, though he is a Gentile and in his writ- ings we would expect, according to this argument, to find it most frccpiently of all.'* These considerations show that the argument is without forcc^; and not only so, but that the phraseology on which it is based is what we should expect to find. '" He writes at all times as ono the truth, and the ])ersc'cnturs ai who not only is not a Jew himself, the Christ." Sup. RvL, ii. 414. hut has nothing to t; 146 GEXriXEXESS OF THE that the au- o. It is said tliat the difference between the author as rep- thorcannot •i>i ti pi •• be John, be- resented by himself and the John of the Synoptics, is proof Sr^rti^-''^ that the author was not John.^ The specifications chiefly re- represent- lied on to support this assertion, are the following: First — The author represents himtself as being known to the high priest (xviii. 15), and it is held that this could not have been true of the young fisherman of Galilee." But the absurdity of this inference is seen in the fact that it is one of the most common things in life for men in high positions to have acquaintance with others in the humblest callings. Second — The author represents himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," whereas, neither in the other Gospels, nor in Paul's Epistles, nor elsewhere except in this Gospel, is John represented as if he occupied such a position ; on the contrary, the preeminence is uniformly given to Peter.'' It is true that the preeminence in activity and leadership is elsewhere given to Peter, and it is tacitly conceded to him even in tliis Gospel ; " ' but the dis- tinction claimed by the author for himself is that of sympa- thetic affection such as appears in his leaning on the Master's breast at the suppel-. The two representations are not incon- sistent. It is true also that such a relation between John and the Master is nowhere else alluded to ; but this is no ground for denying its existence. That it was credited as a fact by the contemporaries of the author is evident from the consider- ation, that in the absence of such a belief he could not hope to be understood when designating himself as " the disciple whom Jesus loved." But the belief can not be satisfactorily ac- counted for unless it had came down to the time at which the Gospel was written as an authentic tradition. ^Moreover, the " For the I'liarisccs and all the Jews, disfiplo indirated to be John the except thoy wash," etc. (Mark vii. son of Zcbedee, the fourth frospcl 3); "He sent unto him the elders ii:ivcs a representation fif him (piite of the Jew.s" (Luke vii. .'i) ; ".\ri- did'erent from the Synoptics and matliea. a city of the Jews" Cxxiii. other writings." Sii/i. Rcl., ii. 42'). 511. 2 7/>. 427, 428. ' " Without paiisint: to eonsifier ' Ih. 429-4.33. the slight ne.ss of this evidence [the * See the incidents recordey de- limited to a sin'_de year, and his nying that Jesus uttered them. lie ])reachin£r is confined to fialileo and says: "This expression ran Jt-sus Jerusalem, where his career cul- least of all have used where J.ukt^ minates at the fatal Passover. The puts it, on his journey to Jerusa- fourth gospel distributes the teach- lem, and before he had once during ing of Jesus between Galilee, Sama- his jniblic acti^^ty seen that city, ria and Jerusalem, makes it extend Rut even in Jeru.salem itself, after a at lca.st over three years, and refers sinj:le stay there of only a few days, to three Pa.s.sovers spent by Jesus at he can not have jiointed out how Jerusalem." Suj>. Ref., ii. 4o3. o/Mi he had attempted in vain to 'Matt, xxiii. r?7; Luke xiii. 34; draw its iiihal)itants to himself, x. 3S-42. The force of the evidence Tlore all shifts are futile, and ft mtist from the wirds of Jesua quuluJ bo confessed if these are n-allv tlm 150 GENUINENESS OF THE this objection ; tliov are all based on false or groundless as- sumptions, that he can 4 xhe fourth objection which we shall mention is based on johu.bc- the striking difference between the speeches of Jesus found in cause his |.|^g fourth Gospcl, and those in the other three. It is held, speeches of ^ . . , ^ . . Jesus are so tiiat if the portraiturc of Jesus thus given in the nrst three is peculiar; correct, that given in the fourth is so thoroughly different that it must be false, and can not have been the work of an Apos- tle.^ The principal points of difference on which the objec- tion is based are those in style; in the representation made of Jesus himself; and in the doctrine of salvation which he teaches. His style in the Synoptics is much simpler, and his speeches in the main are much shorter. In them he appears chiefly as the Jewish Messiah ; in John, as the Son of God. In them he insists chiefly on deeds of obedience and benevo- lence as the ground of salvation; in John, on faith in himself. That these distinctions exist is admitted ; but the inference drawn from them is denied. To deny that Jesus could have spoken on different occasions and to different persons in style as different as that to which we refer, is not only to deny the supernatural powers which the Scriptures ascribe to him, but also to denv that versatility of genius which is ascribed to him words of Christ he must have lab- single characteristic of the simple ored in. lerusalemoftener and longer eloquence of the Sermon on the than would appear from the synop- IMount." Sup. Rrl., ii. 464. "It is tical reports." Life of Jesus, 249. nnpossible that Jesus can have two The author of Supernatural Religion such diametrically opposed systems evades the issue, and says only this: of teaching— one purely moral, the "Apologists discover indications of other wholly dogmatic; one ex- Hthree years' ministry in Matt, xxiii. pressed in wonderfully terse, dear, 'AT, Luke xiii. "A ; ' }Iow often,' etc. ; brief sayings and parables, tiie other and also in Luke xiii. .52 f. : 'To-day, in long, involved and difluse di.s- to-morrow and the third day.' " ii. courses; one clothed in t lie great 453. language of humanity, the other '"The teaching of the one is concealed in obscure, philosophic totally difTerent from that of the terminology'; and that these should others, in spirit, form and termin- liave been kept so distinct as they ology; and although there are un- are in the .Synoptics on the one doubtedly fine sayings throughout hanrl, and the fourth gospel on the the work, in the prolix discourses other." Ih. 470. of the fonrtli gns|K'l tlicrf is not a NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 151 l)v all intelligent unbelievers: and that the occasions and per- sons are different can be seen by a glance at these iu the seve- ral Gospels. As to his representation of himself, his divinity is not less explicitly asserted in the Synoptics than in John, it is only asserted less frequently and discussed less elaborately.^ That this should be the case can appear strange only to those who deny his divinity, as the objectors do. As to the terms of salvation, while faith is made more conspicuous in th('sj)eeches recorded by John, its necessity is constantly implied in the obedience emphasized in the Synoptics. The final test sub- mitted at the close of the Sermon on the Mount, " He that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them," " He that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them not," turns upon the flith or the unbelief on which the two courses of ac- tion depend ; the supreme blessing pronounced on Peter was for a confession of his faith ; faith is made explicitly a condi- tion of salvation in the apostolic commission as preserved by Mark, and by implication in that preserved by Matthew ; and, in a word, all the matter of the three Gospels is evidently in- tended to lead men to faith in Christ as a necessary condition of salvation. He who has learned the simple fundamental lesson of the New Testament, that faith and obedience are both necessary to the final salvation of accountable beings, can find no difficulty in the fact that now one of these condi- tions and then the other receives especial emphasis. 5. The stvle of the speeches of Jesus is made the ground '^"'**^*^ - ' , " style of tht of another objection to the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, writer and The style of the speeches is the same in its general features, ^'^^^^j^^^^^ with that of the narrative, and from this it is inferred that Jesus is the they can not be the real speeches of Jesus as they wouhl be""" recalled by an Apostle ; but that they are fictitious speeches composed by the author and jiiit into the lips of Jesus.' In 'His divine authority and son- the ovi xiii. 41; xvi. Hi, 17, 27; xviii. 20; more closely those are examined xxii. 42-4.'>; xxv. :n-;i4; xxviii. 20; the more clear does it heoome ttiat Mark ii. 5-10; Luke xxiv. 40. they are not penuine reports of the ' " We liave aliearly pointed nut tenchincs of .Tesus. hut mere ideal 152 < ; i: N I ■ 1 n i:n i .ss of the answer to this we remark, that while the last supposition, if true, would account for the sameness of style, it can as readily be accounted for on a different hypothesis. If we suppose, as the genuineness of the Gospel would require, that Jesus ac- tually spoke in the style represented, the similarity of style is at once accounted for by the natural inclination of an admir- ing disciple to adopt the style of his teacher. It is certain tliat, whether John wrote this Gospel or not, his whole mental and moral nature was deeply impressed by Jesus while living, and that dnring the half century and more in which he had preached and meditated upon the sayings of Jesus previous to the supposed date of this book, this impression was made still deeper; why then should it be thought strange that in speak- ing on the same subject with his adored Lord, he should have learned to employ the same vocabulary, and to frame his sen- tences in the same style? Again, it should be remembered that in writing his Gospel, John was translating into Greek both the speeches of Jesus, which had been uttered in the current Hebrew, an\l his own thoughts, which were conceived in the same tongue. Et is the style of this translation which we are considering, and not the original style of either John nr Jesus. But the style in which a writer translates his own thoughts into a foreign langnage and that in which he trans- lates the speeches of another must necessarily be the same so fixr as fidelity to the original will allow, that Joiui (5 --pijjj ijj^t; obiection which we sliall notice is based on the fan not ^^ , j, , , the writer style of the Apostlc John. It is claimed by recent skeptics of both the in general, that John was certainly theauthor of the Apoca- compositions })y the niitliorof the necessarily difreront from tliose in fourth gospel. The speeclies of John the Synoptics ; for wliereas the latter the Haptist, the 'KU 'IKsl AMEN'l' HOOKS. lOO among themselve.s ou the 4Ucstioii whutlicr that author waji Luke. Souie scholars of the Tubingen .sehool deny that Luke had auy eonnectiou with the authorship ; but Baur himself, while denying that he cojuposed the narrative as we have it su])posi'(l that he left memoranda which were used in the final composition. Kenan, on tlif contrary, though lie unites with the rest in denying that the book is true to history, contends that Luke ib eertainly the author of the whole book.' The only ground on which it:? geuuiueness is denied, is its alleged untruthfulness. It is held that it was written for the purpose of covering up an unreconciled hostility between Paul and the other Apostles, and that to this end many fiu'ts were distorted and some invented. The merits of this allegation will be eonsidered in Part Third of this book ; but even if it is true, it has no m:iterial bearing on the (juestion of the genuineness of the b(>hk ; for on the rationalistic hypothesis which denies inspiration, Luke may as well be charged with the fraud, as a later Christian writer. Whether the charge is true or false, then, it affords no ground for doubting the genuineness of Acts. The genuineness of the p:pistles to the Galatians and Ro-^°?r" " 1 10 Gala- iire abumlant (lomonstration of the journey of the Apostle, from the fact." Kenan, A/iosth's 13, 14. liand of Luke, may have formed ' " .\ careful study of the con- the foundation of the Acts. * ■• * tents of tiie Acts can not, we thnik, In such passages the author is leave any doul>t that tlie work very willing to be considered as could not have heen written by one per.son with Luke ; but he any corai)anion or intimate friend r of Ads, with the sUUements of the Apostle, clo.ses the discussion of the ques- I hey are strikingly contradictory." tion by saying: " We believe, then. Sup. RcL iii. 51. "It may not be that the author of tlu- tii rd (ios|)el impossible that sk«'tches, collec- was really Luke, the disciple of tions, narratives, clironicles, es- Paul." A/wKflfx, 19. pecially those concerning tlu' last « 15(1 GENUINENESS OF THE tians, Ro- mans, I. Corinthi- aus, II. Cor inthians. 1. Tliessalo- iiians. II.TheBsa- loniaub. \ luausi, and of both of those t<> the Corinthian.'^ i.s conceded, as we have already stated, by all modern ske})tic.s.' There is no internal evidence in conflict with that which we have presented in Chapter lY., not even in the estimation of the most de- .structive critics of the present age, except with reference to the hist two chapters of Romans which are held in doubt by some of them.^ The gennineness of first and second Thessah)nians, the earliest of Paul's writings, and probably the earliest writings of the New Testament, was never questioned until recent times, and that of the first Epistle was not assailed until the publication of Baur's Life of Paul.'' This author bases his re- jection of the fir.«^t Epistle chiefly on the following grounds: First, th:it a large part of it contains nothing that the Thessa- lonians did not already know, being an extended account of their conversion; second, that it contains " reminiscaiiccs" of other Epistles known to have been written at a later date than is claimed for this; third, that it contains ditfennit and later views of the second coming of Chri.st (iv. 14-18) than are expressed in I. Corinthians. In regard to the second Epistle, he holds that it borrows its idea of Anti-Christ (ii. 1-8) from the Apoca- lypse, and mu.st therefore be later than that book; and that the caution about testing the genuineness of any epi.'^tle pur- porting to come from him by the .salutation being written in his own hand (ii. 2; iii. 17) implies that it was written after many other of his epistles in.stead of being among his fir.st.' ' "Tlicre has never been the slighte.st su.spicion of un-authen- ticity f'a.st on these four epistles, and tliey hearsfj incontestahly the charaeter of Pauline onjiinality, that there is no conceivable ground for the as.sertion of critical (loul)ts in their ciiee." Banr, Li/e of Paul, i. i'4(). " Epistle.s unquestioned and unquestionable ; namely, tiie ejii.stle to the (ialatians, the two epistles to the Corinthians, and the epi.stlc t(» tlif HotnatiH.' iJcn.tn, Lifi of I'niU, 10. ' Baur, Life of Paul, i. .S52-365; Sup. HH lii. :530-3.3(i. •^"The second of the Ejiistles ha.s already been attacked l;y eriti- eisni, but the first has as yet ex- cited no suspicions." i. 85. * "Tlie chief part of the epistle is nothinj^ but a lengthy version of the history of the convereion of the Thes.saloni-ans, as we know it from Acts. It contains notlung that the Thessalonians would not already know, and the author may have taken Ins ;i(cay that it originated in the Apocalypse ; for it certainly may h:ive originated with Paul. As to the autograph salutation it seems that one or more letters purporting to have come from Paul had actually been received in Thessalonica (ii. 2), and there could be no better occasion than this for giving the sign by which all of his genuine letters could be known. Renan says of all these objections that they are " without value;" and of the Anti-Christ, that this idea did not origi- nate with the Apocalypse, for it was current at a much earlier period.' Thus we have the judgment of one learned Kation- transactioM either from the Acts or aim and character of the whole from some other source." Life of writing, is to be found in the Paul, 1. So. "In addition to all Apocalypse. The Apocalypse is this, we find in the narrative renii- the earliest writinjr in which we niscenoes more or less distinct, of find the concrete representation of other Pauline epistles, ])articnlarly a personal Anti-Christ." ]li. .324. of tliose to the Corinthians." Ih. In reference to the autograph salii- 8(3. " It is .scarcely prohaljle that tation, he says : " Are we to snp- an author who expresses his views pose that, at the time when the of the last things with such caution Apo.stle had written hardly any and reserve, as in I. Cor. 15, should, epistles at all, pretended Pauline in a writing of earlier date, have ones had already made their ap- entereil into the (piestion so fully pearance, whieh called for caution and given evidence of a belief en- in discriminating, such as is here tirely preoccupied with Rabbinical given (ii. 2), or could he foresee so opinions." lb. 91. " There can be distinctly, even so early a.s.this, that no doubt, when we conBi\ testament iiuoKs. 159 based upiin statements concerninf; the divinity of Christ, and tlio rank.-? and orders of angelic beings, which these epis- tles contain. Eph. i. 20-23; iii. «-12; vi. 11, 12; Col. i. IS- IS. iJut these conceptions can be regarded as unapostolic only by men who deny the divinity of Christ and reject the revelations in Scripture concerning the spirit world. To a mind not thus prepossessed the (objection has no force. A .-«peeial objection to Ephesians is based on its similarity to Co- lossians.' These writers are not willing to admit that Paul ''^p^'"''*^ . . ^ jections to could write two epistles near the same time .so nearly alike ; KpiirMans; and yet Renan suggests that Ephesians may have been writ- ten by one of Paul's companions while his mind was preoccu- pied with the words and thoughts of Colossians. If one of these might do it, why not Paul himself? It is a common experience of letter writers, when writing several letters to different persons at one sitting, to use in all of them much of the same matter; and why may not Paul have done the same, especially as these two churches were located in the same country and were exposed to similar dangers?^ Another ob- jection to the genuineness of Ephesians is based upon the fact that the persons addressed were strangers^to the writer, and John. In reading .such passages we words of Renan are ahuost a copy imagine ourselves in complete from Baur's Lite of Paul, ii. 2. <;nosticism. * Nothing in De Wette, a German scholar who ;ill tliis, however, is decisive. If died 1849, was the fir.st tu deny the the epistle to the Colo.ssians is the genuinene.ss of this Kpistle. work of Panl (as we helii-ve it to -"The resemblance of this gen- he), it was written in the latter part era) epistle [Ephesians] to the Co- of the Apostle's life, at a period in lossians might have resulted either which his biography is very oh- from tiie fact of one man's writing .senre." Paul, 11, 12. several letters in a few days, and ' " As soon as \vo admit the through preoccupation with a cer- fpistle to the Colo.'^sians to be a tain number of fixed ideas uncon- work of Paul's, the question puts scions^ly falHng into the siune ex- itself as follows:— How could Panl pressions; or from the circumstance pas.s his time in disfiguring one of of Paul's dirtictlng Timothy or his works, in repeating him.self, in Tychieus to compose the circiUar making a conunon letter -out of a letter after the model of tlie epistle topical and particiilar one? This to the Colossians, but with there- is not exactly impos.sible, but it is jection of everything of a topical quite improbable." Pdiil, 17. These nature." lb. 18. moil 1 60 a i: Ml N J-: n kss ( » i- ri i k their faith a matter of hearsay ; whereas Paul planted the church ill Ephesus and lived three years in the midst of it. If it were certain that the epistle was addressed to the church at Ephesus, this objection would have more force than either of the preceding (Eph. i. 15; iv. 20, 21); yet even in that ease it would appear very strange that a forger, at a later date, should represent the Apostle as being a stranger to that church. But although this objection is urged with vehe- mence by Rationalists, they admit, what is well known, that the words " at Ephesus " in the salutation of the epistle are of doubtful genuineness, and that many scholars both ancient and modern have held that the E])istle was addressed to no particular church, or if to any, to that at Laodicea.' Cornp. Col. iv. 16. lopiiiie- Of the epistle to Philemon, Renan remarks, "Paul alone, as far as it appears, was able to write this little masterpiece." ^ Yet Baur rejects it on the singular ground that the story of ' " In addition to these considera- ford a presumption against the tions regarding the external form of PauUne origin of the epistle. '' the epistle. \vu have further to con- Baur, Paul, ii. 5, G. The presump- sider that if it was actually ad- lion last spoken of in the extract is cumPnts, .see the notes of Ti.sch- uncertaiuty of the destination endorf, Tregelles, or Westcott and (which even in the last case is nf)t Ilort m loco. removed) would of thera.selves af- M^ife of Paul, V.i. NKW TKSTAMKNT HOOK8. Itll Onesimus involved in its allusiuns, lias the air of a romance.' The story is eerlainly an interesting one, hut none of its inci- dents are at all improhable, unless a selfish age like ours should so regard the wonderful generosity manifested in the case l)y Paul. ]iaur claims the credit of being the first author to raise a Phiiipi'ian douht concerning the genuineness of tlic cpi.-^flc t(» tlu' Philip- pians.^ He bases his doubt, first, on the Gnostic ideas and expressions which he claims to find in it ; especially in ii. <) ; second, on the want of a motive or occasion fi)r writing it; and third, on the assumed incredibility of its assertions con- cerning the effects of Paul's preaching on the Praetorian guard and on Caesar's household.' Phil. i. 12; iv. 22. The 'After stilting the tacts which '"Theeritic who lirst ventured make up the story of Onesimus, to cast doubt ou the genuineness of Baur says: "This is a very re- the Epistle to the Ephesians, [De markable (••im-urreuce of chances, Wette] has lately asserted of the such as ninly indeed takes jtlace." Epistle to the Philippiaus that its And agam he says: "Thus it can genuineness is above all question, not be called either an impossible It is true tliat no suflicient reasons or an improbable coustruction of have been alleged as yet for d(Mibt- this Epistle, if we rt'gard it as a ing its apostolic origin; yet I think Christian romance serving to con- there are such reasons, and I deen\ vey a genuine Chri-stian idea." it necessary to state shortly for the Ijife of Paul, ii. 82, 84. So acute a further consideration of criticism, writer could scarcely feel satislied what they are." lb. ii. 45. with such an effort, and he betrays ' " This Epistle, like the two we his anticipation of wliat the learned have just discussed, is occupied world would tliink of it 1)y the fol- with Gnostic ideas and expressions, lowing reflections: ''In the case and that not in the way of contro- of this Epistle, more than any other. ver.sy with (ino.stics, but employing if criticism .sliould inquire for evi- them, with the necessary modilica- dence in favor of its a])ostolic name, tions, for its own purposes. The it seems liable to the reproach of ))assage ii. (i, one of great import- hypercriticism, of exaggerated sus- ance for dogmatics, and of as great picion and restless doubt, from tin- dilHculty, can scarcely l)e exjilained attacks of which nothing is saf(>. savi- on the supi>osition that the What has criticism to do with this writi-r's mind was (ille«l with cer- ■short, attractive, graceful and tain (Gnostic ideas current at the friendly letter, inspircl as ii is by time." (J^). 4o, 46). "Connected the noblest Chn.stian feehng. and with this there is another con- which has never yet Ijeen touched sideration which must count a.s by the breath of suspicion ■' ' M. So. an important element ni judging oi lt)'i GENUINENESS ()F THE first of these objections has ln;en answered in answering the ■same when arrayed against Ephesians and Colossians (page 158); the second is contradicted by the epistle itself, for an occasion is indicated in ii. 19-28, and a motive in the exhor- tations with which it abounds; and the third evinces a most unreasonable incredulity ; for Paul was guarded night and day for two whole years by different soldiers of that guard who heard all that he said to his many visitors, and it would be strange indeed if he failed to leaven them and tli rough them their comrades, and even some of the multitudinous at- tendants on the Emperor's palace, with the doctrine which he was incessantly preaching. Even Renan places this epistle among those that are " certain ; " ' and Farrar expresses the common judgment, of critics when he says, "This epistle is genuine beyond the faintest suspicion or shadow of doubt."" the Epistle, riz., that we find no commanded in tlie whole Pnf tori- motive nor occasion for it, no dis- um, and in Rome generally, is sup- tinct indication of any purpose, or posed, as we see from iv. 22, to have of any leading idea." {lb. 52). had for one of its consequences " We have still to consider what is that there were believers even in said in chap. 1. 12, both about the the imperial household." lb. o9. progress of the gospel in Rome, ' In his classification of the and of the deep impression wliicli Epistles credited to Paul with refcr- the captivity of the Apostle and ence to their genuinpnos^, he has his preaching of the Gospel are the following: "Second. Certain said to "^lave produced in the whole Epistles, to which, however, ob- Prajtorium and throughout the jections have been raised, namely, city. This statement stands qnite the two to the Thessalonians and alone and unsupported ; it is not the Epistle to the Philii)pians." corroborated either by the Epistles Li/r of Pmtl, 10. which i>rofcss to have been written '' Farrar, Life and Work of Paul from the Apostle's captivity in c. xlvi. In the same connection Home, or from any other quarter, this author very justly satirizes ttie Yet the fact is not in itself incredi- critics of the Tiibingen schonl in ble, and no one would have thf)Ught the followingtcrms : " With these of calling it in question had not the critics, if an Epistle touches on author hitnself taken up into his jjoints whieli make it accord with Epistle another fact which gives tis the narrative of tlie Acts, it was so clear an insight into his plot, forged to suit them; if it seems to that it is impossible for ns to fake disagree with them, the discrepancy his assertions as simple history, shows that it was spnrions. If the The attention which the Gospel fliction is Pauline, it stands forth NEW TESTAMENT HOOKS. 163 The epistles to Timothv and Titus remained undisputed'.*"''" ^ ' .... Timothy. until the present eentury, and now thtir genuineness is im-nud Tituv. pugned only on internal grounds. It is said : First, that they ar(f tinged with Gnosticism, which originated after Paul'.s death ; second, that they indicate a stage of progress in the organization of the church which was not attained during PauTs life ; and third, that there is no place in Paul's career for the journeys and incidents to which they allude.' Other objections of less importance are urged, hut by these three the question is to be settled. It is admitted that the false teachings against which Timo-^"s"er to thy and Titus were warned (I. Tim. i. 1-7; vi. 20, 21; Titus jectioti: i. 13-lG; iii. 9-11) were in part of the same nature as Gnosti- cism, but it is a baseless assumption to affirm that no such teaching was introduced before the death of Paul. The her- etical ideas had not been systematized as they were afterward, but such ideas always exist in a nebulous form before they are reduced to a system. That they are noticed in these epistles, and alluded to in the earlier epistles to the Ephesians, the Colossians and the Pliilipj)ians, instead of throwing doubt on the genuineness of these documents, simply proves that these ideas were propagated at this early dale. That a more advanced organization of the church is indi-'" '*'^'''"'^' cated in these epistles than existed before Paul's death, is an- as a proved imitation; if it is un- stitutions of the church. This Paulino, it cr.nUl not have pro- f^econd point is intimately counect- ceeded from the Apostle." ci\ "it'i H»p first. The (inostios, '"I was the first to a.'^sert. and as the first heretics properly so to give evidence for the assertion, called, jirave the first occasion for that in these heretics [those com- the Episcopal constitution of the hatted in the Epistles] we recofmizo church." Ih. 102. "A further thron-rhont the familiar featiires of i>oint in the criticism of the Pns- Gnosticism ; and nothinjr of im- toral Epistles is that it is impossi- portance has since heen nrjred hie to find a snitahle place for the against this view." Banr, Ufe of composition of them in the Apos- Pau!, V. 99. " A second point in tie's history as we know it." /'>. the criticism of the Pastoral Epis- 10:^ Kenan employs the same ar- tles, and one of no less import- prnments, and dwells with especial ance than that just spoken of, is earnestness upon the Inst. T.ifr nf the reference they contain to the Paul, 12-32. government and the external in- 164 (JKNT'INKNESS OF Till: other baseless assumption, and one that can be made oidy by those who deny tlie credibility of Acts of Ajiostles: for the organization of chnrclies by the appointment of elders or bishops, and deacons, the only organization alluded to in these epistles, had existed in Judea before the beginning of Paul's missionary tours, and Paul himself thus organized the churches which he planted among the Gentiles.' tothethirfi. --pi^j, third objection is the only one of the three which has any real force, and should it be decided that Paul's life ter- minated with his first Roman imprisonment described at the close of Acts, its force would be almost if not altogether irre- sistible. The following journeys and incidents can find no place ill his previous life, though many ingenious scholars have sought one, viz: his departui-e from P^phesus for Mace- donia, leaving Timothy behind him (I. Tim, i. 3); his labors in Crete where he left Titus (Titus i. 5); his wintering in Nicopolis where he desired Titus to join him (iii. 12); and his journeying through Miletus where Trophimus was left sick, and through Corinth where he left Erastus (II. Tim. iv. 20).^ But this argument has force against the genuineness of these Epistles only on the supposition that Paid was not released from his first imprisoiiment in Rome. Tliis supposition is adopted by those who reject the Epistles as if it were'a settled fact; whereas there is positive and uncontradicted testiraonv that he was released, that he performed other labors during ' .Vets vi. 1-fi; xi. 30; xiv. 23; others to prove that tlicy might XX. 17, 28; xxi.18; Phil. i. 1. have been written duriu}; any part - The various scheme.n suggested of the period eov(!rrd])y tlie narra- by German writers to find a place tive of Acts — during the three for the.se events within the period years' stay at Ephesus, for instance, covered by Ac^ts are mentioned by or tlip st.iy of eighteen ninnths at Renan in the course of Ids sncce'^n- Corinth sink to the ground not fnl refutation of them. Life of only under tlie weight of tlioir own Pou/, 22-30. Farrar can HOarccly arbitrary hypothes'-s, but even mrtre be said to be too emphatic when he from the state both of the church says: "If, indeed, St. Paul was and of the mind and circumstances never liberated from his first Ilo- of the Apostle which these letters man imprisonment, then the Pas- so definitely manifest." lAfe oj toral Epi.stles must be forgeries; Pa"/, c. Iv. for the attempts of Wieselrr and NEW TESTA -M KM' BOOKS. 165 the interval of freedom, and that he was imprisoned a second time before his death. Clement of Rome declares that after he had been seven times in bonds, he reached in his preaching "the boundary of the West,'' ' an expression then jised for the western boundary of Spain. If Clement uses it in this sense, and not, as some suppose, for Rome (a very unnatural mean- ing for one living in Rome), we have in his statement the^ tes- timony of a competent witness implying Paul's release and the fulfillment of a cherished purpose to visit Spain." The Mura- torian Canon, written al)out A. D. 170, also speaks of Paul's departure from the city into Spain as a well Unown fact;'' and Eusebins, who had searched carefully into the early history of the church, says that his martyrdom did not take place at the time of hi> first imprisonment, but that he was released, went again upon his ministry, and at a second visit to the city was put to deatli.' AMiile the first of these testimonies is indeci- ' "By reason of jealousy and of Paul, 438. "Luke relates to strife, Paul, by his example, pointed Theoi>hilus events of whicli he out the i)rizo of patient endurance, was an eye-witness, as also, in a .\fter that lu' had been St' ven times separate place lie evidently de- in bonds, had been driven into clarosthe martyrdom of Peter, but exile, had been stoned, had [omits] the journey of Paul from preached in the East and in the Rome to Spain." Westcott would "West, he won the noble renown inse-rt the wor that of Paul ;^ but, as is now universally conceded, there is no such contradiction, and the objection has been abandoned. By Rationalists its genuineness has been questioned on the ground of a supposed allusion to the Epistle to the Hebrews in the^|!|j^j"^ use made of the history of Rahab. As Hebrews was written at too late a date for James to have seen it, an allusion to that epistle could not have been made by him." But tlx; fact of an allusion is imaginary; fir the incident in which Rahab figured l)as ever been familiar to readers of the Old Testament, and any Jewish writer might have referred to it imlependeutly of others. The Rationalists of the Tubingen school deny the genuine- i-^'^'er ness of tlie Eirst Papistic of Peter solely on the ground of their favorite theory that there was an antagonism between Paul and Peter to the end of their days, and that this Epistle, in common with some others and the Book of Acts, was writ- ' The alU'gtd contradiction hes once urgi'd tliis ol)joction, but he between James ii. 24 and liumans afterward withdrew it. iii. 28, but the context in the latter 'Tliis objec-tion is adopted by epLStie shows tliat Paul speaks of Baur from De Wette, and the for- the work of a perfectly righteous mer adds the remark that "Every life.an*! in the former .lamesspeaks nnpri>jndiced person must see that of those works of special divine an epistle wliich contains refer- command by which faith is tested ences to tliat to the Hebrews must and on whicii for Ihi?' reason jus- be j)08t-P!iuhne." Life of Pn^d, i\ tlfiration is dependent. inth of Peter has tive church." F. C. Cook, hUro- always retained its hitrh iiosition duction to I. Pefrr, nihlr Com., <* 1. in the (estimation of the church; ^The Antichrist, p. vi. nor was tliore any rjuc^tion as to " f'^arh/ Dai/s, c. ix, p. 113. The its atith'-nticity until within the specifications which prove similar- last few years, when rationalism, ity of style and diction are pre- guided hy the sure instinct of an- sented hy Prof. Luirihy, in his In- tipathy, has assailed it in common troduction to I. Peter, in the Bible with all documents which attest Commentary, the faith and unity of the primi- NEW TESTAMENT BOOK-. 171 addition to this consideration, we reflect upon the variations which a man's style may undergo under change of circum- stances, of feelings, and of the subject matter on which he writes; and wlien we remember that these two short Epistles and the few short speeches of Peter recorded in Acts, are our only sources of information as to what Peter's real style was ; it must seem hazardous, if not reckless, to set aside on sucli ground the solemn assertions of the Epistle itself as to its au- thorship (see p. 122). From such a conclusion the better in- Htinct of scholars has withheld even those who have attached the greatest weight to this objection, infidel scholars, of course, i)eing excepted.' 2. Of the remarks and expressions which it is thought •^"S"'"""^ the soc*(*n*l that Peter would not have employed the specifications are nu- merous, but with a single exception they are void of force. Many of them are such as would excite no surprise if found in an unquestioned Epistle of Peter, and the others are sucli that Peter is as likely to have employed them as any man wri- ting in his name. It would require space disproportionate to their value to discuss them individually.- The one specifica. ' Dean Alfonl, than wliom our etter (Ireek the authenticity of an epistle, scholar, says: "The diversity of There are many modifying circuni- ptyle in the two epistles has been stances. A writer ai)pears ditfer- frequently alleged. But on going ently on diflferent occasions. In through all that has been said, I the present instance we can iiardly own I can not regard it, consider- tell precisely what the peculiar able as it undoubtedly is, as any style of Peter was ; for the Kirst more than can well be accounted Kpistle is of small conipas.s, antvle ami Qtinrtirh/ liirirtr for 1SS4. Atifiwor to the thir'l. 172 (;j;mixi:ness of the tion which we think worthy of notice here is the remark made cnncernins; Paul's Epistles in II. Peter iii. 14-16. It has been said by some that the words '"' all of his Epistles" means all of the E])istles now ascribed to Paul, which implies a later date than the death of Peter. But the writer obviously al- luded only to those that were known to himself, whether many or few. There is positive evidence in Peter's First Epistle, as we have stated (p. 121), that he had read the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians ; and if he had seen Ephesians, he may have seen I. and II. Thessalonians, I. and II. Corinth- ians, Galatians and Colossians ; for all these had been written before the date of Ephesians except the last which was writ- ten at the same date. It has also been said, that the words in the passage under discussion, "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of the.se things," can not apply to all the Epistles already written by Paul, because the things referred to are not mentioned in them all. The truth of this depends upon what is meant by " these things." The second coming of Christ is the cliief theme of the chapter, but the more im- mediate context (14, 15) limits the thought to preparation for that event — such preparation that we " may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight." Now this topic is discu.ssed in every one of the Epistles written by Paul before this date, and in six out of the eight the second coming of Christ is itself a conspicuous topic.^ The allegation then is not true. A third objection based on this pas.sage is, that the designation of Paul's Epistles as Scripture belongs to a date later than the death of Peter, this term being applied in the apostolic age to the Old Testament exclusively. But this is a l)eggiug of the ((uestioii ; for if Peter wrote this Epi.stle, then at least one Apo.stle did apply the term Scripture to the Epis- tles of another. The main question must be settled in the negative before this affirmation can Ix; sustained. 3. The objection that Peter would not have adopted from the Epistle of Jude s(» many thoughts and expressions as are •See I. Theflfi. iv. ]:;-v. 11; IT. viii. 12-25; Gal. v. Ki-'JI ; vi. H-10; Thess. i. 3— ii. 12: I. Cor. xv. .%-58; F-^pli. v. 25-27; Col. iii. 3, 4. II. Cor. iv.lfr— V. 11 ; Rom. ii.l-16j NKW TESTA MKNT KOOKS. 173 found iu common in that Epi.stle and the second chapter of II. Peter, depends for its rehivaney upon the assumption that the latter Epistle is the later uf the two, a proposition which is combatted with great plausibility by some eminent scholars/ But waiving this question, and granting the position assumed iu the objection as probable, it would appear not more sur- prising that Peter should himself make use of material pre- viously used bv Judc, than that some later writer professing to be Peter should have done so in his name. Nor should it be thought at all incredible that Peter, wishing to emphasize by his own endorsement Jude's earnest exhortation to *' con- tend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints," may have composed the second chapter of this Epistle just jis we find it for this very good purpose. A similar, and oven a more remarkable, coincidence of both Avords ;ind thoughts is found in the Old Testament between Isaiah and Micah ; and these ])ropliets, like Peter and Judc, were contemporaries. (See Isaiah ii. 2, 3 ; Micah iv. 1, 2). In conclusion, we may safely remark, that the objections which we have just considered can certainly furnish no justifi- cation for setting aside as false the solemn assertions of the writer in which he assumes to be the Apostle Peter, and for pronouncing the author of this most edifying and eloquent document an impostor. The only internal evidence worthy of notice that has been-'"^^' '=^'*' '^. , 1.1 ground of alleged against the genuineness of the Epistle of Jude, is the doubt. fact that the author makes a quotation from an apochryphal work called the Book of Enoch,- and ascribes the word> 'See Prof. Lumby's Introduitioii examined it, it was written before toll. Pet. in the Bible Commentary, the Christian era. but how long ^The Book of Enoeh ha.s been before is quite uut-ertain. It in preserved from ancit-nt time.s only also uncertain whethei- it wa.s writ- iii an Ktliiopie translation. Three ten in (ireek or in Hebrew, but manu.script copies of it were the Etliiopic version was made brought to Englanil from Abys- from the Greek. It contains a sinia by the exi)lorer Bruce, in series of revelations said to have 1773. Since then translations of it been made by' Enoch and Noah, bave been made nito (ierman and A full account of it is given by English. In the judgment of a Westcott in Smith's Bible Diction majority of tlie critics who have arj-. 174 QENUIXENEbS OF THE quoted to "Enoch the seventh from Adam" (14). It is thought that neither an Apostle, nor one so nearly related to the Apostles as was the brother of James, would have done this. In answer to this, it may be said, first, that the quota- tion from au apochryphal book of certain words ascribed iu that book to a previous author, is not an endorsement of the book as a whole, but only of the part quoted. Second, it is by no meaus incredible that among the many written docu- ments in possession of the ancient Jews a genuine prophecy of Enoch may have been preserved, and if so, it would very nat- urally be coj)ied into any work pretending to give an account of Enoch. Third, it is by no means certain that Jude quoted from the apochryphal book in question, because he may have obtained the prediction from the same source whence it was obtained by the author of this book, that is, from some older document and one that was authentic. From these considera- tions it appears that the objection is altogether insufficient to set aside as false the writer's assertion that he was the brother of James. Epistles of rpii^, attempts that have been made to find internal evi- John. ^ dence against the genuineness of the First Epistle of John, are so vague and intangible that Dr. Davidson, with allusion to Pharaoh's lean kine, styles them '* ill-favored and lean ob- servations." ' Against the other two epistles it has been urged that as the author styles himself not the Apostle, but the Elder, iu the opening sentence of each, he must have been some other than John the Apostle. It has even been argued that he was a certain " John the Elder" mentioned by Papias as having given tlu; latter some items of information which he had gathered from the lips of A])ostles.- But this ' Ihivinp stiiteil ami hriofly no- tlif epistle's autlK'nticity."Jn/rof/H<- ticcfl Zeller's ol)jcctions on inter- lion to Nem Trsl.S UF 'LllE SEW TK.STAMEM' liUUKS. 177 loss as respects matters of laitli and practice would be incon- tjiderable. 6. By internal evidence we have traced every book to its reputed date and its reputed author; and we have found that tor four out of the six whose external evidence is compara- tively weak, that is, for Philemon, James, Second Peter and Jude, the internal evidence is positive and explicit. This last conclusion is supported by evidence so forcible ilmt it is conceded by the most radical of the rationalistic writeis as regards four of the most important Epistles (page 127) ; and althf Eusebius, but disputed, M; in tiiat of Origen, G7 ; in tliat of Clement of Alexandria, 69 ; in that of TertuUian, 7.S; intheMu- ratorian, 74; in the Coptic Ver- sions, 77 ; absent from Peshitf) Syriac, 78; in the Old Latin, 80; (pioted by Ircnanis, 89; by Justin Martyr, 95 ; by I'apia-:, 101 ; inter- nal evidence, 12a, 175; genuine- ness conceded by Rationalists,127. .\rnienian Version, 37. .\thanasius, his Career and his Cat- alogue, 61. Authenticity of Scriptures: need of proving it, 1 ; Part Third of this work, 5. .Autographs of New Testament writ- ers : their tlisappoarancc, 25 ; Tcr- tullian's appeal to tliem, 73. lUirnnbas, Epistle of, 104; his use of Matthew, 106. Baur, Ferdinand Christian : his po- sition and his writings, 12G. Bengel s Edition of Creek New Testament, 43. Bentley, Richard: ids statements about Various Readings, 8; his contributions to Biblical Criti- cism, 43. Biblical Criticism : definition of, 7; origin of, 11 ; materials of. 25; results of, 55, 56. Catalogues: evidence from, 59-71, 127; that of the Council of Car- thage, 60; that of the Council of Laodicea, 60, n. 1 ; that of Athan- asius, 61 ; that of Cyril, 62; that of Eusebius, 63-65 ; that of Ori- gen, 61V-69; that of Clement of Alexandria, 69-71; that of Ter- tuUian, 71-74; the Muratorinn, 74, 127; that of Marcion, 75. Carthage, Council of, 60. Chapters: when introduced into the Scriptures, 41. Classi(!s: Various Readings in, S; few early quotations from. 111. Clement of .Mexandria: his career, (i9; his catalogue of New Testa- ment book.s, 70; his (piotations from (hem, 83. Clement of Rome : his Epistle, 10<>; his opportunities, 107; the books he quachm;inn'.'j, Ki ; Tischendorf's, 47 ; Tregellea's, 51 ; Westcott & Hort's, 53. Dictation a source of Various Read- ings, 20. Diocletian, Persecution under, 63, 64. Diversion of attention, a source of Vnrions Uc'idiii'js. ]'.). Doctrinal alterations of the text, 23. Doubtful passages, 15. Ebionites, 75. Editions of New Testament, Early Printed: the first in Latin, 10; in Plebrew, 10; the Greek of Cardinal Ximenes, 10, 41; that of Erasmus, 11, 41 ; those of Robert Stephen, 41 ; that of the Elzevirs, 42. English New Testament, Revised, 55. Ejihesians, Epistle to: in all the catalogues, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 69, 71, 74, 75; in all the early versions, 77, 78, 80; quoted by Irenajus, 86 ; by Polycarp, 104 ; by Clem- ent of Rome, 109; internal evi- cnce, 118, 158. Errors in Greek Text, 7, 10. Euschius: his career, 63, 65; his catalogue, 64. Evidence of Genuineness: from Catalogues, 59, 127; from Ver- sions, 77, 128; from Quotations, 82, 128; internal evidence, 112, 143. Gospels, The Four: mentioned in catalogue of the Council of Car- thage, 60; in that of Grigen, 66; in that of Tertullian, 71 ; de- scribed by Irenteus, 85; by Jus- tin, 93, 129; internal evidence, 113-115,143. Griesbach's Critical Iv.litions of New Testament, 45. Hebrews, Epistle to: in all the cat- alogues, 60, 63, 64, 67, 70, 72 ; ex- cept the Muratorian, 74, and Mar- cion's, 75 ; in all the early versions except the Old Latin, 77, 78, 80; mentioned l)y Irenieus, 87; quot- ed by Clement of Rome, 109; in- ternal I'vidence, 113, 167. INDEX. 188 Hernias, Tlu' Shepherd by, li.'7. Homioteleutoii a source of tkrical errors, L'O. Herotli.itiis, < Quotations from, 111. Inattention a i^ource of ilerital errors, 19. Infallibility of tlie Scriptures, 1. Internal I'.vidence, Use of in Criti- cism, ;]8. Internal Evidence of Genuineness, 112, 143. Irena?us: his re(]Ui'st of copyists, 9; his career anarly versions, 77, 80, excei)|.jlhe Pesh- itoSyriac, 78; quoted by "Trenaus, 87: internal evidence, ^'2'^. 174. Joiin, Third Epistle of: in all the catalogues, GO, 61, 03, 04, 06, 69, 71, 74, except Tertullian's, 71, and Marcion's, 75 ; in all the early versions, 77, 80, except the Pesh- ito Syiiac, 7S ; internal evidence, 123, 174. Jude, Ejiislle of: in all the cata- logues, 00, 01, 03, 04, 00, 09, 72, 74 ; except Marcion'.a, 75; in all the early versions, 77, 80, except the Pcshito Syriac, 78 ; internal evi- • lence, 122, 173. Ju.stin: his career, 91-9.'> ; his use of the Gospels, 93-95 ; his use of other New Testament books, 95-98. Lachmann's Critical Editions of New Testament, 4(). Laodicea, Council of, 60, note 1. Latin Vulgate Version, 35. Lectionaries, 27. Livy, Quotations from, 111. Luke, Gospel of: in all the cata- logues, 00, 01, 03, 64, 60, 09, 71, 74, 75 ; in all the early versions, 77, 78, 80; quoted by Irena^us, 85; by Justin, 93, 128; by Poly- carj), 104 ; liy Clement of Rome, 108; internal evidence, 115, 143; date assigned by Rationalists, 127. ^[anuscripts: the autographs, 25, 7'.\ ; ^ISS. of first three centuries, 20; uncial and cursive distin- guished, and number of each, 20 ; Ibose of lectionaries, 27 ; lm\v and where preserved, 28; their names, 28, 44 ; their ages, how deter- mined, 28; the four great uncials, 29; theSinaitic, 30, 50; the Alex- andrian, 30 ; tlie Vatican, 31 ; Co- dex Ephraemi, 32, 49; their value in Biblical Criticism, 32; Iboir eenealogies, .33. Mark, C.^pd of: in :dl the cata- 184 IXDEX. logues, 00, (31, O:], (14, 6G, (it), 71, 74; except ^larcion's, 75; in all the early versions, 77, 78, 80 ; ac- count of by Irenjeus, So ; used l>y .Tuslin, 03, 128; account of by Papias, 100, 140 ; quoted by l\)ly- carp, 104, 142; by riemont <<{ Rome,? 100, 142; internal evi- dence, 114, 143. Marcion : opi)osed by Tertullian, 73; his catalotrue, 75; opposed by Justin, 96. Matthew, Gospel of: in all the cat- alogues, 60, 01, 03, 64, 6(), ()0, 71, 74; excei)t Marcion's, 75; in all the early versions, 77, 78, 80; ac- count of by Irena'us, 85 ; used by Justin, 93, 128; account qI by Pajiias, 100, 130 ; (pioted by Poly- carp, 104, 142; by Barnabas, 100, 142; by Clement of Rome, 109, 142; internal evidence, 113, 143. Memory, Trusting to, a source of clerical errors, 21. IMie.srob, Armenian translator, .".7. :\r;ll's Critical Edition nf New Tes- tament, 42. ^lispronunciatioii a scarce of cler- ical errors, 20. Muratnrian Canon. 74, 127. Old Latin Version of New Testa- ment: its origin, 34, 78; its re- vision by Jerome, 35 ; the books it contained, 79, 128. Order proper for intiniry on Evi- dences, 4. Origen : his career, Oii, 08; his no- tice of various readings, 10; his use of New Testament books, OH-PiS. Papias: ids career, 98, 99; his ac- count of ^latthew's Gospel, 100; of Mark's, 100; his use of other New Testament books, 101 ; posi- tions of Rationali.sts in reference to his statements, 1.^0-1 II, Peshito Syriac \'ei"sio.» ; its origin, 34, 1 28 ; the New Te.scament books it contained, 78. Peter, First Ejiistle of: in all the catalogues, 60, 61, 63, 04, 67, 69, 72 ; except the Muratorian, 74, and Marcion's, 75 ; in all the early versions, 77, 78, 80 ; quoted expressly by Irenaeus, 87 ; used by Papias, 101 ; by Polycarp, 104, 142; by Clement of Rome, 109, 142; internal evidence, 121, 109. Peter, Second Epistle of ; in all the catalogues, GO, 01, 03, 04, 06, 07, 69,? 71 ; except the Muratorian, 74, and jMarcion's, 75 ; in the Co])tic Versions, 77 , absent from I he Pe.shito Syriac, 78, and the Old Latin, 80; quoted by Irenae- . u.s,? 88; by Justin,? 97 ; by Clem- ent of Rome,? 109; internal evi- dence, 121, 127, 170. Persecution : that under Diocle- tian, 0)3, 04; that under Septim- ius Sever us, 68. Pliilipi)ians. Epistle t, 69, 71, 74. To; in all the early versions, 77, 78, 80; quoted by Iren;eus, 8(5; by Justin. 96; by Polycarp, 104; by Clement of Rome, 109; internal exidence, 118, \o~); gen- uineness concofled by unbeliev- ers, 127. Scliolz : his critical edition of N'ew Testament, 46. Scriptures : Diocletian's order to l)urn them, 63; C0|)ies of tliem made for ('onstantine, 65. Septimius Severus, Persecution un- der, 68. .Shej)lierd, The. by Hernias: time of its composition, 127, attached to the Sinaitic M.'^., 30. Sinaitic MS.: description of, 30. discovery of, 49, 50. Spirit proper for the stiKh- of I'.vi- dences, 2. Stephen, his editions of (ireek New Testament. 41. Tacitus, Quotations from. 111. Terence, Various lic.-idint^ in hi« Comedies. S. Tirtulhan : his catalogue of New Testament books, 71-74. Textual Criticism defined, 7. Tbessalonians, Epistles to: in all the catalogues, 60, 61, 63, 64. (Kj, 69, 71, 74, 75 ; in all the early ver- sions, 77, 78, 80, quoted by Ire- iKcus, 86; known to .Justin, 96; (juoted by P(jlycarp, 104; inter- nal evidence, 118, 156. Timothy, l-'])istles to : in all the catalogues, (50, 61, 63, %i, 66, 69, 71, 74; except Marcion's, 75; in all the early versions, 77, 78, 80 ; (juoted by Iiena'us, 8(5 ; liy Poly- carp, 104; internal evidence, 118. 1(53. Tischendorf : his critical editions of New Testament, 47 ; his career, 48-51. Titus, Epistle to: in all the cata- logues, (50, 61, 63, 04, 66, 69, 71, 74; except Marcion's, 75 ; in all the early versions, 77, 78,80; in- ternal i'vidcnce, IIS, 1(53. Tregelles: his critical editionof New Testament, 51 ; his career, 51-5.3. Tubingen Scliool of Rationalists, 126, 127. T'Iphilas, Translator of Armenian \'(>rsion, ;'>7. Various Readings: found in the Classics, S; number of in the New Testament, 11, 1.".; their charac- ter, 14 , a specimen iia.s.sage. 11 ; eirect of on the matter of the Scriptures, 16; illustration of from n will, 17, 18; sources of 19-21. ^'el•.ses, when introdMcrd into Ihe New Testament, 11. N'ersions, Ancient, value of in I'iblical Criticism, .3.'< ; condit^n 'jf their MSS., 33 ; value of as evi- deni'P of genuinene.vt, 77; the 186 INDEX. Peshito Syriac Version, .34, 78, Westcott & Hort : their ciitical edi- 128; the Old Latin Version, 34, tion of New Testament, 53-55. 78,128; the Coptic Versions, 35, Wetstein : his critical edition ol 77, 128; the .'Ethiopia Version, New Testament, 44. 37 ; the Gothic, 37 ; the Arnieni- AVriting ^laterials of New Testa an, 37. ment writers, 25. EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY PART III. (JK EDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMEiS^T BOOKS. TART lY. INSPIRATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. J. W. McGARYEY, A. M. Professor of Sacred History asp Kvidentes in the Cou.kob of thk Bible, KENTITKY I'MVERSITY. LOUISVIT-LE : GUIDE PRINTrN"(J AND ITFUJSHIN(^ CO. 18<)1. Copyright, 1891, by J. W. McGabvey. PREFACE. Five years liave passed by since the volume con- taining the first two Parts of this work on Evidences was published. Those two Parts, treating of the Integrity of the New Testament Text, and the Genuineness of the New Testament Books, met with such a reception from the public as to encourage the author to continue the work, and he had progressed so far with it as to have written a la"rge portion of Part Third, wlion a fire, which laid his dwelling in ruins, consumed his manuscript together with all the notes and references which he had accumulated. This caused an unex- pected delay in the preparation of the present volume. The reader is reminded, as was stated in the preface to the former volume, that this work is intended, not for those already proficient in the knowledge of Evidences, but for those who have given the subject little or no attention. It does not, therefore, attempt to exhaust the subject, but only to present so much of it as can be mastered in a course of instruction in high schools and colleges. It is prepared with an especial reference to class-room instruction. It would argue inexcusable ignorance of the state of |)ul)lic opinion in our generation if the author should expect all of the positions taken and defended in this volume to ni(Mt with universal approval even among the friends of th«' P.iblc. Especially is this true of what he has written concern inji Inspiration. On no other sul)jert arc the minds of believers lii) IV PREFACE. SO unsettled and bewildered. On this, as on all the other topics discussed in the voluino, I have done wiiat I could to arrive at the truth, and to present my conclusions in an in- telligible form. I humbly trust that my feeble effort may be blessed of God in helping to settle in the truth some minds that are now unsettled, and to guard some of the youth of our country from tiie doubts and perplexity which have har- assed many of their seniors. Whether I shall live to carry out my undertaking, so as to extend the inquiries which I have now completed as regards the New Testament, to the books of the Old, is of course known only to Him in whose hands are " life and breath and all things." To Him and to his people I trust- fully commit the destiny of this present work. CONTENTS PART III. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. CHAPTER I. Canons of Historical Criticism 1-6 CHAPTER II. Evidence from Agreement with Otiier Writings, CHAPTER III. Evidence from Incidental Agreement with Other Writings. CHAPTER IV. Alleged Contradictions between John and the Synoptists, CHAPTER V. Alleged Contradictions between the Synoptic Gospels, . CHAPTER VI. Alleged Contradictions between Acts and otiu-r Books. . CHAPTER VII. Undesigned Coincidences between the (iospels, .CHAPTER [X. Positions of riil->i-li»-v(is in Reft ifntv to Mira CHAPTER IV. Inspiration of Mark. Luke, James, and Judas, . . 187-189 CHAPTER V. Modifying Statements and Facts, 190-201 CHAPTER VI. Objections Con.sidered, 202-211 CHAPTER VII. Adverse Theories of Inspiration, . 212-217 CHAPTER VIII. Confirmatory Evidence' . . 218-223 PART III. CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. PART III. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTA- MENT BOOKS. CHAPTER I. CANONS OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM. Having reached the conclusion in Part Third, that the The i>res- ^ . eut New Testament hooks were written by the autliors to whom in4>''n ■■ tliey are commonly ascribed, we now inquire whether they are credible writings.., By this inquiry is meant, not whether they are infallibly accurate, but whether they possess thai degree of reliability which belongs to historical works of the better class. The question of their infallibility will be con- sidered farther on. It is obvious that tliis inquiry has reference chiefly t<» tlio '"»'"" * ■ • l)0(ik^ it historical books of the New Testament, but it does not refer "Pi'i'^'' to them CAclusively. The Epistles and the Apocalypse contain some historical matter, and to this extent the question of credibility a|>plios to them ecpially \yith the books formally historical. Fn other words, it applies to all the statements ofnn'i t" fact found in all the books. These statements are distribu-<''"^''f""'' statf- table into four cla.sses : tho.se of ordinary history; those '"*'"'^- concerning miraculous events; the reports of speeches written long aft«r they were delivered ; and th(> revelations which the '2 CREDIBILITY OF THE writer? claim to have received from God. We are to inquire, first, whether the events here mentioned, which belong to the ordinary course of human history, actually took place; second, whether those of a miraculous character really occurred; third, whether the reports of speeches delivered by Jesus and certain others, not one of which was written at the time of delivery, but some of which were written almost ;i life-time after delivery, can be relied on as correct; and, fourth, whether the direct communications of God's Avill on various subjects pertaining both to the present and the future, which some of these writers claim to have received, should be accepted as such, ^artmeut ^^^ subjcct of tliis inquiry is a branch of the modern involved*^ s^^^"^^ of Historical Criticism.' The province of this sci- ence is to distinguish the true from the false in historical documents. It differs from Textual Criticism^ in that it deals with facts, while the latter deals with words. It has acquired the title. Higher Criticism, because of the greater importance attached to facts than to the exact words in which they are described, and because of the greater learning necessary to its application. By the application of its rules of evidence the secular history of the ancient world has been revolutionized, and a new ancient history constructed. So complete is this revolution, that such works as Rollin's Ancient History, which was a standard in the early part of our century, is now obsolete, and the same fate has befallen many other works once regarded as authentic.^ In the later development of ' "The last century has seen the '"The whole world of profane birth and growth of a new science history has been revolutionized, of Historical ('rifi(;ifini. l^efrinninn By a searching and critical investi- in France with the lahors of I'ouil- gat ion of the mass of materials on ly and Beaufort, it advanced with which that history rested, and by rapid strides in(iermany under the the application to it of canons em- guidance of Niehulir, Otfricd, Mul- bodying the judgments of a sound lerand Bockii,and finally has been discretion upon the value of difTer- introduced and naturalized among ent sorts of evidence, the views ourselves by means of the writings of the ancient world formerly en- of our best living historians." tertained have been in ten thou- ((leorge Rawlinson, IIiMoriail JCii- sand points i-ither modilie 1 or re- dences, 28). versed; a new antiquity has been NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 6 the science an attempt has been made to revolutionize in a similar manner the history contained in the Bible. So zealous have been the efforts of some scholars in this direc- tion, that the science itself has become associated in the popu- lar mind with unbelief in tin; Scriptures, and has thus come into disrepute. This result is by no means legitimate; for by a proper application of the rules of historical criticism the authenticity of all histories, sacred as well as profane, must he determined. The Canons of historical criticism were first formulated by The C&I10D8 George Rawlinson in his Bampton Lectures of 1859 (Lecture hy which First), and published in his work entitled Historical Evi-i'wuiry is '' r ^ couduct- dences. Abbreviated and otherwise modified, they are as^d- follows : Canon L The writings of a contemporary, who is creiH- ble, and who has had opportunity f>r personal knowledge of the facts recorded, have the highest degree of credibility. Under this head must be included public records, monuments and inscriptions, made by persons who are contemporary with the events.^ Canon IL Those of a writer who may be reasonably supposed to have obtained his information from eye witnesses j>ossess the second degree of credibility. Canon III. Those of a writer who lived in an age later than the events, and whose source of information was oral tradition, have the third and lea*-t degree of credibility. But if, in this case, the events are of public notoriety, and of such importance as to have affected national life, or to have been commemorated by some public observance, their credi- bility is greatly enhanced by these considerations. Canon IV. When the traditions of one people are corroborated by those of another, especially by those of a raised up out of the old, wliileninrli '"The most imiiortant docu- that was unreal in tiic pii-fure of nicnts for history an* those which pa.st tinu'S which men liad formed poss-.ss in tlie least tle^rree the to themselves has disappeared, . historic furni. The authority of . . and a firm and strong fabric chronicles must pive place to med- lias arisen out of the shattered do- als, maps, or authentic letters." bris of the fallen system." (Ih.) (Renan, Apontlrs, 21\. CREDIBILITY OF THE General applica- tion of the canon». A genera CDllflU- siuD. distant and hostile pet)pl(', this greatly increases the probabil- ity of the events. The value of .sueh evidence di peuds on the improbability of accidental agreement, and the impossibil- ity of collusion. Canon V. The concurrent testimony of independent writers greatly increases the probability of an event; and their agreement has the greater force when it is incidental, as when one only alludes to an event which the other narrates, or mentions a circumstance incidentally explained by another. The probability in this case is increased in a geometrical ratio to the number of witnesses. That is, the testimony of two is not twice as strong, but four times as strong as that of one.' If we make a general application of these Canons to the writers of the New Testament, we find them arranged as fol- lows: Of the four Gospels, Matthew and John come under Canon L, seeing that these writers were eye-witnesses of nearly all the events which they record. The same is true of Luke as respects those portions of Acts in wiiich he speaks in the first person; and of the apostles Paul, Peter, James, Jude and John in their epistles, so far as they mention events which transpired under their own observation. The two Gospels of Mark and Luke, together with those piirts of Acts in which Luke does not use the first person, come under Canon II., seeing that these writers were not eye witnesses, but wrote what had been narrated to them. Thus we see that of the eight writers of the New Testament, six possess thf highest degree of historical credibility so far as oppor- tunities to know are concerned, and only two have the second degree. Not one of them belongs to an age later than that of the events, or was dependent for his information on uncertain oral tradition. I As to the credibility of these writers, we may say in general torms, in advance of a more critical inquiry, that their high character, indicated by the unvarying purity of the sentiments found in their writings, lifts them above the sus- picion of being untrustworthy, and secures to them a credi- ' /iiitlrr'n Avnhxii/, Part II., cli. vii. NEW TPISTAMENT I500KS. 5 bility at least ccjual to that of the best secular historians. This consideration unites with the proceeding to place them among the most credii)]e of writers, and to render any event which they record, concerning wliich there is no special ground of doubt, as |)robal)lo as any of the facts that make up history. This much is conceded l)y all, even among unbelievers, who.se opinions are respected by intelligent men; and it is conceded on the ground which we have stated. CHAPTER II. EVIDENCE FROM AGREEMENT WITH OTHER WRITINGS. One very satisfactory mettiod of testing the credibility of :i writer, is to compare liis statements with those of other Nature of writers with similar opportunities for information. When evidence, the writers compared are independent, that is, when neither obtained his information from the other, an agreement on any fact imparts to that fact the degree of probability referred to in Canon V. When they disagree, this raises a (piestion as to the relative credibility of the two writers. Unfortunately, the winters who were contemj)orary with those of the New Testament, and whose writings have come down to us, are very few, especially those whose subjects led them to speak of the same events, or who possessed the information necessary to speaking of them with any degree of accuracy. Among Jewish writers there is only one, and among Roman writers, three or four.' Their statements are few, but valuable. Account 1. Josephus, the most noted of all uninspired Jewish phus. writers, was born in Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Caius Ctesar, a. d. 37. This was the third year after the founding of the church in Jerusalem, and the next year after its dispersion under the |)ersecutioii whicih arose ai)ont Stephen. The death of the elder James, A. d. 44, occurred in the same ' Why the latter arc so lew is sat- within a narrow space foreign to i.sfactorily explained by Renan, as them. Christianity was lost to follows: "As to the Greek and Lat- their vision upon tlict dark back- in writers, it is not furpiisinj? that tironnd of Judaism. It was only a tliey paid little attention to a move- family quarrel amon^ the subjecits ment which they (;ould not com- of a dej^radcd nation ; why trouble prehend, and which whs ynjng on themsel ves about it?"L'l7)rts/7fs, 227). , NEW TESrA.MKNT HOoKS. / city when Josephus was seven years oUI. At the age of nine- teen he joined the sect of the Pharisees, who were then extremely hostile to the church, and especially to the apostle Paul and others who preached among tiie Gentiles. When he was twenty-six years old (a. d. 63), he visited Rome for the purpose of interceding for certain priests whom Felix had sent thither in bonds to defend themselves before Cfesar. He suffered shipwreck on the voyage, as Paul had done three years previous, and this visit was made in the year in which Paul was released from his two years' imprisonment in that city. The year previous to this voyage, James, the Lord's brother, was slain in Jerusalem, and Josephus must have been cognizant of the fact. At the beginning of the Jewish war against the Romans, which resulted in the downfall of the Jewish nation, he was in command of the native forces in Galilee, which was then thickly set with Christian churches. He was overpowered and taken prisoner by the Romans, and was a prisoner in the camp of Titus during the last siege of Jerusalem. He spent the rest of his life in Rome, and was for some years the guest of the emperor Vespasian. His principal works are The Antiquities of the Jews, a History "'g,^'"*'' of the War with the Romans, and an Autobiography. From the last we have gleaned the facts in his career mentioned above, from which it appears that he lived in the very midst of tiie times and places in which the Apostles figured, and that he must have had personal knowledge of many of thi' events mentioned in Acts and the' Epistles as having tran- spired in Jerusalem, Judea and Galilee. He died about the year 100. As Jose|)hus gives a detailed history of his country cover- ing all the period of New Testament History, we might reasonal)ly expect of him an account of the career of Jesus, Moager^.^ and of the stirring events in the early history of the J<^wish[.'|j*^'Jg,,, Church. In this we are disappointed; and tiie omission is^pjvjnt.'" doubtless to be accounted for by his connection with the*^'''"''' Pharisees. He could have given no truthful account of Jesus or of the Church, which would not have been a story of shame foi- tl»o sect to which he belonged; and as his eiiief 8 CREDIBILITY OF THE . purpo.se in writing was to elevate his people in the minds of Greeks and Romans who despised them, national pride and religious bigotry alike demanded silence on this theme. . Still, he did not altogether avoid the subject, and we shall now take notice of" some of his statements. count^of '-^' ^^ stating the cause of a war betweeu Herod the Herod Tctiarch and Aretas, king of Arabia Petrea, he gives a ^^'''^''"*^'^' minute account of the intrigue by which the former induced his brother Philip's wife to leave her lawful husband and come to live with him/ These details are all omitted by the Kew Testament writers ; but Matthew, Mark and Luke all mention the fact of the incestuous marriage, and thev all men- tion it incidentally, as does Josephus. This is a clear case of undesigned agreement between totally independent writers. His refer- i. In his accouut of the war just mentioned above, Jose- ence to •' ' Ba'ust"' V^^^^ ^'^y^ ^^'^^ Herod's army was destroyed ; aud that some of the Jews regarded this disaster as a punishment for the mur- der of " John who was called the Baptist." He then speaks of John as a " good man," as one who " commanded tlie Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety toward God, and so to come to baptism." He gives a false interpretation of John's baj)tism, but one about as near the truth as might l.>e expected from a Pharisee, and then says that Herod, fearing lest John might raise a rebellion, sent him as a prisoner to the castle of Machferus, aud there beheaded liim.^ .Here the agieement in matters of fact with well known |)assages in our iirst three Gospels is complete, ^vhile the omissions, and the motive ascribed to Herod, show that the account given by Josephus is totally independent of the other three. Hisac c. Josei)hus ffivcs the only account which has come down COUIltOf I O , , r 1 T 1> therteati. innn the first century of the death of .Jauies, the Lord s oi James ■' i i • »'ie brother ; and in the course of it he calls him *' the brother of younger. ' Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James."-' The introduetioh of tlie.se two names in this informal way shows clearly that he regarded them as well known to his readers ; and as the readers for whoin ho wrote were the (troeks and I Ant., xviii. ."i. 1. - .{>i'., xvii. -i, 2. ^ /'(.. xx. '.». 1. NEW TESTAMKNT BOOKS. 9 Romans of liis day, it shows that the.-c two persons, and especial 1\' Jesus, were then well known in the heathen worhl, just as the Scriptures represent them. d. There is another passage in Josephus, the genuineness ^^jj*j<^^j of which has been so much disputed, and the spuriousncss of"'*^*"^ which has been conceded by so many eminent defenders of the fiiitli, that we may not base a confident argument on it, and yet it should be known to those who make any study of Evidences. We copy it as follows : " Now ther» was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man ; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the sugges- tion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him ; for he appeared to them alive again the third day ; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Chris- tian^, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." ' As the plan of this work forbids the use of doubtful evidences, we pass by this passage, ami refer those who may wish to study the arguments for and against its genuineness, to Lardner's Credibility for those against it, and to Home's Introduction for tiiose in favor of it. 2. The first Roman writer whom we cite in this connection career o« m • XT Tiicitus. is Tacitus. Ha was born about the middle of the first century ; was chosen prsetor of Rome in the year 88, and consul in 07. He was author of a Description of (icrmany ; a Life of Agricola (his father-in-law) ; a Histor}- of Rome from Galba to Domitian ; and .Vnnals of Rome, from Tiberius to Nero. He is one of the most famous and most reliable of Roman writers, and siich is the superiority of his style that the first two of his works are used as text-books of Latin in our best colleges. He closed his career as an author about the year 100. In giving an account of a fire that cousunit'd about one- ' Ant., xviii. '^ " 10 CREDIBILITY OF THE TOunt'of ^^^^^ ^f ^^^'^ '" ^^^ reig" "f Nero, coupled with the belief pcKccu- among the people that it was started aud kept up by Nero tion. himself, Tacitus says that Nero sought to turn this suspicion away from himself to the Ch*^istiaus in the city, whom he accused and tortured as if they were guilty. In describing the Christians, he slates the following facts: first, that tliere were Christians in Judea before the death of Christ, and that they derived their name from his; second, that Christ suffered death under Pontius Pilate; third, that belief in him was checked for a time by his death, but that i^ soon broke out again ; fourth, that it spread over Judea, and thence to Rome ; fifth, that there was a vast multitude of Christians in Eome at the time of the fire (a. d. 64) ; sixth, that Nero accused the Christians of causing the fire, and punished them most cruelly ; seventh, that their sufferings, believed to be unjust, awakened the sympathy of the people for them.' These statements would be credited if we had no other evidence to J/^ftjfg"'"^'^ support them. In other words, had the ^^ew Testament evidence, failed to come down to our age, these statements alone would 1 Tacitus says, speaking of the fire convicted, not so much of tlie crime that consumed Rome in Nero's of setting Rome on fire, as of hatred time, and of the general belief that to mankind. And when they were he had caused it: " In order, there- jjut to death, mockery was added fore, to put a stop to the report, he to their sufi'erings; for tlioy were laiu. reviled Christ; whereas those who For the matter appears to me are truly Christians, it is said, can worthy of such consultation, espe- not be forced to any of these things, cially on account of the number I thonght.thereforc, that they ought of those who are involved in peril, to be discharged. Others, who For many of every age, of every were accused by witnesses con- rank, and of either sex, are ex- fessed that they were Chiistians, posed, and will be exposed to dan- but afterwards denied it. Some ger. Nor has the contairion of this 14 CKEDIBII.ITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. confirmatory of" the representations in that book. Tlie charac- ter of Christians set forth in the two documents, their stated meetings " for a harmless meal " (the Lord's supper), and for the worship of Christ, their rapid increase where the gospel was preached, and their causeless persecution, are the same. The sending of those who were Roman citizens to Rome for trial, is parallel with this experience of the apostle Paul ; and as to other particulars, we learn from the apostle Peter that there were Christians in Bythinia in his day, and that they suffered '• for the name of Christ " — they suffered " as Christians," even when they were charged with no crime (I. Pet. iv. 12-19). Conciu- These testimonies from independent and hostile writers sioii from ^ these tes- qq^ only coufirm the facts attested by them in common with the New Testament writers, so as to place them beyond all doubt, but they go farther : they give good ground to believe that if the details mentioned by tiiese secular writers had been more numerous, the points of agreement would have extended proportionately ; in other words, by showing that our New Testament writers are accurate so far as we are able thus to test them, they justify the inference that they are accurate throughout their narratives. It should be noted, however, that had we found some discrepancies between these two classes of writers, the preference would belong of right to those of the New Testament, seeing that they wore the better informed on the main subject. superstition been confined to the and the sacred solemnities, so lung cities only, but it has extended to interrupted, are again revived ; and the villages, and even to the conn- the victims, which could hardly try. Nevertheless, it still seems find a purchaser, are now every- possible to arrest the evil, and to where in demand. From this it is apply a remedy. At least it is easy to imagine what a multitude very evident that the temples, of men might be reclaimed, if par- which had already been almost don should be ofi'ered to those wl)o deserted, begin to be frequenteil, repent." {Epistlefi of Pliny, \.\)1). CHAPTER III. EVIDENCE FROM INCIDENTAL ACJKEEMENT WITH OTHER WRITINGS. In Chapterll. wernnsidcrc'cl tlieevidential force of certain points of agreement between the New Testament writers and others, when both were making formal statements ; now we consider points- of incidental agreement, in which formal Nature of , p . 1 , *hi8 evi- statements are made by the one class of writers, and only deuce, allusions to the same things by tiie other. In the instances to be cited the formal information is furnished by secular writers, and the allusions are made by the writers of the New Testament. I. Tlie j>eriod covered l)y New Testament history was characterized by frequent and complicated changes in the-^ii'»sions political affairs of Judea and the countries connected with it. ''^L None of these are formally described in the New Testament, though it contains many allusions to them of an incidental and isolated kind, while they are all described in detail by Josephu.s. Here, then, is an excellent opportunity to test the accuracy of the former writer.s ; for jjerfect agreement here is attainable only through perfect accuracy of information and of statement on both sides. This test is the more severe from the fact the New Testa- ment allusions to these affairs are so brief, and so void of explanation, as to leave the reader who has no other source of information in great confusion concerning: them. The ■^""s';"'"' history opens, in both Matthew and Luke, under " Herod the ^' ''^ king." In the second chapter of Matthew, Herod the king dies; yet in the fourteenth chapter Herod appears again, and is called both "the king" and "the tetrarch ;" and in the (16) 16 CUEDIBILITY OF THE twelth chapter of Acts, "Herod the king" beheads the apostle James. All this is said without a word of explana- tion. Again, at the close of the second chapter of Matthew Archelaus is king of Judea ; in the twenty-seventh chapter Pilate is governor of the same; in the twelth of Acts, Herod is king of the same; and in the twenty-third, Felix is its governor. Not a word of explanation. Yet again, Augustus Caesar issues a decree just previous to the birth of Jesus, that all the world shall be enrolled; when John the Baptist begins his ministry it is the fifteenth year of Tiberius Csesar; yet Paul many years afterward makes an appeal from Festus to Augustus. (Luke ii.1-7; iii. 1,2; Acts xxv. 21). Here, in reference to kings, governors, and emperors, there is both confusion and apparent contradiction. It is impossible for one who has not made a special study of the political history of the times, to get through this tangled network of illusions understandingly ; but when we consult the formal history con- furnished by the unbelieving Jewish historian, we find cverv and ex- one of them strictly correct. As to the Herods, we find that plaineil •' ' pl^^^^' the one under whom John and Jesus were born, and who soon afterward died, was succeeded by his son Plerod as ruler of part of his father's dominions, with the titles, king and tet- rarch; and that the Herod who beheaded James was a grand- son of the first, made king by Claudius Cjesar. As to the rulers of Judea, we learn that Archelaus who succeeded his father Herod as king of that pait of the ancestral dominion, was deposed by the Romans when lie had reigned only ten years, and governors, or more ])ropcrly jn'ocurators, were appointed to rub.' over Judea. Pilate was the fifth of these in succes- sion. Afterward the Herod who appears as king at the time of the death of James was made king as a personal favor by Claudius Cfesar ; but at the death of Herod the coiuitry was again j)la(^ed under procurators, of whom Felix was one. .\s to the Augu.stu8 Csesar who npiKurs in the narratives of Luke as if ho was dead and yet tdivr agnin, we learn that the emperor called Augustus in the second instance was Nero, who bore the tith' Ca'sar Augustus Nero, and that his flat- terers frequently styh-d him Augustus. NEW TKSTAMENT BOOKS. 17 In the writings of Lnkcund Jolm we find another allusion, i^j'^;;jjj^j; pr,rtly of a political and partly of a religious character, which 'ihJ'hVgh furnishes similar evidence. It is the allusion to the high {i[e''sub- prieslhood of Annus and Caiaphas. Luke (iii. 2) represents ^'''^'" the two as being high priests at the same time, although the law of Moses allowed only one man at a time to occupy the office. He also, in another place, mentions the two together, calling Annas the high priest, and omitting the title from the name of Caiaphas (Acts v. G). John indirectly recognizes Annas in the same light by representing the band that ar- rested Jesus as taking him to Annas first, and adding the remark that Caia])has, the son-in-law of Annas, was *' high priest that year," as if the high priest was appointed annually (xviii./lo. See also xi. 49). Inasmuch as the high priest was ap- pointed for life, and there could be l)ut one at a time, these two writers appear to have I'allen into two mistakes in these allusions, and the charge that they have done so has been used as proof that these three books were written by men so ignor- ant of Jewish affairs as to suppose that there might be two high priests at om; time, and that the office was filled annually. But it so happens that Josephus, in his elaborate account of Jewish afiiiirs, furnishes facts which exj)lain these apparently incorreot allusions, and .show them to be strictly accurate. From him we learn that Annas was the rightful high priest by inheritance in the direct line from Aaron, but that he had been unlawfully deposed by Valerius Gratus, Pilate's prede- cessor, who appointed first one and then another in his place ; and of these Joseph Caiaphas was the fourth (Ant. xviii. 2, 2). Under these circumstances there were two high priests, one holding the office by right of succession, a right which could not be disregarded by those who feared (iod, and the other exercising the functions of the office by virtue of military interference. The representations of Luke and John are therefore in perfect harmony with the facts. As to the re- mark that Caiaphas was high priest '' that year," it is justilied by statements of Josephus, that Valerius Grains, after ap- ])ointing his first successor to Annas deprived him of the of- fice " in ;i little tiino," and that his next two appointments 18 CREDIBILITY OF THE were made at intervals of one year each. It was this rapid and unlawful succession of appointments to the office which both suggested and justiBed the remark. aUeged ^^ *^^'^ Uniform accuracy of allusions to political aifairs tums^' there are two apparent exceptions, which have been set forth by unbelievers as historical blunders. The first is the state- the^n^ ment of Luke concerning an enrollment ordered by Augustus und™r^"" Csesar just previous to the birth of Jesus, and the consequent li"'""' journey ot Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (Luke ii. 1-5). Three points of objection have been urged which are worthy of consideration : First, it is said that tiiere is no evidence other tlian Luke's statement, that Augustus issued such a decree. This objec- tion is without force; for it consists in nothing more than an array of the silence of other writers against the positive state- ment of Luke, and this, too, when the silence is accounted for by the consideration that other writers had no such occasion for mentioning it, and no occasion at all that we know of. Second, Luke represents the enrollment as having been made when Quirinius was governor of Syria, w-hereas it appears from Josephus that he was not governor of Syria till after the deposition of Archelaus, which occurred not less than ten years subsequent to the birth of Jesus.' It is here alleged that in connecting it with the birth of Jesus he has made a chronological mistake. But a careful inspection of Luke's language shows that he connects only the issuing of the de- cree, and the l)eginning of its enforcement in Judea, with the birth of Jesus; and that only the making of the enri)llment as a whole is connected with the governorship of Quirinius. Moreover, the statement, "This first enrollment was made when ('Quirinius was governing Syria," is parenthetical, and it indicates a distinction in time between the issuing of the decree and the making of the enrollment. Now, if Luke's contemporaries knew that there was an interval of ten years between the issuing of this decree and its general execution in the empire, but tliat it was partially executed, at least in Judea, at tlie time it was issued, no thought of a chntnologi- ' A)iliq>iilirs, xvii. 13, 2; xviii. 1, 1. NEW TESTAMENT HOOKS. 19 cal mistake could have occured to them on reading this pas- sage ; and as it so happens that we are in posst?&siou of this knowledge given by Luke, no such thouglit should occur to us.' Third, it is urged that the execution of the decree could not have reipiired Joseph and other Jews, as stated by Luke, to go every man to his own ancestral city. Probably this is true as respects the letter of the decree itself; ImiI cer- tainly such a procedure was not forbidden in the decree ; and if the Jewish polity required it, it is most unreasonable to pro- nounce it incredible. That the Mosaic law of inheritance, coupled with the restoration of lands which had been sold, at the end of every fifty years, to the heirs of the original owners, required a registry to be kept in every town of the land-owners in the vicinity, is a well known fact ; and this to- gether with the fondness of the Jews from other considera- tions for keeping tlieir genealogies, is sufficient to account for the circumstance, without supposing that there was anything said about it in tlie decree. The fact that Joseph took Mary with him in her present condition, may be accounted for, either because he wanted her under his immediate care in the trial through which she was about to pass, or because, being an heiress with a ])rospective interest in the ancestral inherit- ance, it was needful that her name be enrolled as well as his. There is certainly nothing so strange in this circum^stance as to justify a doubt of its credibility. The second of the two allusions which are held to be mis-(?^"*<^ the Mme takes, is that in the speech of Gamaliel (Acts v. 36, 37) to the^^^Theu- c:\rcers of Theudas and Judas of Galilee. In this passage Theudas is represented as j)receding Judas of Galilee, whereas Josephus describes a Theudas whose career was quite similar, but who figured much later than Judas.* It is charged that the author of Acts put this speech into the lips of Gamaliel, Theudas not having yet figured when the speech is sjiid to have been made; and that in doing so he betrays the fraud by his chron(doi;ieal blunder. But this charge depends alto- ^ For a more olahnrato dificiission C. Cook, Sprnkrr'x Commrntnr!/, i)i of tliis question, jiro aiul row,] sor h^t^o, and authors thore referred ti>. '^trnuss, AV/r Life, i\. '2'2-2(); and V. ^ .[nlir/ititir.t, xviii. 1, 1.: xx. ■">, 1. 20 CREDIBILITY OF THE gether on the identity of the Theudas mentioned by Luke with the one mentioned by Josephus. If there may have l)een an earlier Theudas, answering to the account given by Gamaliel, then Luke may be accurate both in his facts and his chronology. Now it so happens that Josephus, though he mentions no other Theudas as heading an insurrection, docs mention a number of insurrections occurring at the right period to suit the remark of Gamaliel, without mentioning their leaders. He says of the period just preceding the de- position of Archelaus: "Now at that time there were ten thousand other disorders in Judea, which were like tumults, l)ecause a great number put themselves in a warlike posture, either out of hopes of gain to themselves, or out of enmity to the Jews;" and more directly to the point, he says: "And now Judea was full of robberies ; and as the several c(»mpan- ies of the seditious lighted upon any one to lead them, he was created a king immediately, in order to do mischief to the public." ' Tiiat one of these loaders may have been named Theudas is not at all improbable in itself; and when we have the statement of a veracious writer that he was, it is a most unjust procedure, in the absence of all conflicting evi- dence, to charge him witli error. No ordinarily veracious writer, not a Bible writer, would be so charged, fhis^ev?-' This unfailing accuracy, often appearing in the midst of dence. •what at first seems to be confusion and contradiction, not only evinces the historical reliability of the New Testament writers, but it shows, by the absence of explanation where explanation to us of a later age seems needed, that they were con- scious of telling a story w'hich would be rocognized as true by the peoj)le of their own generation — a story which needed no bolstering up in order to sustain itself. Tf they had writ- ten, as has been alleged, in a later generation, they would have felt the necessity of many explanations whi'-h they have omitted, an rpprosented as giving utterance to this expectation. They had fixed upon the place of his birth (Matt. ii. 4-6) ; they expected him to be a son of David (xxii. 41-43) ; they thought that he would settle all difficult questions (J no. iv. 25) ; that he would restore the kingdom of David (Acts i. 6) ; and that he would abide forever (Juo. xii. 32-34). Now the existence of this expectation among the Jews, thus tacitly assumed by the New Testament writers, is formally asserted by at least three secular writers of that period. Josephus says that one reason why the Jews were bold enough to undertake a war with the Romans, was that there was an oracle found in their sacred writings to the effect that about that time one from their country would become ruler of the habitable earth. He claims that the oracle was fulfilled in Vespasian, who was called from the command of the Roman army in Judea to be emperor of Rome; but this is an evidence at once of his un- belief in Jesus, and of his willingness to flatter the emperor who had bestowed on him many signal favors.' Suetonius says : "An ancient and settled opinion had prevailed throughout the whole East, that fate had decreed that at that time persons proceeding from Judea should become masters of the world. This was foretold, as the event afterward proved, of the Roman emperor ; but the Jews applied it to themselves, and this was the cause of their rebellion."- Tacitus says : "The greater number believed that it was written in the ancient books of the priests, that at that very time the East should '"Hut now what nf IV. «/»';.«(<(», Sec. 4. or in .Tu tradi- tion of the elders; but neither tells what the tradition (»f the elders is ; and to this day commentators and critics are dependent on the statements of Josephus for a definition. He confirms what these writers say, and at the same time explains it by saying, " The Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that rea- son it is that the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to esteem the observances to be obligatory which are in (he writ- ten word, but not to observe what aTc derived from the tnuli- 26 CREDIBILITY OF THE tioii of our forefathers. And eouceruing these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, aud have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side" (Ant., xiii. 10. 6). The popular influence of the Pharisees here alluded to by Josephus is repeatedly affirmed by him, and it constitutes another point of coincidence. He says that the Pharisees have so great power over the multitude, that when they say anything against the king, or against the high priest, they are presently believed" (xiii. 10. 5). He says again, that "on account of their doctrines they are able to greatly j)ersuade the body of the people ; and that whatsoever the latter do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform according to their directions" (xviii. 1. 3). This is precisely the kind of influence that is ascribed to them in the !New' Testament. Jesus devoted the whole speech recorded in the twenty-third chapter of Matthew to an effort to break down their influence ; while John says they had agreed to exclude from the synagogues in Jerusalem every one who should con- fess that Jesus was the Christ, and that at one time many of the rulers believed on Jesus, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him lest they should be put out of the synagogue (ix. 13, 22; xii. 42). As to the more prominent differences between the parties, concerning angels, spirits and the resurrection of the dead, the joint testimony of the two .sets of writers is equally explicit.' Geo- IV. One of the greatest difficulties in the way of histori- graphical , .... . , n ' \ • ^ i aHusions. cal composition, IS the maintenance ot geographical and often in- ' . . . ., . , , accuruti;. to|)ographical accuracy, liiis is strikingly true when a writer attempts to describe events which transpired in a country with which he is not thoroughly familiar. When the Encyclopedia Brittanica, for example, was first published, although its Some ex- articles were written by experts in the several departments, it amp 68. ^.^j^^jjjj^g,.| j.f, ,iiany blunders of this kind in regard to places in America, that the pul)lishers of its rival, the New American Cyglopedia, issued a pamphlet of considerable size, containing ' Matt. xxii. '_':'>; Acts xxiii. S; cf. .1/''. xviii. 1. :i, 4. NK\\ TKSTAMKNT BOOKS. 27 a list of these blunders. A more uotahle instance is found in the Germania of Taeitus. So many and .so serious are liis mistakes in the geography of Germany, that some scholars have doubted whether a work so erroneous could have been written bv an author of his known reliability.' Jo.sephus, though a native of Palestine, and familiar from his early days with every part of it, especially with Jeru.salem and Galilee, makes .some prodigious misstatements in regard to both of the.se localities. He says, for instance, of the outer wall of the temple, that " the lowest part of it was erected to the height of three hundred cubits, and in some places more ; " whereas it is known by the observations of modern explorers that the highest part of it could never have been half that high. He also says, with greater exaggeration, that such was the height of the battlement on the .southern end of this wall, that if one standing on top looked down into the valley " his sight could not reach to such an immense depth." Again, he says of Galilee, that " the cities in it lie very thick, and that its villages arc everywhere so full of people, that the very least of them contains above fifteen thousand inhabitants."^ But the most remarkable of these classes of mistakes are A fl'^^ those vet to be mentioned — those of writers who have visited""''''' Palestine for the express })urpuse of describing its localities for the in.structions of others. It is notorious that a consider- able part of the ta.sk of every writer who visits that country consists in correcting the topographical mistakes of his predeces.sors. And even the guide books written by scholars with the most minute attention to details, with a view to enabling the tourist to find his way to every spot without the aid of a living guide, are more or less characterized by .similar errors. The author u.sed in his tour of Palestine the very best of these, and its accuracy was a con.stant source of gratifi- cation ; but in a few instances it was found at fault, esj)ecially in the points of the compass, and the relative order of the location of villages. In the New Testament no .-ueh mistakes are found. ' Encyclopedia Brittanita, An. •' U-n^, v. '>. i; I/-', x\. 11. •"> ; TacUu«. Wars, iii. :*>. L'. 28 CREDIBrLITV OF THE N.'i^^i'r ^^'hcthcr its writers speaiv of their own or of foreign lands, they .orrect. gi^vavs speak with faultless accuracy, so that their argus-eyed critics for two thousand years have not been abh^ to detect them in an error.' This accuracy extends not only to the relative location of places, and to the points of the compass, but to the most minute details, even to the relative elevations of places mentioned in the narratives, (^ne of the most diffi- cult things in the experience of a traveler is to remember, as he passes from one place to another, whether he has come up or down. Indeed, there are few persons who can say of places not far from their own homes, whether it is up or down to them, unless there is a very striking difference in the level. But in this particular the New Testament writers, and the same may be said of the Old Testament writers, are never at fault. The man who fell among robbers was going " down to Jericho " (Luke x. 30) ; everybody went " up to Jeru- salem " (Matt. XX. 17, 18; Luke xix. 28, 29; Acts xi. 2, XV. 2 ; Gal. i. 17) ; they went " dow7i to Gaza" (Acts viii. 26) ; " down to Cjesarea " (ix. 30) ; "doion to Lydda " (ix. 32) ; " down to Antioch " (xi. 27) ; and so with equal accuracy of every other place. How impossible it would be for writers who were not very familiar with the country to do this, can at once be realized if the reader will imagine himself describing the movements of men from place to place in Palestine, and noting when they go up and when they go down. ' The author of " Supernatural that there was no Bethany beyoiul Kehgion " attempts to break the the Jordan ; an assumption which force of this evidence by asserting claims knowledge where the author that there arc several geographical possesses none. Again, h^asserts errors in the (Jospel of John; but incorrectly that John locates -Knon he makes only two specifications, * near to Salem in Judea; and bi- both of whii'h are errors on his own cause the place was quite unknown part. He cliarges that the writer in the third century, he thinks that of this Gospel, in speaking of a there is here another blunder. But Bethany beyond Jordan where the place has been recently identi- John was baptizing, either referred tied by Capt. Clonder, as all persons to the Betliaiiy near Jerusalem and know who are acquainted with mistook its position, or invented a Palestine exploration literature, second Bethany, and thus displayed and thus another false charge is an ignorance improbable in a Jew. refuted. (See 'Vu;;. ftW., ii. 417, 418). I'nt this is MwsuminL' without proof NKW TKSTAMKNT BOOKS. 29 These faets not only establish for the New Testament writers YS^^*^ ':' •' this evi a character for accuracy and closeness of observation above ^^""• that of other men, but they suggest the question, How were they able to maintain an accuracy so unprecedented ".' If the fact does not prove that they enjoyed supernatural guidance, it points, at least, in that direction. CHAPTER IV. ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN JOHN AND THE SYNOPTISTS. * tlr"ev-'' -^^^ severest test to which writers, concerned like those of dence. [[^g New Testament with a common series of events, can be sub- jected, is a careful comparison of their statements one with another. Contradictions between them are certain to be found, unless all are thoroughly informed in regard to all particulars and unfailingly accurate in detailing them. So dif- ficult is it to avoid sucli contradictions, that when they occur in reference to minor details they are not considered inconsist- ent with the degree of authenticity which belongs to first- class writers. When, however, the contradictions between two or more writers are numerous, and when they affect the more important events of Avhich tiiey speak, this is demon- strative proof that one or more of them is unreliable. On the other hand, when a number of such writers are proved to have written independently of one another, and are found to be free from contradictions, the facts which they state in common possess the highest degree of credibility. If, in addition to this, there are found numerous incidental agreements l)etween them, the evidence of authenticity is the most conclusive known to human testimony, coml^^ou Strong as this kind of evidence is when it assumes the form last mentioned, it is nevertheless more frequently and effectively (Muployed in exposing the claims of inauthentic documents than in establishing the claims of those that are authentic. For this reason it has always been the choice weapon of the enemies of the New Testament. So many and so serious are the charges of eontradietion which have hecMi iis( NEAV TESTAMENT BOOKS. 31 preferred against the various writers of this, book, that we think it proper to consider tlicse before we take up the evidence from this source which is in their favor. As regards the evidence set forth in the preceding chapters of this Part, there is no serious controversy between believers and un- believers; but that which we are about to consider has been, and still is, very warmly contested, and it demands very careful attenti(»n. It is not practicable in this volume, nor is it needful for tln' j)urpose of settling the question, that we con- sider all the specifications which are made under this head. It is only necessary to consider those on which unbelief chiefly relies; for by these the controversy is to be settled. The alleged contradictions may be classified as follows: I. Those between the Gospel of John and the other three, called the Synoptic Gospels; II. Those between the several Synoptic Gospels; III. Those between Acts of Apostles and other Books. Before we take up these allegations for special considera-^. c?ntra- i r> I diction tion, it is necessary that we state very clearly what is meant '^*^'i"^^ by a contradicton. Two statements are contradictory not when they differ, but when they can not both be true. If, on any rational hypothesis, we may suppose them both to be true, we can not rightfully pronounce them contradictory. We are not bound to show the truth of the given hypothesis; but only that it may be true. If it is all possible, then it is possible that no contradiction exists; if it is probable, then it is prob- able that no contradiction exists; and the degree of the latter probal)ility is measured by that of the former. This being true, it follows that an omission by one writer of a fact which in a full account would have been mentioned, and is mentioned by another, is not a contradiction. It shows that the writer who makes the omission does not give a full account ; but throws no suspicion on the aut^her by whom the fact is men- tioned.' It follows, also, that when there is an appearance of '"Till' omis- ami ilrscribintr tin- 32 CREDIBILITY OF THE ^J"^^^^"*'^ contradiction between two writers, common justice requires them. ^i^j^^ before we pronounce one or both of them false we should exhaust our ingenuity in searching for some probable supposition on the ground of which they may both be true. The better the general reput;ition of the writers, the more im- perative is this obligation, lest we condemn as false tliose who are entitled to respectful consideration. With these rules of common justice to guide ns, we now take up for separate examination the three classes of alleged contradictions which we have named. A former I. In Part II. we have already considered two of the alleged rcfGrciicc to this inconsistencies between John and the Synoptic Gospels (pages 148-151), and we stated that all the others were based on false assumptions. We aro now to see whether this statement can be made good. In testing it we shall omit for the present all that pertains to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, re- serving these for separate consideration. Theomis- There are two verv prominent events mentioned in John's sion of - ' two not- Gospel which are discredited because thev are not mentioned able mir- A acies by j^^. j^j^y other writer. These are the healing of the man born the byn- -J o optists. blind, and the raising of Lazarus. They are discredited, not merely because they are omitted by other writers, but because it is alleged that they are so much more convinc- ing than the wonders mentioned by the Synoptists, that the latter would certainly have used them if they had heard of them and believed them.' It is a sufficient answer to this to remark that the other writers adopted plans for their narra- tives which involved the omission from them of the visits to Jerusalem with which those two miracles are connected, and whicli limited their accounts of the miracles of Jesus almost exclusively to those wrought in Galilee. The mention of these two would have required a reconstruction of their plans. Furthermore, one of the reasons for which they adopted such great eruption of Vesuvius, the laneum and Pompeii." (Lee, /rwipi- earfhquake, and the showers of ration, 255). ashes that issued from the volca- ' Sup. Rel, ii. 461-464 ; Strauss, noe, makes no alhision whatever New Life, u. 22'.\\ Francis Newman, to the sudden overwhehiiing of two Phmrn of Faith, 117. larjfc and populous cities. Hercu- NEU' TESTAMENT ROOKS. ad plans may have been that these two miracles were so well known by those whom they looked to as their first readers that they thoiii^ht it well to omit these and record others less familiar. Certainly the miracles wrought in Jerusalem and made subjects of public discussion there, were more familiar 10 the first converts of the Apostles than tiiose wrought in the remote districts of Galilee. As the omission, then, can be accounted for by the great notoriety of these two miracles, as well as by the plans of the writers, it certainly affords no ground for suspicion that they were not known at ail. Another event mentioned by John, not so suspicious, and-^^,^/!* «^; not miraculous, is treated in the same way. It is the arraign- Jj^.f.'r"^'* ment of Jesus before Annas, who is said to have sent him to •^"""=^- Caiaplias (John xviii. 13, 24), and, as alleged, the location of Peter's denial iu the court of Annas.^ As to the former, its mere omission from the other narratives is no evidence against its reality; it is only an additional piece of information fur- nished by John which is perfectly harmonious with that fur- nished by the other writers. As to the latter, it is not true that John represents the denial as taking place before Annas. A careful reading of the passage will show that John de- scribes no proceedings at all in the " court of Annas." He says, at verse 13, that the officers led Jesus to Annas first, and that the latter was father-in-law to "Caiaphas, who was high priest that year." He distinctly calls Caiaphas the high priest, and does not give that title to Annas. He next repre- sents himself as being known to the high priest, meaning Caiaphas, and as being cmboldcnd by that circumstance both to enter the court and to ask the portress to admit I'eter. He was then in the court of Caiaphas, and it appeal's to have been in that very court that the officers had led Josus to Annas. Annas, being father-in-law to Caiaphas, may very naturally have been found in the court of the latter that mornini;, especially ns Caiaphas had some business on hand in which his father-in-law was as deeply interested as himself. Furthermore, the very next step in the pn/ceedings men- tioned by John, the interrogation of Jesus about his disciples 'Straus-, y.ir Lifr. ii. :un. 347. 34 CREDIBILITY OF THE and his teaching, was conducted by "the high priest," the title which John applies exclusively to Caiaphas. To show that by "the high priest" all through this account he meant Caiaphas, he says " Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high pi'iest.'^ There is, then, not the slightest discrepancy between the writers ; and (he only difFeronce between them is that John introduces the comparatively un- important circumstance that when Jesus was led into the pal-* ace of Caiaphas he was presented before Annas first. This was done by the officers for the very natural purj)ose of show- ing respect to the one who was their rightful high priest, but who had been unlawfully deprived of his office by military power. om'?s*sioiis While an attempt has been made to thus discredit these three by John, incidents in John's narrative on account of their absence from the other Gospels, on the other hand some facts recorded in the latter have been discredited because not mentioned by John. The most conspicuous of these, which must stand as representatives of all, are the Temptation of Jesus (Strauss, ii. Ill, 112) ; his Transfiguration (Sup. Rel., ii. 461) ; his Agony in the Garden (Strauss, ii. 333) ; the darkness attending the Crucifixion (Sup. Rel., iii. 422-424) ; the other miracles con- nected with the Crucifixion mentioned by Matthew alone {ib., 425); and the expulsion of demons by Jesus {ih., ii. 461; Strauss, ii. 191). In order to see how groundless is this objection, we have only to consider the ])eculiar ])lan of John's Gospel. The sin- First wc notice its peculiarity as respects chronology. cbronoi- ^Vhile John's is the onlv Gos|)el that is chronological tliroueh- ogy of • 1 & to "Gospel "''*' *'^^ incidents which it records are confined to a very small number of days, with wide gaps between them. Its first group of events, extending to the eleventh ver.se of the second chap- ter, occurred in the space of four days. The n(!Xt group, ex- tending to iii. 21, oc(:u])ie(l a few days in Capernaum without incident, and a Pas.sover week in Jeru.salem. During the next twelve months, if the feast mentioned in v. 1 is a passover, there is nothing recorded except his bajjlizing in Judea (iii. 22), his jniirncy to (JMlilee (iv. 3-43), with two days in NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 35 Sychar, and one day, a sabbath, in Jerusalem (v. 10). We next find a perfect blank of twelve months (v. 1 — vi. 4), and this is iblK)we •' ilctiuls of Luke in respect to the removal of the bodv of Jesus from thoj.''^''"*''' • loss. John .states that the Jews requested Pilate to have thej'/j^i^,^^, ^^j legs of the bodies broken, and the bodies taken away; while •'*^'''"'*- Mark says that Joseph asked Pilate for the body of Jesus; that Pilate wondered if he were already dead; inquired of the centurion if it were so; and then granted the body to Josoj)h. It is argued tiiat this liesitation on Pilate's i)art is impossible if ho l)as to be removed (Strauss^ ii. .^!)^ ; Smj). IJel., iii. \'M). 40 CREDIBILITY OF THE The impossibility is not apparent. The affirmation of it is based on the assumption that when Pilate gave the order to break the legs of the bodies and remove them, he knew that Jesus was dead ; but the text does not so affirm, neither is such knowledge implied in the order. The breaking of the legs was evidently intended to extinguish what life might yet remain in the bodies, and the order for it rather implies that none of them was supposed to be yet dead. When, therefore, Joseph came in, and asked for the dead body of Jesus, there is no ground of surprise that Pilate inquired whether lie was dead, before granting the request. His hesitation evidently grew out of the fact that it was a friend of Jesus who pre- ferred the request, and it was important to keep that body out of such hands until its life was certainly extinct. It is only the circumstance that Mark omits the request of the Jews for the removal of the bodies which furnishes appai'ent room fir this fallacious argument. The proximity of the place of crucifixion to the palace of Pilate made it quite possible for Josi'ph's interposition to take place between the death of Jesus and the time at which the soldiers would have taken the body from the cross, especially if the centurion had chosen to leave that task to him after learning that hv had applied for the privilege. 4. In 4. Perhaps the most remarkable of the class of alleged referonec * , , . . , ^ . , »oe"V discrepancies now under consideration is that respecting the the body several accounts of the embalming of the body of Jesus. It of Jesus. . is stated by the author of "Supernatural Religion" in the following words: "According to the first Gospel, there is no embalmment at all ; according to the second and third (tOs- pels, the embalmment is undertaken by the women, and not by Joseph and Nicodemus, l)ut is never curried out ; according to the fourth Gosjiel, the emlialinment is completed on Friday evening by Joseph and Xicotlemus, and not by the women. According to the first Gospel, the burial is completed on Friday evening; according to the second and third, it is only provisional; and according to the fourth, the embalmment is final, but it is doubtful whether the entombment is final or proN-i-ional ; and ai-eoidiurr to the fourth, the embalmment ia NKW TKsrAMKXT H day of preparation for the sal)bath ; and by the sabbath they mean. not the first day of the feast, as some have supposed, but the weekly sabbath of the passover week. Of this we may be sure from the lact that neither the first day nor the last day of the feast, though each was a day of holy convocation and of rest from servile labor, is ever in the Scripture called a sab- bath.' If it be asked why this sabbath was preceded by a ' Strauss, Nev) Life, ii. 307, 308; leavened Uread, was a sabbath, on liaur, Ch. Hist., i. 174. whicli the sabbath law of rest was 'It is surprising that so careful especially bindinpr (Exod xii. Ki ; a scholar as Westcott should be Lev. xiii. 7)." It is not called a mistaken, here, and should make sabbath in either of the passa>res the lf)nowing remark and citations: cited. The same author further "This day. tlie first day of tin- says: " To those fiMniliar by cxper- 46 CREDIBILITY OF THE prep iratiou tlay, wo answer that, like the limitation of a sab- bath day's journey to seven furlongs, it was a custom of the Jews unauthorized by the law. That such a custom did exist, we have further evidence from Josephus. He copies a decree of Augustus Ciesar intended for the protection of the Jews, in wliich occurs the provision, " that they be not obliged to go before any judge on the sabbath day, nor on the day of the preparation to it, after the ninth hour" {Ant. xvi. 6, 2). There is a parallel to this custom in the preparation day observed by some of the modern sects for their observance of the Lord's supper. Now John, instead of contradicting the Synoptists on this point, uses the same ])hraseology with the same meaning. He too calls the day of the crucifixion ''the preparation," and "the ])reparation of the passover ; " and he indicates that he means the pr('2)aration for tlie sabbath, and not for the feast, by saying: "The Jews, therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies might not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away " (xix. 14, 81), Thus liir, then, there is perfect agreement between John and the other writers, the refii- ^^y^, ,jgxt Consider the three statements of John which are sal of the i-n'ter'"*" ^G^^ to bc Contradictory to the other writers. First, his house ex- '^^^^^^'"''"^ that thosc wlio led Jesus to Pilate entered not into plained; t|ie prjctorium, " that tliey might not be defiled, but might eat the passover" (xviii. 28). It is only by forgetting a pro- vision of the law which no Jew could ever forget that this remark can be understood of eating the j^asohal supper. This provision is that a person unclean from any other source than a (had Ixxly or leprosy could bc cleansed by sunset the same day, i)y washing his clothes and bathing his Hesh, and ience with .lewisli usapes, as all the the fact, as do all otliers who F-van^re lists imist have been, the agree with him about the day, tiint whole narrative of the crucifixion, the " iucidentH of work " alludey the day was the fifteenth." ( fptnuhir- .Tows. tinn In fUmprh. ?>?>^). Tic ovcrloDks NEW TEsrAMKNT HOOKS, 47 remaining uncleau until tin- evening. (Lev. xv. 1-24; xvi. 26, 28; xvii. 15, 16). In reality, entering the house of a Gen- tile not did render one uncleau according to the law; it was only tradition which made it so; and it could not deprive one of eating tlie paschal supper on the following night, because the prescribed process of purification was completed before sunset. Unquestionably, then, the eating here referred to by John was some other than that of the paschal lamb, and it was to occur before sunset that day.' What eating is really meant we may not be able to discover; but this can not alter the fact that it was not the eating of the paschal lamb. If the remark had reference to the priests, and this may be its reference, seeing that John uses the indefinite "they" and the chief priests were certainly the persons who dealt with Pilate (28, 35), the law itself furnishes a probable explana- tion. It provides that on this first day of the feast the priests should offer ten burnt offerings, each accompanied by its proper meal offering, amounting in all to an ephah and a half, or about a bushel and a half of fine flour made up into bread, all of which was to be eaten by the priests. In addition to this, one he goat was offered as a sin offering, all of the flesh of which must also be eaten (Num. xxviii. 16- 23). It is probable that it became customary to call this consumption of holy food, which was peculiar to the passover feast, " eating the passover." It would be easily distin- guished from eating the paschal lamb, by observing the day of the feast to which reference is made. If this is not the eating referred to in the passage before us, we are left to the 'When Westcott says (Lit. to Wieseler, Ebrard replies: "toliave G'o.>»/)eb, 337), " Nothing but the de- entered the house of a Gentile termination to adapt these words would certainly liave rendereE\V TESTAMKXT SCRIPTURES. expression, " the feast of the passover," which was itself a supper. The words, "and during supper," beginning the sentence next after the mention of the feast of the passover, can refer only to the paschal supper. It is as if one sliould speak of the feast of Christmas, or of Thanksgiving, and should add. And during dinner so and so occurred ; or as if, after mentioning a wedding, he should add. And during sup- per so and so occurred. No one could tliink, in these cases, of any other dinner than the Christmas or the Thanksgiving dinner; of any other supper than the wedding supper. So, in the present instance, no one w'ould think of any other than the paschal supper, from the mere reading of the passage itself. The thought of another is read into the passage; it is not sug- gested by it. On the contrary, the passage represents the events following as occurring at the paschal supper, and the account is in perfect harmony, as respects time, with Synoptic accounts of the same supper.^ ' For opposite views of the time Sec. 92 ; Wcstcott's Introduction. of the Last Supper, andtheauthori- 3o5-o41; Alford's Commentary in ties on the subject, ancient and loco. modern, see Ebrard, Gospel History, CHAPTER V. ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. II. Having discussed the specifications of contradiction between John's Gospel und the Synoptics, we now tuke up those in which the latter are said to contradict one another. 1. From the days of Celsus, the first infidel writer, till tlie-^^toihe •' ' _ ^ genealo- present day, the genealogies of our Lord given by Matthew eies. and Luke have furnished material for objections to the Gospel narratives. It was acknowledged even then that they present some difficulties of interpretation, but the ever varying objections of unbelief have from that day to this been success- fully answered.' We shall state and answer briefly those most commonly urged in modern times; and though not in the direct line of the present chapter, some that are directed against Mattlu'w alone. It is said, first, that Matthew delibcratelv leaves out the Mat. ■ thew's names of four kings between David and Jechoniah, which is "^'m's- I 1 • 1 1 sions true; second, that inasmuch as the period between Jechoniah ' " In finding fault with our in a skillful manner against tlic Lord's fjt'nealogy, there are certain credihiHty of Scripture. Btit he points which oeca^ion some (hflicnl- asserts that tlie framers of the ty even to Christians, and whitli, genealogies, from a feeling of pritr I. if,, ii. 21. :,<; CREDIBILITY OF THE l)oru in Bethlehem; Mark does not say where ho was born; therefore Mark contradicts both Luke and Matthew. As to the 3. The next alleged contridiction, taken in order of time, Egypt!" ° is that between Matthew and Luke about the movements of Joseph soon after the birth of Jesus. Luke represents him as taking the child, at the end of forty days, to Jerusalem for presentation in the temple ; and he says that " when they had accomplished all things that were according to the command- ment of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth " (ii. 22-39, comp. Lev. xii. 1-4). It is claimed that if this preceded the flight into Egypt (the only tenable supposition), the latter incident, and the coming of the wise men which led to it, are contradicted by Luke's assertion that from the temple they went immediately back to Nazareth.' But unfortunately tor this assertion, Luke does not say that they went " immediately" back to Nazareth, He uses no adverb of time, and no expression of any kind to indicate how soon the return to Nazareth took place. The interval, wliether long or short, is passed over in silence, and it may therefore have been either a long one or a short one. There is nothing to prevent the interval from being long enough for the arrival of the magi, the flight into Egypt, and the return therefrom. The accounts do "admit of being in- corporate into one another," and therefore there is no contra- diction between them. In the 4. Tn the accounts by Matthew and liuke of the healing 'eim/ri- of the ccnturion's servant there are two apparent discrep- vaiiV"^' ancies which have been habiiually treated by unfriendly critics as contradictions. First, Matthew says that the centurion " came to him, beseeching him, and saying. Lord, my servant lieth in the house sick of the palsy, grievously tormented ; " while Luke says that he sent unto Jesus " elders of the Jews, asking him that he would come and save his servant." Second, Matthew says that when Jesus proposed to go to the house and heal the servant, the centurion said, " Tvord, I am not wortliy that thou shouldst come under my roof;" wliile Luke says ti)at when Jesus was now not far ' Strauss, Nnr TJfr, ii. 02; Newmtui, Plm^rn of F'litli, 7!l. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 57 from the house, tlie crnturion * sent irieuds to him, saying to him. Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that tliou shouidst come under my roof." This should never have occasioned the least trouble to any one inclined to do justice to the two writers. It is one of the most common features of condensed narration to represent a man as saying what he says til rough another who speaks in his name. This is what Matthew does in his condensed account of this cure ; while Luke, wishing to bring out in the boldest relief the great faith of the centurion, and in connection with it two traits of his character left out of view by Mattliew, his generosity and his liberality, names the messengers through whom he prefers his request, and quotes from their lips the statement, " He is worthy that thou shouldst do this for him: for he loveth our nation, and himself built us our synagogue." His faith is brought out fully by the fact that he in the first place thought himself unworthy to come in person to speak to Jesus, and in the second place thouglit himself unworthy that Jesus should come under his roof. The latter he did not think of (ill Jesus was already near his house, when he began to realize what was about to take place, and shrank from it. This appearance of discrepancy, then, like so many others, grows entirely out of the more laborate account given by one of the writers, in carrying out the ditferent purpose for which he mentions the incident. 5. There are several instances in which Matthew siieaks -vs to the -, ... . i-iTii "limber or two persons or tilings in a transaction, while Luke and iieaied in -_,., ... i/>i some in- Mark in (lescribuig the same speak of only one ; and these^taiices. have been treated even by eminent critics as grave discrepan- cies. For example, Matthew says there were two demoniacs healed in the land of the Gadarenes (viii. 28) ; two blind men healed at Jericho (xx. 30) ; and two asses brought to Jesus for his ride into Jerusalem (xxi. 7); while Mark and Luke men- tion only one in each instance. It is obvious at a glance that there is no contradiction here, and that the difference lies only in this, that Mark aner with the statement in indentical words: " And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives;" but then, as if they had forgotten an item and returned to it, they mention the prediction, and, resuming the thread of the narrative where it was broken, they say, "Then cometh Jesus with them to a place called Gethsem- ane," which place, as we know by the topography, was the first point at which they touched the mount of Olives. Really, then, the prediction, according to their accounts, took place within the room of the supper. (Matt. xxvi. 30-36 ; Mark xiv. 26-32.) .\8tothu As regards the terms of this prediction, all have it that time of " ^ ' rfeiu-ir ^^^^ three denials should occur before the cock should crow, except Mark, who has it, " Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." Now no two of the writers quote the words exactly alike; and this shows that at least three of them quot<' them freely, not giving the exact words. In such cases the most precise form, if any, is likely to be the exact one. In this instance, Mark's being the most precise, we may presume tliat he (piotes the very words of Jesus, and that the others quote the idea without aiming at exactness. The idea expressed in all is that the denial should take j)lace about the ' Strands. Xrn- l.ifr. ji '.Vl''>, .'>"_M. NFW TKSTA.MKNT MOORS. 61 time of coek-c rowing. XoW it i.s well known by every one who has often listened to this morning music, that almost iuvariablv an early cock crows, but is not answered for a while by others. After an interval another crows, then another, and finally there is a chorus from all the cocks in the neighborhood. Jesus located the three denials between the first two erowings and the general chorus; Mark reports him literally, while the others give the substance, but all indicate the same time. There is no contradiction, then, but only free quotations without change of the thought. 9. No two of the ()losi)els quote tlic in.scription on the As to im- .... , late'n ill- cross in precisely the same words, and here it is claimed that scription. we have anotlier contradiction. In order to see the exact amount of difference between the several quotations, we place them side by side. Matthew: This is Jesus the King of the Jews. Mark : The King of the Je\vs. Luke: This is the King of the Jews. John : Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews. At a glance it is seen that the essential part, that which constituted the accusaticm, that he claimeii to be " the King of the Jews," is the same, word for word and letter for letter, in all four, the difference being only in the way of designating the person who made the claim. In this there are three variations not differing at all in meaning, and two of them agreeing in all but the use and non-use of the name Jesus. In meaning, then, there is no difference whatever; and the slight difference in form may be accounted for either by supposing that all but one aimed only at qnotinu; the substance of the part designating the person, or that this ])art was variously written by Pilate himself liatin was doubtless his native tongue, and the Hebrew and Greek forms of the inscription were translations. At least two of the variations mav have been made by him or his scribe in translating, and another may have been made by one of the Evangelists in translating from his translation. Seeing, then, that the essential part is perfectly preserved by all, that tlie unessential part is pre- served without change of meaning by all, antl that there are 62 CREDIBILITY OF THE three ways of accouutiug for tli* slight verbal variations in the latter part wiihout charging either ignorance or inaccuracy on the writers, all appearance of contradiction passes away. As to the 10. Much more ])laiisiblc than the last is the charge of conduct i ° tuo^rob- contradiction between Matthew and Luke resi)ecting the con- bers. ^|yg^ towards Jesus of the robbers who were crucified with him. Matthew and Mark both say, in almost identical terms, that " the robbers that were crucified with him cast upon him the same reproach" (Matt, xxvii. 44; Mark xv. 32). Luke says that " one of the malefactors that were hanged railed on him," but that the other rebuked him, and called on Jesus to remem- ber him when he came into his kingdom. It is held that there is here a contradiction, and that the conduct ascribed to the penitent robber is incredible. Now if, as is very com- monly affirmed, Luke's statement had been that only one rob- ber railed at him,' the contradiction would be real ; but he does not so assert. He merely asserts that one of them did so, and was rebuked by his fellow ; and this is not inconsistent with the supposition that both had done so at an earlier moment. It can not be denied that Matthew and Mark may speak of what took place at the beginning, and Luke of what occurred at a later hour of the time spent on the cross. This being so, both of the robbers may have joined in the railing at first, and one may have continued it to the end, while the other may have ceased, and toward the close have rebuked his fellow. As this is possible, we must give the writers the benefit of it before we pronounce them contradictory. But this is not only possil>le, it is even probable ; for we can readily discover motives which w(!re likely to lead to this result on the part of the one who repented. In the first agonies of crucifixion, the consideration that it was the execu- tion of Jesus which led to their being crucified that day, most naturally excited the wrath of both against him, and caused them to echo the outcries of tiie mob. It was quite ' "According to the first and sec- is directly contradicted hv the third ondGofipels.the rol)her8 joined with Synoptist, who states that only one the chief priesta and scribes and of the malefactors did so." (Sup. ciders and those who passed by in Rd,, iii. tKii. niockin}^ and reviling Jesus. This NEW TESTAMENT HOOKS. 63 unnatural that one of them should oontiuue these outcries persistently ;. but it was most natural that, as the weary moments wore away, and unavoidable reflections about death and eternity came over them, in connection with the remem- brance of their past criminality, they should cease to reproach their fellow-sufferer, and turn their thoughts to God. Luke's representation as to one of them is just what we should ex- pect of both ; and instead of being surprised at the change which come over one, we should rather be surprised that it did not come over the other also. Indeed this is tiie very feeling expressed by the penitent robber himself: "Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condem- nation? and we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds ; but this man has done nothing amiss." Reflec- tion upon their own wickedness in contrast with the innocence of Jesus, and indignation at the continued obduracy of his fellow, are the two thoughts of this rebuke. Seeing, then, that this is a most rational hypothesis, suggested by the circumstances of the persons, the accounts are relieved of all ground for the charge of inconsistency, and the alleged con- duct of the penitent robber is thus far freed from all improbability. As to the appeal which he made to Jesus, "Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom," j^'J^^^}.'^'"' it is a much worthier ground for surprise than that he should [ainj not have railed at Jesus at first and afterward repented. It {'je'^^''^^' implies belief that Jesus was yet to come in his kingdom, though now he was in the agonies of death, and the petitioner believed that he would soon be dead. This belief, as has been truly remarked, transcended that of the apostles themselves.' Is it incredible? If not, how had the roi)ber acquired it? It is not incumbent on us to trace the process by which he had acquired it ; it is only necessary to show that it is jxtssi- ' " This I'xemplary rubber speaks AV/., iii. 41()). " Here then we have like an Apostle, and in prayinjj a criminal, who undoubtedly came Jesus as the Messiah to remember now for the first time into contact him when ho came into his king- with Jesus, undersfandinj; without dom, he shows much more th.an preliminary instruction thedoctrine npo-tolie appreciation of the claims of a sufTering and dying Messiah." and c'iara(Mer of Jesus." (Sup. (Strauss, .V. />., ii. 'Mb). 64 CREDIBIIJTV OF THE ble for hira to have done so. His remark to iiis fellow rob- ber, "This man has done nothing amiss," implies much pre- vious knowledge of Jesus ; for he could not have learned it by the events of that day, even had he been a free man. He must have learned it before his imprisonment. Even while he was carrying on his nefarious business of highway robbery, he may have mingled very often in the crowds which gathered about Jesus, and by this means become well instructed in his teaching. He may, indeed, have believed on him as many wicked men now believe ; and it is not going farther than facts often witnessed at the present day, to suppose that he had, under the influence of that faith, abandoned his course of crime before he was arrested and condemned for it. Such oi)portunities may certainly have been within his reach, and although they would scarcely enable him to understand the doctrine of the kingdom fully, they may have enabled him to form the conception of it expressed in his dying petition. It is not necessary to suppose that this conception was altogether correct. It probably was about this: that the kingdom which Jesus had failed to establish on earth he would, by some means and in some undefined way, establish in the spirit world into whicli he was about to enter. The thief may have had a very vague idea as to the nature of that kingdom, and yet, from the strong evidences which Jesus had given of his power and goodness, have believed that something called a kingdom would yet be established, and that, whatever it was, and wherever it was to be, there would be life and peace within it. In the greatest act of Ahraiiam's faith, his conception was a mistaken one; for he believed that God would raise up Isaac from the dead, whereas God did not intend that Isaac should die ; yet the faith of Abraham was the more highly com- mended on this very account. So, whatever may have been the dying robber's conception of the kingdom, he believed that Jesus, notwithstanding his death, would establish one, and this procured for him the blessing. After all, then, the repentance and faith of the penitent robber is not so wonder- ful as the obduracy of the one who continued to rail at the Son of God in the vi-ry agonies of his own death. NEW TESTAMKNT BOOKS, 65 We have now considered all of the alleged contradictions between our four (iospels which we think worthy of atten- tion in this work, except those in the accounts of the resur- rection. There are no others, I believe, that can not be disposed of as easily as we have disposed of these, and as sat- isfactorily; there are none which a thoughtful young person, after studying these, can not dispose of without assistance: we shall therefore turn next to some which are said to exist between the Gos])els and Acts of Apostles, and between me latter book and some of Paul's Epistles. CHAPTER VI. * ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN ACTS AND OTHER BOOKS. Acts There is no writer in the New Testament the oredibilitv tie reel y •■ assailed, ^f ^yhose Statements lias been so fiercely assailed by recent unfriendly critics as liave those of the author of Acts. We desire to give the charges of his enemies fair consideration, and to form an intelligent conclusion as to their merits. of^ratil'ii- Christian Baur, followed by later rationalists in general, ahsts. asserts that the design of the author was not to write a trutii- ful history, but to defend the Apostle Paul against the attacks and accusations of the Judaizing party, at the head of which they place the Apostle Peter; and that in carrying out this ))urpose he did not hesitate to falsify history when it suited him to do so.' They seek to sustain the charge of falsifying history by maintaining that he frequently contradicts both himself and other writers, especially the Apostle Paul. Wlicther the credibility of the book can be maintained depends on the reality of these alleged contradictions, and we shall now proceed to consider those whicli arc relied on most implicitly. I. Contradictions of Matthew and of himself. deatL'or*^ 1- ^^'^G first notice an alleged contradiction between Acts and Matthew in regard to the death of Judas. An ai)pe:ir- auce of contradiction is apparent to every reader of the tw<» accounts; for while Matthew represents Judas as hanging himself (xxvii. 5), it is said in Acts that he fell headlong, and burst asunder in the midst, and that all his bowels gushed out 'Baur, Lifi' and Woi-Ich of J'mil, i. (i, 10; Renan, Ajmlles, 20, 27; Sup. RpL, iii. <12, r.4. Jiidiis. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 67 (Acts i. 18). But instead ot" being a contradiction, tlio latter statement is only a supplement to the former. Falling head- long would not cause a man to burst asunder, unless some- thing had previously occurred to weaken the wall of his bowels, or unless the fall was from a great elevation. But both of these conditions are supplied l)y Matthew's account: for if he hung himself, this would elevate him some feet above the ground ; and if he remained hanging a day or two, which would be very probable, this would weaken the walls of his abdomen, so that a fall, whether effected by the break- ing of the cord, or the limb, or the parting of his neck, would cause the result in question. The two accounts are therefore harmonious, and not only so, but the horrible result stated in the one is accounted for -by the fact mentioned in the other. But the two accounts differ also in reference to the pur- as to the chase of the potter's field, and the origin of its name, Akeldama, of Akei- ' ° ' ' dama. the Field of Blood. Matthew says that it was bought by the chief priests with the money which Judas returned to them, and that for this reason it was called the field of blood ; while in Acts it is said that Judas bought it "with the reward of iniquity" (the same money), and that this, together with his falling there, caused it to receive the name (Matt, xxvii. <)-9 ; Acts i. 18, 19). But here there is no contradiction; for if Matthew's account of the purchase is true, that in Acts is also true, with this only difference, that Judas bought the field indirectly, it being boiight with his money, and in con- secpience of his vain attempt to return the money to the priests; and as for the name, the account in Acts only fiu- nishes an additional and very good reason for calling the loathsome sj)ot Akeldama. It must be admiltetl that the account in Acts would be misleading to persons not ac- quainted with that in Matthew; but Luke's first readers were not thus uninformed, and his present readers have Matthew's account before them and can combine the two if they will.' . ' As a curious ilhistration of the resolve these simple narratives of confusion into which men of the Scriptures into legends, and {.'i-nins fall when they attempt to thus ri.l) tin in of historical verity, 68 CREDIBILITY OF THE "^^^o . It should be observed that while the account in Acts words in question ^yhjch we have been considering is printed in the midst of a Peters, gpeecli made by the Apostle Peter, the words concerning Judas are an interpolation in the speech by the author of Acts. This is proved by the fact that Akeldama is translated into Greek, and this could not have been done by Peter, who was speaking to Hebrews; but Luke, writing to a Greek, would be constrained to translate this Hebrew word. It suits the purpose of skeptical writers to deny this, and to maintain that the author of Acts here puts into Peter's mouth a speech which he could not have made.' But this assump- tion is equivalent to charging the author with a blunder which the most stupid writer could scarcely commit — the blunder of making Peter speak to Jews in their own tongue, and translate one of their familiar Avords into a foreign tongue to enable them to understand it ; and in doing so to speak of the Hebrew language, which was the native tongue both of himself and his hearer.-, as ^' their language." Whether this author was Luke or some one else, if he had ordinary common sense he eould not have been guilty of a blunder so gro.ss. .\stotiie 2. It is alleged that the author of Acts contradicts himself in regard to the time of the ascension.^ In Acts he certainly represents the ascension as taking place forty days after the it is well to notice the following dropsy, accompanied by disgusting passage in Renan: "As to the circumstances, wliich were regarded wretched Judas of Kerioth, there as a chastisement of heaven. The were terril)le traditions of iiis death, desire to show in the case of Judas it it said that with the price of his the accomplishment of the threats lierfidy he bought a lit-Kl in the which the Psalmist pronounced environs of Jeru.salem. There was against the perfidious friend, may indeed to tlie south of Mount Sion have originated these legends. It a place called Hakeldama (the field may be that Judas retired upon his of l)lood). It was supposed that property at Hakeldama, led a peace- this was the property purchased by ful and obscure life, while his the traitor. According to one former friends were conquering the tradition he killed liimself. Accord- world and spreading the report of ing to another, he had a fall in his his infamy." (Life of Jesus, 359, field, in consequence of which his .300). bowels pushed out. According to ^ Sup. Rd., iii. 100, 100. others, he died of a species of 'Rei\nn, A/xiHllrft, '20. time of the as- cension. NEW TESTAMENT ItOOKS. 69 resurrection (i. 3-9), and it is affirmed that in the Gospel he represents it as occurring on the same day as the resurrection. This is another instance in which the charge involves the grossest stupidity on Luke's part, if it is true; for both narratives are addressed to the same person, Theophilus, and the matter of the ascension is made conspicuous in both. The truth of the matter is, that in the Gospel he does not s;iy how long the interval was, but he passes from the account of the first meeting with the Eleven to that which ended with the ascension without noting that there was an interval, reserving to his later account a statement of the details. If, when Theophilus read the first account, he had concluded that the ascension took place on the day of the resurrection, when he received the second he could but conclude that he had mis- understood the first on account of its brevity. He could not have concluded that the writer was telling two contradictory stories; for this could but discredit all that he narrated; and he certainly wrote with the hope of being believed. 3. It is claimed that Luke contradicts himself in the three paufs accounts of Paul's conversion, it being assumed that the twofoi™^"" which are represented as given by Paul himself were really sus^mef composed by the author of the book. The specifications are ^'^ these : one account has it that those who journeyed with Paul "stood speechless;" the other, "that all fell to the earth;" one, that these companions heard the voice, but saw no man ; the other, that they heard not the voice (ix. 7 ; xxii. 9; xxvi. 14).' As to the latter point of difference, nothing in speech is much more common than to use the word hear in two slightly different senses, one for hearing the mere sound of a voice, and the other for so hearing it as to know what is said. We hear a person speak to us, and we answer, " I did not hear you." No one accuses us of a false answer, becaui^e such is the usage of the word hear. So, in the present instance, the companions of Paul heard in the sense of catch- ing the sound of the voice, but they heard not in the sense of distinguishing what was said. No one dis|)osed to deal fairly with nn author would think of eonsl ruing this as a contr.idic- ' liaur, Poiii i. H0-H2.; As to tbu stay in Arabia. 70 CREDIBILITY OF THE tiou. As to the other poiut, it is easy to see that Paul's com- panions could have fallen to the ground at the beginning, and have stood speechless afterward; and the fact that they did not understand what was said to Paul is accounted for by this consideration. Wlien all fell, and the companions found that they were not addressed by the person who spoke, they most naturally sprang to their feet as soon as they could use their limbs, and ran to a safe distance, where they stood speechless, still hearing the voice, and yet not hearing it. It must be conceded that if Luke actually wrote all three of these accounts himself, it is difficult to say why he gave the details thus differently. But if, as the narrative a.sserts, two of them were given by Paul in two different speeches, the difference in narration is at once accounted for, and this furni.shes a very good reason for rejecting the hypothesis, baseless in itself, that Luke wrote the speeches and put them into Paul's mouth. II. Contradictions of Paul in (Jalatianm. The most serious of the alleged contradictions in Acts, and those which are made the most of in argument by the rationalist.s, are those between it and the Epistle to the Galatians. W'v will notice them in the order of their occurrence. L Paul says that after his conversion he did nut go up to Jerusalem until " after three years;" but that he went into Arabia, and returned to Damascus before going up to Jeru- salem (Gal. i. lo-18). Luke omits his going into Arabia, and says that " he was certain days with the disciples in Damascus," and then, when " many days were fulfilled," he went up to Jerusalem. This is treated as a contradiction, the objectors claiming that "many days" can not cover a j)eriod of three years.' But the objection is captious: for surely when a writer intentionally uses indefinite terms it is folly to put a close restriction on his meaning. As well say that when Joshua remarks to the Israelites, "Ye dwelt in the wilderness a long season," while Mose.s says they were there forty years, that there is here a contradiction, because a long season is not ' Banr, Pmil. i. 107. the M;\V TEbJA.MENT liOOKS. 71 SO long as forty years. Or, taking the opposite expression, as well say of Job's remark, '* Man is of few days, and full of trouble," that according to this, men in Job's time lived only ajev days. But the Okl Testament furnishes another exam- ple still more in point, in the ease of IShimei, who, when spared by Solomon on condition that he should not depart from Jerusalem, "dwelt in Jerusalem many days," and yet, as the context shows, he went out of the city '' at the end of three years" (I. Kings ii. 36-4(3). 2. It is claimed, also, that in describing Paul's first visit A^^l^^ to Jerusalem after his conversion Luke contradicts Paul in""JJJit several particulars, and manufactures some incidents wliichconvcV did not occur. (1) It must be false, because incredible, that ^'""" tlic disciples in Jerusalem, as asserted by Luke, had not heard of Paul's conversou.' But Luke does not say they had not heard of Paul's conversion. He says, " They were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple" (ix. 26). They might have heird of his conversion forty times, and they might have been told all of the details of the story, with- out believing it; for they miglit have thought that the story was made up for the purpose of enabling Paul to gain their confidence, and thus to more effectually persecute them. So sudden a conversion of such a persecutor would be next to incredible in any aj^o of the church's history. (2) It is held ■^■"*'o"^c to be incredible that Barnabas, as Luke affirms, took Paul and \;"" "f- ' Harna- brought him into the confidence of the Apostles.^ But surely''"* this is most natural : for under the circumstances some one had to be the first to acquire confidence in him, and to influence the others, and why not Barnabas as well as any one else? (3) It is affirmed in Acts that Paul was with the;^^'!' . . Paul s diseiples, going in and out, and preachinir boldly in the name ?''«"'''' ; ' " '^ ' ' f • lilt; 111 .Ii'- of the Lord; that he spoke and disputed against the Hoi- ''"■""'''^"^ lenists, and that they went about to kill him (ix. 28, 29) ; while Paul says that he was there only fifteen days (Gal. i. IS) ; and it is claimed that fifteen days are not enougii for all that Luke relates.^ But why not? If it was his custom to ])n'a(h and dispute only on Sundays as is the custom of main ' Haur, /'.ml, i. 107. ' //, , no, m. ^Jl,,- ]lru:\n, .l/.r,s//,^, I'.M. 72 CREDIBILITY OF THK rationalistic critics, there would be plausibility in the objection ; but the apostles, like their Master, disputed daily in the temple, and even a single week of such disputations would be enough to stir up all the strife which Luke mentions. It would be enough in some places even at the present day. (4) It is claimed that this amount of preaching in Jerusalem As to the J3 inconsistent with Paul's statement, "I was still unknown personal ' ance of^' by facc to the churches in Judea which were in Christ " Judea" (Gal. i. 22).' But while such preaching and disputation necessarily made him known to the brethren in .Jerusalem, \\v might still say that he was unknown by face to the churches in Judea, meaning, as he certainly does, the churches in general in that country. (5) It is again charged that this want of acquaintance with the churches in Judea is contra- dicted by Luke in Acts xxvi. 20, where he represents Paul as saying that he preached "throughout all the country of Judea" next after preaching in Jerusalem.- But while this preaching is mentioned next after that in Jerusalem, it is nut said that it came next. No adverb of time, or any other indication of sequence is given. The words are : " I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision; but declared both to th>em of Damas- cus first, and at Jerusalem, and thnnighout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God." As there is no note of lime except in placing Damascus first, it is but a fair construction to suppose that Judea is mentioned next after Jerusalem because of its contiguity, and to avoid a backward movement in thought cau^eV,? after mentioning the Gentiles. (6) It is affirmed that the jeml"a^ cuuse assigned in Acts for cutting short this visit to Jerusalem, ^*''" the determination of the Hellenists to kill him, and his conse- quent removal by the brethren to C«;sarea and thence to Tarsus, is contradicted in the twenty-second (chapter, when- I-*aul is r(;pr(!sented as saying that he was ordered r.way by the Lord himself in a vision (ix. 20, 30, cf xxii. 18-20).'' But the two causes of his departure are not inconsistent. The latter passage shows clearly that Paul was very unwilling to leave Jerusalem, by showing that when the Lord first told him ' Renan, //». 'Baur, /'>.. iii. ^ Ih. NKW TKSTAMKNT HOOKS, 73 to go he atteinpteo A])ostles whom Paul mentions that settled the (piestion on its nicrits; and this alone rendered a reference to any other transactions superfluous with Paul's readers: it was therefore witli the utmost propriety that ho omitted the public meeting, and his doing so furnishes not the slightest ground for doubting that it took place. The real purpose of the second meeting was to ;;ive the apostles an op- '.S'///). A',/., iii. L'-JT. ■• I'.anr, /•-("/, i. 117, US. 76 CREDIBILITY OF THE portunity to silence the Pharisees and bring the whole church to unanimity. ^on^uts^ (3) It is asserted, witii a boldness and confidence propor- aposties tionate to the want of evidence, that Paul's opponents in this charged, "^''sit were not " Pharisees who believed," as they are called in Acts; nor "false brethren privily brought in," as Paul styles them; but the older Apostles themselves/ It is admitted that the representation in Acts is the reverse of this, but it is held that on this j^oint Acts is contradicted by Galatians. On reading the passage in Galatians, we find tliat the " false brethren privily brought in, who came in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus," are spoken of as adversaries, while of the Apostles it is said : " Tht'y who were of repute imparted nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncir- cumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circum- cision, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to circumcision." There is in this not the sliglitest indication of a conflict, but the most positive declaration of agreement. The agreement, too, is the result not of a protracted discus- sion, or of any debate at all; but of a simple rehearsal by Paul of the Gospel which he had preached. " I laid before them the gospel whicli I preached among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest Ity any means I shonld be running, or had run in vain." This last remark is accounted for by the consideration that, had the older Apostles been found in opposition to Paul, tiieir influence in the church would have broken his down, and he woidd have run in vain. The whole value of the statement which he makes on the subject depends on the fact brought out, that mint there was no such oj)positi()n. In support of the charge ilV^om- under discussion, the only argument advanced which has the Antioch semblance of force is found in the deman«l, How could Peter ercd. liave actcd as he did so soon afterward in Antinch, that is, in refusing to longer eat with the Gentiles, so that Paul rebuked him before all (Gal. ii. 11-14), if he had m) jK'i-fectlv agreed ' [?;mr, /''/"/, i. ll'i, 121. TJI. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 77 with Paul in Jorusalt-ni? ' It may as well bi' asked, Hdw could this same IVtcr have denied his Lord, as he is said to have done, so soon after declaring, "Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee" (Matt. xxvi. 35)? The very rebuke which Paul administers to him implies that he had previously agreed with Paul ; for he says, personating Peter, " If I build up again those things whieh I have destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor." This remark depends for its relevancy on the fact that Peter was now acting in ojiposition to his previous course, and it sustains the representation made in Acts and Galatians, that he had agreed with Paul in Jerusalem. (4) The decree said in Acts to have been issued on thistoihMie"^ occasion by the apostles and elders is ])ronou need a forgery. '^'^^'^ This is argued, first, on the ground that if it had been issued Paul could not have failed to refer to it in his subsequent con- troversy with the Judaizers who continued to insist on the circumcision of the Gentile converts.^ This omission on Paul's lence ^' ]>art certainly does appear singular; but his course of argument in Cala- is precisely what we should expect if all that is stated in Acts were already known to his readers in Galatia and disregarded by them. If this decree had been carried to them by Paul and Silas, as its application to Gentile Christians in general renders quite probable, and if the teachers who had supplanted Paul in their confidence (Gal. i. 6, 7) had persuaded them to disregard its teaching, as they certainly had, any appeal to it by Paul would have been useless. His only recourse was to do just what he has done in this epistle, supply them with the additional information herein contained. This not only takes away the force of the ai-gument, l)ut it sujijilies a good i-easoii for the omission. The same proposition is argued in the second j)laee, from ;'"riiuh- Panl's failure to (;itc the decree wiien argiiing with the Cor- """* inthians against eating meats offered to idcds ; and this, too, when they had written to him for information on this very subject. It is argued that if this decree had been issued :it all it would have been known to the Corinthians, and eonse- ' Ham. I'anl i. V:<). - //.., l:!4; K.-naii. A/x'stlj.", :VJ; Snj,. h;i.. in. L'tlJ). ~X CKElMlilLirV OF THE quently they could not have written to Paul for information ou the subject; that Paul could not, as he does in his reply to them, treat it as a matter of indiifereuce in itself. ' It must be admitted that if the decree was in existence Paul had almost certainly made the Corinthians acquainted with it, in- asmuch as they were especially liable to do what it forbids. From this it follows that they could not write to Paul for in- formation as to the matters expressly declared in the decree; and if this is what they did write for, the argument would seem to be good. But Paul's answer shows that this was not the purport of their question His argument meets an objec- tion — the objection that as an idol is known to be nothing, it could not defile a man's conscience to eat flesh which had been offered to one. Paul, without admitting the correctness of the conclusion, takes the objector on his own ground, and shows that inasmuch as this knowledge is not possessed by all men, there would still be sin in the act, because it would embolden some whose consciences were weak to cat as an act of homage, and thus it would cause them to perish (I. Cor. viii. 1-13). This shows that t)?e question • raised and discussed had the nature of an objection to the doctrine of the decree, and that the answer called for was not a statement of what was taught in the decree, but a reason why it should be observed even by those who thought they could violate it without injurv tc themselves. Let it not be forgotten, also, that while Paul waived the question whether those who were enlightened about idols could eat the olR'rings without sin, farther on in the Epistle he forbade it absolutely (x. 20, 21). It w:is only the eating of flesh thus offered without knowing th:it it was an idol offering which he allowed as innocent (x. 25-29). u-ncels'' C'^) ^^'c have now sufficiently accounted for the fact that vutecoii- P^ul fails to mention the ))ublic meeting descritx'd in Acts, but it is still insisted that, as Luke was certainly ac(|uainted with the Epistle to the (ialatians, he must have had some sinister design in failing to mention the ])rivate meeting be- tween the apo.stles.^ It is a sufficient answer to say that when ' Banr, Paul, i. l.'?5; Rcnan, Apux- ' Saji. liiL, iii. 'J'2(]. ih'H, 32, .v.: Siii>. />/., iii. l'TO-l'?:;. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. <9 he wrote Acts the Epistle to the Galatians was already in circulation, and he supplies precisely those details in these proceedings which the author of the Epistle had omitted, and avoids repeating tiiose which the Epistle contained. This is just what any sensible writer would be apt to do, and the charge of a sinister design is preposterous. The same an- swer applies to another charge in this connection : that there is something wrong in omitting the rebuke of Petei- by Paul, which occ-nrred soon after this conference.' The account of it was already in the hands of the discipK'S, and it had been for more than tive years when the book of Acts was written ; and if Rationalists are right as t« the date of Acts, it had been tor more than forty years." One more incident connected witli this visit to Jerusalem deserves some notice at our hands, not because it is treated as a contradiction between Acts and (lalatians, but because it furnishes a striking instance of contradiction between the as- sailants of Acts. Renan says that Titus consented to be circumcised, but only through the representations of two in- truding brethren ; ^ while Baur says he was not circunicisi'd ; and with reference to an interpretation of Paul's words to the effect that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, but sub- mitted to it for the sake of peace, he says, "Nothing can be more absurd." ^ III. We next consider some alleged contradictions between parUes^m Acts and other Epistles of Paul. c.riath. 1. It is claimed under this head that. the perfect agreement between Paul and the other Apostles which is set forth in Acts is j)roved to be unreal by the sentiments of parties in the church of Corinth. Paul s])eaks of certain parties in that church whose watchwords were, respectively, " I am «)f Paul, I am of Apollos, 1 am of Cephas, I am of Christ" (\. Cor. i. 12.) It is claimed that the parties of Cephas and of Christ held strong Judaistic views, in opposition to Paul's; ^Siip.R^L; Daur, Paul, i. 129. School, the lattei' was not written "(lahitians was written not later till about the year 100. than the beginning of the year f->H, ' A}><)!*IIjk ?>1. an'•., ii. •_', • Haur, /V>m/, i. :i2G. 14. JO. ' fh., :V2-i-:V2i\ II. 82 CREDIRILITV OF THE a.s saying: " Wc neither received letters from Judea con- cerning thee, nor did any of the brethren come hither and report or speak any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest : for as concerning this sect, it is known to us that it is everywhere spoken against." Now these words, instead of showing that the Jews were ignorant of Christianity, so ignorant that it was a thing about which they had still to learn, shows the very opposite. It shows that it was known to them, and known as a sect which was everywhere spoken against. It was Paul of whom they had not heard, and their remark does not show that they had heard nothing of him, but only that they had not heard "any harm " of him. We have now discussed all of the principal charges of contradiction brought against the author of Acts, and the reader must judge whether any of them can be sustained. We shall hereafter institute quite a different comparison between this book and others, by which it will appear from undesigned coincidences that it is surprisingly correct in even the minutest details of its narration. CHAPTER VII. UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES BETWEEN THE GOSPELS. Having now applied to the Gospels and Acts tin- principles ^j"[g^8e of Canon V. (page 4), with reference to the alleged contra- '^'"'p'®'"- dictions between theii- narrations, we next propose to apply the same Canon with reference to incidentnl agreements of the former with one another, and of the last with the Gospels and Paul's Ej)istles. As we have stated (page 30), this evidence, when the points of incidental agreement are numerous and striking, is the strongest possible evidence of the accuracy of a set of writers dealing with a common series of events. As in the case of alleged contradictions, we shall not attempt to exhaust this source of evidence, but we shall consider only the more important and striking of the coincidences, and we shall take them up in the order of their occurrence. 1. John the Baptist is represented as making the following ^^^'j.^'j^j!*'" speech concerning Jesus : "I have beheld the Spirit descend- y'J^p°j*[''' ing as a dove out of heaven ; and it abode upon him. And I knew him not; l>ut he that sent me to baptize in water, he said to me. Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on him, the same is he that baptizeth in^^tlie Holy Si)irit. And T have seen, and have borne witne>s that this is the Son of (iod " (i. 32-34). Now it is very clear, from what John says he had seen, that he coidd testify that Jesus was he who was to baptize in the Holy Spirit ; but how could he from this testify that he was the Son of God? There is nothing In the previous narrative from which this inference could be drawn. Rut this inference, or ratlM>r this positive assertion, is nccounti'd for when we turn to the other 84 CKEDIHIUTV OF THE Gospels, and find that every one of them asserts that when the Spirit descended as a dove a voice was heard in heaven, saying, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well plciised." The latter statement accounts for and explains the former, and therefore they mutually throw credit on each other. As to the 2. The accounts ariven by Matthew and Luke of the call of call of the o J fisher- tiie foiji- fislicrmen appear to be contradictory, so different are the details which they give, and it has been treated as a real con- tradiction by skeptics/ Bnt tiie accounts touch each other at such points as to incidentally explain each the other. Mat- thew says that when Jesus was walking by the lake shore he saw Peter and Andrew "casting a net into the sea;" and that when he came to James and John, they were in the boat, mending their nets" (iv. 18, 21). Now botii of tiiese incidents are accounted for by Luke's statement, that they had been fishing all the preceding night (verse 5). A whole night's fisiiing would naturally necessitate mending some of the nets in the morning; and if it was early in the morning, it would be very natural that the two men whose nets w(!re not broken should not yet have desisted from their toil, especially as they had canght nothing through the night. Again, Matthew represents the four as following Jesus at his word, leaving their business in order to do so, when, so far as his narrative informs us, they had neither seen nor heard of him before that hour. Had we Matthew's Gosjiel alone, it wduld be impossible to account for this action on their part, without the conjecture, which rati(uialists would not have allowed, that in some way unexplained they hud formed a previ- ous acquaintance with him. But all is explained without con- jecture, when we learn from Luke's indepeudcnt narrative tliat when Jesus approached the lake, Peter and Andrew drew their boat ashore, went out of it to wash their net.r IMi , li. 12'.t, l:i0. NKW rKSTAMENT 15(«)KS, 85 meeting into the house of Simon and Andrew, and tliere heal- ,'^g|JjV,'||'^^j ing the former's mother-in-hiw of a fever. This occurred, as^'^pe" we judge from tiie fact that the synagogue had just been dis-""'"" missed, not long after noon. Mark tlien represents the whole town as being excited by the cure, aud bringing all their sick to Jesus to be healed, but not till evening when the " sun had set" (i. 29-33). lie gives us no reason for this delay; but leaves us to what would be endless and unsatisfactory conjec- ture and doubt on the point, if we had no narrative l)ut his. But on reading Luke's account of the incident, we learn that it occurred on the sabbath (iv. 31); and on reading the Cioh- pel of John, we learn in an entirely different connection that tlie Jews held it to be unlawful to bear a burden on the sab- bath (v. 10); and thus is explained the strange delay of the people iu bringing their sick. Now it is impo.ssible to believe either that Luke said it was on the sabbath to confirm what Mark says about the delay, or that John mentions the rebuke of the man who carried liis bed on the sabbath to confirm what either Mark or Luke says about the people of Caper- naum; yet tlie confirmation is complete^ and the evidence is the stronger from the search which wc; have had to find it. 4. Matthew's statement that John the Baptist heard in hisjohug prison of the works of Jesus, and sent a message to him by in^priT"!!. his disciples, assumes that his friends had easy access to him in his prison, contrary tu what we would naturally suppose from the facts connected with his arrest by Herod, and his sul)sequent cruel execution. This circumstance is not ac- counted for until we read in Mark that, notwithstanding the imprisonment, " Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous man and holy, and kept him safe. And when he heard liini he was much perplexed, and he heard hiiu gladly " (vi. 20). Thus the writer who says notching about .lohu's mes- 'jage from the prison furnishes an item, in a totally different connection of thought, which accounts for his ability to send it, 5. Mattliew savs tliat when Herod heard ol' Jesus hc'^s'oHcr- =*said to his servants. This is John the Baptist" (xiv. 1, 2). |^o» "'•''-■• It is verv natural that he should have nuide the remark to his 86 CREDIBILIT4' OF THK servants, that is, to his officers; but the question naturally arises, how did Matthew, or any of the disciples, who seem to have been far removed from connection with Herod's house- hold, learn that he did so? To the answer Matthew nowhere gives us the slightest clew; but in a purely incidental way we obtain a natural answer from Luke. The latter writer mentions, among the women who ministered to Jesus out of their substance, Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (viii. 'I, 3). How f^ortainly would Chuza tell his wife what Herod said about him whom she so admired, and how cer- tainly would she tell it to Jesus and the disciples! Further- more, the same writer tells us that Manajn, afterward a noted teacher and prophet in the churcli at Antioch, was Herod's foster-brother; and thus, without having Matthew's account in his mind, he gives his readers another clew to the source of Matthew's knowledge of the private conversation of Herod. Asiothc 0. Mark informs us that on a certain occasion, when the o.O-iii luul 111 th.'irat- apostles returned to Jesus from a tour of preaching and heal- teniiit to f^ , , . make Je- j^g^ there were so many persons about them coming and gomg '^'"i''- that they had no leisure so much as to eat bread ; and that on this account Jesus ordered them into a boat that they might cross the lake and rest awhile in a desert place (vi. 30-32). So eager and pressing a crowd is not mentioned on any other occasion, and we naturally wonder what could have been the cause of it ; but on this point Mark leaves us completely in the dark. Here again we might have employed conjecture, but we could never have reached any certainty had not Mat- thew, who says not a word about the pressure of the crowd, informed us that just at that time some disciples of John had arrived, and brought to Jesus and the people the exciting news th;it John had been beheaded by Herod (xiv. 12-14). Further- more, these two circum.stances combined help to explain a strange act of the people on that very day, which is mentioned only by John, and for which John gives no adequate cause. It is the circnmstance that the multitude, after being fed with the loaves and fi.shea, were about to take Jesus by force :ind make him a king (vi. 15). The miracle of feeding is not a 8ufli('/M*nt r-ansc for this, yet it is all that is mentioned by John; As to the greeu NK\S IKsrAMKNI" UnOK.S. 87 but when we consider what is said by Matthew about the fresh and exasperating news of the cruel death of John, who iiad hitherto been the leader of the people, and the excitement which had preceded the crossing of the lake, all is most natur- ally explained. And how perfectly obvious it is that none of these coincidences could liave been the work of design! How certain that they result only from the fact that each of the three writers tells the exact truth so far as he speaks at all ! 7. In describing the ])receding event, the feeding of the ^ five thousand, Mark says that Jesus commanded the multitude ^"^^ to sit down "on the green grass" (vi. 39). John says that there was much grass in the place, but lie says nothing about its being green. He says, however, that this feeding occurred when the feast of the Passover was at hand, and we know that this feast occurred at the next full moon after the vernal equi- nox, the very time in Palestine when grass is abundant and green. A few weeks before this it is not abundant, and a few weeks later it is dry. This combination of coincidences con- nected with the account of feeding the five thousand not only- shows that the writers are very accurate in their accounts, but that they were aiming to tell the exact truth in the whole story. _ ^ ^Xk 8. Luke represents Jesus as preaching in Nazareth before JJ^^^'^p^'^ he began his labors in Capernaum (iv. 16, 31-38); yet he quotes him as saying to the people in Nazareth, " Doubtless ye will say unto me this parable, Physician, heal thyself; whatsoever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in thine own country." With Luke's narrative alone before us, it would be impossible to account for this language. Not only so, but the course of his narrative implies that Jesus had not been in Capernaum since his return into Galilee. When we turn to John, however, we find that on his first arrival in Galilee, while he was yet at Cana and had not yet gone to Nazaretli, he healed a nobleman's son in Capernaum, the cure being effected without his being in ( 'a|)t'rnaum at all. Thi.s, then, accounts for tlie demand which the j)oople of Nazareth were disposed to make; and the very fact that he had done this in C'aj>ernniirii while in Cnna. whieh was twenty inil(v< distant, 88 CREDIRILirV OF TFIE gave more force to the demand that lie should do something similar in Nazareth where he was present. This very striking coincidence, let it be observed, is drawn from a portion of John's Gospel which it has suited the purpose of rationalists j^.sjo the to particularly discredit. place of 9 John gives no account of the birth of Jesus : neither does he tell us the place of his birth ; but he represents people in Jerusalem as couteudiug that he could not be the Christ, because, instead of coming from Bethlehem as the Christ should, he had come from Galilee. Even the chief priests themselves thus argued (vii. 41, 42, 52). Had we John's Gospel alone, we would not be able to determine whether the objection was well taken or not. He evidently takes it for granted that his readers would know that it was not well taken, but he does not himself furnish us the means of so knowing. It is only when w^e turn to Matthew and Luke that we find the infor- mation that he was actually born in Bethlehem. Thus the information which we find in two of the Gospels is assumed in the third as if it were already in our possession, and the tacit fearof Je- assumptiou proves to be correct. riisaiein. -j^Q^ ]\jm.i- gives the following very singular account of the feelings of the disciples when Jesus started on his last direct journey to Jerusalem: "And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them; and they were amazed; and they that followed him were afraid." He then goes on to state that Jesus, as if he were desirous of in- creasing this fear and amazement, took the twelve aside and told them that he would be betrayed in Jerusalem and killed (x. .'VJ-34). There is nothing in his preceding narrative to account for the beginning of this fear and amazement; and there is nothing in the preceding parts of Matthew or Luke. Had we none but these three gospels, it would be impossible, except by conjecture, which ration:ilisis would seriously object to, to assign a cause for these feelings. Sliould that conjecture be that Jesus had been in Jerusalem l)?fore this, and had met with such treatment that his disciples were amazed that he should return thither, we would \n- charged with imagining facts to explain an iiu-n-dible stat'-nieiil. Uut this is the exact NEW TKSTAMEM BOOKS. j"ver. incidentally mentions the days as they pass, and the count which we are able to make from his statements agrees with the statement of John. On the next day after the arrival :it Bethany the public entry took place (John xii. 1, 12), and of course this was five days from the passover. Now, following Mark, we find that, counting the day of the public entry as one, at the close of which they went out to Bethany, the next day on which the fig tree was cursed would be two (xi. 11, 12) ; the day following, on which they found the tree withered, is three (xi. 20) ; and when at the close of that day it is said, '•Now after the two days was the feast of the passover" (xiv. 1), we have the five days, and the count is even witii that of John. This is unmistakably a case of agreement which could have resulted from nothing but strict accuracy of statement on the part of both writers. 16. The fact that when Jesus was about to be arrested as to r«t- tinc oflf one of his disciples whom John alone dcsiirnates as Peter, cut 'I'*'/'?'' "' * ' ... Malihiis. off the ear of the servant of the high priest, is attested by all four of our Evangelists. They all as.sert, too, that when Peter came into the house of the high priest he was accused of being one of the discij)les of Jesus; but .strange to say, the servants and soldiers who make this accusation have notiiing 92 CREDIBILITY OF TflE to say about the very serious offense of cutting off a man's ear in resistance to arrest. Stranger still, as we learn from John, who knew the servant and calls him Malchus, one of the persons who accused Peter was a kinsman of Malchus, and yet even he says nothing of cutting off the ear. This silence has l)eeu treated as proof that the p;ir was not out off, and that all the Evaugelists are here at fault; but the true explanation is found in a statement by Luke, evidently not made for the purpose of explanation, that when the ear was cutoff Jesus healed it (Luke xxii. 51). Not even this would have saved Peter from censure, had it been possible to speak of the affair without giving evidence in favor of Jesus, whom Peter's accusers were seeking to condemn as an impostor. The incidental way in which this explanation is furnished goes far to establish also the reality of the miracle. As to the 17 Matthew states that in mocking Jesus the servants of mocking '^ of Jesus. tij(3 }^jg}, priest "smote him with the palms of their hands, saying. Prophesy to us, thou Christ; who is he that smote thee?" (xxvi. 68). Now this, were it not for a circumstance which we are about to notice, would undoubtedly be declared by unfriendly critics a piece of absurdity; for they would say, Why ask him to prophesy who smote him, when his assailant stood before his face ? Believers would, of course, contend that something whicii Matthew omits would doubtless make tlie matter plain if we only knew a little more of the circum- stances; but this would be ridiculed, as all other such suppo- sitions arc. But when we turn to Luke we find the very circumstance which Matthew omits, and the manner in which it is supj)Iied shows clearly enough that it was not designed to explain Matthew's account. He says that they blindfolded Jesus (xxii. 14). If Matthew had been making up his story he would probably have been on his gunrd against such omis- sions; but as he was conscious of writing only the truth, he left his statement to take care of itself. Astothe 18. All four of the Evangelists, in the account of Peter's first ac- " ' Peter**' denial of the Ivord, state that it was a maid connected with the high priest's household that first chargecl him with being one of the disciples. If we had only the first three, this would be NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 93 diificult to aocouiit for, seeing that the men who had arretted him wouhl bt- naturally much more likely to know Peter than the maid whose duties were confined within the house; and especially would this be so from the fact that Peter had used a sword in the garden. In this case, as in the preceding, some hypothesis as to the omission of details would be necessary to preserve tlie credibility of the writers. But when we turn to John all is explained by the supply of the omitted circum- stance. He tells us that Peter was at first standing at th<' door outside, until John asked the maid who kept the door to let him in. As John was known to be one of the disciples, his request that Peter might be admitted within the court natur- ally excited (he maid's suspicion, and led her to be first in making the accusation. 19. The manner in which Marv Magdalene is spoken of in \^''^"?'^<' the Gospels affords another remarkable coincidence of the "j'^-'*'?'"-^ kind which we are considering. Matthew introduces her first ''^°^- at the time of the crucifixion, as one among " many women be- holding from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him " (xxvii. o5, 50). This shows that for some reason she had thus followed him and ministered to him, but it leaves us in the dark as to the particular motive which had actuated her. John introduces her also in the same group of women, without saying how she happened to be at the cross, but he indicates her great devotion to him by her visit to the tomb on the morning of the first day of the week ; her extreme agitation when she found that the tomb was empty ; and her weeping when she despaired of finding the body of Jesus (xix. 2o ; XX. 1, 11). The reader would be utterly at a loss to conjecture the special cause of this devotion, and he might conjecture in vain but for a remark which is n)ade incident- ally by both Mark and Luke, that out of Mary Jesus had cast seven demons (Mark xvi. 9 ; Luke viii. 2). While this ex- plains perfectly her devotion, neither Mark nor Luke can be .euspected of making the remark for this purpose, and it is therefore an undesigned coincidence. Thus fiir we have considered coincidences between th< 8"vcral (losj)els; and these, taken in connection witii otln-r 94 CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. evidences which have preceded them, appear .siitticient (o es- tablish their autheaticity as above that of any otlicr writings to which the same tests can be applied. We now turn to Acts of Apostles, and we shall try it in the same way. CHAPTER VIII. UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES BETWEEN ACTS AND PAUL'S EPISTLES. "We have seen that in assailing this book rationalists rely Acts and chiefly on its alleged inconsistency with certain statements in Epistles. Paul's acknowledged Epistles, and especially with some in Galatians. We now propose to point out undesigned co- incidences between these Epistles and Acts, and we shall see th:it the Epistles acknowledged by rationalists to be genuine confirm Acts in so many points as to make up a supplemental account of Paul's career. 1. Paul is first introduced in Acts as a persecutor of the As to Paul's church, giving consent to the death of Stephen, and afterward ther incredi- to waste any precious moments, not ble. The addition to tliis conjee- to si)eak of a year or two, in idle ture, that he went as far as Mount meditation in the desert, while the Sinai, more than four hundred cause which he iiad espoused was miles from Damascus, where Elijah now struggling, for an existence, had retire''" a few of them who practised curious arts brought their books together and burned them before all : and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So mightily frew the word of the Lord, ami prevailed " (xix. 19, 20); and in the Ei)isth' he says: "I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost ; for a great and effectual door is open to rae, and there are many adversaries" (xvi. 8, 9). According to Acts, while Paul was preaching at Ephesus, as an indirect 104 CREDIBILITY OF THE (j>) Spread j.^.syi^ of his preaching, "all they who dwelt in Asia heard ^sU° *'^^ word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks" (xix. 10) ; and in the Epistle he says to the Corinthians, "The churches of Asia salute you" (xvi. 19). mthn. j4 jjj ti^^, second Epistle to the Corinthians we find a number of similar coincidences with Acts, and also a much larger number with the first Epistle to the same ciiurch, with which our jn-esent argument is not concerned. In Acts we '1^ The are told that under the leadership of Demetrius, a silversmith, mob at . Kphesus; a niob was raised to assault Paul, that they seized Gains and Aristarchus, companions of Paul, and rushed into the theater; that Paul, evidently unwilling that these two friends should suffer in his stead, " was minded to enter in to the people," but that the disciples suffered him not, and that certain of the * chief officers ' of Asia also sent to him and besought him not to 'adventure himself into the theater'" (xix. 23-31). In the Epistle Paul says: "For we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning our affliction which befell us in Asia, that we were weighed down exceedingly beyond our power, inso- much that we despaired of life: yea, we ourselves have had the answer of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead ; who delivered us out of so great a death, and will deliver" (i. 8-10). On Jjaiey on fhis coincidence Paley well says ; " I can not believe that any forger whatever should fall upon an expedient so refined as to exhibit sentiments adapted to a isituation, and leave his readers to find out that situation from tlu; history; still less that the author of a history should go about to frame facts and circum- stances fitted to supply the sentin)ents which he found in the letter."* In Acts it is said that after Paul left Athens and '■- ]^i^^' went to Corinth, Silas and Timothy came to him from Mace- sent from ' ■^ iViaf"*"' ''•'"•'^ (xviii. 1, 5); and in the Epistle Paul says to the Cor- inthians: "When I was present with you and was in want, I was not a burden on anyn)an; for the brethren, when they came from Macedonia, supplied the measure of my want" (xi. 9). Here it is apparent that brethren came from Mace- donia, and the way in which they arc mentioned, "the breth- ' Hiifdi' Pniilliiiiii , ill Ifira. NKW 'I'KSTAMKNT HOOKS. 105 ren, Avhcu thty came from Macedonia," >h()\vs that they were well known brethren; and the remark agrees perfectly with the fact that Silas and Timotliy had come as stated in Acts, while it shows the additional circumstance for which it is chiefly introduced : that th< y brought means to supply Paul's personal wants. In tlie account of Paul's first visit to Corinth, f) cor- •••111 1 1 1 • !• "iththe it IS evident that he went not bovond that ci(v to cvaneelizci'mitof • ° second more distant localities, but returned thence to Antioch whence t"""^- he had started out (xviii. 18-22); and in the Epistle he ex- presses the hope that, "as your faith groweth, we shall be magnified in you according to our province unto further abuii dance, so as to preach the gospel even to the parts beyond you"(x. 15, 16). It seems impossible tliat a coincidence such as this should be the result of contrivance or forgery. 15. We shall continue this line of evidence no farther tlian ^''^** ^^' mans ; to include some coincidences found in the Epistle to the Romans, the only one of the Epistles of Paul acknowledged by skeptics to be genuine which we have not yet employed. Near the close of the Epistle the writer says : " But now I go (D Pauls to Jerusalem, ministeriner to the saints. For it hath been the"pyjoJe- ' ° _ _ ni.Kalem; good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contril)ution for the poor among the saints who arc at Jeru- salem " (xv. 25, 26). From this it appears that a journey to Jerusalem was about to be undertaken, and that the purpose of it was to minister to the poor saints in that city. Certain statements in the two Epistles to the Corinthians make it obvious that the journey in question is the one described in the twentieth and twenty-first cha})tcrs of Acts. In that descrip- tion, however, though very minute in many particulars, not a word is said about the purpose of the journey or about any contribution ; but strange as this omission is, both items arc i)rought out in an incidental way in a later passage, and under j)eculiar circumstances. .Vfter Paul had reached Jerusalem and performed his task, had been cast into prison and sent to Cresarea to be tried by Felix the governor, in his defense be- fore the latter he says : " Now, after many years I came to bring alms to my nation and offerings" (xxiv. 17). In Acts it is said of Paul, while he was yet in Ephesus, that he 106 CREDIBILITY OF THE pian'for " " purposed in the Spirit, Avhcn he had passed through Macedonia loiiraeys- ^^^ Aohaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After that I have been there, I must also see Eome" (xix. 21). When this Epistle was written lie had accomplished so much of this purpose as to have passed through Macedonia and Achaia, and was now * about to prosecute it further. He says in the Epistle: "I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I pur- posed to come to you (and was hindered hitherto), that I might have some fruit among you even as among the rest of the Gentiles" (i. 13), which confirms the statement in Acts that he had this purpose. Again in the Epistle, after speaking of his journey to Jerusalem, he says : " When, therefore, I have accomplished this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will go on by you into Spain" (xv. 28). Here is the expression of the remainder of the purpose 'set forth in Acts, with the addition of a contemplated journey to Spain. That the complete agreement with Acts thus made out is purely incidental, and not a result of contrivance, is argued by Paley as follows: " If the passage in the Epistle was taken from that in Acts, why was Spain put in ? If the passage in Acts was taken from that in the Epistle, why was Spain left out? If the two passages were unknown to each other, nothing can account for their conformity but truth." ' In the Epistle Paul says : " From Jerusalem, and round about even unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ" (xv. 19). In Acts, (3) his Illvricum is not mentioned among the regions in which he f (reach* " o o ng"un- liad preached: but it is said of his last visit to Macedonia, to niyri- .11 cum;" which was bordered on the west by Illyricum, t\mt '^ whevi he li(td (/one through those parts and had given them much exhor- tation, he came into Greece" (xx. 2, 3). When he "had gone through those parts " which constitute Macedonia, he had gone as far as to Illyricum, but had not gone into it; and this is precisely what his words, "even unto Illyricum," mean. In 4) his Acts, Paul is represented, while on his iournev to Jerusalem, predicted ^ ' ' j . y liR-nUt'i" '^"^ saying to to the Ephesian elders: " I go bound in the spirit \em^ to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save that the Holy Spirit tc.sdfioth to me in every city, ' Ilnrai' Pmilivae, in loco. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 107 saying that bonds and afflictions abide mo" (xx. 22, 23). By "every citv " he evidently means every city through which he had passed on his journey. In the Epislle we find, in strong confirmation of this, that when he was about to start on the journey he had the same apprehension ; fi3r he says : " Now I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, tliat ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me, that I may be delivered from them that arc disobedient in Judea, and that my ministration which I have for Jerusalem may be accei)table to the saints" (xv. 30, 31). It is quite certain from this instance, and it would be if we had no other, that noithrr of these two books was written for the purpose of conforming to the other; for if Acts had been written with suc!i a purpose in view, the account of Paul's imprisonment, and the consequent failure of his prayer to be delivered from the disol)edient in Judea, would have been omitted or greatly modified ; and if, on the other hand, the Epistle had been forged after the event, it would not have contained a prayer which the writer knew to have been frus- trated by the course cf events. "This single consideration," says Paley, "convinces me that no concert or confederacy whatever subsisted between the Epistle and the Acts of the Apostles ; and that whatever coincidences have been or can be pointed out between them are unsophisticated, and are the result of truth and reality."' We here conclude our evidence from this source, tliough other we have by no means exhausted it. For a fuller exhibition this sub- of it, and especially for specifications which prove the gen- uineness and authenticity of the EpistU-s ascribed to Paul, the student is referred to Paley's Horae Paulinae, a work from which a large part of the matter in this chapter is derived, and which, though it has been before tlie public since the year 1790, and has been regarded from (he time of its first publication as a first class defense of Acts and Paul's Epistles, has never been replied to by an unbeliever. For a further statement of the coincidences between the Gospels, ' III., EpiMlf iit tlir Royiniis, No (J. 108 CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. the reader is referred to Blunt's Coincidences, a work to which the present writer acknowledges much indebtedness, frurla-^^^ Thus far in our discussion of the authenticity of the New t\lu8^nr. Testament books we have prosecuted the inquiry without reference to the accounts of miracles ; and having applied all the tests of historical criticism, we have found no error of fact, no discrepancy between these documents and other reli- able histories, no inconsistency between the books themselves in regard to any of ti>e multitudinous details into which their narratives run. On the contrary, we have found a very large number of those undesigned coincidences in detail between them and other books, and between these books individually, which are found only in such writings as are most minutely accurate in every particular. The same can not be said of the same number of books dealing with a common subject, and entering into so many details, in all human literature. It seems a perfectly legitimate conclusion from these premises that in the books of the New Testament the world has the most authentic historical documents, at least so far as ordinary facts of history are concerned, that have ever been written. chaptp:r IX. POSITIONS OF UNBELIEVERS IN REFERENCE TO MIRACLES. The conclusion which wo have reached in the preceding ||^^'';''jj^^_ chapters of this Part is conceded in a general way by th('"^"^^'o" mass of modern unbelievers; that is, it is conceded that, in reference to all except their accounts of miracles, and a few details calculated to lend supporr to these accounts, the New Testament books are credible.' It is the characteristic of all unbelievers to deny tlie ^^^'j^'J^ of reality of miracles. Those of them who affect scientific {jfj^^^^.s 'is methods tacitly adopt, as a rule of historical criticism, that^^'^**- accounts of miracles must be summarily rejected as untrue.^ This position is taken on various grounds, according to the varying theories of the parties. 1. By atheists, who deny that there is a God, and by Pan- theists, who deny that there is a God apart from the forces of ' Tlie position of Strauss is an torian who appioaclu's liis subject exception to this remark. He says: imbued with tlie faith of the churcli " There is Httle of w'nicli wp can say finds himself confronted at the very for certain tliat it took place, and outset with the most stupendous of all to which the faith of the of miracles, the fact which lies at church especially attaches itself, the root of Christianity being in his the miraculous and supernatural eyes that the only begotten Son of matter in the facts and destinies of (iod descended from the eterniil Jesus, it is far more certain tliat it throne of the Godhead to the earth. CKEDJlilLlTV OF THE ofAVhe-^ nature, miraclos are held to be impossible ; for, according to iheists^" both of these positions, there can be nothing supernatural. no^ticf. Agnostics, who claim that they can not decide whether there is a personal God or not, must be equally unable to decide whether or not miracles are possible, seeing that their pos- sibility depends on the existence of a God to work them. The number of persons who are either Atheists, Pantheists or Agnostics is so small, and the tenets of these parties are so far apart from the convictions of the great mass of man- kind, that we shall not dwell on their position farther than to state it. ^™™ed 2. A second class, who admit that there is a God, and that prooif°^ miracles are therefore possible, hold it to be impossible to prove that a miracle has been wrought.' Briefly stated, the argument is this: All human experience is against the occur- rence of miracles, on the one hand, and it attests the very common occurrence of false testimony, on the other ; conse- quently, in any case of alleged miracle, it is more probable that the testimony to it is deceptive than that the miracle actually transpired. This argument has been refuted in sev- eral ways, and so successfully refuted that many of the most acute infidels now reject it." It is a sufficient answer to it to offset its universal affirmative by another, and say, Univer- sal experience proves that miracles can be proved; for, as a matter of historical fact, men of all ages and kindreds have believed them, and to all these they have been proved. These include the immense majority of men, and of the most enlightened men. To say that it is impossible to ])rove that which has been actually proved to the .satisfiiction of nearly all men, is to speak falsely, or to use the words deceitfully. h.^'im-"'' '^- -'^ third class, and the only class of infidels with whose t)'rm'>? °' position it concerns us to deal, admit the possibility of mir- acles, and also tlic possibility of proving the occurrence of 'Tlie liistorian Hume has tlie t)ut in the name of constant cxper- rredit of originating thi.s argument, ience, that we banish miracle from He elaborated it in his celel)ratt'tl history. We do not say miracle is Esiffii/ on MirucliK. impossible; we say there has been '"It is not, therefore, in tlic hitherto no miracle proved." (Re- name of this or that iiliilnsopliy, nan, .7^8i'«, 44). NEW TEijTAMKM BOOKS. Ill them should any occur; but tliey deny that the evidence within our reach is sulHcient for tlie proof of any now on reeortl.' This is the issue which the experience of the world and couimon sense alike present as the one to he discussed. Forasmuch as there is a body of evidence on which a large majority of the men who have examined it base a belief in certain miracles, the task imposed on unbelief, and one which it can not avoid by any subterfuge, is to show that tliis l)<)dy of evidence is insufficient; and especially is tliis true, when we consider that those who liave accepted the miracles on this evidence will readily admit that no miracles can be proved if tliese can not. Skeptics have felt it incumbent on themselves to take defi- f,^^*;p'/^c»i nite ground nut only as to the reality of the New Testament |^^!;\J^® miracles, but also as to the origin of the accounts of them ^Z^^'"^*" with which the >«ew Testament books abound. Some have held that they were false stories deliberately invented by the early disciples to deceive the people ; more recently it has been asserted that they are myths, that is, stories invented to convey truths by analogy, but not propounded as actual occurrences; and yet again, they are regarded as legends, or stories which had their origin in natural events, but which, by natural exaggeration as they passed from mouth to mouth in early times, took upon them miraculous details, until they assumed their present form." If the direct evidence for their reality should prove, after proper consideration, un- convincing, it might be worth while, as a mere matter of curiosity, to di.scuss the relative n)erits of these three theories ; but in this case they would have lost all value as facts bearing on human destiny and duty; and, conse- (juently, any inquiry into the real merits of these positions may be turned over to theorists who have the time to waste on them, while the earnest incjuirer must devote himself to the fjuestion, Is the positive evidence^ of the reality of New Tesfa- inent miracles sufficient to command our credence? The most common and popular ground for the denial of ' lb. of the lei,'endrtry theory ; Strauss of ■ iJtMian is an eminont advoc.iti' tlu- invtliioal. 112 CREDIBILITY OF THK A com- mon oh- jectiou to the evi- deuce. The ob- jection rontains two fal^^c assura))- tious. A test case: liow the test ap- li»-d bv I'hnri- set's ; the sufficiency of tlie evidence is this: that the miracles, hav- ing been wrought or supposed to have been wrought in an age fond of believing in such events, were received as real without the application of the tests by which their reality could be demonstrated. In other words, it is claimed that they were not wrought under scientific conditions,' The best way to test this assertion is to look into the record and see how the miracles were actually received, and what tests of their reality were actually applied. First, we remark that, whatever may have been the habit of the age in which Jesus and the Apostles lived with respect to miracles in general, and those of these men in particular, there was certainly a large class of persons, including the most acute :uid intelligent of the Jews, who most persistently refused to credit them; and these men were sufficient in number and in influence to check any disposition on the part of the masses to receive them without (piestion. Second, we have a detailed account of the way in which the miracles were tested by this class of men, and by a comparison of that with the methods which would be applied by scientific men of our own day, we can determine how much credence we should give to the assertion in question. A notable case in point is found in the ninth chapter of the Gospel of John. It is the case of a man said to have been born blind, and to have been healed by Jesus. After the neighbors and former acquaintances of the man, who was a beggar, had satisfied themselves that a miracle had been wrought, as if to test their own judgment of the case they brought tiie man to certain Pharisees, the party most unwill- ing to admit the reality of the miracles, that they might see what those intelligent enemies of Jesus could say of the case. A formal investigation followed, and its method is clearly traced. They first a.sked the man how he received his sigiit, aiid he answered according to the f:icts (verse 15). This shows that they knew he now had his sight, which could be known at once by his appearance. Then, after an irrelevant discussion about his doing such cures on the snbbath, and an cfpriUy ir- ' i;cii;m. ./,..-, -N. V.'k 44. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 113 relevant question as to what the man thought of Jesus, the Pl)arisees very properly demanded proof tliat the man had been born blind. They already had the testimony of the neighbors, who had brouglit him to them as one who had been born blind, but with this they were not satisfied, and they called for his parents (16-18). When the parents appeared they were confronted with the threatening question, " Is this your son, who ye say was born blind ? how then doth he now see?" Being alarmed, they answered: ''We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind : but how he now seeth we Icnow not : he is of age ; he shall speak for himself" (19-21). The historian remarks, concerning the last part of this answer, that they gave it because they were afraid that they would be put out of the synagogue if they should say anything equivalent to confessing Jesus to be the Christ (22, 23). The Pharisees then called again to the man, and said: "Give God the glory: we know that this man is a sinner," thus indirectly admitting that the miracle had been wrought, though unwilling to allow Jesus the credit of it. The process of the investigation, reduced to the simplest statement, was this: they first ascertained that the man could see; they next inquired what Jesus had done to him ; and seeing that what he had done was only to put moistened clay on his eyes and require him to wash it off, they next inquired as to the cer- tainty of his having been born blind, and they close this inquiry with the testimony of his parents. Let us now suppose that, instead of the Pharisees who ij^^^y ^t^^ tested this miracle, it had been done bv a "commission com- ]'.>7^'**"" posed of physiologists, physicians, chemists and persons ex|>er- ienced in historical criticism," as is demanded by M. Renan. What advantage would they have had over the Pharisees in det<'rmining whether the man, when first brought before them, could see? It is clear that no knowledge of physiology, or chemistry, or medicine, or historical criticism, could help them in this. The most stupid plantation negro could settle the question at once by striking with his hand toward the man's face and seeing whether he winked. When it was settled that the man could see, and the (juestinn was raised, What had 114 CREDIBILITY OF THE Jesus done to give him sight ? the commission wouUl have an advantage over the Pharisees, in that they would know more certainly, on account of their scientific attainments, that merely putting clay on a blind man's eyes and wasliing it off could not give him sight. Uneducated and superstitious men might imagine that the clay had some mystic power; but scientific men would know better. On this point of inquiry, then, the advantage would be with the commission, but the advantage would be in favor of the miracle. As to the next question, whether the man said to have thus received sight was born blind, what more conclusive testimony could the commission obtain, or what more could they wish, than, first, that of the neighbors who had known the man as a blind beggar; and, secondly, that of his own father and mother? Who, indeed, could bo so good witnesses that a child was born blind as the father and mother; for they always exhaust every possible means of testing the question before they yield to the sad conviction that their child is blind ? ^tah!^^^ This comparison shows that in testing such a miracle there need- could be no use made of scientific knowledge; and the same is true of the miracles of Jesus in general. If, in the case just considered, the question had been, AVhat defect in the organ of sight caused the man to be blind ? or, What were the chemical constituents of the clay put on his eye^? a knowledge of physiology or of chemistry would have been needed for the investigation, and so in general; if the miracles had been such that to test their reality scientific knowledge would have been necessary, the evidence which we have would be incomplete ; but the most unscientific men of common sense can know when a man is dead; when he is alive and active; when he has a high fever; i'^ a cripple; is paralyzed, etc., as well as the great- est scientist. The cry, then, that the miracles of the New Te.st^ment were not wrought under "scientific conditions," is totally irrelevant, and can mislead none but those who do not pause to think. ohjec- Several other theoretical objections to miracles usually lions •' " for?o"in receive attention in this discussion, such as their assumed nT'"prooi'. antecedent inijMobability, and the claim that they are dis- ments not ed in test ing mira- acles NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 115 credited by the fact that many other accounts of miracles among the heathen, and among believers of tlie dark ages, are now rejected by intelligent Christians; and it would be well for us to consider these, if we were aiming to exhaust the sub- ject; but they amount to nothing at all if the direct evidence for miracles is conclusive. All antecedent improbability of any fact whatever vanislies in the presence of competent proof of the fact; and disbelief in all miracles but a single one could not discredit that one if the evidence for it were conchisive. On the other hand, i^. must be admitted that if the direct evi- dence for miracles is not conclusive in itself, no conclusions drawn from the discussion of these theories could establish their reality. On this account we omit the further consider- ation of these theories, and refer the student to works devoted to them.' The direct evidence shall be tlie subject of our next chapter. ' We especially commend to the master uiind« (^ the present cen- student Mozlev on Miracles, and tury. Trench on Miracles— two works bv CHAPTER X. THE DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES: THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. N.T. mir- The miracles of the New Testament are distribu(al)le into Rcles ciassitie.i 1^^.^. classes: first, those wrought by Jesus; second, those wrought upon Jesus, such us his birth and his resurrection ; third, those wrought by the Apostles; fourth, the inspiration of the Apostles; and fifth, the predictions which Jesus and the Apostles uttered. In considering the evidence of their reality, our task is simplified by the relation which all of them sustain Themira-to a siutjie One. If Jesus arose from the dead, the other mir- din- admitted, first, that Jesus actuallv died and was buried ;' '"'s*'?""^ ' ' " 'of uiibe- sccond, it is admitted that on or before the third morning his'''"^*'^ body disappeared from the tomb; third, that the disciples came to believe firmly that he arose from the dead.- The ex.ict issue has reference to the last two facts, and may be stated by the two questions, Did the body disappear by a res- surrection, or in some other way? and Did the belief of the disciples originate from the fact of the resurrection, or fronj 'The hypothesis was advanced tlie consciousness of the disciples hy Herder, and afterward supported that we have any knowledge of that by Paulus and Scldeicnnacher, that which was the object of their faith ; Jesiis was not actually dcail when and thus we can not jro farther than he was placed in the tomb, and to say that by wliatever means this that he revived and disappeareil ; result was brought about, the resur- bul it has been thoroughly refute diction by Jesus of his own resurrection on the third day, four liar- -^ •' ' Ucuhirs. when the disciples did not; incredible that Pilate, at the re- quest of the priests, would j^rant a guard; incredible that the soldiers reported to tlie priests rather than to l*ilate, their NKW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 119 coinmander; and incredible that, at the risk of their lives, they admitted lor the sake of money that they had been asleep on guard.' In reply to all this it is sufficient to observe, first, Reply that the soldiers took no risk at all in saying they had gone to sleep; when their statement came to the ears of Pilate, the priests had only to tell him privately that the soldiers hud not been asleep at all, but had said this at their instigation, to pre- vent him from proceeding against them. Second, Pilate, according to the story told, had put the soldiers at the disposal of the priests, and to these it was their duty to report when the special service for which they had been detailed was accom- plished. Third, Pilate was as much interested in preventing the circulation of a report that Jesus had arisen as were the priests; and therefore he would naturally l)e as ready to grant a guard as they to ask for it. P'inally, there is a good and sufficient reason why the chief priests should remember the prediction of the resurrection, and speak of it after the death of Jesus; and why the disciples should not think of it at all. The reason is found in the totally different views of that pre- diction taken by the two parties when it was uttered. The disciples would not, and could not, believe that Jesus meant what he said when he spoke either of his death or of his resurrection. They construed ids repeated remarks on the subject as a dark parable, the meaning of which they could not even conjecture." When, therefoie, he was put to death, they could not at first regard this as the fulfillment of the first part of the prediction, and consequently th< y could not look forward to a resurrection as the fulfillment of the second part. On the contrary, when the priests and ehlers heard that he had uttered this i)rediction they as naturally understood it literally, inasmuch as they not only expected him to die, but intended to kill him. They as naturally understood him to speak literally (»f his resurrection, and they ex})ected to triumph over his disciples by his failure to rise. Thinking now that this triumpij was certainly within their reach, if only the body of Jesus could be kept secure till the three days should pass, thev had every reason whicii shrewd and cunning men could ' Sun. I{,l , iii. 444, 44.5. = >rnrk ix. 10. \'20 CREDliJiLlTV OF tHt: liuve under such circumstances to proceed as they are stiid to have done. Theac- It should also be observed, in reference to this matter of count of ' ll^e^ard^iig guard, that in all the subsequent controversy between the J'jjl*^^^' Apostles and the chief priests the story of the guard was buftlcit- never denied, as it certainly would have been if it had been led**^'""" false ; that, on the contrary, it was tacitly admitted in the very report which tiie priests caused to be spread abroad, that the disciples stole the body away while the soldiers were asleep. And if it should be assumed that neither this report nor the story of the guard had an existence until the publi- cation of Matthew's Gosp:'l, still the ftict remains that it was pul)lished in the Gospel written especially for Jewish readers, and that after its publication the Jews made no such denial. Since it was not denied at the time when men knew the facts, it is too late to deny it now.' specifica- ^^ ^ second .s>pcc'fication, it Is lidd to be incredible that f'lfhireto Mary did not at once recognize Jesus, if she saw him, instead Jesus"'^^ of supposing him to be the gardener.^ But it is answered, first, that her own statement, that she did not recognize him at first, is proof that her s^ory was not made up ; for surely she would not have made it up this way, but would have said, "As soon as T laid my eyes on him I knew him." Second, her failure to at once recognize him is naturally accounted for by the considerations that she thought he was still dead, that she was anxiously inquiring wiierc his dead body could be found, and that her eyes were full of tears when she first turned toward the person wlio sj)()k(' to iier. ' .Stnuiss iittempts to explain the lie assumed it." {Neir Life, i. 207.) origin of the story that a jruard was But it is certain that if such a con- placed over the sepulcher, in the versation had occurred, it would following way : " In the disput*^ not have stopped hero. AVhert the upon this point, a Jew may have Chri.stian said, "You had certainly said : No wonder that the sepulcher set a watch over it," the .Tew would was found empty, for of course you have replied, " Now you are lying; had stolen the body away. 'We and you know you are lying;" and stolen it away,' paid the Christian ; thus the story would have been 'how could we have done that, nipped in the bud. when you had certainly set a watch " Sup. Rri, iii, V^7, 4.58. over it?' lie believed this because NEW TESTAMENT HOOKS. 121 Under the head of things impossible, it is said tliat Jtisus^/^^jJ^.''i^*' could not have vanished as he is said to have done frequently, J",jj'JJf nor have entered a room through the boards of closed doors, ments ..f if he had been in a real body. But these two tilings can be'^""^ declared impossible only on the assumption that Jesus pos- sessed no supernatural power; for if he had .such power, neither was impossible. Both of the infidel writers cited in the foot-note below unconsciously provide in their own words this answer to their objection. One of them says, if the incidents in question occurred, " there could be n<> ques- tion tliat the natural corporeality of the body and life of this human being was of a very peculiar, perfectly supernatural order ; " while the other says of the entrance into the room, " Tt can scarcely be doubted that the intention of the writer is to represent a miraculous entry.'" This charge is in reality based on the assumption that Jesus had not really risen from the dead ; for if he had, he could certainly do all that is .said of him; and the objection therefore contains a fal- lacious a.ssumption of the very thing to be proved. In other words, it is an attempt to discredit the proof of the resurrec- tion by assuming that the resurrection did not occur, and that therefore the witnes.ses must be mi.staken. Xo fallacy could be more inexcusable. In reality, the sudden appearance of Jesus in a closed room, and his equally sudden disappearance without passing t!i rough the door, are no more wonderful than the omnipresence of God, or the fact that he sees in the darkness as well as in the light. '"Now in this case, if the eating life of thi.s human l>ein;,' was of a and the touching were historically very peculiar, perfectly snpcrnat- true, it could not be doubtful that ural order." (Strauss, Xeir Lij'r, \. what appeared to the disciples was 407. i "If Jesus possessed his own a human body, endowed with a body after his resurrection, and natural life and a natural body; roidd eat and be handled, he could and if the showing and feeling of not vanish ; if he vanished he could the marks of the wouniis were .so, not have been thus corporeal. The there couM be as little doubt that aid of a miracle has to be invoked the human being was the Jesus in order to reconcile the repre.son- who died on the cro.s8 ; finally, if tations. . . . It can .scarcely be the entrance with closerl doors were doubted that the intention of tlie true, there could be no qupstioii writer is to represent a miraculous that the natural corporeality and entry." tS'i//'. />*"_', 4ti6. ) 122 CREDIBILITY OF THE Second file sgcoikI general charge against the witnesses is that th^wit- *^^y ^^^^^ incompetent. This charge is not made formally, nesses. j^^j. j^ involved, as will be seen, in certain specifications, specifica- First, it is insisted that not one of these witnesses actu- tion: no ' i -r> i i r o one saw ^])y ^^w Jesns comc out of the tomb. J^y the author ot &u- urise. pernatural Religion the objection is stated in these words : *'The remarkable fact is, therefore, absolutely undeniable, that there was not, and it is not pretended that there was, a single eye-witness of the actual resurrection.'" There can be no reason for thus insisting on this fact, unless it be to show that the witnesses were incompetent for want of oppor- tunity. But in this direction it has no bearing whatever; for if they saw him alive after his death, this is proof that he came to life. The fact that no one claims to have witnessed the actual resurrection is indeed a remarkable fact, remark- able as proof that the story of the resurrection was not made up by pretence; for if it bad been, the witnesses, or at least some of them, would almost certainly have claimed to have seen him come out of the tomb, especially as some of them claim to have reached the tomb very nearly at the time of his departure from it. _ _ speciiica \ sccond specification is that the witnesses were de- tion. the I witnesses rented, and therefore mentally incompetent. This objection *'''• is one of the oldest ever employed by unbelievers, and it has been more elaborately svt f(irth in modern times than almost "e'lsus^^ any other. It was urged by Celsus, the first known writer against tlu; evidences of Christianity. He sneeringly remarks concerning the evidence of the resurrection, that the wit- neases were "a half frantic woman," and some one else who " had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or, under the influence of a wandering imagination, had formed to himself an aj)j)earance according to his wishes."' ?icho- ing the sneer of the ancient Epicurean, modern infidels, nota- hy Re- blv Renan, sav that Mary of Masrdala. bccnuse seven demons nan; •/ ' - •' " had been cast out oi her, was a womtin of unsound mind, and tliat her vision of Jesus was a hallucination,' As to the ' ///. ni. 440 •' " Divine power of love! pacred ■ Oil /III .\^{"" have to this day made no attempt at i)roof that is worthy off.',7/,r^V'"* the name. There are only two ways to prove that a man's testimony as to an object of sight is untrustworthy i)ecause of unsoundness of mind. If, in the first place, he gave evidence fanurc^ ** of insanity either before or after the event to which he testifies, his testimony may be ascribed to the workings of a disordered brain, jn-ovided fhiTe is in it jinythin;^- highly improbable. hallucinated woman jjives to the (Jb., .ipoWA's, GI.) worlil a resurrei'te possessed Mary of Ma^rdala?" ]'24 CKKDIHITJTV OF 'I'lli: But in the case of these witnesses nothing of this kind is claimed except Mary's possession, M-hich had long ago passed away, and the above mentioned charge against Paul, which is a mere fiction of the imagination. All that was done or said by any of the witnesses up to the moment of seeing Jesus, and all from that moment onward, is perfectly rational — it is that which any sane person under the same circumstances would do and say ; and the only ground for charging them with in- sanity is the fact that they claim to have seen Jesus. But, in ond^a*^ the second place, one may be pronounced a subject of halln- ^^' cination without previous evidence of insanity if he sees some- thing which is known by others present not to be a reality, or which is known for any reason to be impossible. For ex- ample, when a man sees snakes crawling on his bed, and feels them twining around his arms and his neck, while others standing at his hedside can see nothing of the kind, it is known that he is suffering from hallucination; or when he sees hob- goblins grinning at him through the ceiling and thrusting at him red-hot irons, he is known to be hallucinated because of the impossibility of" what he sees. But in the cases of the witnesses to the re-urrection neither of these conditions ex- isted. When one of the women saw Jesns, all saw him who were present; and so with the Twelve. When Paul saw him, his companions saw the miraculous light in which he appeared, and they heard the voice speaking to Paul, though they heard not the words that were spoken. There is a total absence in every case of such circumstances as give evidence of hallucin- iieai ation, unless it be the assumed imiiossihility of what they saw : ground of , . . . . ' , •' ... the and this is not impossible if there is a God ; for it is certainly charg". _ * ' •' not impossible that God should raise the dead, and especially such a dead man as Jesus. It appears, then, that the only ground for the charge of hallucination is the mere fact that these witnesses claim to have seen Jesus. If such a mode of reasoning were employed in the investigation of any other event, those who employ it, and not the witnesses to the event, w«>uld b(! pronounced of unsound mind. The third and last charge against the witnesses which we shall consider is the charge that thcyContradict one another. NKW TKSTAMKM liOOKS. i'2~) If this were true, and the eoiitradietions had a bearing on tlie J^jJ^^ main fact of the resurrection, Jsonie of the witnesses making Jj^^\*i™^'j. statements inconsistent with this main fact, tiiere woukl be {^hg'^^f/.' force in the objection; and we woukl be left, as in other cases "*'"^^*^'''' of conflicting testimony, to the necessity of deciding between the witnesses by tlie preponderance of evidence. But it is not '(,**'•-' •'II charge claimed, nor is it true, that the alleged contradictious take thisfg^J"[|,"p form. It is only subordinate and unessential details that 9re^^y,\*^,n"'„'; affected by tlicm. Such contradictions could exist in large "'"'*''' numbers, as they often do in the testimony of credible wit- nesses in courts of justice, without invalidating the evidence as to the main fact. Infidels themselves admit this in regard to the evidence of the crucifixion of Jesus; for while they claim that John contradicts the other Evangelists in respect to the hour of the crucifixion, yet not one of them on this account doubts the reality of the crucifixion itself. So it shouKl be in respect to the resurrection; they should not allow similar contradictions about details to make them doubt the united and harmonious testimony as to the resurrection itself. But is it true that the witnesses contradict one another ?f'pn|r«- diction This can be determined only by examining closely the specifi- ^^^^'led cations under this charge, bearing in mind while we do so that a contradiction, as we have said before (page 31), can not be justly cliarged except when two statements are made wliich can not both be true ; that if, on any rational hypothesis, they both can be supposed true, they both mat/ be true, and no contradiction is made out. This rule is made necessary by the fact that writers and sj^eakers often omit details, the absence of which give tlu-ir statements the appearance of inconsistency, whereas their presence in the narrative would have prevented this a])pearance. It is unjust to refuse any writers the benefit of this rule ; for in doing so we are liable to charge with false- hood the most truthful writers, and with incorrect infomation those best informed. The first specification to be noticed under this head has ref- .5p,,pifi,.a. erence t(» the time at which the women went to the >c|>uleher. ,'{^y,{,«*i Matthew says they came " as it began to d;iwn :" anii>. A',/., iii. 4.-) I, -!.•)«<, 489. NEW Tl-ISTAMEM" IK)<)KS. 129 Sixth, it is alleged that Luke represents Jesus, at his first fP^'^.^^g*- interview with the apostles, as commanding them to remain fn'^Gaiif ill Jerusalem, tlius contradicting Matthew and John, who^®^' hoth represent him as meeting them in Galileo. The truth of t!iis charge depends on the question whether the whole of the conversation in the last chapter of Luke (36-49), occurred at the first interview with the apostles. If it did, then the command (verse 49) to tarry in Jerusalem was given, as is alleged, at this first interview. It must be admitted that, with Luke's Gospel alone before us, we would thus conclude; but this would not be a necessary conclusion, for it is the well this uot ' contra- known habit of the Gospel writers to often pass from <>ne j'^^^^*^ ^y incident to another widely sepnrated from it, without a note of time. For example, in the niidst of his account of the last supper, Luke introduces, without a note of time, tlie state- ment, "And there arose also a contention among them, which of them is accounted to be the greatest;" whereas this con- tention had arisen among them several months previous, as we learn both from Luke himself and from Matthew/ Again, the conversation with certain of his disciples about following him is mentioned by Luke directly after that about the Samariinn village whose inhabitants would not receive him, and it is introduced by tiie words, "And as they went in the wav ; " yet it really occurred while they were yet in Galilee, and as thov were about to take a boat for the eastern side of the lake.- Witii this knowledge of the writer's habit, one could not be sure that the conversation in question, begin- ning "and he said to them" (verse 44), followed in j)oint of time immediately upon the preceding ; and consequently the charge of contradiction could not l)e made out, though it would liavv^ more plausibility in this instance than in any of the precediuiT. When, however, we turn to I^uke's second b"tiiis narrative, and allow him to exjjlain himself, as he did to«^^.^^^j Theophilus, his meaning is left without uncertainty, and '" '^<"**'- the appearance of contradiction vanishes. In his introduc- tion to Acts, as if for the very purpose of making clearer ' Luke xxii. L'4; ci. ix. 40; Matt. Luke ix. .•)l-(i2; cf. Matt. viii. xviii. \. 18-2:{. 130 CRKDIHILITY OF TIIK his conck'iistd account in the close of his Gospel, lie tells Theophilus that there was an interval of forty days between the first interview with the eleven and the one in which he gave thera their last instruction and ascended to heaven (i. 1-9). Specified -phe seventh and last specification which we shall consider tion: tni' i oTforfv ii»der this charge is based on the passage in Acts last cited. ^^^'^- It is charged that the statement about the interval of forty days is a contradiction of the preceding narrative, and that it is adopted in order to make room for the different appear- ances of Jesus.' It is difficult to have patience with critics who thus refuse to allow the later and fuller statements of a writer to modify and explain his earlier and more concise narrative, without the charge of fraudulent design. The author of these two narratives certainly had no thought that his friend Theophilus was in danger of seeing a contradiction between the two accounts, or he would have made some effort to guard against such a construction ; and if he had the intention of deceiving, he would most certninly have made such an effort. The absence of the faintest trace of such an effort is proof sufficient that the' jjK>ed of it was not felt, but that, on the contrary, the writer was conscious of that candid truthfulness which casts aside all thought of guarding against siLspicion, If a writer of the present day were 1o publish an Mf'count of having visited a certain friend at a certain date, and in connection with it were to repeat some conversation witii that friend; and in a subsequent publication were to say that the visit lasted forty days, and that the conversation re])orted was separated by this interval, no sane man would think of charging him with contradicting himself; yet this is precisely the case before us. Mon^^R.ito ^^^' *^^^'^' ""^^' t'xp''»i"^'t^ idl the alleged contradictions in oonua-^'^ the several accounts of the resurrection which we consider fiictioii xvorthy of notice, and we find that the charge is not sustained Ity a single specification. We may therefore .safely dismii^s the eharge, and at the same time di.smi.s.s from our minds all thought of having: to ajwlogizc, as some believers seem icadv (n do, fin- ' SfraiisK, \r,r I,[fr, i.40.'5; Hcnan, Aixtxilt'x, L'U. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 131 immaterial discrepancies. No discrepancies either material or immaterial have been discovered in these acconnts afier a search which began eighteen centuries ago, and has continued with little interruption to the present titne. CHAPTER XI. THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS: ADVERSE THEORIES CONSIDERED. Thedis- When admitted facts are to be accounted for, there may appear- , x* i i." anceof be one of three cases: First, no adequate cause tor the tact the body ' . i • j to be ex- j^^v be knovvn : in this instance the fact remains unexplained as plained •' i i • i threr"' to its cause. Second, two or more causes may be known, cither ways. Qf ^yhici, \^ adequate to account for the effect : in this instance there is a (pu'stion of probability as to which of these is the real cause. Third, one, and only one, adequate cause may be known: in this instance the fact "must be explained by that cause. In the inquiry concerning the resurrection of Jesus there are, as we have previously stated, two admitted facts having imi)i)rtant bearing on the main question : first, that the dead body of Jesus disappeared from the tomb on or before the third morning; second, that the disciples came to believe that it disappeared by rising from the dead. These two facts are readily accounted for if Jesus actually arose; but if they can be accounted for on some other rational hypothesis, then the question is one of probability between that hypothesis and the resurrection. Again, if they can be accounted for on no other such hypothesis, we are logically shut up to the resurrection as the only adequate cause. Such hypotheses have been advanced by unbelievers, and we shall now give them careful consideration. Avoid 1. Very few infidel writers have seriously grai)pled with (Uice of •' • 1 rn 1 this qius- the question, how the body of Jesus disappeared. They have unbeiiev- doubtless avoided it because they had no hypothesis on which they were willing to take a stand. Christian Baur, realizing his inabilitv in thi> parti<'iil;ii-, ■-lots the question aside by the XKW rKSTANrEXT BOOKS. 133 following very remarkable statement ;**The question as to the nut lire and reality of the resurrection lies outside the sphere of historical investigation."' This is remarkable, because it places outside the sphere of historical investigation the most momentous even in history, if it is an event ; and it is the more rem irkable in tiiat it is made in a history of the Clmrch. It leaves outside of church history an inquiry into the very fact on which the existence of the Church depends. It is like a history of the United States which leaves out of consideration the reality of the Declaration of Independence, or a treatise on the solar system which treats the reality of the sun's existence as an outside question. Baur could not have chosen a more empliatic method of declaring his dissatisfaction with the theories on this subject propounded by some of his fellow infidels. Renan. more courageous than discreet, takes issue with ^,!'^*"'? ^ ' attempt Baur. and makes a bold attempt to account for the removal to*"swor of the body. He formally raises the question, " In what place did the worms consume the lifeless corpse, which, on the Friday evening, had been deposited in the sepulcher?" He proceeds to answer as follows : " It is possible that the body was taken away by some of the disciples, and by them carried into Gililee. The others, remaining at Jerusalem, would not be cognizant of the fact. On the other hand, the disciples who carried the body into Galilee could not have as yet become acquainted with the stories which were invented at ' "The question as to the nature (Baur, Church History, i. 4L'). Strau.>^he is about cave. She wept copiously ; one sole to touch him. .\ sort of instinctive thought preoccupied her mind: movement throws her at his feet to Where had they put the body ? ki.ss them. The light vision gives Her woman's heart went no further way. and says to her, 'Touch me than her desire to clasp again in not!' Little by little the shadow her arms the Vjcloved '^orpse. Sud- disappears. But the miracle to (ixplain the process, by asserting that " no psycholoij^ical analysis can show what that process was.'' ^ Tlii,'- is the candidlv cxi^-csscd judgment of ' .S'up. /ic/., iii. 497, note. iirrection is of minor importance *"The view we lake of tlio n-s- for tho liistory. We may lOfjard it NESV TESTAMENT lUjOKS. l;j*) oue of" the most learnud and acute oi" all of the men who liave written against the evidence of the resurrection. In regard to the other women, Rcium first nii.srenreseuts?^°*° «" ° ' I the belief their testimony by saying that they did not claim to have°(f|^jp seen Jesus, and then tries to account for their claim to have^*^™^°' seen and lieard the angel, by saying : " Perhaps it was the linen clothes which had given rise to this hallucination;" and '' Perhaps, again, they saw nothing at all, and only began to speak of their vision when Mary of Magdala had rrlated hers." ' As to the former of these two perhapses, the supposition that four or five women, entering a tomb to put spices on a dead body, and finding only the grave clothes , there, would take those folded pieces of linen for a young man in dazzling apparel, and think they heard him say to them, "He is no longer here; return into Galilee; he will go before you; there you shall see him," appears incalculably more like the working of a disordered brain than anything these artless women ever did or said. The other supposition, that they saw nothing, but only told their tale after Mary iiad told hers; that i>, that they made up u lie to keep Mary from excelling them in telling big tales, is the more reasonable of the two, and it would doubtless have been adopted in prefer- ence but for the fact that a real belief in the resurrection is admitted, and this would be accounting for its existence by denying that it existed at all. How much more rational to believe the whole story told by the women, than to believe this absurd effv)rt to ex])lain it away. In accounting for the^j"j'j|j.*' belief of the Twelve, Kenan succeeds no better. After tlu'*^'^^*^"' a.ssumption already cited (page 123), that tlicy mistook a cur- rent of air, a creaking window, or a chance murmur for the voice of Jesus, he says they immediately decided that Jesus was present, and "some pretended to have oi)served on his hands and his feet the mark of the nails, and on his side the as an outward objective miracle, or death of .Jesus was changed into as a subjective psychological niir- belief of bis resurrection, still no acle; since, though we assume that psychological analysis can show an inward spiritiial process was what that process was." (Church possible by which the unbelief of HiMnry, i. 42.) the disciples at tbe time of the ' ApmOiK, (»•_'. 140 CREDIBILITY OF THE mark of the .spear which pierced him." ' This is, in the first place, a false representation of the testimony. The testimony is, that when they heard the voice, instead of instantly believing that Jesus was in their midst, they were " terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit ;" and that it was not until he sliowed them his hands and feet, and ate a piece of broiled fish in their presence, that they were sure it was he (Luke xxii. 36-43). Tliis is the testimony to be dealt with, and not the imaginary representation which Renan substitutes for it. With this before us, we can at once see that either they told the truth, or the assertion made by Renan about some of them is true of all, they pretended to have seen his wounds; and this means that their story is a falsehood. Here again the theory of hallucination breaks to pieces in the hands of its advocates, and turns into the theory of intentional falsehood. That it does so is proof that there is no middle ground between charging the witnesses with conscious fraud, and admitting the truth of their testimony. of°Puui ^^ *^ *^^ origin of Paul's belief, after stating the theory of delirious fever which we have already noticed (page 123), Renan says that while a prey to these iiallucinations Paul saw Jesus, and heard him say to him, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" and that instantly his sentiments experienced a revul- sion as thorough as it was sudden ; "and yet all this Avas but a new order of fanaticism."- If there were any reason at all for thinking that Paul was at the time suffering from delirious fever, it would be possible to suppose that in this fever he was possessed by such a hallucination; but that he would have believed this hallucination to be a reality after he recov- ' ApoMloi, ()7, <)8. thiilliuK tlioujjht.s rush in upontlie ^"AikI what (lid he see; whut soul oi T'aul. Alive to the enoniiity (lid he hear, while a prey to these of his conduet, lie saw Inmself hallucinations? He saw the conn- stained with the blood of Stephen, tcnance which had haunted him and this' martyr appeared to him tor several days; he saw the phan- as his father, his initiator into the torn of which so much had been new faith. Touched to the quick, said. He saw .Jesus himself, who his sentiments experienced a levul- spohe to him in Hebrew, sayin;,', sion as thonMifjfh as it was sudden; 'Sanl, Saul, why persecutest thou and yet all this was but a new order nie'." , . Instantly the most of fiinaticisni."' { AjuiMh-x, 17.S, 174i. New testament books. 141 iTeil from tlie fevt-r is preposterous; it is contrary to all the experiences of persons who have had fever. The absurdity of the supposition appears more glarini; still, when we retueniber that Paul's disbelief in Jesus as the Messiah was based on his deliberate judgment as to the meaning of the prophesies on that subject found in the Old Testament ; and there could be no possible connection between a halliicinatitin experienced in fever and the exegesis which had h d him to his conclusion.s. Baur follows in the train of those who hold Paul's vision naurs at- II L- • • tempt. of Jesus to have been a subjective experience, but he re})udiates the hypothesis defended by Renan, that a thunderstorm burst- ing from the sides of Mount Hermon was the immediate cause of the transition.' He holds that the account of that miracu- lous light is nothing but a symbolical and mythical expression for the real presence of the glorified Jesus; and he says: *' However firmly the Apostle may have believed that he saw the form of Jesus actually and, as it were, externally before him, his testimony extends merely to what he believed he saw." This last remark is unquestionably true ; and the only question is, Did he see what he believed he saw, or was he mistaken ? As we have said before, if there occurred within him, from some unnatural state of mind, the conviction that he was seeing and hearing Jesus, this conviction would have passed away with the unnatural mental state which brought it about; and eonser|uently the fact that he continued to believe that he saw and ln'arcl with his phvsical senses is the l»est of proof that he Hve^ itself Let it be noted, too, that the only reason why infidels attempt, ^"an wish to get rid of the fact of the l)lindness is because it proves the reality of the miraculous light which caused it, and of the miraculous cure which removed it. Now, if in the accounts of it given in the text of Scripture it had the nppear- ance of being lugged in to artificially support the evidence of these two miracles, this would justly excite suspicion of its reality ; but no such artificiality is charged, and there is not the slightest indication of it to be found. It must stand as a fact; and while it stands, it stands as an impassable barrier to the attempts of skeptics to throw doubt on the reality of Paul's vision of Christ glorified. It was largely owing to this fact, perfectly well known to the unbelieving friends of Paul during the three days of its continuance, that he "confounded the Jews who dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is the Christ" (Actsix. 22). theoViet ^^ "°^^ ^^^ *^^^ ^^' attempts lo break the force of the Hii fntiie. evidence for the resurrection by adverse theories concerning the disappearance of the body of Jesus, and of the origin of the belief of the disciples that he had risen, are as futile as those to invalidate the testimony of the witnesses by various charges against them. The case, then, is the third of those NKW TESTAMENT liOOKS. 14,j mentioued at the beginniug of the chapter (l;i2, 133). These two facts are to be accounted for. The resurrection of Jesus accounts for them adequately, and on no other hypothesis can they be accounted for at all; therefore we arc confined to the actual resurrection as the true and only cause of the admitted facts. CHAPTER XII. THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS: THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES. The writers through whose reports the testimony of the witnesses comes to us having been named, and their authen- The pres- ticity vindicated, we next proceed to inquire into the qualifica- quiry. liQjjg of the witnesses themselves. We have considered these to some extent in the last chapter, but only in the way of inquiring whether the witnesses are liable to certain charges which have been preferred against them by their enemies. We now take up the inquiry as an original question, and will conduct it as it should be conducted in regard to any wit- nesses of important events, deter-*" The forcc of human testimony depends on three things: honesty^ first, the honesty of the witnesses; second, their competency; ncsses: and third, their number. We ascertain whether they are honest, by considering their general character and their motives in the particular case. Hence, in attemptinij; to im- peach a witness in a court of justice, it is common to call on men who know him, to testify as to his general repiitation for veracity; and also to inquire whether he is personally inter- ested in establishing the facts to which he testifies. Cora- compc- potency is determined by considering the opportunities of the tcncy: ^vitness to obtain knowledge of that to which he testifies, and his mental capacity to observe and remember the facts. The requisite number varies with the degree of probability at- tached to the facts. The testimony of two honest and com- petent witnesses makes us feel more sure than that of one ; rVMullTtc a"^^ *^^'''t ^^ three, than that of two; but a limit is soon iiiimbpr. ,.gjjgl^p^ beyond whieh tl)ose who an- eonviiieed feel tlie need f 1 ir. ) NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 147 of no more, and those wlio are not yet convinced realize that more ^vould not convince iheni. When this iiural)er has "testified in any case, the number is sufficient, and a greater number would be useless. Applying these tests to the witnesses of the resurrection ^g^',^'.^^"" of Jesus, we find that their genei-al character, judged by all Jj^g^gg^'^' that we know of thcni, is good. The sentiments uttered by by7he!r the principal witnesses are those which to this day guide thcments; consciences of the most enlightened men in the world; and no teachers have ever insisted more strenuously than they on the duty of strict veracity. As to their motives in testifying to the fact of the resurrection, they are above suspicion. The motives which prompt men to false testimony are fear, ^^5^^.^^^^^ avarice, and ambition; fear of some evil to themselves or^^aUe^ others, which is to be averted by the testimony; desire ofmony; sordid gain ; and ambition for some kind of distinction among men. Can any of these motives have prompted the Apostles to falsely testify that God had raised Jesus from the dead? It is impossible to sec any threatened calamity which they or their friends would have escaped by tliis testimony if it is false. On the other hand, they must have anticipated p?elenc© much danger to themselves if they should publicly proclaim Mv^or it; for to publicly proclaim it would be to proclaim the chief^ priests and Pilate murderers, convicted as such by the act of God in raising from the dead him whom they had slain. For such an offense they could not expect anything but the sever- est punishment; or, if they hoped at first to convince these rulers, and to bring them to repentance, the hope was soon dissipated ; for it was on account of this very testimony that they were arrested, thrown into prison, .scourged, and pursued with all manner <>f ])ersccution. Really the Twelve suf-J'^'^/'J^f. fered the loss of all that men (.nlinarily hold dear in con- f,^.^J;^\^;',^" .sequence of persisting in this testimony; and the honesty <'f',Uii-^"^ no set of witnesses was ever so .severely tested, or so clearly " • demonstrated. This is especially true of the Apostle Paul, who >uffered more than any other witness. The demonstra- JJj,^p^j,^y tion is so complete that it has won the acknowledgment,'"'"^'"^'' espe<'ially witli icR-rence to I'aul. of the nn»s( deterniined 'I'lie wit- nesses 148 CKEDIUn.lTY OK i HE foes of" the Christian faitli. Thus the author of Supernatural Religion says: "As to the Apostle Paul himself, let it be said in the strongest and most emphatic manner possible, that we* do not suggest the most distant suspicion of the sincerity of any historical statement he makes." ' Being honest, the witnesses believed that of which they testified ; and if they believed it, it must be true unless they were mistaken. Whether they can have been mistaken or not, depends on their competency, and this we are next to consider. Of the opportunities which these honest witnesses enjoyed fe^'J^'en. for knowing that of which they testify, we are informed by ''^^^^- their own statements. Of their mental capacity we have already spoken in full while discussing the charge that they were halhicinated. Under the head of competency, then, we have only to examine their several statements, and see whether their opportunities were such as to insure that they were not mistaken. We shall do this by considering, first, the testi- mony of the women; second, that of Clcopas and his un- named companion; third, that of the Twelve; and fourth, that of Paul. raatJwit- "^'^^ women who went to the sepulcher on the third morn- ing were Mary Magdalene, whose excellent character is suffi- ciently attested by the fact that she was the most intimate and devoted female friend of Jesus ; Mary the mother of James and Joseph, of whom we only know that she Avas one of the company of Jesus; Salome, the honored mother of the two Apostles, James and John ; Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward, who, considering her relation through her husband to that murderer of John the Baptist and persecutor of Jesus, could have become a follower of the latter only through the most disinterested motives; and "other women," whose names arc not given because, perhaps, they were not conspicuous in the cliurch at the time that our (xospels were written, or because it was thouglit by the writer that the names given were suffi- cient in number. All that is said in our Gospels to have been seen and heard by these women was of course derived from them by the writers, and it is their tcslimonv. '>"/'. A''/., iii. I'.n;. iiesses. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 149 On reaching the scpulolu'r and finding it open lliey claim, '^.PP^''^"- '-' ' o I J } luties of as we learn from Murk and Luke, to have entered into it — a^,^^""" circumstance of which Matthew says nothing. On entering fvomen! they foimd the tomb empty, and soon they saw within it t wo fitu-'^^"^ angels, though Matthew and Mark mention only one of them, ™'^"^' the one who had opened the tomb and who immediately speaks to the women. His words, only partly reported by any one writer, when put together in their natural order, are these: "Fear not: fori know that ye seek Jesus who hath been crucified. Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, for he is risen, even as he said. Remember how he spake to you while he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful nun, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. Come, see the j)laoe where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples he is risen from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Gali- lee; there ye shall see him : lo, I have told you." As they ran from the tomb to carry this message, Jesus himself met them, and saluted them with the word, "All hail." " They came and took hold of his feet, and worshiped him." While doing this, again they hear his voice: "Fear not: go tell my disciples, that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me." While the three synoptic Gospels give jointly the details The op- just recited, that of Mark, without explanation, informs ns^ j^j*^^^,"! that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, which implies that before the appearance to the women just mentioned she had separated herself from the others, for had she been with them they would have seen him as soon as she did. The fourth Gospel accounts for this separation, and gives the par- ticulars of the appearance to Mary. It informs us that when she saw that the stone was removed frr)m the tomb she run to John and Peter, and said : " Tlicy have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him." As she had not entered the tomb, she inferred that the i)ody had been removed from the mere fact that the tomb was open. From this paasage we gather that her separation from the other women, implied in Mark's narrative, took place at the moment when they saw that the tomb was open, and that she 150 CREDIBILITY OF THE dill not go into the tomb with them. This ciroiiinstunce Matthew failed to mention ; consequently his narrative reads as if she continued with them. On hearing Mary's statement, Peter and John ran to the sepulcher, and Mary followed them. After they departed she stood for awhile weeping, and "as she wept she stooped and looked into the tomb." When she did so she beheld the two angels who had showed themselves to the other women, but not to the men, and she observed that one of them sat at the head and the other at the feet of where Jesus had laid. She knew these spots not by having seen the body after it was laid in the tomb, but from having seen Joseph and Nicodemus take it in, and observing whether it was carried in head foremost or feet foremost. Her observa- festi-^^"^ tion and her memory were very accurate. She testifies that ™""''- the angels said (one of them of course doing the speaking): " Woman, why weepest thou ?" She answered : " Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." At this instant, for a reason Avhich she does not give, she "turned herself back" and beheld Jesus standing near, but mistook him for the gardener. He said: "Woman, why weepest thou?" And she answered:" Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." She evident^ thought that the gardener would be glad to be relieved of the dead body. For an answer she hears her own name. "She turneth herself," being only partially turned toward him before, recognizes him, and exclaims, " Kabboni." He says to her: " Touch me not ; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my breth- ren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." n.nv this With this testimony before us, we ask. Did these women ">;;"y«'as have good and sufficient opportunity to know beyond ques- 1111(1 how tion that thev saw what tliev claimed to have seen, and heard ir should • • ' ''^■- the words which they reported? M'hcn the male disciples heard it all, they believed it not ; but their disbelief arose not from considering deliberately the (piestion which we have just propounded, but from the foregone conclusion that Jesus was not to rise, the very reason why some in (Mir own NEW IKSrAMEXT I'.OOKS. 151 dav will not believe. But when they considered the evidence maturely they accepted it as true, and so must every one to- day who considers it without prejudice. To the testimony of the women in regard to the absence ^•jj^j'y^f^^' of the body ffom the tomb is added that of Peter and John. Jq,\^,"""^ Luke siiys that after the report of the women, Peter ran to the tomb, stooped and looked in, and saw the linen cloths by themselves. John, in his more minute account, adds to this the statement that both he and Peter went into the tomb, and saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin that was upon his head not lying with the lin(!n cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself This testimony not only shows that the body had disappeared, but it furnishes strong evidence that it had not been removed in any of the ways suggested by unbelievers. If some of the disciples had taken it to bury it in Galilee, they would have taken it with the shroud still around it; so of the gardener, and so of the Jews. Only in case the body went forth into life, would it have been divested of the shroud in which all dead bodies were then buried. Our records leave it in some uncertainty whether the That of Apostle Peter, or Cleopas and his unnamed companion, wasa"dhis I ' I '■ ' compau- the first among the male disciples to see Jesus after he arose ;»"iis, but it is certain the latter are the first whose testimony is reported. Of the appearance to Peter nothing is said except the mere fact. Their testimony is given more in detail than that of the previous group of witnesses. In substance it is this: that as they were walking to Emmaus, a distance of seven and a half miles from the city, Jesus joined them; and appearing as a stranger, opened conversation by asking what communications they were having with each other as they walked ; and on learning, he jn-oceeded to show them out or 4utlu; Scriptures that it behoved the Christ to suffer all that ^esus had suffered, and to enter into his glory. They say their eyes were " h(»lden " that they should not know him; and they say that while lu; was speaking to them by ihe way their hearts were i)urniug within them. In answer to his first question, they said, among otluT things: "Certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the tomb; and 102 CREDIBILITY OF THE when they found not his l)0(ly, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive." In this they confirm what is said of the testimony of the women. They add: "And certain of them that were with us went to the tomb, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not." Now this la.st statement is entirely independent of Luke's statement in the previous paragraph, that Peter ran to ihe tomb, and saw the linen cloths by themselves; for they speak in the plural number, showing that they refer to more than one person. Their reference can be only to the visit of Peter and John de- scribed in John's Gospel, and yet it includes that of Peter mentioned in Luke. Here is an undesigned coincidence of an unmistakable kind, and it furnishes strong evidence that the story of Cleopns, who is the speaker, is reliable. Ho and his companion proceed to state that when they reached their destination the supposed stranger, after earnest solicitation, went in with them, that he sat down to eat, took bread, blessed, broke, and gave to them, and then vanished. Ju.st before he vanished they recognized him as Jesus, their eyes at the instant being "opened." Who could have invented this story? Who, wishing to invent a story of having seen Jesus, could possibly have put it into this shape? And wlio, com- ing to them as this apparent stranger did, could possibly have given the instruction which he gave? There was not another man on earth who at that time pos.sessed the ideas which were imparted. A conscious restraint upon their vis- ion, which did not excite their suspicion at the time, but which was distinctly remembered after the interview was ended, accounts for their failure to recognize him sooner. If, on this account, their opportunity to know him was not so good as that of the women, the consideration just mentioned.^ counterbalances this di.sadvantagc, and leaves their testimony free from doubt. The testi- The tcstimoiiv of the Twelve is presented in two di.stinct mony of t ' m • i i • i o , the forms in the >«ew 1 cstament, one in the closing chapters ot Twelve, ° * lutwo the Go.spels, and the other in the book of Acts. The former is their testiinon\ as mere men to the one fact of the resnr- sus. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 153 rection ; the latter, their tistimony as inspired meu to the glorification of Christ in heaven, which involved his resur- rection as a necessary antecedent. We shall consider the two divisions of the subject separately. Their testimony as found in the Gospels is connected with ^^^1^^,.^,^ five distinct interviews held with him — three in Jerusalem, ^vmrje*^-^^ and two in Galilee. The first in Jerusalem is described by' Mark, Luke and John, but omitted by Matthew. All told, the details are these : Ten of the Apostles, on the evening after the resurrection, were in a room securely closed for fear of the Jews. The two from Emmaus had been admitted and had told their story, which was received with discredit. The company were "sitting at meat." The two had scarcely com- pleted their story when Jesus stood in their midst without having passed through the door. His first word was, " Peace be unto you." At the first moment they were " terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they beheld a spirit." He said: " Why are ye troubled; and wherefore do reasonings arise in your hearts ? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me having." He also showed them his side. They still "disbelieved for joy," and they still wondered, till he asked if they had anything there to eat, and receiving a piece of broiled fish he ate it before them. They were then glad " when they saw the Lord," that is, when they saw it was the Lord in reality. He upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them who had seen him after he was risen. He closed by saying, " Peace be unto you : as the Father hath sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said unto them : "Receive ye the Holy Sj)irit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them ; whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." How he disappeared at the close of this or of any other interview excej)t the last, we are not informed ; and this is one of th(! marvels of tiiis wontlerful testimony. It shows that the witnesses were not aiming to tell a long story of irreh^vanl particulars, but to state siinj)ly and brii fly the facts on which liiith in the rcsm rection must rest. As regards 154 CREDiniLITY OF THE these facts, does their story admit of the possibility that they were mistaken ? Cau they be mistaken as to the fact that it Avas Jesus whom they had seen, with whom they liad con- versed, wdiose wounds in the hands and feet and side they had beheld? Can tlicy have been mistaken as to his having entered without opening the door, which they had securely closed for fear that an enemy might enter? Surely the story must be a series of conscious falsehoods, or it must be true: there is no middle ground, theirs ^* ^^^ second interview, which occurred just one week, as terview ^^'^ count time, after the first, eleven were present, and this in- terview seems to have been granted especially for the benefit of Thomas, who was not present at the first. When he was told of the first interview he exclaimed : " Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." His idea evidently was that the ten had seen some one whose person and voice so closely resembled those of Jesus that, like twin brothers, they could not be distin- guished; and as for the wounds, he thought that his breth- ren should have felt them as well as seen them before believing. The wounds he Avould admit as conclusive evi- dence if they were real, for he kncM- that it was impossible for another man perfectly like Jesus in every other partic- ular to also bear those wounds, and to be going about alive. The eleven were in the same room, with the doors closed as before, when Jesus a second time stood suddenly in their midst, and exclaimed : "Peace be unto you.'' Then, a(Mress- ing Thomas, he says: "Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." Thomas exclainiod, " My Lord and my God ;" but whether he put his finger and his hand into the wounds or not, we are not informed. It appears rather that the sight of the wounds was more convincing than he had su})posed, and that this, with the other evidence of his eyes and his ears, was enough. Jesus said to him : " liecause thou hast se(!n, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." This cndfil the interview; SEW TLi^TAMENT liOOKS. 155 and surely if the truth is tohl about it there was no chauce lor Thomas or any oi" the otliers to be mistakeu. The next interview was with seven of the disciples, includ- ^^^^j^ ing six of the Apostks. It was on the lake* siioro, and tarly {^^^^g'^' in the morning. They were in their boat fishing, and he was about one hundred yards distant on the shore. The first evidence that it was he was the tact that at his command to drop their net on the right hand side of the l)oat, they caught an immense draught of ti.slies where they had fished all night and caught nothing. This caused them to liasten ashore. There they found that he had prepared for them a breakfnst of broiled fish and some bread, which he deliberately dis- tributed among them. He then entered into an elaborate conversation with Peter in their presence, at the close of which he walked away. Here there was none of the wild excite- ment which arose at his appearance to them on previous occa- sions; but all was calm and deliberate from beginning to end. No company of men ever met a friend unexpectedly and spent an hour in conversation with him, who could be more certain that it was he than these were that it was Jesus with whom they conversed. A mistake on their part is inconceivable. The next appearance to the eleven was in Galilee, on *' thCj^^gj" mountain where he had appointed them." Matthew says : [ervi,!'J"' " When they saw him they worshiped him ; but some doubted." If this last remark means, as it has been construed by some skeptics, that they doubted all through the interview, we have one instance in which the evidence was not convinc- ing to all who were present: but is this the meaning? The remainder of the account shows that it is not. The very next clause is, "And Jesus came to them and spake to them," which shows tliat at the moment of the doubt he was not very near to them and had not yet spoken to them. There is n(j difference, then, between the doubt on this occasion and on the first, when they thought for a time that he was a ghost. Let us observe, too, that the very admission of this doubt is an indubitable mark of naturalness and truthfulness in the narrative; for it could certainly not have been thought of had it not been true; and even though true, it would havo been 156 CREDIBILITY OF THE omitted if the author had been more anxious to make the case a strong one than to tell it as it was. After coming to them as stated Jesus said to them : "All authority hath been given to me, in heaven and on earth. Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you : and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." These are the words of the commission, under the authority of which they proceeded to labor and suffer all the rest of their lives. To have been mistaken in thinking that they had heard them would have been a fundamental mistake ; and to have been doubtful would have given weakness in place of the strength which they ever afterward exhibited. Their op- portunity for both seeing and hearing was too good to allow the supposition that they could have been mistaken. thciriifth The last of these interviews occurred in Jerusalem on the view" day of the ascension. Its incidents must be collected from the last six verses of Mark, verses 45-53 of the last chapter of Luke, and verses 4-11 of the first chapter of Acts. He pointed out more fully than before the propliecies which must needs be fulfilled in him; and he opened their minds that they might understand these Scriptures. He showed them particularly that his death and resurrection were in accordance with these Scriptures, and that '' repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, begin- ning at Jerusalem." He commanded them to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, and promised them power to work signs and wonders in his name. He charged them, however, not to depart from Jerusalem until they should be clothed with power from on high, which he ex- plains by the words: "Ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence;" and he calls thi.s "the promise of the Father." They were bold enough to ask him, " Dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ?" but were told that it was not for them to know times and seasons. They were told the order in which they should carry their message to different communities: to Jerusalem first, then to Jiidea and' NEW TESTA MKNT BOOKS. J 57 Samaria, and then to all the earth. While this conver-iation was in progress he had led them from the city out across the Kedron, up the slope of the mount of Olives, and past the nearer summit of this mountain to the vicinity of Bethany; and as he concluded he lifted up hi.s hands to bless them, and was himself lifted up till a cloud received him out of their sight. They .stood gazing into the sky where he had disap- peared, until two angels stood by them, and told them that he would return in like manner as they had seen him go into heaven. Now here is the most protracted interview of all those described in our books; it was the most free and uncon- .strained on the part of the Eleven ; and even were there ground to suppose in previous interviews too great excitement on the part of the latter for reliable observation, there cer- tainly can be none in this. We conclude that all these accounts were given by men and women guilty of conscious falsehood, or that they all describe real events. The honesty of the witne.sses precludes the former alternative, and we have therefore no choice but to accept the latter. The testimony of the Apostles as given in Acts begins ^J'^^^Jit®''' with the scenes of Pentecost; for that which we have ji'st""gj^ considered from the first chapter is a mere supplement to Luke's Gospel. On the next Pentecost after the resurrection, the testimony of the Apostles was first given to the public; and it was given i)y all the Twelve; for they all stood up with Peter, and he was their spokesman. Peter approached the testimony by an argument from the prophecies of David, intended to remove from the minds of his Jewish hearers the antecedent improbability of the resurrection (verses 22-31), and then he presented the testimony of himself and his com- panions in the.se words: "This Jesus did God raise uj>, whereof we are all witnes-ses." This testimony to the fact of the resurrection is subordinated in the sermon to that con- cerning the glorification of .Tesus in heaven. The aeeount shows that Peter was now stupendous fraud, or to confess not only that Jesus arose from the dead, but that he was exalted to such a position and authority in heaven as to send forth the Spirit of God to continue the work whicli he had himself begun on the earth. Umony^ This testimony was repeated again and again, and it was the peated!^ chief burden of the Apostolic preaching to the unbelieving world, as well as the chief cause of all the persecutions which they endured. See Acts iii. 13-16, 20, 21; iv. 1, 2, 18-20; V. 17, 18. 30-32, 40; x. 38-42. It is all epitomised in the closing statement of Mark's (iospel : " And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs tnat followed." When our ThisiMt first three Gospels were written, this work was in full pro- form of t^ ' * mon ' th S''^'''''»> ^"^ ^^^ strongest evidence to the people that Jesus had ftt'^'thn*^'*'^ ri.sen from the dead was not the personal testimony of those time, ^yY^^y ^rj^^y i^jjj^ between the resurrection and the ascension, but the testimony of the Twelve who were going about among NEW TESTAMENT HOOKS. 159 the people proclaiming Jesus as the gh>rifie 1 • counts raeagerness of the evidence of the resurrection arrayed in theforthe ® ^ •' brevity ck>sing chapters of the Gospels — meagerness in the number °^ ^^'^^^j'*- of appearances of Jesus reported in each, but not in the con- {^J^g^^^' ehisiveness of the evidence which is given. In the presence of more convincing and comprehensive evidence, it was not importaHt to elaborate that which was less so. In addition to all that we have cited from Acts and theAfi'^'- tional tes- Gospels, wo have separate testimony from Peter and John in'i"io">"/ ' ^ ^ •' I'eter iiiid their own writings. In the first Epistle of Peter, there are''°''°- ri'j)eated references to the resurrection of Jesus as an estab- lished fact, and to his present living power in heaven. See i. 3,4, 7, 8, 12, 21; iii. 18, 21; iv. 11, 13. He gives none of the details of the interviews with Jesus by which he had gained a certainty of the fact of the resurrection; but he iu- diiectly affirms what Luke .says of him in Acts, by saying that he and others had preached the gospel " by the Holy Spirit .seiit forth from heaven" (i. 12), thus affirming his inspiration, and his consequent power to speak authoritatively of things in the heavenly world. The Apostle John, in the opening of his first Epistle, bears the following testimony: "That which wa.s from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen witii our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (for the life was manifested, and we have .seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, wliich was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) that which we have seen and heard declare "sve unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, ;\u(\ with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full." No doubt there is reference here to the manifestation of the " Word of life" l)(»th in the natural life of Je.sus, and in his life subsequent to tiie resurrection; but the reference is more j)artieularly to thr latter; for otherwise (he employing of 160 CREDIBILITY OF THE ears, eyes and hands iu identifying him would not be so insisted on. The passage is a reiteration by John iu person of the testimony given in the gospels ; and it renders the possibility of having been mistaken completely oat of the question. In the opening statements of the Apoc- alypse, the same Apostle gives fresh testimony by describ- ing a new appearance of Jesus to him, which occurred after the close of all the testimony given by the other Apostles, and after their death. He declares that Jesus appeared to him in a glorified form whick he minutely describes, showing that he saw him distinctly ; that notwithstanding (he glory of his form he was "like unto the Son of man;" that he himself, overpowered by the sight, fell at his feet as a dead man; that Jesus came to him, laid his " right hand " upon liira, and declared himself to be he who was dead, but is now alive for- evermore; and that he then dictated in an audible voice seven epistles to seven of the churches in Asia (i. 9-18). This testimony, let it be remembered, is admitted by infidels to be the genuine testimony of John; and as it is admitted that he was an honest writer, the only question about It is. Can he have been mistaken? We think that every unbiased mind in the world would promptly answer that the story was either made up from the imagination of the writer, or it describes a reality. This is the concluding section of the testimony of the original witnesses, as given in the New Testament. Let the reader judge, as he will answer to God, whether it estab- lishes as a fact the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and his ascension to the right hand of God in heaven. uonaites- '^^^ testimony of Paul given in his Epistles furnishes none prJi"^"'^^ t^^'^'' details by which we can judge whether he or the other witnesses of whom he speaks could have been mistaken; but it is a reiteration of the main fact in very positive terms. He presents the witnesses in solid array a.s follows: "I de- livered to you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and that he was buried ; and that he hath been raised the third day according to the S('ri|)tiir('s ; imd lh:i( lie Mppcart'd to Cephas; then to the Twelve; then hi; appeared U) above live hundred NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 161 brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fjillen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the Apostles; ami last of all he appeared to me also" (I. Cor. XV. ;3-8). Like the Gospel writers, he selects for mention a certain number of the appearances of Jesus, and omits the others; but he mentions more of them than any other writer, and he mentions one — that to James — omitted by all the others. This passage shows that he had already made the Corinthians familiar with this evidence, having made it the foremost subject matter of his preaching, and this ac- counts for the absence of those details which are so carefully given in the Gospels and in Acts. But the chief value of Paul's testimony in the Epistles is found in what he says of the powers which he had received from the risen Christ. Whatever may be thought of his being mistaken about mir- acles wrought by other persons, he could not be mistakeu in his claim to work them himself. On this point his testimony is explicit. To the Romans he says: "I will not dare to speak of any things save only those which Christ hath wrought through me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ" (Rom. XV. 18, 19). Here, by " the power of signs and wonders" and " the power of the Holy Spirit," he unmistakably means the miraculous powers exercised by the Apostles. To the Cor- inthians he says: ''Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience by signs, wonders and mighty works" (TI. Cor. xii. 12). Here there are three things to be noted : first, that his expression for the miracles which he had wrought is precisely that which was used by Pe*er in his sermon on Pentecost for tlic miracles of Jesus ; that is, signs, wonders and mighty works, whi(^h shows that he speaks of the same class of works; second, that these were then known to the Corinthians as "the slgus of an apostle;" that is, the in- dispensable proofs that a man was an apo.stlc, and that all the Apostles were known to be workers of such miracles; third, that this language was used in writin«i; to a people who knew 1G"J CUEDIJUMTV OV THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. whether he had wrought such miracles among them, aud a part of whom were his personal enemies, denying that lie was an apostle; uuder such circumstances it is inconceivable that he should have claimed to work miracles among them if he had not. We have this evidence in addition to the admitted veracity of Paul, that he wrought these miracles in the name of Christ, and that therefore Christ was not only alive, but in the possession of infinite power. siveiiess ^^^ testimonies which we have now considered combine evidtMice. ^^ prove that Jesus certainly arose from tlu; dead, and as- cended up to heaven. In thus establishing as real the great miracle of the New Testament on which all the others depend for their value, all ground and all motive for denying the latter are removed. If Jesus rose from the dead it was be- cause he was what his disciples represent him to* be, the Son of God; and from this it follows that he was possessed of all power. whole There is no need, therefore, that we go hack over the ac- fo'mira-*^ counts of miraclcs in the Gospels, and look into the evidence cj\^ere'd. foF thcsc in detail; the whole ground is now covered, and we are brought to the conclusion that the New Testament writers are credible when writing about the miraculous as well as when writing of the natural and the ordinary. CHAPTER XIII. THE MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS. The Jews of iho time of Josus, and after, bolievctl that in •^|',^.^pgg. the writings ol' Moses and the prophets there were predictions j^^sf^^'* concernint;' a great ruler and deliverer yet to come, called the Messiali in their language, the Christ in Greek. They ex- pected him, as we have stated in a former chapter, to be a son of David, to restore the kingdom of David, to settle all diffi- cult questions of doctrine and worship, and to abide forever (pages 22, 23). This expectation was embodied in the remark of Philip concerning Jesus: "We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Naza- reth, the son of Joseph" (Jno. i. 45); and it is alluded to in the remark concerning Simeon, tliat i,e was looking for the consolation of Israel ; and in the statement that the aged Anna " s|u)ke of him to all that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem'' (Luke ii. 38). The same expectation and hope are more fully and beautifully expressed in the song of Zacharias : Blessed be the Lord the God of Israel ; For he hath visited and wrought redemption for his people, and hath raised up a horn of salvation for us In the house of his servant David (As he spake hy the month of his holy prophets which have been since the world hcuran), Salvation from our enemies, and from all that hate us; To show mercy toward our fathers, And to remember his holy covenant. The oath which he swore unto Abraham our father, To grant unto us that we being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, 164 CREDIBILITY OF THE Should serve him without fear In holiness and righteousness before him all our days. (Luke i. ()8-75.) Theques- When John the Baptist appeared on the banks of the whether Jordan, and with preaching of unprecedented power stirred ^^- the hearts and consciences of the whole people, we are told that they " were in expectation, and reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether haply he were the Christ" (Luke iii. 15); and the leaders in Jerusalem went so far as to send to him priests and Levites to ask him pointedly this very Jj^^'^'^'s- question (John i. 19, 20). So when John had passed away, 7esus'\vas^'"<^ Jcsus cugrosscd the popular attention, during the whole ^^'' of his ministry the great and absorbing question w^as, Is he the Christ? True, the question whether he was the Son of God became prominent also, and especially toward the close of his career; but the former was ever the foremost question of the two. In the course of our discussion we have reversed this order ; for to us the question of his sonship stands fore- most both in importance and in the oi-der in which we most naturally consider it. Having settled this, we have prepared the way for the other question, and have made its settlement a very easy task. The question of the Messiahship turns on the fulfillment in ^^uerfby Jesus of thc predictions concerning the Messiah. He claimed ^^"*' while he was living that there were such predictions, and that they were fulfilled in him, saying on one occasion : " Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they that testify of me." . . . " Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses on whom ye have set your hope. For if ye believed Moses yc would believe me; for he wrote of me " (Juo. '•. 39, 45). After his resurrection, in con- versations with his disciples he taught the same thing with greater fullness. When addressing the two on the way to Emraaus, "beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, ho interpreted to them in all the scrijjtures the things concern ing himself;" and to the Twelve he said: "These are niv words which I spake to you while T was yet with you, how How the question NEW TKSTAMKNT ROOKS. * 16o that all things must needs be fulHllecl which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concern- ing me" (Luke xxiv. 27, 44). This was also the leading {y.^^y theme with all the apostles when addressing Jewish audiences. '"■'^'^^: IVter, in his second recorded discourse, after speaking of the sufferings and resurrection of Jesus, says: ''But the things which God foreshowed l)v the mouth of all the j)r(»pl'.ets, that his Chrireaching, concentrate their attention »»u those ri>"''*zed. respecting his death, resurrecting and exaltation ; and as the.se have been proved to be realities by our previous course of evidence, it is sufficient for our purpose now to show that tlicse were characteristics *){" th" Christ, in order t(» identify Jesus as that pcrMinage. IGG * CREDIBILITY OF THE Troofsad- ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ sermoi), Peter rested the whole of his argument bv'i'cter ^^^' ^''^ Messiaship of Jesus on the fulfillment of two predic- tions by David. The first is quoted from the sixteenth Psalm, in the words, following the Septuagiut: "Moreover, my flesh also shall rest in hope : because thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou raadest known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of gladness with thy countenance." This is certainly a prediction of a resurrection from the dead ; for if one's soul is not left in hades, and his flesh does not see corruption, it is because the soul and body are brought together again by a resurrection. But the Psalmist could not have been speaking of himself, as Peter correctly argues; for his flesh saw corruption, and his soul has remained in liades. The soul of Jesus, however, did not remain in hades, but returned into his body before the latter saw corruption; and this is true of no other eminent person ; consequently, he is the person of whom the prophet spoke. He is the Christ of prophecy. The second prediction is taken from the one hundred and tenth Psalm, in the words: ''The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy foot- stool." This Peter had just proved by the testimony of the Holy Spirit had taken place with Jesus, and certainly no other human being ever sat on the right hand of God; con- sequently this is another proof that Jesus is the person of !5'Jo^^^a<*- whom the prophets did write. Paul, in his sermon at Anti- by Paul. Qgj^ ^f Pisidia, uses the former of these two predictions in the same way. He says : " As concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure lucrcies of David. Because he saitii also in another psalm, Thou wilt not give thy Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of (Jod, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corru})- tion : but he whom God raised up saw no corruption" (Acts S':ff>- . xiii. .'34-36). On these iwo i)rfdicti(>ns, then, together with clency of / ' . these. many others which readily occurred to their hearers, these NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 167 two apostles rested the argument for the Messiahship of Jesus, in connection with other and still stronger proofs that he was the Son of God; and these are sufficient to make out the case. Indeed, if the Jews, or any other people who believe in the prophecies of the Old Testament, are convinced that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to the right hand of God to reign as a king, they need no other or better proof that he is also the Messiah of the prophets. It is for this reason, doubt- less, tiiat the apostles, after proving the former proposition, paid comparatively little attention to the proof of the latter. We are now prcj)ared to close this i)art of our inquiry, with ^>'^^^]^' the conclusion that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living '•^'^^'"'■'• God, and that therefore the system of religion which he estab- lished in the earth is of divine origin and authority. The other questions of credibility with which we started out (page 1,2), having reference to the thorough reliability of the record which we have of his sayings, and of the revelations which the apostles claim to have received, remain to be dis- cussed in Part Fourth, PART IV INSPIRATION OF THE NEW TEST2VMENT BOOKS. PART lY, THE mSPIKATION OF THE NEW TES- TAMENT BOOKS. CHAPTER I. THE PROMISES OF JESUS. Tke term iuspiratiou, when applied to the sacred books, Jpspira- designates the characteristic which they are supposed to have ""^d- derived from the iuspiratiou of their Avriters. When applied to the writers, it mraus the supposed miraculous action of the Spirit of God in their minds, by which liiey were caused to write as God willed. The term in its substantive form is not used in the New Testament; but it occurs in its adjective form (f)i6zi'S'j(TTo^, God-inspired), and in this form it is ap- plied to the Scriptures of the Old Testament (II. Tim. iii. 16). The inquiry whether the New Testament books possess H"^ to 1 •' i prose- this characteristic, may be prosecuted in two ways: first, by [^'^^^^[J'® considering what the writers themselves have said on the sub- ject ; and second, by considering the question whether such books could have been written by uninspired men. We have laid the basis for the first in Part Third, by finding that these writers are thoroughly credible in all their statements. Whatever they say, therefore, on the subject now before us we can believe implicitly, and wc will take up this branch of the inquiry first. cm) 172 INSPIRATION OF THE oHnsp'i-'^ If there is any kind or degree of inspiration which trnde-*^" believers mnst affirm and defend, it is that which is sot forth fended, jjj ^j^g New Testament books themselves. It would be irrele- vant to the subject of Evidences of Christianity, ;ind useless in itself, to discuss any other. Rut before we can determine whether to defend it or not, we must ascertain precisely what ft°^t'°b **' ^^' ^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ done, not, as many writers on the subject known, seem to have supposed, by formulating a theory of inspiration, and then searching the Scriptures to find support for it; but • by studying the Scripture presentation of the subject, and ^^^Ypj^^g^ accepting that as our theory. Now it so happens that the in N. T. subject is presented in the New Testament in a way quite favorable to successful investigation. We are furnished, first, with a number of promises of inspiration made by Jesus to the Apostles; second, with some very explicit statements made by the Apostles and others, which show the fulfillment of these promises; and third, with many facts and statements which help to define the limits of the inspiration thus set forth. We shall consider these in the order in which we have named them. The first The first promise of Jesus on the subject is quoted by Droiuisci V X tf Matthew in the following words: "But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to councils, and in their synagogues will they scourge you; yea, and before governors and kings shall ye be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak : for it shall be given you in that hour what yc shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Fatlier that speaketh in you (x. 17-20). The same promise is quoted by Mark and Luke, with the varia- tion in the latter, "for the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour what ye ought t<» suy " (Mark xiii. 11; Luke iis/uii xii. 12). Here we have first a |)rohii)ition, " Be not anxious"; fiKniti- ^ ' . <• i tance; and it has reference to two things: first, how they shall speak; and second, what they shall speak. Under " how " is included the manner of speech; that is, the style, diction and arrangement; under " what," the matter; that is, the thoughts tind fads. They are told not to be anxious about any of uey. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 173 these, even when their lives depended on what they would sav. It is impossible that mortal man should be free from auxictv under such circumstances, without supernatural aid. It foll(»\vs that the reason which Jesus proceeds to give for this prohibition is the only oue that could be given by a rational being. It is this: " For it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak : for it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you;" "for the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that hour what ye ought to say." This assurance would i)e sufficient to free them from anxiety, i^*^. if they could only implicitly believe it; but what an implicit faith it required! H(av diifereut from the feeble faith which now staggers at the thought that such a promi.se as this was ever realized ! In the words, " It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of ^^"^,gjjj^. your Father that speaketh in you," we have an obvious in-''""- stauce of the well known Hebrew idiom by which in compari- sons the absolute negative is put for the relative. They did speak, as appears from the fact that the Holy Spirit was to teach them what they ought to say; but as their speaking was to be controlled by the Spirit in them, it was not they only or chiefly that spoke, but the Holy Spirit. The second promise is reported by Luke alone. Jesus, after telling the disciples in his prophetic discourse on the^cond destruction of Jerusalem, that tliey sliould be delivered up to *""*'™^^*^ " synagogues and prisons, and be brought before governors and kings, continues : "Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand how to answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to gainsay" (xxi. 12-15). Here the ])ro- hibition advances from anxiety to premeditation. A coura-i.',^^,*^',']^'^^ geous man, after proper premeditation, might make a speech ^'''" '"^'' on the effect of which his life depended, with comparative freedom from anxiety; but who could enter upon .such adinioity . . . ^f '^'e speech without anxiety and at the same time without nre-r""''*' • ^ • ■ based on meditation? The Apostles were not only told to do this, but'*- the order is made emphatic by the words with which it is in- troduced : "Settle it therefore in your hearts." These words, 174 INSPIRATION OF THE while emphasizing the order, suggest also that it was to be the settled purpose of their hearts to carry the order into actual and how ^gg Such an Order would have been but idle breath to these made P^ig*'"" men, had it not been accompanied with the only assurance which could possibly make it practicable, the assurance that Christ would give them wisdom ample for each occasion; and he was to give it, as they knew from the previous promise, by the power of the Holy Spirit within them. promise"^ The third promise was made in the memorable discourse delivered on the night of the betrayal. The items of it are found in several distinct passages of the speech : " I will pray the Father, and he will send you another Advocate, that he may be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, Avhom the world can not receive ; for it beholdeth him not, neither know- cth him : ye know him, for he abideth with you, and shall be in you." "These things have I spoken unto you, while yet abiding with you. But the Advocate, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." " I have yet many things to say to you, but ye can not bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you ioto all the truth: for ho shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak : and he shall declare unto you the things promise Jesus as^^sures the disciples, first, that the Holy Sj)irit would be with them and in them always, as a substitute for his own presence. Second, that he should teach them all things, and bring to their remembrance all that he had spoken to them. Third, that he would guide them into all the truth. Doubtless, by "all things," and "all the truth," we are to understand ail that was needful for the discharge of their office as Apostles ; and by all that he had said to them, all that was needed by them, and that they did not already remember; but these are the only limitations which wo could dare to assign to the very explicit words employed. The The fourth promise was given on the* day of the ascension. promise. After charging the disciples not to depart from Jerusalem till NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 175 tliey received the promise of the Father which he had pre- viously mentioned, he tells them: "Ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence;" "Ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit is come upon you : and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth " (Acts i. 5, 8). Here that same gift of the Spirit previously promised is called a baptism in the Spirit — a figure which designates ijj'* ""«•*"• the subsidence of their own mental powers in those of the Holy Spirit when he should come upon ihem; and he assures them that they should then receive power, and i)e his wit- nesses in every land. The power necessary to be such wit- nesses, as we learn from the sequel, is both the power to work physical miracles and the power to speak with absolute knowledge concerning the exaltation of Jesus, and concerning his will in all things on which he had not spoken in person. If these several promises were fulfilled to the disciples ^j^^^*"^ the latter were endowed as follows: promises. a. The Spirit of God came upon them with such power that their spirits were figuratively immersed in it, and it abode in them to the end of their days. h. It gave them, or taught them, what to say and how to say it, in such measure that on the most trying occasions they could speak with unerring wisdom, iind yet without anxiety or })renu'ditation. It was not they that spoke, but the Holy Spirit that spoke in them ; that is, the Holy Spirit, and not they, was the responsible speaker. c. To the end of enabling them thus to speak, it recalled to their memory, as fully as was needful, all that Jesus had in person spoken; and as the words he had spoken were inti- mately blended with the deeds he had done, it undoubtedly recalled these also. This was especially needed when they were to speak or write concerning his earthly career. (l. To the same end, it guided them into all truth yet untaught, which it was the will of Christ that they sluMild know and teach. This was needful in order that their utter- ances concerning those items of CJod's will which they alone have revealed, that is, theii- statements concerning things in 176 INSPIRATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. the spirit world and in the future of time and eternity, miglit be received as the word of God. record of ^^ '^^ ^^^ uncomiuon to hear it said that the autltors of our promises f*^"^' Gospels do not claim to have written by inspiration. It the^ass^er- 's truc that Mark and Luke set up no such claim for them- tire'lA-ui- selves, but it is far otherwise in reference to Matthew and Johu. In setting forth these promises of Jesus, as all four of these writers do, they mean either to assert that Matthew and John, who were of the Twelve, experienced tlieir fulfillment, or that they remained unfulfilled. No matter what we may think of the truthfulness of these writers, we can not suppose they meant the latter, and thereby meant that their Master made promises which he failed to fulfill. Unquestionably they intended to convey the thought that every one of these prom- ises was fulfilled; and they wrote at a time when the fulfill- ment was a fact of their own past experience or observation. CHAPTER II. FULFILLMENT OF THE PROMISES AS STATED IN ACTS. We have seen in Part Third that while the book of Acts?eiiajiii- ity of the has been more confidently assailed by unbelievers than any one author of of the Gospels, its credibility has been completely vindicated. This vindication is the more remarkable from the fact that this book occupies such a relation to the others, and especially to Paul's Epistles, as to subject it to a greater variety of tests than any other. We come to its testimony on the subject of inspiration, therefore, with full confidence that in its state- ments we shall find nothing but the truth. After a few introductory paragraphs, the body of this nar- '^^^^ ','0°^ rative opens with a detailed account of the fulfillment of thejoj.'^^'^ promises of Jesus in regard to inspiration. The author hav-*ft°e"fii. ing referred to these promises in the close of his previous o^tho"' narrative, and also in the introduction to this, purposely and i'''^™'"*^^- formally opens the body of his work with the account of this fulfillment; so that it comes in not incidentally, but formally and prominently. He represents the Twelve as waiting for it and expecting it till it comes; and he declares that it came on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus. He saysJ^^^J^^nt. that on the morning of that day thoy were all together in one place, and suddenly •' there apj)eared to them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of thi'm. And they M-ere filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." He adds that there were men there from fifteen provinces of the Roman Empire, which he names, representing almost as manv toiiiriios and dialects, who heard these Galileans speakin;:: in 178 IXSPIRATION OF THE the tongues of all these countries, and that they were amazed and confounded by the fact, and inquired with one voice, " What does this mean ?" He further states that one of the Twelve, Simon Peter, arose, together with his eleven com- panions, and declared that this miracle was the fulfillment of a propliecy uttered by the prophet Joel, which he proceeds to reci(e in their hearing, and that Jesus, who had risen from the dead and ascended to the right hand of God, had sent upon them the Spirit whose power his hearers were witnessing (Acts ii. 1-33). Items of Xow here was the fulfillment of the promises of Jesus in the fill- i fiiitnent. almost every particular. First, the Twelve liad no premedi- tation, and they felt no anxiety. No amount of either could have helped them to speak in tongues; and for premeditation they had no opportunity. Second, both the "what" and the " how " of their utterances were given to them, and both were given by giving them the words ; for, the Avords being unknown to them, they were not suggested by the thoughts which were conveyed to the hearers. In this was fulfilled almost absolutely the words: "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." Third, the Spirit led Peter into truth hitherto unknown; for it enabled him to declare the law of remission of sins under Christ, and to make known the exaltation of Jesus, which had recently transpired in heaven. It is highly probable, too, that it brought to his mind the predictions both of Joel and of David, and enabled him to give an interpretation to both which he had not conceived before that hour. Fourth, such a complete possession of their minds by the Holy Spirit fully justified the metaphor by which the transaction was called a baptism in the Spirit. By the miracle of speaking in tongues it was now demonstrated, both to the multitude and to the Apostles themselves, that a power had taken up its abode within them fully able to i)erform all that Jesus had promised, and that this power was the Spirit of God sent down from heaven by Jesus himself. SLnency That the power thus bestowed on the Twelve on the great RifM.'f the Pentecost ocmtinued to abide in them according to the promise, NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 179 is set fort li in Acts in several ways. In tlie first place, the ^git^^ author makes formal mention of it a few times, and then "^-lukc. leaves us to infer that as it was thus far, it continued to be till the end. For instance, when Peter was first arraigned before the Jewish Sanhedrim, the writer, as if to call attention to l\yc fulfillment of the promise, says :" Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said unto them " (iv. 8), and proceeds to quote his speech. When the Apostles, being forbidden to speak any more in the name of Jesus, had prayed, he says : " Tliey were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness" (iv. 31). In the second place, he quotes the Apostles themselves aSbythe^** affirming the continuance of this power. He quotes Peter, "p°^"" = the second time that he appeared before the Sanhedrim, as saying: "We are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit whom God hath given to them who obey him " (v. 31, 32). This was an echo of the promise. "When the Advocate is come, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me: and ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." Again, he quotes Peter three times as affirming that the miraculous gift of tongues bestowed on the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius was tlie same as that bestowed on the Twelve at the beginning, thus reasserting the event of Penteco.st (x. 44—17; xi. 16, 17; xv. 8).- Finally he quotes the Apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem at the time of the conference about circumcision, a.s introducing the decree by the words, "It seemed good unto the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things ' (xv. 27, 28), thus affirming that their decision was the decision of the Holy Spirit, which it could have been (mly because they were guided in it by the Spirit. In the third place, the author himself makes the same rep- ^''^J^*^*' resentation, by mentioning many miracles which the Apostles {J?*,^^^^'*^^ wrought, which were at once a proof and an exhibition of the^^Q^j, ijj. presence of the Holy Spirit within them. This he does by his nccount of healing the lame man at the beautifid gate of the temple; that of many such jx'rsons healed after the death ISO INSPIRATION OF THE of Ananias and Sappliira; that of Eoeas at Lydda, and the raising of Tabitha from the dead in Joppa. We should espe- cially note also, in this connection, that peculiar exhibition of the Spirit's power by which, when the device of Ananias and his wife put it to the test, Peter looked into the secrets of their hearts and exposed their inmost thoughts. Here was a most startling and unmistakable exhibition of a mental power which the divine Spirit alone could impart, impart-' "^^ *^^ fourtli placc, the Apostles are represented as actu- splru^to ^^ly imparting the gift of the Holy Spirit in its miraculous others; manifestations to other disciples. Only one instance is for- mally described, that of its impartation by Peter and John to disciples in Samaria; but the gift was possessed by Stephen, by Philip, by Agabus, by Barnabas, by Synieon called Niger, by Lucius of Cyrene, and by Manaen ; and it was doubtless conferred on all of these in the same way. If there were any doubt on this point, it would be dissipated by what we shall yet learn from the practice of the Apostle Paul. Now this impartation of the Spirit to others is a demonstrative proof that the Apostles still possessed it themselves, and that the promise, " He abideth Avith you," w^as fulfilled. fhe^sS In t'^e fifth place, all that is affirmed in Acts on this sub- M^nof ject concerning the Twelve is in every particular affirmed of Paul after he became an Apostle. He was filled with the Spirit at the time -of his baj)tism ; he was a prophet; he wrought many miracles; he imparted the Holy Spirit to others; and he was even led by the direct power of the Spirit into proper fields of labor when his own judgment as to where he should go would have led him less wisely (Acts xvi. 6-8. TheBum The suni of the evidence in Acts concerning the fulfiU- oftliis . ° evidence, nient of the promiscs, we can now see, is the sum of the promises made by Jesus. The two stand over against each other as tin; two sid^s of an equation ; and they coml)ine to show that there abode permanently in the Apostles, and in some of their companions, a power of God's Holy Spirit equal to their perfect enlightenment and guidance in all that they sought to know mid say ; and that it did, as a matter of NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 181 fact, guide their thoughts, their words, and the eour.^c of their missionary journeys. Not only so, it enabled them to speak of things in heaven, on earth, and in the future, con- cerning which, without divine enlightenment, men in the flesh can know nothing. A more complete inspiration for their work of spaking, of writing, and of directing the alfairs of the church, is beyond conception. We can add nothing to it iu thought, and we should not in thought be willing to take any- thing from it. CHAPTER III. FULFILLMENT OF THE PROMISES AS STATED IN THE EPISTLES. The key passage. Paul claims miracu- lous power ; and reve- lations through the Spirit; the Spirit having l)C'en !.'iven for this I>ur|>ose. As the keynote on this subject for the whole book of Acts is sounded in the second chapter, so for the Epistles it is sounded in the second chapter of First Corinthians. Paul introduces the subject by saying : " My speech and my preacli- ing were not in persuasive words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wi.sdom of men, but in the power of God." By "demonstration of the Spirit and of power," he means the working of miracles whicli demonstrated his pos- session of the power of the Holy Spirit. When the people on such evidence believed, their faith rested not in philosophy, but in the power of God. After thus repudiating the wisdom of men as a source of his power and of their faith, he admits that he speaks wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom oi this world. On the contrary, he speaks the wisdom of God, a wi.sdom concerning things which men had never seen, heard or conceived ; " but," lie says, " unto us God revealed them through the Spirit : for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God." Here is an express assertion that he received revelations through the Spirit; and this agrees with the ])romise to this effect recorded in the Gospel of John. In the next place, after remarking that the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God, and knows them, he says: " We received, not tlie spirit of the world, hut the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the thinirs which are freelv given to us by God.'' This is an assertion that the Spirit through which God revealed things to him and his (18'J) SEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. I8.'i fellows, had been received by them from God for the very purpose of making these revelations. Paul next speaks of the words in which the things revealed ^^^°^*^J' by the Spirit were spoken. He says: "Which things also |aught1?y we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, butsp^jrit, which the Holy Spirit teacheth ; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." In this last clause the term "combining" would express the meaning better than " comparing." They combined the spiritual things with spiritual words'.' Than this, there could not possibly be a more explicit assertion that the inspired men were guided by or taught by the Holy * Spirit, as to the very words which they employed. Finally, the Apostle ends this invaluable series of state- J"*]^^^*^ ments by saying of the same class of whom he has spoken o'l'^chHs't. from the beginning, " We have the mind of Christ;" by which, in the light of the context, we must understand that in all their official utterances their thoughts were the thoughts of Christ, or the very thoughts which Christ would have them to utter. These affirmations made bv Paul are as explicit and as^bese ^ words comprehensive as those made by Luke in the second chapter c^'^fir^^^ of Acts; and if any one regards the words of an Apostle as|",f^^^"' more authoritative than those of the Evangelist, he ought the^,';'^^ '*^"* more readily to accept the latter because they are thustTH°cS reaffirmed. Let it be remembered, too, that even those "uVjecit. rationalists who deny the genuineness and credibility of Acts :uhnit the genuineness of the Epistles to the Corinthians, and consequently they admit that Paul actually wrote these affirm- ations. These, then, must be held both by believers and unbelievers as setting forth the apostolic teaching on this subject. If this passage; stood alone in the apostolic writings, all that we have just said would be true; but it does not by any means stand alone. Every thought which it contains is The same echoed again and acjain in other utterances scattered through asserted the Epistles. In regard to receiving revelations through tlie^^''^''^- Spirit, Paul says of his knowledge of the Gospel, that he 'See Thayer's * '<»■ -^ o ' •' tions of mentioned, consists of citations of facts from the Old Testa- ff.^'^. ment, not in the form of quotations, in which the Septuagint jieS'',.^";|^.'' account is followed instead of the Hebrew, or in which there is a departure from both. Of the former we mention three specifications: First, Luke's citation of Cainan as son of Ar- phaxad and father of Shelah, this name being oniiitcd in the Hebrew text (Luke iii. 35, cf. Gen. xi. 12). Second, Stephen's statement of the number of Jacob's family when he migrated to Egypt at seventy -five souls, after the Septuagint, whereas the Hebrew has it seventy (Acts vii. 14; cf Gen. xlvi. 27). Third, Paul's statement that the law came four hundred and thirty years after tiie promise, as compared with the statement of the Hebrew text that the sojourning of the Israelites in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years ((Jnl. iii. 17; Ex. xii. 40), Paul follows the Septuagint version of Exodus, which says : "The sojourning of the children of Israel, which they so- journed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years." In all these instances the.How J •' they oc- writcrs followed the version which they constantly read, with-*^"'^'*''^' out knowing, perhaps, that it differed from the Hebrew, just as scholars at the present day often quote from our English version without stopping to inquire whether it is accurate or not. Even if Luke, Stephen or Paul had stopjied to inquire 194 INSI'IRATIOX OF THE which text "sva.s correct iu the places cited, it is not at all probable that they could have decided the question by their pennit^^ Unaided powers. It is clear that the Holy Spirit could have ^^^- guided them, as it did other writers in other instances, to fol- low the Hebrew instead of the Greek text; and it follows from the fact that he did not^ that he desired the facts to be stated as the people read them in their Bibles, rather than to raise questions of textual criticism among a people unprepared for such investigations. Such a procedure would not have been admissible if the argument of the writer in either case had depended on tlie correctness of the name or the figures; but as it did not, there was no need of decision between the two texts. At the present day the most accurate of scholars are in the habit of quoting passages from our English version that are inaccurately translated, without stopping to correct the renderings except when the use which they make of a passage depends on rendering it correctly. To do otherwise would overload discourse with irrelevant matter, and expose one to the charge of pedantry. ferinff' ' Instances of departure in matters of fact from both the" ° the Hebrew and the Greek of the Old Testament are not and the numcrous, but we mention three which are conspicuous: o. T.: first, the substitution of Abraham for Jacob as the purcha- ser of the piece of land from Hamor in Shechem (Acts vii. 16, cf. Gen. xxxiii. 19); second, the substitution of Abiathar for Abimelech as high priest when David ate the shew- bread (Mark ii. 26, cf I. Sam. xxi. 1-6); and third, the cita- tion of the ]iassage about the thirty pieces of silver from Jeremiah instead of Zechariah (Matt, xxvii. 9, 10, cf Zech. xi. 12). The first two are obvious verbal mistakes, and the only question is whether they were made by the sacred writers or by early transcribers. When we consider the unexampled accuracy of the sacred writers in all such matters, and add to this the consideration of their inspiration, and then consider on the other hand the certainty of clerical errors even in the very first copies made by transcribers, we ought not to hesitate how to decide this question. All probability is in favor of the supposition that sonic (copyist originated the error. As how u<;- counled for. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 195 to the name Jeremiah, it must be disposed of in the same way and for the same reasons, unless, as some learned writers have supposed, Matthew here used the name Jeremiah because the manuscript roll of the prophets, which in many Jewish copies began with Jeremiah, wus referred to instead of the particular prophet.' Only in case it were certain that these three errors were committed by the inspired penmen could they have any bearing on the question of inspiration. Some of the predictions quoted from the Old Testament (s) Pre- ,,,,.,-- , , . . . dictions as luliilled in the Isew demand attention in this connection, quoted liaving While many of the predictions thus quoted aiipear from their "« apj.ar- context in the Old Testament to have direct reference to tliee^"Sj9y'^ events by which they are fulfilled, there are some which have ^^^j®^^®'^^ no such apparent reference. Two representative examples (^^^'^ are l)rought together by John as being fulfilled in the death of Jesus. When the soldiers, in breaking the bones of the crucified, passed by those of Jesus in disobedience to orders, and one of them pierced his side with a spear, John says there were fulfilled Ihe two predictions, "A bone of hinij^pig^* shall not be broken :" and," They shall look on him whom they pierced." The former of these was originally written with respect to the paschal lamb ; and it was given as a rule forbidding the Jews, in preparing and carving and eating the lamb, to break one of its bones. This was a very remark- able prohibition, requiring great care to observe it; and cer- tainly no Israelite, throughout the ages in which it was observed, could have discovered an adequate reason for it. It appears equally certain that no Christian after the death of Jesus could have seen and affirmed the connection pointed cut by John, until by the guidance of the Holy Spirit it was dis- covered that the paschal laml) was a type of Christ (I. Cor. v. 7) ; and then the mysterious prohibition was understood. The latter prediction, quoted from Zeehariah xii. 10, is obscure in the original context; but it occurs in a passage which speaks of Judah and Jerus ilem, and it is jirobable that no reader of the passage, either before or after the crucifixion, would have * See the discussion of tliis ques- Nole^ on Malthfv^n Gospel, Speaker^$ lion l)v Canon Cook in AditiUnnnl Ciiwninilnri/. 196 I^'SPIRATION OF THE Their bearing on the question of Inspir- ation. (O N. T. f^uota- tions from Jesus and others in var>'ing words. supposed it had any reference to the j)iereing of the .side of Jesus, without the Apostle as a guide; and how could he have thought so without the Holy Spirit as a guide? Such uses of the Old Testament, unless we regard them as the vagaries of unliceu.sed interpretation, and this is the light in which they are regarded by those who deny miraculous in- spiration, contain further proofs of the inspiration of the Xi w Testament writers, seeing that they exhibit deeper penetration into the meaning of the Scriptures than we can credit to the unaided powers of the Apo.stles. They show that the Holy Spirit, in the prophetic writings of the Okl Testament, had reference in his own mind, in various utterances which he prompted, to far different events from those to which the minds of the prophets were unavoidably limited. It shows also that to the inspired minds of the New Testament the Holy Spirit revealed much of the .significance of woids employed by those of the Old, which the latter did not them- selves understand. Thus he was fulfilling the Savior's prom- ise of guiding the Apostles into all the truth, by making known old truth that had been hidden, as well as by reveal- ing much that had never before been spoken. The remarks suggested by these two ])redictions apply with equal force to a number of others quoted in the New Testament, which in the original context have no apparent reference to the events in which they were fulfilled. On comparing the quotations made by the four Evange- lists severally from the words of Jesus and others, we find that in quoting the same remark they sometimes vary the wording of it in much the same way as they vary the words of Old Testament writers. The following are familiar ex- amples. The words heard at the baptism of Jesus are in Mat- thew: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well ])leased ;" in liuke and Mark: "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." The words of the fir.st temptation are in Matthew: "If thon art the Son of G(»(l, command that these stones become l)read ; " in Ijuko : " Command this stone that it become bread." The re])ly of Jesus to this temptation is in Matth(>w: " \{ is written, Man .shall not live by bread alone, NEW TK.STAMKNT H(J()K.S. 197 but by every word tliat .shall proceed out of the mouth of God;" in Luke: " It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone." Similar variations are found in many places; but in none of them is there a material change of meaning. They show that in bringing to remembrance what Jesus had said to the Apostles, the Spirit always brought to them the tiiought. I)iit not always the exact phraseology; and as this is true of;^"p^'|JoJ^ some which we can test by means of parallel reports, we may^''^'^^ presume that it is also true of some others; and that in speeches recorded by only one Evangelist there is not ahvays a verbatim report, but often one that preserves the thought with variations in the words. So far as the Spirit's guidance The had reference in all these cases to the words, it either guided work in or permitted the writers to vary the phraseology, yet it always prevented such a license as would involve a change of meaning. When we consider how difficult it is to change the words of a writer or .speaker without changing his meaning, we can see that the Spirit's controlling power even in these instances was not inconsiderable. The ignorance of the Apostles concerning the admission J^JjJ'^^ of the uncircumcised into the church, up to the time of the \"°^g'^^,°g baptism of Cornelius, is another modifying fact, and the more^ju°™® interestinir from the consideration that it involved a mis- understanding of the words of Jesus in the great commission, and of Peter's own words in his address on Pentecost. It shows that when Jesus said, " I have numy things to tell you, but you can not bear them now," he had reference not only to the time then ))resent, but to some years in the future, even after th(! first impartation of the Holy Spirit; and it shows that the promise immediately connected with this remark, " When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all • the truth," contemplated not an immediate illumination on every point, but a gradual illumination according as (rod should will. The same is true of their expectation concern- ing the second coming of the Lord. If, as many scholars supj)Ose, they at first thought that this great event was to occur in their own generation, this was in aecordance wi(h the (Icclaration of Jesus: "Of that dav or hour, knoweth no 198 INSPIRATION OF THE one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." If it ever did become known to the Apostles, it must have been by a special revelation of which we have no knowledge. Yet it is quite certain that to Paul it was revealed that a great apostasy would take place before the second coming (II. Thess. ii. 1-12); and to Peter, that after " the fathers fell asleep," that is, after the generation to which the prediction was given had passed away, " mockers would come with mockery, saying, Where is the promise of his coming?" (II. Pet. iii. 3, 4). This again shows a progressive leading into the truth, although in this instance the exact time of the event was still \\ithheld. It has been argued from Paul's use of the pronoun "we" in speaking of those who would be alive at the second coming of Christ (I. Thess. iv. 15, 17 ; I. Cor, xv, 51, 52), that lie expected it before his own death ; but his statements concerning the great apostasy which was to occur, ushering in the career of the "man of sin" (II. Thess ii. 1-12), show that he uses " we" in a general sense for the saints who will then be alive, and not for those of his own generation. Before dismissing this topic, we may remark that although Peter did not know until the baptism of Cor- nelius that uncircumcised Gentiles were to be admitted into the church, he himself uttered on the day of Pentecost words which we can see did most clearly include that thought, lie said: "For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar oif, even as many as the Lord our CxoA shall call unto him," From this it appears that under the impulse of the Holy Spirit he uttered words the full import of which he did not understand, until in God's good time their full meaning was made known to him by a special rev- •elation. This is an unmistakable instance of being led to employ words expressive of a meaning which was in the mind of the Spirit, but not in that of the speaker ; an instance, in other terms, in which the inspiration affected the words and not the thoughts of the speaker. It is much like those pre- dictions of the older proph(;ts in which there was a reference in the mind of the Spirit whieinatural guidance, and he wmild probably have omitted these apparently small matters 200 INSPIRATION OF IJIK from his Epistles, aud written tliem, if at all, iu au accom- panying note. Especially would he have done so if he had anticipated that his Epistles would be read in distant nations lont'- after his decease. But if he had omitted them, how value to '"ii^l^ tl^^' ^^'*->rl<^^ would liavc lost. We should huve known "^ nothing of that warm-heartednc.-s toward his fellow workers, and that tender gratitude toward his benefactors, which are revealed in his personal salutations and messages. We should not have known that in his Roman prison, when winter was coming on (II. Tim. iv. 21), he anticipated the need of that cloak, that he wanted his books to read in tliose lonely hours, and that he desired his parchments in order to do more writing. By the introduction of those matters a cord of sym- pathy has been drawn out from the heart of Paul to the hearts of millions of believers the world over, and an incalculable amount of spiritual good has been thereby accomplished. This shows the consummate wisdom of the arrangement by which not his own shortsighted judgment, but the divine Spirit who fore.-aw all the future, guided him as to what he should insert, and what he should omit. Conclusions. We have now gone over the ground of the statements and facts relating to tlie inspiration of the New Tci^tament writers, and we are prepared to sum up the results. We state them numerically as follows: The 1. The promise of the Holy Spirit to abide |>ernuinently in Spirit * ^ r i i r i Kiveuac- tiic Apostles with miraculous power was made by Jesus, and to prom- ij- ^yjjj. realized in the experience of the Twelve from and ise. ' after the first Pentecost following the resurrection. The Spirit was also fn^ni time to time and in divers j)laces iniparted i)y the A|)ostles to other faithfnl jxTsons. This was their inspiration, itguiirau- 2. The Spirit thus abiding in the insfjired, brought to faithful their remembrance, to the full extent that was needful, the record i i /• words and the acts of Jcsn'-. It guaranteed, therefore, a record of these words and acts, precisely snch a-; God willed. NEW TESTA MK NT HOOKS. 201 3. It brought to the inspired persons revelations con- J^'^.^^^J^. cerning the past, the present and the future; and when oeca-'"^""'' sion required, it revealed to them the secret thougiits of living men. For this reason we can rely implicitly on the correct- ness of every thought which these men have expressed on these subjects. 4. The Spirit within them taught them liow to sneak the^^'ed '■ ° * tliem to things thus revealed, by teaching to the full extent needed '"-^ "'^' o ' .' o most the words in which to express them; yet, in quoting others, ^^.'j^Jj'^^*^ not always the exact words; and it demonstrated (his fact to lookers-on by causing the inspired at times to speak in tongues which they had never learned, but which were known to thosi; who heard. This aifords a perfect guarantee that these revelations were really made, and that they are expressed in the most suitable words. 5. By thus acting within and through the inspired men, 'if "h- the Spirit enabled them to speak on all occasions, even when '*'«'" 'o ^ ^ ' speak as life was at stake, witliout anxiety as to how or what thev ^\'^y, . should say, and to speak Mith consummate wisdom, yet with- "^','1^','^^^ out premeditation. It brought about the fact expressed in'-'""" the Hebraistic formula: "It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." 6. The Spirit enabled the insiiired on all suitable occa " ,. ^ ^ i ^ _ ^ enabled sions to demonstrate the presence of its power within them,','"^'" '" by manifestations of it in the way of physical " po\vers, f,',^^"'.'j,,. signs and wonders" — a demonstration which the human mind ^'"'^""""" has ever demanded of men claiming to bear messages from God. 7. From the fact that these men spoke and wrote as the '♦ ""^nrep iliviiu' Spirit willed, it follows that what thev wrote out of their own *l'iT;"'"' * ' ^ ' n| nil personal experience and observation, as well as that w liieh ^^''"»'" was revealed to iheni, has the Spirit's, approval as a part of the record. CHAPTER VI. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. General Various objections have been urged against the conclusions ment. enumerated at the close of our last chapter, some of them involving a general denial of inspiration, and some a denial of particular conclusions. Several theories of inspiration, which conflict more or less with these conclusions, have also been propounded, and these demand attention in order that the whole subject may be before the mind of the student. We shall consider first the objections, and afterward the adverse theories. {jjj^bjec- Paul makes some statements in the seventh chapter of l**/;^^^"; I. Corinthians, which have been interpreted to mean that he ^^' wrote that chapter without inspiration. In the course of the The three chapter he discusses three questions: first, the wisdom of questions * ... cussed- niarriage under existing circumstances, and of the temporary que dis- cussed ; separation of husband and wife by consent (1-9); second, the pro})riety of separation from an unbelieving husband or wife (10-24); and third, the wisdom under existing distress of giving virgins in marriage (25-40). After concluding his answer to the second branch of the l^^'^car-^ ji,.^t inquiry he says: "This I say by way of permission, not n'i™he'' ^^ commandment." This has been understood to mean that ""'' he was permitted to Fay tkis, but not commanded; and that therefore he said it on his own human authority. But the context clearly shows that the distinction is between his per- mitting and his commanding the hufiband and the wije. The remark, then, has no bearing on our question, unless it be to show that Paul's authorilv was so suprenic that he could give (202) NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 20.) commands or grant permission to the disciples, as each ap- peared proper. In discussing the second question he introduces one pre- ^^^^** "" cept with the words, "Unto the married I give charge, yea/^^°°** = not I, but the Lord;" and another with the words, " But to the rest say I, not the Lord." Here he has been supposed to give one precept by the authority of the Lord, and the other by his own authority, without the Lord's. But the real dis- tinction is between what the Lord had taught in person while in the flesh, and what Paul teaches as an apostle. This is proved by the fact that the one precept is found in the sermon on th' mount, and the other is not found in any of the Lord's personal teachings. It is also proved by the fact that after giving the precept in question he says: "And so I ordain in all the churches" (17). In discussing the third question he starts out by saying: J^J^'^'J^*^^® "Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the^*^""** Lord: but I give my judgment as of one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I think, therefore, that this is good by reason of the present distress, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is." He proceeds to state at length his judgment, and then concludes with the words : " But she is happier if she al>ide as she is, after my judgment : and I think that I also have the Spirit of God." Here, after begin- ning with his human judgment, he ends with the words, " I think that I also have the Spirit of God." Does he mean to express a mere opinion, with attending doubt, that he had the Spirit of God? If so, it follows that on this one point he was not certain that lie was guid<'d l)y inspiration ; and as he ex- presses no such doubt on anything else in his writings, it would follow that on this ahme did he have any such doubt. But if Paul thought he had the Spirit, why should we think that he had not ? Surely he had better grounds on which to form an opinion than we. But even this consideration does not bring us to the end of the matter. In the words, " I think that I also have the Spirit of God," the second I is emphatie. as appears from th<' fact that instead of lieing under- stood from thr pcMsou of tin- verb, as the rule is when there 204 INSPIRATION OF THE is no emphasis, it is expressed {doxco ok xdyco -\^z'jim deob ^X^r>). The term also (xa:) connected with it adds to the emphasis; and t!ie effect of the whole is to emphasize the fact that he also had the Spirit as well as somebody else. There were men in the church at Corinth with spiritual gifts; and it is probable that their authority, or that of some other Apostle, had been arrayed by misrepresentation against his ; so, in order to silence any such plea for disregarding his teach- ing on the subject, he closes the discussion with tiie modest but very emphatic reminder that he spoke by inspiration, whether others did or not. This passage, then, furnishes not the slightest ground for doubt of its own inspiration. (2) Pauls In ^vritine: to the Corinthians, Paul speaks of one matter lapse of o ' ' _ memory, j^ ^^jc^ hig memory had failed. After mentioning the names of some among them whom he had himself baptized, he says: "Beside, I know not whether I baptized any other" (I. Cor. i. 16). This lapse of memory is held as proof that lapses of memory in general, and consequently other mistakes of a like nature, are not inconsistent with the inspiration which the Apostles claimed. But they did not claim that the Holy Spirit was to bring all things to their remembrance ; the promise was limited to the things which Jesus had taught; and the reference here is to something that Paul had done. Doubtless we may understand that the promised aid implied a remembrance of all, whether spoken by Jesus or not, that might be necessary in any manner to their official work ; but in the instance here mentioned there was no such necessity, seeing that his argument was complete witiioutit; and it is for this reason, perhaps, that the Holy Spirit did not supply the missing facts, or that Paul did not refresh his own mem- ory by makin i ' t? '!'-",.«f'*^'' who he was, and then, on learning, a})()l()gized (Acts xxiii. 1-5), has been used by some as evidence against inspiration. It is held that, if inspired at all, he would have known who the man was whom he rebuked, and that he would not have made a speech for which he owed an apology. But this is to assume, as in thr last instance, that it was the work of the New testament hooks. 205 Spirit to make known to tlu- inspired man everything that he (lid not know. Wv mii.st keep in mind that ite work was not this, but to guide them into just that amount of truth and knowledge which was needful for the work to which they were called. If now we inquire whether the Spirit guided Paul sufficiently on this occasion, without revealing to him that the presiding officer was the high priest, I think we shall answer in the affirmative. When the person in question com- manded that he he smitten in the mouth for merely saying, " I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day," it was proper that he should be told, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall." And when Paul, afler saying this, was told that the man was the high priest, it was certainly most becoming in Paul, without retracting a word, to say to the bystanders, " I knew not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written. Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people." It is probable that the Holy Spirit withheld the information from him that he n)ight not feel restrained from uttering a rebuke which was greatly needed on the occa- sion, and which was in reality a judicial divine sentence. The promise was that, when brought before governors and councils, the Spirit should give them what to say ; and surely no one can pretend he did not on this occasion say the very best thing that could have been said. It has been charged that Paul reasoned erroneously, and '^'^'''"'■B'? . ... . •' ' (>i fiille- that this refutes the claim of inspiration. The instance most '■'""^ •■««■ usually cited is the following: "Now to Aljraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not. And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Gal. iii. 16), It is alleged that Paul here argues from a false premise in assuming that if God meant more than one seed he would have used the plural number, whereas the word seed in Greek and Hebrew, as in English, is a collective noun, and is used in the singidar form whether the reference is to one or many. But Paul could not have been ignorant of this usage; for he was botii a Cilreek and a Hebrew scholar, and a lucie tyro in the grammar of citlier language would know this mucli. If special proof that Uv knew it were lU'i^dcd, we have it iu 20G INSPIRATION OF THE verse 29 of this very chapter^ where he uses the singular number of this word to include many, saying, " If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Moreover, he was writing to Greek-speaking people, every one of whom with the least intelligence was acquainted with this usage. Paul's real purpose in the passage is to teach that although God used a term which, as every Hebrew scholar knew, could convey the idea of plurality, it was not plurality that he meant. In other words, he teaches that God did not mean all of Abraham's offspring, although he used a term which might be so construed. The passage is an authoritative interpre- tation of the mind of God in a promise which was purposely made obscure by the use of an ambiguous term, and left so until the time of the fulfillment, when its obscurity was cleared up by this inspired apostle. And it must be conceded tha were it not for this interpretation, no human being could to this day know that such was God's meaning. So far as Paul employs argument in the case, it is used not to prove that his interpretation is correct, but to show that his interpretation is not precluded by the terms which God employed. If God had said seeds instead of seed, the interpretation would have been inadmissible, whether the phraseology employed had been grammatical or not; for it would unquestionably have expressed the idea of plurality. Whether it would have been grammatical or not, depends on the question whether reference was had to individuals or to kinds of offspring. In the latter case the j)luial is rightly employed in English, as when we say, a dealer in seeds; and we liave at least one instance in which Paul himself employs it in Greek. In his argument on the resurrection (I. Cor. xv. 37, 38), he says: "That which thou sowest thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat or of some other kind ; but God giveth it a body even as it pleased him, and to each of the seeds {kxdazoj rwv- aTTSff/idTcou) a body of its own." Here, by "each of the seeds," he means not each individual grain (>f wheat; but, having specified wheat or some "other kind," he refers to the different kinds of bodies which he gives to the NEW TKSTAMENT BO(JK.S. 207 different kinds of seeds. The Septuagint version, Paul's Cireek Bible, has live instanees of the same use of this word in the plural (Lev. xxvi. 1() ^ T. Sara. vlii. 15 ; Ps. cxxv. 6; Is. Ixi. 11 ; Dan. i. 12, 16), and the Hebrew text has one (T. Sam. viii. 15). Did Paul then refer to kinds of posterity ? He certainly did ; for in this chapter he makes believers in Christ one kind, being children of Abraham l)y faith in Jesus, though not children literally; and in the next chapter he makes Isaac and his descendants another kind, being children by promise and also children literally ; and he makes Ishmael and his posterity still another kind, being children of the flesh and not of the promise (iv. -3; 28, 29). So, then, here are at least three kinds of children of Abraham, making three kinds of seeds clearly distinguished from one another, and furnishing ground, if such had been the will of God, for the use of the plural, " seeds." One of the most common grounds for denying the in- Iff ^fllftMi^ spiration of the New Testament writers, and especially such ^''"ons. inspiration as could guard them from error, is the allegation that they contradict one another, and that they also contradict known facts of history and science. But while this charge is boldly and confidently made, it has never been made good. ^ We have considered in a former chapter the most j)lausible efforts to make it good, and found them all fallacious; and we ahall therefore give it no further consideration here. The same class of men who deny inspiration on account of^^j^^'^'^'**' the alleged contradictions between the writers, also deny it on {^>p"n ,'{,^^; account of their agreements. The striking agreements in many ^^'■'*'^" pa.ssages between the three synoptic Gospels, agreement in minute details and even in words, is held to be inconsistent with their guidance by a common Spirit, and to demand an inquiry into the common human sources from which they obtained their information. It is very clear that John and Matthew needed no human sources except their own remem- brance of events which they had witnessed, together with direct information from other witnesses of a few incidents which did not come immeiliatcly under their eyes. As for Mark and Luke, thev must of course have d(M*ived their infor- 208 INSPIRATION OF TH K mation from others. The question, then, as to how it happened that Mark and Luke have so much matter in common with Matthew, while it is one of curiosity, can not, by any answer which may be given, affect the inspiration of any one of them. If they copied largely from some original document, or if they adopted much from what had been orally repeated by the early preachers, they may have done either under the guid- ance of the Holy Spirit. The first preacher was Peter; and he was led to present such aspects of the career of Jesus as were known by the Spirit to be best calculated to convince and win the first hearers of the Gospel. The others, seeing this eifectiveness, were doubtless led by their own judgment, as well as by the promptings of the Spirit, to follow in his track. Even Paul, when preaching to the Jews in Antioch of Pisidia, used much of the same matter employed by Peter on the day of Pentecost; and if this is true of the Apostle to the Gentiles, how much more certainly would all of the original Twelve and the preachers who started under their instruction do the same. In all ages since, when a great re- ligious movement has been started by the preaching of a small number of men acting in concert, both they and their first co-laborers have uniformly employed for a considerable time the same arguments and illustrations which were found efiect- ive at the beginning. It is but a dictate of common sense that they should do so. Why should it be thought strange, then, or inconsistent with their inspiration, that the first gospel writers followed largely the same h'ne of narrative? Doubtless if either had known what the other two had written, and had been left to his own impulse, he would have avoided repeating so much; and on this supposition there is need of adding the supposition of an overruling power just such as the Holy Spirit exorcised. On the other hand, if they all wrote independently, the Holy Spirit may have led them to choose so much matter in common for the very purpose of securing to the world, without tlie knowledge of the men employed for the purpose, this threcfohl presentation of a certain portion of the Lord's life. In any view of the facts, thfn, they contain nothing to throw doubt on the Saviour's SEW TESTAMENT J500KS. 209 promise of inspiration, or on the apostolic testimony that the promise was fulfilled. The varieties of style employed by New Testament writers, {[^j,^,^"''' of which we have spoken in chapter iv., is held by many^^^^^ as proof that the Holy Spirit exercised no guidance over the words of the inspired ; and by some, as proof that there was no miraculous inspiration at all. It has been assumed tliat if the writers had been guided by the Holy Spirit they would all have Avritten in one style, the style of the Spirit. But this is to assume that the Holy Spirit either could not or would not guide each within the range of his own style and his own vocabulary. Either assumption is baseless, and therefore the conclusion is illogical. With still more confidence it has been urged that the de-WFree ^uota- partures from literal quotation which we have already noticed ^^ons. in quoting both the Old Testament and the words of Jesus and his interlocutors, disproves inspiration with respect to the words. If it docs, it also disproves it with reference to the ideas; for, as we have seen, in varying the words the ideas are also varied in .some instances. But this objection can have force in either direction only on the assumption that if the Spirit guided at all he would allow no free quotation of the sense in different words, and that he would never quote his own previously expressed thoughts with variation. To point out these a.ssumptio^ns is to set aside the objection. The question has been asked, What could be the utility |jons^n *' of giving an infallibly correct text, seeing that it has been °"'' ^''^^ cojrupted by the mistakes of transcribers, and that. God knew it would be thus corrupted when he gave it? It is admitted that so far as the text has been corrupted beyond po.ssibility of correction, it has been rendered useless; but what is the extent of such corruption? Wc have seen in Part First that we now pos.sess nine hundred and ninety-nine thou.*^andths of the text precisely as it was given to us, and that nearly all of the other one tliousandth jiurt has been settled with almost absolute certainty. The objection, then, is fallacious, in that it aims to spread over the whole book Ihe »!liadow of doubt which rvally affects only a very small part, tions. 210 INSPIRATION OF THE and a part which is definitely known, and which is so marked in our latest English version as to point it out to the most unlearned reader. It might as well be asked, Why keep in our clerk's offices perfect standards of weights and measures, seeing tliat many of those in use agree but imperfectly with them ? The answer is, we want the perfect standard in order that we may regulate the instruments in use, and thus keep them as nearly perfect as possible. In like manner we need an infallible text of the Scripture to begin with, in order that we may ever correct our copies by it and keep them as nearly like it as possible ; and the fact that the church has succeeded in keeping her books precisely like the original text in almost every word through eighteen centuries is one of the marvels of that divine providence which watches over all things good and true, depe^d^- Again it has been asked. What is the utility of an in- transfa" fallible original, seeing that nearly all men have to depend on fallible translations, and then on fallible interpretations, in order to get the meaning? The obvious answer is, that if we have an infallible original, so far as we get its real mean- ing through our translations and interpretations, we have the infallible truth ; whereas, if the original is itself a flillible document, we are still a prey to uncertainty when its meaning is obtained. Moreover, this objection, like the preceding one, assumes too much. It assumes that the fallible interpreter, with his fallible translation, is unable to obtain with certainty the meaning of the original ; whereas the fact is that he can and does obtain it, with the exception of occasional passages which are obscure. While it is true that in the Bible there are some words and some sentences whose precise shades of meaning can not be conveyed with unerring certainty in other than the original tongues, and a few whose meaning is not clear to proficient scholars in the original, still it is true that the great mass of words in any language can be translated into other tongues with absolute precision. To such an extent is this true, that every translator is conscious of rendering much that he translates so as to convey the thought with unmistak- able accuracy, and every reader of a book knows, in regard to NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 211 the chief part of it, that he has the meaning. As a conse- quence, in regard to the meaning of much the greater part of the Bible there is absolutely no difference of opinion. Such a consequence could not exist if the assumption which lies at the basis of the objection were a reality. There is, then, good cause for giving us an infallible book ; for we do get its meaning in the main with infallible certainty ; and it so happens with nearly all men who study it with diligence and candor that the part whose meaning they obtain without fail is the part most necessary to their present good and their final salvation. The force of these objections, whether combined or taken ^^^J^^^Pj^ singly, instead of weakening the evidence for inspiration inwhofe*^*^ any of its particulars as set forth in chapters first, second and third, only tends to exhibit more fully its manifold working for our good, and to prove the wisdom of bestowing on the New Testament writers precisely that kind of inspiration set forth on the sacred pages. It meets the Avants of our souls, and accomplishes the benevolent purposes of that Holy Spirit who "breathes where he listeth," and causes us to hear his voice. CHAPTER VII. ADVERSE THEORIES OF INSPIRATION. the^pre-^^ Instead of propounding a theory of inspiration, our course iavesti- ^^^^ been to examine in detail the New Testament statements gauon. ^vhich bear directly on the subject, setting these forth as con- clusions, and then searching for other facts and statements which might in any way modify the conclusions. In doing so we have come into conflict with certain theories on the subject which have found more or loss acceptance among scholars, and it is now proper that we test these theories by the facts which we have collected. i?o^eaiied ^- ^^^^ begin with that which is styled the Mechanical Mechani- Theory, This theory has been defined as teaching that not * ^°^^' only "the sense of Scripture, and the facts and sentiments therein recorded, but each and every word, phrase and ex- pression, as well as the order and arrangement of such words, phrases and expressions, has been separately supplied, breathed into, as it were, and dictated to the writere by the Spirit of God." ' If this theory had been propounded to explain the miracle of speaking in tongues alone, it would seem to be adequate; for in that particular instance absolute dictation of all that was uttered certainly took jdace. But this is not true of inspired utterances in general. The theory fails to account for the play of the writer's human feelings ; and for the obvi- ous facts that in recalling to their memory what Jesus had said the Sp'rit only recalled what they did not already re- member; and in guiding them into all truth he did not guide them into that which they already possessed. The theory is ' Lee, On Lmprraiion, 33. and note. (212) Its inade quucy. NEW TErSTAMKNT ROOKH. 213 then inadequate because it can account for only a small part of the facts, and it is in conflict with some others. Some early writers who seemed to hold to this theory ^||fts of have illustrated it by performance on a musical instrument. I^^y Thus Justin Martyr says that the Spirit " acted on just men as^""'^" a plectrum on a harp or lyre ; " Athenagoras, that inspired men " uttered that which was wrought in them, the Spirit using them as its instruments, as a flute player might play a flute; " and Hyppolitus, that they " were brought to an inner harmony, like instruments, and having the Word within them, as it were to strike the notes, by him ther were moved, and announced that which God wi.shed."' It is not probable that these, and other ancient writers with whom this figure was common, regarded the inspired men as always passive, as a musical instrument is in the hands of the musi- cian, although when speaking in tongues they were very nearly so ; but they probably used this figure to illustrate a single feature of the work, that of the Spirit's action and the ready response of the inspired mind. As a representation of the whole work it is clearly inadequate. It would be nearer 4, '^•^er •' *■ illustra- the truth to compare the whole work of the Spirit to that of"*'"- driving a well trained horse. You draw the lines to the right or the left as you see that the horse needs guidance; vou check him when ho would go too fast, and urge him forward when he would go too slow; but he usually keeps tiie road and maintains the desired gait and speed of his own accord; still your hand is ever on the lines, and its pressure on the bit is constantly felt, so that you are controlling the horse's movements when he is going most completely at his own will. Indeed, the horse is all the time going very much at his own will, and vet he is never without the control of the driver. This illustration, however, although it covers much more j*^^^^*"" of" the ground than the former, is still defective, for you oan'^"**** not drive a horse over preeipitous hillsides, nor can you make him trot without touching the ground; but the Spirit enabled the inspired to do things comparable to these — to speak in '!^eo these al\«l other citationR in Wostcott's Introihiction. Appen- Lee Oil In^pirntidu, Appendix S; dix B. 214 CREDIBILITY OF THE tongues never learnetl, and to look into the secrets of the spiritual and the eternal world. In this last respect alone does the comparison to performance on a musical instrument seem appropriate ; and lest we disparage it below- its merits, let us remember that as the exact tone brought out by the performer depends on the cliaracter of the instrument as well as on the skill of the j>erformer, so when the Spirit acted on the inspired the words cjome forth in the style and vocabulary of the writer, ordinary^ 2. At the opposite extreme from the preceding is the tion.'™ theory of ordinary inspiration, so styled because it recognizes only an ordinary, as opposed to a miraculous, exercise of the Spirit's power. It holds that the action of the Holy Spirit on the minds of the inspired was not different, unless it be in degree, from that influence which it exerts on the uninspired Christian.' This theory, which is semi-rationalistic, is not defective merely, but it is contradictory to all the statements adduced in former chapters which set forth the miraculous nature of the Spirit's action. We dismiss it, therefore, without further consideration. Theory of 3. We next consider the theory which assumes different dcRrees of •' uon-'^" degrees of inspiration. Certain Jewish writers of the middle ages originated this theory, and applied it to the Old Testa- ment bdoks, wliich were divided into three classes according to the degree of inspiration supposed to be possessed by their authors. In more recent times it has been accepted and applied to the New Testament by some Christian writers.* \"uY "^^^ essential objection to it is that inspiration is a fact, and not a quality which admits of degrees. It is the fact of an active force exerted by the Spirit. This force may have different degrees, but the fact can not. The movement of the air called wind is a fact, whether the movement bo rapid or slow. T\w force with which it moves may vary in degree, but not the fact that it moves. So, the degree of intensity with which the Spirit acted on the inspired might differ, as it doubt- ' Lee, O/i fnspirntion, 'M, Appon- - See citations by Lee and Farrar, dix C; Farrar, AW»(/ on In^pirdtion, referred to in last not*'. Ser.4; Curtis, On /)j«/)jrrf/?o?),ol.'218. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 215 less did, being greater wluii the inspired man spoke in tongues than when he mentioned incidents in his own experience ; but the inspiration itself was one and the same fact throughout. As a theory of inspiration, then, even if it were confined to the*^^ '^'Jj^ degrees of power exercised by the Spirit, it would express no more than one obvious feature of the Spirit's work, and would leave all the rest out of sight. 4. Still another theorv, which has been stvled the essential "^'i*^ . . ' essential theory,' teaches that the sacred writers were guided by the ''"'"'■>■ Holy Spirit in all matters essential to the great purposes of revelation, such as matters of doctrine, morals and faith; but that in all other matters they were left to their natural powers, and that therefore they were, in regard to these, as liable to mistakes as other men. The chief objection to this theory, in^^j^!!""'""*" the light of our collation of New Testament statements, is that |"™pt,jr^. a very large portion of the matter found in the speeches ofthcmt^nts; apostles, and in their writings, to which reference is made in the promises of Jesus, consists of just such matter as is ex- cluded by the theory from inspiration ; and thus the theorv contradicts the divine promises which are mentioned by the sacred writers as having been fulfilled. It is also obvious that if the apostles were liable to error in matters of ordinarv knowledge, in regard to Avhich we have the means of testing them, this would necessarily throw discredit on all that thevanddis- say ot things in which we can not test them. Keally our con- «" fidence in what they say of doctrine, of the will of God, and of moral and spiritual truths aud facts, is based on their perfect reliability concerning things within the range of our investigation. And as to their liability to make mistakes, inasmuch as they do not avow such liability, the only way that we can know that it existed is by discovering mistakes which they have made: this, we have seen in Part Third, has not been done.- This theory, then, with its other defects, makes a gratuitous admission unfavorable to the inspired ' Farrar, /. r. ; AUord, Prolegonifna est ingrenuity of Bkepticism ever to Commrntary, sec. vii. pointed out one complete an'1 do- '"That they did so err, I am not monstrable error of fact or doctrim so irreverent as to assert, nor has in the Old or New Testament. " the widest learning and the acut- Farrar, Ijeciure on Inspiration, sec. 6. 216 inspiration; of the writers, and it must for this reason, if for no othei", be re- jected, dynamic- ^- "^^^ theory most commonly accepted by scholars who ai theory. gj,g ,^q^ inclined to be rationalistic on the subject, is stvled the dynamical theory. It is defined by Lee as the theory " which implies such a divine influence as employs man's faculties according to their natural laws.'" F. W. Farrar says of it: " It holds that Holy Scripture was not dictated by, but com- mitted to Avriting under the guidance of, the Holy Spirit."^ Westcott, in defining it, says: "The human powers of the divine messenger act according to tlieir natural laws even when these powers are supernaturally strengthened ;" and in regard to the word dynamical, with which he expresses some dissatisfaction, he says: "It is used to describe an influence acting upon living power*-, and manifesting itself through them according to their natural laws, as distinguished from that influence which merely uses human organs for its outward expression; as, for instance, in the accounts of the demoniacs." He might have added, as also in the account of the Spirit's action on King Saul. He adds to his definition, as still further setting forth his conception of the subject, the following state- ments : " It supposes that the same providential power wliich gave the message selected the messenger; and implies that the traits of individual character and the peculiarity of man- ner and purpose wliich arc displayed in the composition and language of the sacred writings, are essential to the perfect exhibition of their meaning." . . . " It preserves absolute truthfulness with perfect humanity, so that the nature of man is not neutralized, if we may thus speak, by the divine agency, and the truth of God is not impaired but, exactly expressed, in one of its several aspects, by the individual mind."^ Its value. This theory is an attempt to state the method in which the divine Spirit and the human soul were united in produc- ing the sacred writings, and thui^ far it harmonizes with the andiu facts which wc have collected from the Scriptures. But it defect. ' goes no further than this; it leaves us still dependent on the ' Lee, On Inspiration, 39. • Introduction to Study of Oospi'ls, ' T.rrttire on Inspiration, sec. 4, ii. 39, 41. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 217 promises and their fulfillment, together with the modifying facts which we have collected from the Scriptures, for the details of the outworking of this combination. We may safely say, then, that no theory which has been propounded covers correctly the whole ground of the Spirit's work in inspiration; but that the subject as a whole can be understood only by taking into view, and keeping in view, all the facts and state- ments which have formed the conclusions laid down at the close of chapter v. CHAPTER VIII. CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE. The direct and positive evidence of inspiration is that which we have given in previous cha])ters, especially in the n-om^a*^^^ first three. In addition to this, there are considerations based fn^h'ea o^ t^^6 characteristics of the writers, which, though they might ^^^ not suggest or prove inspiration, if considered alone, furnish strong confirmatory evidence to support the Scripture state- ments. While the fact noted in a former chapter, that these writers were left each to his own natural style, does not mili- tate against the conclusion that they were all inspired, yet we should naturally suppose that if the Holy Spirit guided them they would possess in common some peculiarities of style resulting from this guidance. This supposition accords with the facts, as we shall now proceed to show. (1) In ihe We mention, first, the purely dramatic form in which all form of qP jJ^(3 New Testament writers depict the characters of men. uon. They allow all of the actors in the scenes which they describe to play their several j)arts without a word of comment, with- out an expression of approval or disapproval, and entirely without those attempts at analysis of character in which other historians indulge. We believe that tiiey stand alone in this respect; and the fact is the more remarkable when we con- sider the great variety of striking cluiraclers which figure upon their pages. j2) In the Next we notice the unexampled impartiality with which Sf'the^"^ they record facts, speaking with as little reserve concerning writers ^j^^ ^^j^^^ ^^^ follies of themsclvcs and their friends as of the wicked deeds of their enemies; as freely, for inslanec, of Peter's denial of his Lord, as of the malice and cruelty of lon- mnn- er. NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS. 219 Caiaphas. This characteristic is so prominent that it has not escaped the notice of any tlioughtful reader. Not less strildug is the imi)erturbable calmness with which j-^^'^'^i they trace the current of liistory, relating with as little appar-i'^^^r" cut feelini; the most wonderful and exciting events, as those"'" the most trivial; as calmly, for instance, the final sufferings of Jesus as the fact of his taking a seat on Peter's fishing-boat to address the people. They appear to have been restrained by some supernatural power from giving natural utterance to the intense feeling which burned within them, or to have been lifted above all human weakness, so as to speak like him, " Who sees with equal eye, as God of all, A hero perish, or a sparrow fall ; Atoms or systems into ruin hurled, And now a bubble burst, and now a world." ' We next observe the unaccountable brevity of the New their Testament narratives; and first, their brevity as whole books, countable 1 1 1 • 1 1 • 'Jrevity : Never were men burdened with a theme so momentous in their own estimation, or so momentous in reality, as that of the four Evangelists. Never were writers so oppressed, ifoospeis; brevity were aimed at, by the multitude of the details before them, and tht ditTiculty of determining what to leave out when the welfare of a world depended on what should be written. One of them shows the oppression of his own mind by these ' " What reader has failed to no- "Their history, from the narra- tioe how the cold sententionsness rative of our Lord's per.secution to of Tacitus expands into tenderness, those of Panl, the abomination of and warms with passion, when he the .Tews, embraces scenes and turns aside to weep over the last persona<:?es which claim from the moments of Agiicola? But com- ordinary reader n continual eflusion pare with this natural outpouring of sorrow, or wonder, or indigna- of feeling the record of the evan- tion. In writers who were friends gelists. There no expression of hu- of the i)arties, and adherents of the man sympathy accompanies the cause for which they did and sni- story of the agony in the garden, fered so great things, the ab-'cnce the awful scene before Pilate, the of it is, on ordinary grounds, in- horrors of the cross. No burst of comprehensible." Bishop Ilmds, emotion attends the Ma.ster's body On Jtispiration, 83. See Gaussen, to the grave, or welcomes his res- Origin arid Inspiration of thr Rihlr, urrcrtion." JjVO, On fnnpimfinn, 229. 280-202. as 220 INSPIRATION OF THE details, when he is forced to exclaim in hyperbolic style : "If they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written." What then could have led these four writers, thus pressed by the copiousness of their matter, the importance of their theme, and their burning desire to defend and exalt their Master, to compress their accounts into an average of fifty -four small pages of long primer type? \\ hat, but some overruling to Acts; and superhuman power? As to the book of Acts, tiie argu- ment is the same in kind, and perhaps greater in force; for this writer had to deal with the widespread progress and ever- varying fortunes of the church through a period of thirty years, the most thrillingly intercGting period of all its history; aad yet he condenses all into about the same number of pages. astoindi When, secondlv, we notice their brevity as to particular viflnal 111- _ ^ • ' ^ •' 1 cificnts. incidents, the wonder continues the same. The baptism of Jesus, for instance, accompanied as it was by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, and his f )rmal acknowledgment by God in an audible voice from heaven, is disposed of in twelve lines by the first Evangelist, in six each by the second and third, and in a mere allusion quoted from another person by the fourth. Of the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection, of which there were twelve in all, only two are mentioned by the first Evangelist, only three by the second, only three by the third, and only four by the fourth. In Acts, the disper- sion and apparant destruction of the only church then planted is recorded in four lines ; and the deatli of the Apostle James, a calamity of fearful magnitude, is disposed of in eleven words. If it were truly said of Jesus, "Never man spake like this man," it could be as truly said of his historians, Never men wrote as these men; and the logical inference is that they wrote, as he spoke, from the fullness of the Spirit of God. (5) In tnc The argument from the brevity of the narratives is not able seen in its full force until it is viewed in connection with the from the remarkable omissions by which it was brought about. For narra- Mves. example, by Mark and John the whole of tlie first thirty years of the life of Jesus is left blank; and by Matthew and Luke all between his infancy and his thirtieth year is omitted, except ^■E\V TESTAMENT BOOKS. 221 a .single incident recorded by Luke. 3y the Synoptists all of the visits of Jesus to Jerusalem except the last are omitted, and by John all of the Galilean ministry, except a single miracle and a conversation which grow out of it. From Acts are omitted nearly all the labors of ten apostles, and from the career of the one whose labors are most fully recorded many of the most thrilling incidents are omitted. Who, uncon- strained by some higher power, could have omitted from the narrative the details of those heart-stirring incidents in the life of Paul, which are merely mentioned by him in the eleventh and twelfth chapters of Second Corinthians? And who, while inserting the detailed account of the voyage from Csesarea to Rome, could have been willing to omit the account of Paul's trial before Nero? We mention next their anerelology. Amoner men of all ("^ Their nations there has existed a fondness for depicting invisible "^"^J- beings ; hence the demigods, fairies, genii, and sylphs of ancient and modern story, all either grotesque, childish, impure, or malicious. In contrast with these, the angels of the New Testament and of the whole Bible are hply, mighty, humble, compassionate, self-poised, and every way worthy to be the messengers of God. This character is uniformly main- tained whenever and wherever angels appear in any part of the book. "Unlike men, they are always like themselves." Nothing like them was ever conceived by any other class of writers, or depicted in any other literature. They are so unlike the creations of human imagination, that the latter has not allowed the divine picture to remain as it was; but Christian poets and painters have falsely and persistently given to angels the form of woman. It is incredible that all of this is the product of the unaided powers of shepherds, fishermen, herdsmen, and publicans of those early and dark ages, and of such men among just one people, and that not the most imaginative. Supernatural aid is clearly implied, and the doctrine of inspiration alone accounts for the phenomenon. In the seventh place, we notice the air of infallibility '^ Thtir . . . ' assump- which tlte writers of the New Testament everywhere assume. ""","/ Though they speak on some themes which have baffled the ''•'">• 222 INSPIRATION OF I HE skill of all other thinkers and writers, such as the nature of God, his eternal purposes, his present will, angels, disem- bodied spirits, the introduction of sin, its forgiveness and its punishment, the future of this earth, and the final destiny of us all ; on all subjects and on all occasions they speak with unhesitating confidence, never admitting the possibility of a mistake. They were the most arrogant of men, next to Jesus himself, in whom this characteristic was preeminent, if they were not inspired. inhlrent Finally, we mention the inherent power of the New Tes- fhei" °^ tament to convince tlie reader of its own divine origin, and to writings. jm,yg }^jj^j to holy living. That it has such power in a most remarkable degree is the testimony from experience of every believer. As to its self-evidencing power, it is the testimony of a vast multitude that it has been the chief cause of turning men from unbelief to belief; and its power to move in the direction of holy living is attested by the whole host of the good and pure in every Christian age and country. This was the expectation of the writers, one of whom expressly declares that his purpose in writing was that his readers might believe, and that believing they might obtain eternal life ; and it was also the expectation of Him who promised them the Holy Spirit; for he said: "When he is come, he will convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment." Now it is not of the nature of error or of falsehood to effect such beneficent changes in human character: these are the product of truth alone; and herein is :i final and conclusive evidence that the writers of the Ncm- Testament books wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Thu in We have now com])leted four of the inquiries which we "Hiirii's thus far undertook in the beginning of this work. We have found com- _ ° '^ pieted 'that the original text of the New Testament has been pre- 111 this o I work. served in such a way that the many errors of transcribers which crept into it in the course of ages have, by the diligence of Christian scholars, been discovered and corrected to such an extent as to guard both the Greek scholar and the English rea. :^ .i *^ '^ 41?^ ^n.'. T -.^^* y^ ^. ■■!;■; ^'.' -,^. Si ^w. v^ ^4i. v': '•^ei "^^JIPh ^^ 4f ■»■ BS2332.M14V.1 Evidences of Christianity Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 1 1012 00052 5131